Wynyard Site Model
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Livee
May 26, 2009, 8:22:25 AM5/26/09
to <transit café> ARCH7201-2009 PLACING MOTIONS
Hi guys,
Very very sorry about the error in the previous post!
The proposal with the CORRECT measurements here:
http://arch7201-2009.googlegroups.com/web/WYD_sitemodelextents_proposal_correct.jpg?gsc=37j7IhYAAABKWv-9n7qH8XJZPPdewVucvjbSls0oO8nLitgjRf_esQ
Again, please let me know if there are any problems.
--
From the previous post:
From our analysis (Leeshean&myself), we thought that Wynyard station
should not be looked at in isolation but as part of the CBD.
But of course, it will be crazy to build the entire CBD so here's my
take on the possible coverage.
As I have highlighted in the drawing, I think our model shld include
these key sites:
1. Wynyard station, of course
2. Westpac building on Kent St
3. Barangaroo
4. King Street Wharf (as part of Darling Harbour)
5. Martin Place
(Have I missed anything out?)
Also, there are so many other things to think about:
What are we trying to convey with this model? Are we just looking at
the urban fabric? If we are looking beyond that, are we going to build
the underground spaces too? How should we show the underground spaces?
A sectional model? How should we deal with the buildings and contours?
I think these are very important things to consider -- so that we
don't go "why didn't we laser cut it onto the base?!!" later on...
---
Again, do let me know what u guys think!
Kind rgds,
Liv.
Very very sorry about the error in the previous post!
The proposal with the CORRECT measurements here:
http://arch7201-2009.googlegroups.com/web/WYD_sitemodelextents_proposal_correct.jpg?gsc=37j7IhYAAABKWv-9n7qH8XJZPPdewVucvjbSls0oO8nLitgjRf_esQ
Again, please let me know if there are any problems.
--
From the previous post:
From our analysis (Leeshean&myself), we thought that Wynyard station
should not be looked at in isolation but as part of the CBD.
But of course, it will be crazy to build the entire CBD so here's my
take on the possible coverage.
As I have highlighted in the drawing, I think our model shld include
these key sites:
1. Wynyard station, of course
2. Westpac building on Kent St
3. Barangaroo
4. King Street Wharf (as part of Darling Harbour)
5. Martin Place
(Have I missed anything out?)
Also, there are so many other things to think about:
What are we trying to convey with this model? Are we just looking at
the urban fabric? If we are looking beyond that, are we going to build
the underground spaces too? How should we show the underground spaces?
A sectional model? How should we deal with the buildings and contours?
I think these are very important things to consider -- so that we
don't go "why didn't we laser cut it onto the base?!!" later on...
---
Again, do let me know what u guys think!
Kind rgds,
Liv.
LeeShean Ng
May 26, 2009, 8:55:48 AM5/26/09
to arch72...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
I think the coverage is pretty good.
One more important thing about Wynyard (in my opinion) is the levels within the station. If we're doing 1:500, it will be too small to show this. However, if we're considering doing 1:200, maybe we might not cover as far as darling harbour or martin place?
OR, maybe...MAYBE...we can just do a 1:500 without showing the levels...and a separate 1 which is 1:200 which covers the station + its levels + immediate context?
Lee Shean
> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 05:00:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: Wynyard Site Model
> From: live...@gmail.com
> To: arch72...@googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hey sorry guys!
> I must be really sleep-deprived!
>
> I got the scale completely wrong!
> Forgot the file was in metres!
>
> Correcting now, post soon!
>
> Liv.
>
>
> On May 26, 9:56 pm, Livee <livee....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Please find my proposal for the Wynyard site model extent here:http://arch7201-2009.googlegroups.com/web/WYD_sitemodelextents_propos...
> >
> > I did this really quickly so please let me know if there are any
> > problems.
> >
I think the coverage is pretty good.
One more important thing about Wynyard (in my opinion) is the levels within the station. If we're doing 1:500, it will be too small to show this. However, if we're considering doing 1:200, maybe we might not cover as far as darling harbour or martin place?
OR, maybe...MAYBE...we can just do a 1:500 without showing the levels...and a separate 1 which is 1:200 which covers the station + its levels + immediate context?
Lee Shean
> Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 05:00:55 -0700
> Subject: Re: Wynyard Site Model
> From: live...@gmail.com
> To: arch72...@googlegroups.com
>
>
> Hey sorry guys!
> I must be really sleep-deprived!
>
> I got the scale completely wrong!
> Forgot the file was in metres!
>
> Correcting now, post soon!
>
> Liv.
>
>
> On May 26, 9:56 pm, Livee <livee....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > Please find my proposal for the Wynyard site model extent here:http://arch7201-2009.googlegroups.com/web/WYD_sitemodelextents_propos...
> >
> > I did this really quickly so please let me know if there are any
> > problems.
> >
> > From our analysis (Leeshean&myself), we thought that Wynyard station
> > should not be looked at in isolation but as part of the CBD.
> > But of course, it will be crazy to build the entire CBD so here's my
> > take on the possible coverage.
> >
> > As I have highlighted in the drawing, I think our model shld include
> > these key sites:
> > 1. Wynyard station, of course
> > 2. Westpac building on Kent St
> > 3. Barangaroo
> > 4. King Street Wharf (as part of Darling Harbour)
> > 5. Martin Place
> > (Have I missed anything out?)
> >
> > As for the scale, I know Ramin+Shaowen asked for a 1:500 model...
