reflections on review day

A very busy and engaging day! It was Interesting to see how differently the studios worked, from the more conventional relationship with working up from plans etc. to the more conceptual considerations around light, sound, form, Interior/emotional spaces and abstraction. I was impressed by the amount of work and research undertaken by many students, demonstrating playful and original Interventions.

This was clear in the different uses and understanding of conventional drawings and plans etc. and the more expansive and experimental work sheets. Whilst important to remember that both are part of the same process of evaluating, exploring and "designing" space; at times the transition from this conceptual work to the plans often lost something of the original dynamic and opportunity suggested in the work sheets. Of course some students are more comfortable with one way of working over another but ultimately they are part of the same process and some students I feel could of made more of how one informs and defines the other.

As we have discussed before, at times, plans and designs often seemed to become too fixed, too early on and students seemed to forget at times, or allow for change as they explored and tested their concepts. For example some of the work around the Church site whilst exploring issues of height and light in their initial thoughts, seemed to scale down these ideas and reduce or abandon these three dimensional considerations when faced with producing a two dimensional drawing. It was also interesting to see how a lot of students were still not really considering the practical considerations around the use of space and particular to the work at the Brewery, allowing for how artists / users would actually use the space; the potential impact on the user or the wider narrative of how multiple users use space. Perhaps more extensive user/client research as well as conceptual?

One important insight I got from the day is what the designer could give to the client: An appreciation and often new way of looking at space, form and existing structure. I enjoyed the connection many students made with the surrounding community and environment as a whole, allowing for more mature design work around how an intervention effects an existing structure and the more sensorial considerations and opportunities of layering, texture and materials. As well as the client and potential users, many students seemed to address what the community as a whole might get from their intervention.

Of course responses to questions of access were mixed, I think the students we had worked with on the whole, had a sense of opportunity and saw the question as a new way to look more carefully at how they designed for multiple users (disabled being one of many) in a creative and functional way, whilst rather than just for themselves. It was Interesting, although not very surprising to see how one academic saw this as an imposition or hindrance to the design process. Ultimately it is a question of education for designer, architect and user, and I can only speak for myself, but the programme as a whole, has certainly been as useful for me as I think it has for the students . A dialogue with user and architect and designer can only be a good thing and the discursive process a question of translation and understanding. If I were allowed one recommendation it would be that considering the different approaches and bias within the studios that the students could benefit from a mixed review of work across studios. An enjoyable testing and informative experience, what did the students think?