Gaudi La Coma
Artists’ Residences

The project is remarkable for its unique drawings and its level of detail and complexity. Such complexity communicates the author’s extensive analysis of the project, its site and the design. There is a level of graphic strength here that certainly goes above and beyond the typical competition submission. There are a number of presentation considerations, however, that the author might make. Text is located only on the first sheet - it is lengthy and far too small for easy comprehension. Given the submission spans four sheets, it is recommended that this text be divided onto multiple pages and increased in size for more direct correlations between drawing and descriptions, and also to provide a clearer flow and engagement for the reader. The final three sheets, while spectacular for their use of imagery, are quite similar in detailing and in the information conveyed. It would be beneficial for the author to increase in size the round vignettes, which provide clear differentiation within the project - it is within these that the reader is seeking to understand the spatial experience.

The project makes good use of a primary rendered image on each sheet supported by various diagrams and ancillary images in support of the key ideas. The texts are short and adequate for describing a range of topics and so these lend to an overall clarity. Small reference photographs help to communicate the project's strong analysis of precedents. The drawings, overall layout and color balance all vary quite a bit across the four sheets for a slightly jarring read as one reviews the project as a whole. This could be resolved globally with a reorganization of imagery and touch up of colors for more standardization, especially across the final three sheets. Given the extreme variation in design of the three building ‘types’ it would benefit the author to create a more uniform way of describing plans and sections. A single graphic method and scale would best be employed across the three types to yield more compositional cohesion for the presentation.

The submission is commendable for the strength of its drawings which communicate well a complex idea that is unique and carried through all aspects of the project. The sheet presentation is, however, overly dense and could be construed as confusing or lacking cohesion due to its wide range of drawing types, graphic styles and layout choices. The sheets vary so dramatically from one to the next it might even appear as if completed by several different designers. The second and fourth sheets in particular would benefit from intelligent reduction and reorganization. The historical site analysis and analysis on Gaudi’s design values are common across all project entries and thus unnecessary to explain in such lengthy detail here. This could perhaps be included in a portfolio which is often read by those unaware of a project’s brief, but should be avoided in a competition entry where space is precious. The final sheet is inundated with renderings and formal analyses - it lacks hierarchy and is thus difficult for a juror to make sense of. The sheet would benefit from a limited number of drawings that describe key ideas and spaces and which more clearly leads a reader through these points.

This is an outstanding presentation with clear, crafted imagery and simple text; supportive diagrams correspond with both. Regarding the diagrams on the introductory page which depict vine growth: it is not immediately clear how this translates into the project structural design. This diagram series would benefit from a fourth and final image which directly links the vine concept with the structural concept. The long section and corresponding rendering are an excellent pairing that describe the project well. The section drawing would benefit from a reduced line density and a more clear difference in the hierarchy of line weights. It is also not clear how the interior program spaces relate to one another. The ‘ground’ line could be increased in weight to clearly mark the cut and to describe the site’s varying topography. Thicknesses of walls and ceilings relative to the overall structure seem unrealistically thin - it is recommended these are built up to show layering of materials and structure. Finally, the axonometric on the third page has clear line weights and describes well the building construction systems. The landscape in the background, however, confuses the upper portion of the image. It is recommended that the author ‘fade away’ or remove the site components here to strengthen the image.

The submission is evidence of the capacity for a strong and clean layout to communicate with a jury. Its use of clear headlines, concise but sufficient text and ample annotation all lend to its easy comprehension. The text could be given slightly more strength with the use of a darker color or bolder font to facilitate readability. This applies both to the introductory text on the first sheet as well as annotation on the site plan, which becomes lost in the colored graphics beyond. The final page excellently relates detailed sections with corresponding renderings, with advanced color balance and clear hierarchy.