Comments on: AIA 2009 COD Competition / First Prize Albert M. McDonald

By: Taegu.Kwon 권태구

Taegu.Kwon 권태구 — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 03:50:28 +0000

http://t.co/KuzRQab

By: Sebastian

Sebastian — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:08:31 +0000

Fresh!Graphic!I like it very much!Congratulations for the prize!

By: D. Z. Adams

D. