Office

The presentation is clear and insightful in terms of its materiality and ambitions to provide a space connected with nature. Buildner has three principle criticisms: the use of scale figures / human inhabitants within the spaces - plans, sections, renderings - would yield insight into the spatial experience and project dimensions; currently the spaces seem void and, as a result, potentially uninspired without activity. Second, annotation on the renderings could provide significant information as to materiality, concepts and space types. Third, the text would benefit from being drastically reduced, divided into key concepts, and arranged across all four sheets.

The project offers complex drawings as a treat for the juror. Sophisticated diagrams and linework provide for a uniquely presented submission with a lot of information to dissect. The layout is, however, rather sporadic and inconsistent. Certain drawings such as the final section lack adequate annotation. Most importantly, as a technical analysis the reviewer is left searching for meaningful results. The strongest recommendation we can provide for such a submission is that it should provide a clear textual statement on each sheet or diagram to concretize the solution of this proposal and directly state for the juror what is being communicated. How has the cubicle been reworked? What does this do for the typical office space? How can this idea evolve to support the future of office design?

The presentation makes use of a layout that is simple and clear. The main advice Buildner can offer is to expand on the main design idea of the project - the inserted new elements - rather than using extensive space on the sheets to describe the existing building. The author makes little attempt at explaining the function and construction of these 45-degree rotated inserts. Are they prefabricated? What materials are they constructed from? How are they brought into the building? Further text and annotation focused on these elements would greatly help the diagrams and renderings - which are quite well done but lack sufficient information to communicate the architecture of the proposition. 

The project is animated and visually interesting, but also dense and difficult to parse through. The presentation is heavy on analysis with few clear statements to offer definitive design solutions. The first page should make absolutely clear to a juror on immediate review: what is the problem at hand, and how it has been solved. The juror instead must read through extensive text to attempt to understand the project. The diagrams are beautiful and clear. The final page, however, appears incomplete and does not provide adequate information to convey the design intent.