Visa resultat

MPARC Architectural competitions, VT09, ARK151

Goals and fullfilment of goals

1. Learning outcome 1. How well has the learning outcome been fulfilled?

36 svarande

Very insufficient»		1		3%
Insufficient»		3		9%
Sufficient»		26		78%
Excellent»		3		9%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.93

- I did not learn any of that in this course, but in previous ones. I gained a little insight in how some architects think about briefs though.» (Insufficient)
- Maybe the word "independently" should removed, since we were allowed to work in pairs OR make the next years students work individually.» (Sufficient)
- Great to have the opportunity for a first work of this kind» (Sufficient)
- I believe nothing new was taught during the course for any student to be better able to fulfil this goal than they already were.» (Sufficient)
- It is difficult to know when if we did not receive critic about our projects.» (No opinion)

2. Are the aims and goals reasonable in relation to your previous experience?

No, the goals are too basic»		1		3%
Yes, the goals are reasonable»		30		93%
No, the goals are too ambitious»		1		3%
No opinion»		4

Genomsnitt: 2

- Quite hard to work on your one for the first time, but ok» (Yes, the goals are reasonable)
- The project was an interesting problem to solve, but too complex for the time allowed.» (No, the goals are too ambitious)

3. Are the goals reasonable in relation to the scope and amount of credits?

Too small scope in relation to credits»		1		3%
Reasonable scope in relation to credits»		29		87%
Too wide scope in relation to credits»		3		9%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.06

- It´,s reasonable in relation to the credits but we didn"t have 5 weeks as it should be to get 7.5 credits. So it"s a lot of work to do this with only 3 weeks. » (Reasonable scope in relation to credits)

4. How do you regard the outcome of the Kjellgren-Kaminsky Presentation Workshop?

No opinion»		1		3%
Very insufficient»		2		6%
Insufficient»		6		20%
Sufficient»		16		55%
Excellent»		4		13%
No opinion»		7

Genomsnitt: 3.68

- But I enjoyed their lectures about their work in competitions, and the one they won.» (Insufficient)
- I am not exactly clear what was too be accomplished during this workshop, and the task in relation to our assignment was not relevant. I think a day of critics would have been better rather than a day spent creating rather unrealistic presentations oriented at one jury memeber, which one would never do.» (Insufficient)
- Good workshop, but antiklimax in the way they handled the results.» (Insufficient)
- Fun, but maybe not relevant for the course.» (Sufficient)
- The workshop was interesting, but what happened afterwards? What did they do with the material? This has not clearly been communicated to the students.» (Sufficient)
- They are always fun. and it was good to think about who you are presenting to.» (Sufficient)
- I did not participate» (No opinion)

5. How do you regard the outcome of any complementary offered workshop group discussions –, if any –, either with Joakim or Anders?

No opinion»		3		15%
Very insufficient»		2		10%
Insufficient»		2		10%
Sufficient»		11		57%
Excellent»		1		5%
No opinion»		17

Genomsnitt: 3.26

- i did not have any» (No opinion)
- The lecture with Anders was amazing! Though it is hard to evaluate its relevance to exactly this project, it was a great injection for the creativity and the loosing up of the mind.» (Sufficient)

6. How do you rate the Wernstedt Jury result presentation, debriefing and following discussion from a learning point of view?

no opinion»		3		8%
very bad»		4		11%
rather bad»		19		54%
rather well»		9		25%
very well»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.97

- More like "the emperors new clothes" (?) everything you think you understand and know is turned upside down.» (very bad)
- Even if no money was offered, some kind of ceremony should have been there. At least flowers to all winners and a bottle of champagne to the first prize winner. The minimal effort should at least have been to ask the winners up front and shake their hands. It was only on Mathildas own initiative that those two girls, first prize, got their hands shaken. And about some flowers: That money could have been taken from the amount paid to jury... given them less time, maybe, or cut the number of jury members one short. It was also kind of ridiculous to notice that the jury had their minds pre-set for a tall building that should be seen from Götaplatsen, as a winning concept. (They even mentioned their disappointment when the only "other" tall solution among the 65 entries resulted to be a screen - that comment totally gave them away) They should have kept a more open mind to other options as great solutions. And think about this: How come only one entry was that tall? Maybe it has something to do with a tall building not being such a great solution??? I actually overheard two students comments about the second prize winner, that the entry had been the most grotesque entry of all, in their opinions when they went through them all the days before. I hadn´,t even seen it. The shock was complete when the 2:d prize was announced. (Well, after reading all these evaluation entries you all probably know that their opinion pretty much sums up the opinion of the majority.) First and second prize winners was a joke. reading the motivation for the second prize winner for example is almost like reading someones words that has to make visible something that isn"t there. Like defending vigorously why such a lousy solution won second prize. On top of it, Gert first mentions how clever he think the facade is (although to me it looks really 1930ies) that is from the outside. But in the same sentence he admits that he don"t believe that the openings in the facade would work well with the art. Which was obvious. One would be blinded by the light shining in ones eyes just above the artworks presented. But it was spaces for exibition of art we were supposed to design, wasn"t it??? and, the program clearly stated the importance of finding a good solution for the complicated problem w daylight, but no direct sun etc. Then the jury commented (when presenting it) how the second prize winners solution lacked in connecting with the old building. So what is then left to premiate? A café on top? At one point Gert asked if the one who won was the one betted on. Really sad that we didn"t have the guts to say something. But who wants to spoil the joy of the winner? the third prize winner was the project that was way above all else in innovation and adaptation to both the specific qualities of the site and the task. I personally believe that if those two guys will continue working together they will be the PLOT of Sweden, ... But better! the Faults found in their plans are minor compared to their ingenius answer to the complicated questions of light and darkness in a museum, AND the consideration taken of the existing parts. In my mind there were no doubt in who would be the winner when I saw their solution. But not even the jury of the Nobel Prize have the skills of detecting present ingeniousity.» (very bad)
- Because i don´,t agree in their ranking of the first and the second winner. It could have been nice if Gert also was there afterwards to ask him questions.» (rather bad)
- I found it very hypocritical that the results from the jury"s point of view were apparently very unsustainable, however they were not specifically looking for characteristics of sustainability in the winning projects. I do not think a project needs to be a "showcase" of sustainability and/ or scream this to the public to be a very low impact project. If aspects of sustainability had been at the forefront of the jury"s decision making, they would have undoubtedly chosen other projects. » (rather bad)
- First of all: Let the students know that there will be no prizemoney before you reveal the winners. many of the motivations had more negative critic than positive, which make you question the choosen projects.» (rather bad)
- I thought it was hard to really understand why the winners and mentioned won and got mentioned. what made them the best though they where not good in all ways. Explination lacked a bit.» (rather bad)
- It was quite weak to do not have put the names of the student on the PDF that was presented and was put on the web portal. Then it is usual and common at least to organize a small buffet or cocktail to celebrate the end of the course and the winners, even without money, this doesn"t cost so much. Probably it had been forgotten. This is really important to organize it, it extends the architectural debate and give more opportunity to meet the jury. As well as a paper or just shake the hand of the winners is always good.» (rather bad)
- experienced and competent architects they may be, but one single afternoon to fairly judge 65 proposals seems a tad optimistic. This was clearly illustrated in the jury motivations for the prize winners, where even the five winners don"t seem to be fully understood.» (rather bad)
- No flowers no nothing, the jury was ill prepared, some of the jury did not know the limitations or the program properly. No discussion to speak about. Learn from this to next year! Better prepared jury with a better discussion afterwards. » (rather bad)
- More different proposals / approches could have been taken up to discussion. Maybe a environmentalist in the jury could help the jury to evaluate the projects when it comes to environmental sustainability.» (rather well)
- May be more comments on the other projects ? » (rather well)
- It was a good discussion at the jury session, but it is not correct in a school situation to have some students not recieve any feedback at all. The professor must at least give a written evaluation of each proposal to the students. School is where one is supposed to get feedback on where one did well and where one did poorly so one can LEARN (not just be judged) and improve. Also the end was quite anticlimatic, a reception afterwards would have been nice. Or at least give the winners a bottle of wine, or flowers or something, surely there was money for that!» (rather well)

7. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

36 svarande

no opinion»		5		13%
very bad»		0		0%
rather bad»		0		0%
rather well»		18		50%
very well»		13		36%

Genomsnitt: 3.94

- always interesting to see other architects way of work etc» (rather well)
- The BIG lecture was very good, and so was malmströms because he had learned something from the competitions. Wingårdh should have explained why in his opinion he did win. » (rather well)
- relevant and interesting. » (very well)
- Great that he explained his mistakes! really generous of him!» (very well)

8. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

36 svarande

no opinion»		3		8%
very bad»		7		19%
rather bad»		5		13%
rather well»		18		50%
very well»		3		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.3

- At its base she probably had something interesting to say, but it was lost in her incredibly poor presentation.» (very bad)
- the norwegian woman had a lot of knowledge that I as a student could not gain, she made no sense. That lecture made no sense which was a shame coz she knew a lot. » (very bad)
- potentially interesting content, but the segment before the break was disastrously boring. If you"re just going to read an essay aloud, you might just as well email the essay to everyone. luckily, the final segment was more spontaneous and infinitely more interesting to listen to.» (rather bad)
- we had the text already» (rather bad)
- a bit slow but OK» (rather well)
- The lecture given by Elisabeth Tostrup was really out of date.» (rather well)
- Maybe too dense, but very very interesting» (very well)

9. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

35 svarande

no opinion»		4		11%
very bad»		0		0%
rather bad»		0		0%
rather well»		18		51%
very well»		13		37%

Genomsnitt: 4.02

- always interesting to see other architects way of work etc» (rather well)
- they"ve held pretty much the same lecture on several occasions - I believe this was my third or fourth time. It"s still good, but it starts to feel a bit stale now. I"m sure those who haven"t seen them before have no complaints, though.» (rather well)
- They are always fun to watch and explained rather well why they did win.» (rather well)
- I saw the lecture by Fredrik Kjellgren in the course Process Design Management, and it was very good.» (very well)

10. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

35 svarande

no opinion»		3		8%
very bad»		0		0%
rather bad»		2		5%
rather well»		13		37%
very well»		17		48%

Genomsnitt: 4.17

- widening the perspective» (very well)
- This guy is amazing, and real skills in communications!» (very well)
- Brilliant! "The worst lecture ever" was one of the best lectures that have ever been held at the school. Anders deserves to come back, and should have lectures for all the students of the architecture school at one point of their studies.» (very well)

11. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

35 svarande

no opinion»		3		8%
very bad»		0		0%
rather bad»		8		22%
rather well»		15		42%
very well»		9		25%

Genomsnitt: 3.77

- Too long, and he should have gone through just a few projects but better.» (rather bad)
- Nothing spectacular, but not bad either. It felt a little too focused on EuroPan, not too relevant for competitioins in general.» (rather well)

12. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

36 svarande

no opinion»		5		13%
very bad»		1		2%
rather bad»		4		11%
rather well»		22		61%
very well»		4		11%

Genomsnitt: 3.52

- It was a tiresome lecture and some boring Swedish architecture. Some statements of their briefs seemed so banal, like for "the building should not be perceived as a disturbance".» (rather bad)
- did not give me much, i had already heard it » (rather bad)
- A bit heavy, but interesting none the less.» (rather well)

13. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

36 svarande

no opinion»		14		38%
very bad»		0		0%
rather bad»		1		2%
rather well»		10		27%
very well»		11		30%

Genomsnitt: 3.11

- I was unable to attend, so I don"t know.» (no opinion)
- I found it very interesting» (very well)
- Best guest lecture ever.» (very well)
- This was interesting and a very good lecturer, finally» (very well)

14. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

35 svarande

no opinion»		5		14%
very bad»		0		0%
rather bad»		0		0%
rather well»		14		40%
very well»		16		45%

Genomsnitt: 4.02

- Interesting and inspiring. » (rather well)
- I loved it,g0od job,bring more quests like him...» (very well)
- very interesting» (very well)

15. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

36 svarande

no opinion»		13		36%
very bad»		1		2%
rather bad»		0		0%
rather well»		14		38%
very well»		8		22%

Genomsnitt: 3.08

- so so, but once again why did they win the competitions» (rather well)

16. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

36 svarande

no opinion»		10		27%
very bad»		0		0%
rather bad»		3		8%
rather well»		16		44%
very well»		7		19%

Genomsnitt: 3.27

- Interesting to see her projects, but not too rewarding on other levels.» (rather well)
- so so, interesting ideas and she always started with the place which I personally like, but it was after the course(so to speak) noting I could have used in my own project.» (rather well)

17. How did the lecture programme fulfil its general objective?

36 svarande

no opinion»		7		19%
very bad»		0		0%
rather bad»		3		8%
rather well»		18		50%
very well»		8		22%

Genomsnitt: 3.55

- More tactics, less projects! Of course competition proposals can be a good fondation / back drop when lecturing on how to win, but more focus on rethorics, strategy, etc would be nice.» (no opinion)
- mostly the wrong kind of lectures or the lecturers were ill prepared on what they should lecture about in order to fit the course» (rather bad)
- The amount of lectures was fine, but not combined with the architectural problem that was posed. As it was complex it required more time and this lead to a lot of adhock proposals and/or lots of lost sleep.» (rather well)
- Very good lectures and good amount of them. Would though have wanted some "handledning" as well, some persolnal guiding at the work table.» (very well)
- WE saw many architects peaking aboutthe projects that they did for the competition ,but generally it wasn"t winners prices, so maybe more talk about the winning projects and the projects which are just recent or nicer for them. MOre lectures would also be nice» (very well)

