Jutting Voids

PROJECT: JUTTING VOIDS STUDENT: Jonathan Marcos, Pengyu Wu INSTITUTION: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute School of Architecture (SoA) COUNTRY: United States of America SEMIFINAL JUROR: Wandile Sibandze 1. STRENGTHS: The candidate should be commended on an attempt to relate and comfortably intertwine two unique environments. The reintroduction of genius loci [place-making] in a commercial environment creates a unique phenomenon: memory and transit-experience at what can be perceived as a threshold between Beirut and international space. It is a beautiful and professionally prepared document. 2. SHORTCOMINGS: 2.1. The identification and exploration of issues of concern would have abetted the candidate in recognizing the inherent complexity\sensitivity of the archetype and its scope. 2.2. The selection and analyses of architectural precedent studies [representing similar public transit hubs and sacred spaces] could benefit the project; enhancing\ defining the architectural program, bulk and functionality. 2.3. Memorial Memory Space; the candidate proposes a sequence to the user without entering into the merits of the ordering of space into sequence and the morphology of exploration. 3. CREDIBILITY OF ARGUMENT: Even though the argument is credible and it’s need-driven. The candidate does not really enter into a theoretical argument of any real significance and value to rationalize new construction over rehabilitation of existing. 4. DESIGN RESOLUTION: 4.1. The candidate exhibits great control and command of form, geometry and proportion. 4.2. Skillful application of tectonics on the facade to ensure contrast between solid and soft surfaces. 4.3. The integration of memorial memory space displays a socially responsive approach. 5. TECHNICAL INFORMATION: The candidate’s ‘technical investigation’ is not intensively explored like his peers\ competitors. The control and command of these aspects is not displayed convincingly in this project. 6. GENERAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 6.1. Resolve the architectural program to minimize undefined-spaces, negative-spaces and wasted-space in order to achieve efficiency. 6.2. Show all floor plans as per section; the candidate has only presented 4 floor plans out of the 8 floors. The full architectural program is not illustrated and presents a challenge in understanding the full scope of the project/proposal. 6.3. Group wet services on upper floors. 6.4. Resolve acute wall intersections to minimize unusable-spaces. 6.5. Resolve general space norms. 6.6. Develop site analyses to show traffic-flow, pedestrian movement\access etc. 6.7. Introduce service-ducts [wet-services]. 6.8. Introduce service-lifts [especially for commercial functions] 6.9. Indicate storerooms. 6.10. Indicate back-of-house on upper levels. 6.11. Indicate general services [i.e backup generator room, transformer room etc] 6.12. Add urinals in male toilets. 6.13. Provide paraplegic toilets per floor. 6.14. Sanitary calculation needs to be shown to prove arithmetic merits of adequate provision and compliance with the National Building Regulations; this has an impact on mechanical design. 6.15. Candidate must show an understanding and compliance with the town planning scheme through arithmetic application [i.e parking requirement]. 6.16. Candidate must show merits of compliance with the zoning rights of the site [as normally indicated in the town-planning scheme and should have been depicted in the document]. These restrictions may include, but not limited to; allowable number of storeys, allowable maximum height, permissible maximum coverage, permissible set-backs/off-set/building-line and allowable Floor Area Ratio e.t.c 6.17. GROUND FLOOR PLAN 6.17.1. Add adequate paraplegic parking bays, as per local town planning scheme requirements, normally located closet to entrances and lift-cores. 6.17.2. Ensure that the bus turning radius is adequate between Gridline F24 & F25. 6.17.3. Add cold-store and dry-store in the restaurant. 6.17.4. Optimize the parking layout. 6.18. THIRD FLOOR PLAN 6.18.1. Add back-of-house in the restaurant. 6.19. FOURTH FLOOR PLAN 6.19.1. It could be of benefit to create access to the small auditorium [Gridline 4-7] on the same floor to increase symbiosis and physical-connectivity. 6.19.2. The small auditorium’s prime line of sight should be optimized for visual contact with the audience instead of dedicating it to movement.