Sportovní hala Aritma
Emanuel Mareš
student
CTU in Prague - Faculty of Civil Engineering
Czech Republic
Architecture
The Multifunctional Sports Hall ARITMA in Vokovice is a modern sports complex that offers a wide range of sports and recreational activities. This hall is… more
PROJECT: Sportovní hala Aritma
STUDENT: Emanuel Mareš
INSTITUTION: CTU in Prague - Faculty of Civil Engineering
COUNTRY: Czech Republic
SEMIFINAL JUROR: Wandile Sibandze
1. STRENGTHS: It’s clear that the candidate is passionate about some aspects of architecture [i.e. form, function, and presentation]; therefore, assumes a “zeitgeist” approach in his project delivery. His artistic command of form and materiality presents a beautiful piece of architecture. He further handles issues of human-scaling and entrance address sensitively.
2. SHORTCOMINGS: I find it difficult to determine the contextual appropriateness, and regionalism of the project in the absence of site analysis; and if the project responds correctly to urban issues and fabric. The candidate doesn't present any theoretical rationale towards the neglect of context.
3. CREDIBILITY OF ARGUMENT: The candidate does not present any argument.
4. DESIGN RESOLUTION: The design portrays the designer’s firm intent, good control, and command over spatial layout, scale, and proportion.
5. TECHNICAL INFORMATION: Acceptable.
6. GENERAL COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
6.1. Show site-analyses.
6.2. Show basement floor plan.
6.3. Show precedent-study.
6.4. Engage in more research.
6.5. On proposal, the candidate must then enter into a theoretical argument that will give merit to the decision-made.
6.6. The project must articulate urban integration.
6.7. Consider drop-off zones.
6.8. Resolve the negative space in room 2.07.
6.9. Resolve fire routing [make provision of an alternative fire escape] for rooms 2.10 – 2.20 and also rooms 2.22 – 2.24.
6.10. Consider paraplegic access to rooms 2.22 – 2.24
Dear Wandile Sibandze,
Thank you for evaluating my work. I truly appreciate the time you dedicated to thoroughly reviewing my project.
1. I’m grateful for your feedback, and I agree that this is the aspect of architecture I enjoy the most and devote the most time to.
2. I apologize for the oversight. The project did indeed include a site analysis, but it was developed during the semester as part of a school consultation and didn’t make it onto the final presentation board. It was only presented in the form of the immediate surroundings in axonometric view.
4. Thank you.
5. Technical specifications such as building materials, processes, and details were not part of the school’s curriculum requirements; this format was sufficient for submission.
6. These analyses were developed, but I didn’t upload them here. I only included what was required for the school submission. As for points 6.7./6.8./6.9./6.10., thank you for pointing those out. I realize I overlooked them and will certainly give them more attention in future projects.
Copyright © 2024 INSPIRELI | All rights reserved. Use of this website signifies your agreement to the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and use of cookies.