18. How do you rate the relevance of the given competition design task exercise, the Wernstedt Sketch ‘,09?

no opinion»		1		2%
very low»		2		5%
rather low»		5		13%
rather good»		14		38%
very good»		14		38%

Genomsnitt: 4.05

- it felt unrealistic to make such a small extension.» (very low)
- This kind of course could potentially call for a more exploring and invetsigating task questioning the traditional role of the architect.» (rather low)
- It is always good to have a public building in your portfolio» (rather low)
- Good to work on one of the icons of Göteborg, good scale for the time given, and I liked working on museum space» (rather good)
- Good project, maybe a little to big (in m2) program though - which leads to more effort being put on "plan solving" and less on expression (facades, semiotics, surfaces..) and communication (poster + model design, intention of the proposal...).» (very good)

19. Was the exercise too complicated or quite appropriate for the Master level or even too simple to your opinion?

20. How do you rate the quality of the programme brief for ‘,The Extension to the Göteborg Museum of Art’,?

no opinion»		1		2%
very low»		2		5%
rather low»		12		33%
rather good»		15		41%
very good»		6		16%

Genomsnitt: 3.63

- a little bit simple, quite standard and not very stimulating» (rather low)
- See above. I would have wanted more information.» (rather low)
- Some part were too confusing and not relevant of the current situation in the Museum. As for example, to not have speak about the storage need. Or to let so few space to express the project.» (rather low)
- The criteria used by the jury in the assessment of the proposals was not clear in the porgramme.» (rather low)
- very short and sketchy but at some points very rigid (the amount of text was very limiting)» (rather low)
- A little short, but maybe that was good.» (rather good)
- too many spelling and grammar mistakes! it doesn"t convey a serious image of the author, whoever that is. content-wise, quite good however.» (rather good)
- but too little time for the program and there is a big lack of consultation. » (very good)
- Clear and simple, though the scales of the drawings compared to the A1 format didn"t seem that well thought out.» (very good)
- Not too detailed, gave room!» (very good)

Education and course administration

21. What support have you received for your learning outcome from lectures, discussions and course literature taken together as a whole?

Very little»		2		6%
Rather little»		19		57%
Rather big»		11		33%
Very big»		1		3%
No opinion»		3

Genomsnitt: 2.33

- The teacher is completely absent from the student"s development. Which is understandable, but one would think that at least at the end of the course he could have spent some time writing individual evaluations.» (Very little)
- Handledning...» (Rather big)
- I don"t even understand the question. "what support have you received for your learning outcome is a very confusing formulation. are you wondering if the lectures, discussions and course literature have had any direct influence on our finished proposals? If so, then no, not really. Perhaps on a subconscious level, but not directly.» (No opinion)

22. How has the cooperation between you and –, if any other student –, in your team been?

No opinion»		2		6%
Very bad»		1		3%
Rather bad»		0		0%
Rather well»		7		24%
Very well»		19		65%
No opinion»		7

Genomsnitt: 4.37

- We were not a team in the competition but helped each other anyway. It was very good.» (Very well)

Work environment

23. How do you rate the possibilities to ask questions and receive general assistance during the course period?

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		11		30%
Rather well»		8		22%
Very well»		1		2%
I have not asked for assistance»		16		44%

Genomsnitt: 3.61

- I think we could get more help though it is a comptition, so that we learn what is our strengths and what to put forward.» (Rather bad)
- The questions were not so interesting» (I have not asked for assistance)

24. How has the cooperation between you and students in your group been?

Very bad»		0		0%
Rather bad»		1		2%
Rather good»		6		17%
Very good»		24		70%
I have not tried to cooperate»		3		8%

Genomsnitt: 3.85

Concluding questions

25. What is your overall opinion of the MPARC Architectural Competition Course ‘,09?

Very bad»		0		0%
Bad»		0		0%
Passed»		8		22%
Good»		21		58%
Very good»		7		19%

Genomsnitt: 3.97

- I find the course very interesting as a whole» (Good)
- Even if there is no prise money. At least there should be flowers, an architectural book or something like this. Maybe also a little fika after the reward just to keep the groupfeelig betwee the students and to finish the year properly.» (Good)
- Its an intruiging course that most students enjoy doing.» (Good)
- The content of the course itself was good, but the final ceremony, or lack of it, was a big shame. Why didn"t the winners get anything? not even flowers, a certificate or champange? Chalmers is a rich university, it seems unbelievable that the winners out of 65 entries didn"t receive any price at all.» (Good)
- It is good to have a course on this topic.» (Good)
- It is a g0od opportunity for those who want to start the competition.» (Very good)

26. What should be preserved for next year?

27. What should be changed for next year?

28. Other comments