2628CLIMATOR_HYPERBODY MSc1 DESIGN STUDIO 2013-2014 [GRADES]
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
1
Achilleas PsyllidisGijs JoosenMatteo BaldassariFlorian EckardtF I N A L
2
GROUP nr.Student NamesStudent nr.Project TitleGeneral CommentsGradeGeneral CommentsGradeGeneral CommentsGradeGeneral CommentsGradeAverage Grade
3
1M.A. (Thijs) van der Lely4000773ECOFABA project with well-thought initial intentions that were, ultimately, expressed in a pretty conventional/conservative way. More risky design decisions could have led to a mind-blowing result. The public square constitutes the utmost captivating ingredient of this proposal. Still, it could have better integrated the built structure, so that the latter was not sharply cut in two discrete volumes. The roof and some structural detailing issues required further elaboration.7.5Plaza is nicly integrated into the design of the building. Roof and back of the building should have been treated the same. More attention should be given to the shape and surface division. Do not let the computer design your building.6.5pros: public space created, cons: lack of continuity of the roof solution, improper tasselation and parametric model
8reasonable attention to structure,nearly none to detail/ materialisation and architectural effect of facade5.57
4
M. L. M. (Milou) van Min4004787
5
Oana Anghelache4329589
6
H.M. (Rienk) Klaassen4103424
7
P. A. (Stef) Hoeijmakers4016025
8
9
2Ira Tavlaridi4331400SkintegrationElaborate project with nice insights on multiple levels; from the architectural to the climatic and the structural detailing. Strong point: its internal porosity that creates appealing spaces, which in turn provoke physical interaction (obvious in sections and 3D visuals). Weak point: Its openings. Currently they appear like cut-outs. Overall, they could have created more flowing formations to better adapt to the building volume and, further, augment the interior-exterior interrelation.8.5Very nice visuals and presentation. You've had a strong conceptual approach from the start, but traditional building references put a strain on the progress. Forget everything you see. The surface division is too pronounced and does not have a nice relation to the shape itself. The building looks much better without the triangulated surface. Project still has a lot of unused potential.8pros: determined approach, interesting use of computational tools, amount of material produced; cons: overdetermined approach, disinterested to a more respectful environmental method.8good grip on details and architectural appearance, right issues addressed, meet requirements of detailing but resort to conventional solutions7.58
10
J. E. (Jordy) Vos4002563
11
R. A. L. (Roel) Vogels4004035
12
Simon Thien Guang Dinh4322053
13
Zhenke Jin4331176
14
15
3Albert Achammer4311825ECOntinuumSuccessful implementation of the conceptual intentions into an architectural formation, with interesting spatial qualities. Fascinating visualizations. Some climatic and spatial issues could have been addressed in more detail.9Steady progress over the duration of the studio. A nice example of a group effort. In the end a quite safe concept, but a nice presentation and convincing visualisations.7.5pros: interesting form finding and concept; cons: weak interactions between shape, content and ecologic approach in spite of the title9appealing design but some lack of structural understanding and not much concern for detailing 78
16
George Georgopoulos4325575
17
Mattia Tintori4298020
18
Michal Kornecki4319591
19
Perry Low Jeng Jin4306996
20
21
4E. E. (Mia) Tsiamis4323017E-CENTERAmbitious project with very good intentions, that succeeds in addressing collaboration issues amongst the groups. Meticulous research on structural components. Architecture-wise, it presents weak spatial qualities and some discrepancies between the interior and exterior architectural expression. The exterior is far more delicate and aesthetically advanced than the interior.7.5Strong initial concept of establishing a realtion between idea and design. In the end you lose the connection between architecture and engineering. The structural concept is an arbitrary intersection of a structural grid with the building mass. The interior visuals display a struggle between traditional architectural elements and a more computational facade approach.6.5pros: intriguing concept of the energy exchange, deep computational research on the technological system of components, attention to environmental issues and participatory design; cons: use of a a skin and a rib structure that follow a different structural logic.8interior with some materiality but facade without intentions and unrealistic component with unconsidered connections57
22
Kotryna Žvironaitė4320271
23
Luca Vacchini4320050
24
Marco Galli4322185
25
26
5B. J. (Berend) Raaphorst4028953HEXSCAPEAesthetic-wise, a very appealing architectural proposal for both interior and exterior space. Good understanding of computational, climatic and structural processes. Yet the component's composition is quite overwhelming and could have, also, varied in size to prevent monotony and better address the load flow.8The most developed component based concept with attention to detail. Not only the building skin is component based but also elements in the interior and exterior space. It has the most attractive interior spaces. Top-down design approach should have had a much stronger influence on the end result.8.5pros: straightforward vision, interesting form finding, capability of integration and adaptation to the environment and the landscape; cons: underground capsule hotel(not suitable for the delft context), doubtful use of materials in relation to the reduction of the carbon footprint.8much consideration for components, detail and appearance, reasonable understanding of structure, continuous process88
27
Eldin Fajkovic4004833
28
Ilham Lakhal 4090004
29
Thijs IJperlaan1512595
30
31
6Erdi Gao4304993SoundScapeRemarkable project that goes beyond the MSc1 level. The choice of sound as a generative spatial component proved to be quite innovative. Impressive adoption of different computational procedures that were effectively linked together. Consistency and excitement throughout the semester resulted in a superb outcome.10Strong concept, styling of the helix could have been more 8.5pros: challenging use of computational tools, interesting bond among structure, program and the main concept of sound diffusion; cons: lack of precision into the parametric model9reasonable understanding of structure, clear intentions, not much detail7.59
32
J. M. (Hans) de Jonge1361295
33
Matteo Biella4330757
34
Patricio Simbana Escobar4326385
35
V. J. (Vicky) Metzen4314328
36
37
7Matteo Falduto4314344Living GardenA distinctive example of a project that reached the final result through a consecutive - yet progressive - process. No hesitation in changing the complete spatial configuration. Innovative response to the climate issue.9.5Good end result, the shape looks nice. Most consistent translation of concept into building using computational design tools. Potential of concept of a living garden could be exploited more.8pros: uncertanties as a design tool, capability to reflect the programmatic concept into the architectural materialization; cons: abuse of scripts that don't allow to have a direct control for the executive construction and the functional requirements.8good final product developped in a short period, attention to detail, expression and fabrication88.5
38
R. P. (Radoslaw) Flis4322363
39
M. (Javid) Jooshesh4288661
40
Kasper Siderius4024443
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
Loading...
 
 
 
2628CLIMATOR GRADES [MSc1 2013-2014]