Anna Papadopoulou

advisor

https://www.risd.edu/

Cypriot

My research focuses on the intersectionalities of architecture and gender, and on methods of… more

Nisrina’s project is an earnest attempt at creating complex interior spaces and well-intentioned outdoor areas that offer a variety of experiences. Some interesting architectural forms are showcased and some unique use of materials is suggested. Nisrina is a promising student, whose hard work and perseverance will surely be an asset in her future architectural endeavours. The project, however, presents a number of inconsistencies that are addressed below, including a significant opportunity that is missed by the absence of the pine in the disproportionately large number of visualisations of interior spaces.


Masterplan

The masterplan shows a series of structures located adjacently to each other without a clear design logic. This is especially true of the housing units that are situated next to each other in a rather disjointed suburban pattern, instead of employing a layout more fitting to a rural or forested resort.

It is unclear why certain functions and uses are located in those particular areas within the plot, and how the decision to locate them at that place was made. It would have been helpful to explain, for instance, why the restaurant is located where it is, what the benefits are of that location as opposed to a different one. This explanation can be provided through diagrams and sketches. A rigorous site analysis that would provide context for some of these decisions is also missing.

Contour lines inside the plot are missing, making it unclear how the proposed structures interact with the landscape. Indeed, the east-west road seems to be cutting across several, seemingly dense, contours without much consideration for the abrupt heigh difference. Retaining walls or terracing that would mitigate these height differences are missing.

The width of the roads seems disproportionally large compared to the overall scale of the buildings, revealing a signifiant scalar inconsistency. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation could have been reconfigured so that a loop is created, rather than have the road end abruptly at the eastern tip of the plot.

The landscape scheme seems somewhat formulaic and does not present the kind of attention that was provided to other segments of the project, such as the intricate exterior facades. Also, there are lot of unarticulated spaces between the buildings, e.g. the green texture around the houses. This green texture covers a large area of the project, making it important for the reviewer to know what it is.


Building Units

It is not clear from the project details provided, how the split level layout maintains the natural topography of the land. A series of sections would have been especially helpful. Sections would have been also helpful in indicating how the building form maximises the use of natural lighting and ventilation. Floor plans would also be useful in understanding the intended complexity of the project.

Although there seems to be an extensive use of glass and large windows, the buildings’ form remains distinctly introverted. When the visitors are indoors, they are not aware of the qualities of space in the areas outside. The visualisations do not suggest much interaction between indoor and the outdoor spaces. Porous boundaries between indoor and outdoor are crucial in order to fulfil Nisrina’s intentions of creating architecture that reminisces the sense of forest, majestic trees, etc.

Some unique applications of wood are suggested, although there are no construction details or sketches to support their innovative use and form. The building envelop is at times elegant in its literal interpretation of tree branches, but at other times it appears too busy (e.g. in slide 3). A simpler approach to the facades would perhaps encourage the visitor to experience the serenity Nisrina promises.