Iceland Movie
Pavilion

The presentation sheets, like the project itself, are subtle and minimalist in design. The layout makes use of a clever striated organization that allows for both horizontal and vertical full-span images to engage the reader as the project might engage the visitor: undoubtedly horizontal at a global level while vertical within the smaller-scale framed corridors. While the submission is primarily black and white by design the reader seeks to understand the project’s assumed variability: what is the experience under a bright blue sky? The sunset? Cinema is, often, an experience of vivid color, and while the design reveals itself as a muted white backdrop to the animation of projected screenings, the designer should not feel limited by this. Competitions entries all, ultimately, also need to inspire. The project would benefit from more concise text and a larger font. While the text on the final page describes well the variation of experiences, the introductory text on the first sheet is lengthy for a competition proposal. It is possible to be both poetic and brief! Finally, it is recommended that the author further develop the sail detail, which is the primary project constructive detail but which is not represented clearly here. Can the thin sail really stand, structurally speaking, against the harsh Icelandic winds?

The submission has used an excellent, simple layout to emphasize large and convincing rendered perspectives, of which there are an appropriately selected number. The remaining white space is used for text and simple diagrams. As a whole the presentation is clean and communicative of the key ideas. The simplicity of the drawings do fall into the trap of being undeveloped. In particular the building plan and section represent walls and roofs as single black lines, all of a standard thickness. The submission would benefit from an increased level of analysis and complexity in its detailing, to make it more thoroughly convincing as an architectural project. At a presentation level such complexity would also yield nuances in the design that would make the sheets more varied and interesting. As with many projects the text is rather long and winding and it is recommended that the author edit this to more precise statements.

The presentation is well designed, using large perspective imagery mixed with clear drawings and diagrams, to produce a story that is convincing to a reader. The images primarily describe the exterior form of the building, and while there is one interior image, it seems that the most important interior spatial experience - that of the cinema hall - is missing. For the juror this gives a sense that the project has not been fully developed, and it does not allow one to understand the whole project. Further, while there is one detail included to explain the layers of the roof buildup, the project neglects to enter into a detailed analysis of the building construction. This is arguably not necessary for a conceptual design competition, however such detail would also allow the author to more fully understand how the building meets the landscape, and should yield more interesting relationships between building and site. The plan and section drawings are very simplistic and would benefit from additional linework to describe the envelope. It would also be very beneficial in plan to understand where the interior spaces are sunken versus where they are above ground - as was done in section.

The author has successfully found a solution for taking advantage of a four-sheet presentation with large, clear images which guide hierarchy, balance and visual appeal. The site plan on the second sheet is especially strong and stands out from the many other presentations received. There are four recommendations to improve the presentation. The first concerns the building plan and section on the third sheet - the author would benefit from more varied line weights to describe cut versus projection lines. As drawn there is no hierarchy among the lines making the drawings relatively difficult to read. The second point concerns the use of text - as with many presentations we recommend this be made as concise as possible. Given many submissions are received, a juror will only read such lengthy text in full if it is determined the submission is among the strongest and one which requires an especially detailed review. The third recommendation is to include a more detailed analysis and design of the timber envelope, which the project certainly lacks. The last point concerns the final rendering. The author would benefit from additional detail and a ‘crisper image’ To achieve this the author might consider lightening the image so it is not so somber.