I only realized now that the Iranian building is not yet built. That usually means that the final product will have some changes (sometimes major changes). If I had seen it previously I would have advise you to only analyze completed/built projects. Structural analysis is made in one project on sections and on the other on plans. You should create a uniform analysis method between projects (I know sometimes project elements are not sufficient). Minor critic: the Iranian building structure is not only a shear wall and foundations/slabs. That outer shell/facade has an important role in structure.
Hi Jose, I agree with Eugenio in relation to streamlining the analysis of structure. This will be a very important issue in your design with the necessity to create large voluminous spaces with limited internal support points. Try to find more detailed information about the structural systems and connections, perhaps even some 3D models will be beneficial. I know these diagrams are good to compare between the 2 buildings but I believe they (or other examples) will need to be looked at in more depth to give you the knowledge you need to progress. Also, you describe symmetry in the buildings where there appears to be none. You dont need to force a comparison if there is not one there. Try looking at national guidance and standards for sports facility design. Here in England a body called 'Sport England' publish guidance on all aspects of sports courts, seating, changing circulation etc so the link is below. Always try reference this back to the USA standards though as there may be large differences, but hopefully it will be of some assistance. Many thanks JM
Hello José.
ReplyDeleteThe diagrams are self-explanatory. They are well executed, organized.
Comparing both buildings you can clearly see that public/private space (or restricted access/ public access spaces) are more defined in the Russian building and are apparently related to hierarchy.
The fragmentation of spaces in the Iranian building might be intentional but translate into one disadvantage in maintenance/life cycle of the building: added costs in personnel and access restriction.
I only realized now that the Iranian building is not yet built. That usually means that the final product will have some changes (sometimes major changes). If I had seen it previously I would have advise you to only analyze completed/built projects.
Structural analysis is made in one project on sections and on the other on plans. You should create a uniform analysis method between projects (I know sometimes project elements are not sufficient). Minor critic: the Iranian building structure is not only a shear wall and foundations/slabs. That outer shell/facade has an important role in structure.
Good job. More. :)
ES
Hi Jose, I agree with Eugenio in relation to streamlining the analysis of structure. This will be a very important issue in your design with the necessity to create large voluminous spaces with limited internal support points. Try to find more detailed information about the structural systems and connections, perhaps even some 3D models will be beneficial. I know these diagrams are good to compare between the 2 buildings but I believe they (or other examples) will need to be looked at in more depth to give you the knowledge you need to progress. Also, you describe symmetry in the buildings where there appears to be none. You dont need to force a comparison if there is not one there. Try looking at national guidance and standards for sports facility design. Here in England a body called 'Sport England' publish guidance on all aspects of sports courts, seating, changing circulation etc so the link is below. Always try reference this back to the USA standards though as there may be large differences, but hopefully it will be of some assistance. Many thanks JM
ReplyDeletehttps://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/tools-guidance/design-and-cost-guidance/
These two are really well done, just waiting on the other four, and your waterfront research.
ReplyDelete