> > Which shld measure up to approx. 300x215 MM if we work on the proposed
> > site coverage. (Smaller than A3 - is that too small???) So I've also
> > started to look at 1:200, which should be approx. 750x550 MM (a little
> > smaller than A1)
> >
> > There will be pros and cons to both options. A site model smaller than
> > A3 might look, erm, less impressive....
> > However if we decide to build it at 1:200, how detailed should the
> > buildings be?? If the expected outcome is to be like the Philip Thalis
> > studio models, does that mean we'll have to prepare .AI laser cut
> > files for the facades of THAT many buildings? (Btw if you guys are
> > wondering why I haven't thought of other scales, its simply because I
> > thought we could buy those little architectural human figures more
> > easily at 1:200 scale than, say, 1:250 or 1:275...)
> >
> > Any of you have any other ingenious proposals for this?
> > Which shld measure up to approx. 300x215 MM if we work on the proposed
> > site coverage. (Smaller than A3 - is that too small???) So I've also
> > started to look at 1:200, which should be approx. 750x550 MM (a little
> > smaller than A1)
> >
> > There will be pros and cons to both options. A site model smaller than
> > A3 might look, erm, less impressive....
> > However if we decide to build it at 1:200, how detailed should the
> > buildings be?? If the expected outcome is to be like the Philip Thalis
> > studio models, does that mean we'll have to prepare .AI laser cut
> > files for the facades of THAT many buildings? (Btw if you guys are
> > wondering why I haven't thought of other scales, its simply because I
> > thought we could buy those little architectural human figures more
> > easily at 1:200 scale than, say, 1:250 or 1:275...)
> >
> > Any of you have any other ingenious proposals for this?
> >
> > Also, there are so many other things to think about:
> > What are we trying to convey with this model? Are we just looking at
> > the urban fabric? If we are looking beyond that, are we going to build
> > the underground spaces too? How should we show the underground spaces?
> > A sectional model? How should we deal with the buildings and contours?
> > I think these are very important things to consider -- so that we
> > don't go "why didn't we laser cut it onto the base?!!" later on...
> >
> > Please let me know what u guys think!
> >
> > Speak soon,
> > Liv.
>
> >
> > Speak soon,
> > Liv.
>
Leo
May 26, 2009, 8:59:07 AM5/26/09
to <transit café> ARCH7201-2009 PLACING MOTIONS
hey livee,
I agree with you. How it is going to be built is largely depend on
what you want show.
Is there a size for the station model? I thought Shaowen was saying
something, same scale same size?
And how can one station communicate with the other? if they are not
connected in a physical sense.
Shall we all use same material or of same tone?
btw, I cannot open the link here. Do not know if theres a problem of
my computer or no.
cheers
On May 26, 10:22 pm, Livee <livee....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Very very sorry about the error in the previous post!
>
> The proposal with the CORRECT measurements here:http://arch7201-2009.googlegroups.com/web/WYD_sitemodelextents_propos...
I agree with you. How it is going to be built is largely depend on
what you want show.
Is there a size for the station model? I thought Shaowen was saying
something, same scale same size?
And how can one station communicate with the other? if they are not
connected in a physical sense.
Shall we all use same material or of same tone?
btw, I cannot open the link here. Do not know if theres a problem of
my computer or no.
cheers
On May 26, 10:22 pm, Livee <livee....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> Very very sorry about the error in the previous post!
>
Livee Tan
May 26, 2009, 9:17:27 AM5/26/09
to arch72...@googlegroups.com
Might be a good idea standardizing the station models...
Well I think that Wynyard is significantly different from the other station in terms of its underground arcades, which might require sectional slices through the site model.
Will your site require any sectional study?
I'll attach it in this mail, so haffa look!
Liv.
Ramin
May 27, 2009, 7:33:38 AM5/27/09
to <transit café> ARCH7201-2009 PLACING MOTIONS
WHilst the 1:500 is important for the big picture I am not too sure it
is important for this stage of the project where we are expecting a
site analysis around the station environs etc...with levels etc..
I recommend perhaps a 1:250 or 1;200 model of WYnyard. Can you
perhaps advise in the same manner by jpeg what that covers for us to
review.
The same issue applies to all stations in particular Redfern.
Milsons Point and Artarmorn are probably 1:200, I am happy to review
the extent of 1;250 and 1;200 for all stations so we can be consistent
for all stations.
On May 26, 11:17 pm, Livee Tan <livee....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Might be a good idea standardizing the station models...
> Well I think that Wynyard is significantly different from the other station
> in terms of its underground arcades, which might require sectional slices
> through the site model.
> Will your site require any sectional study?
>
> Is there a problem with the file?I'll attach it in this mail, so haffa look!
> WYD_sitemodelextents_proposal_correct.jpg
> 1304KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
is important for this stage of the project where we are expecting a
site analysis around the station environs etc...with levels etc..
I recommend perhaps a 1:250 or 1;200 model of WYnyard. Can you
perhaps advise in the same manner by jpeg what that covers for us to
review.
The same issue applies to all stations in particular Redfern.
Milsons Point and Artarmorn are probably 1:200, I am happy to review
the extent of 1;250 and 1;200 for all stations so we can be consistent
for all stations.
On May 26, 11:17 pm, Livee Tan <livee....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Might be a good idea standardizing the station models...
> Well I think that Wynyard is significantly different from the other station
> in terms of its underground arcades, which might require sectional slices
> through the site model.
> Will your site require any sectional study?
>
> 1304KViewDownload- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages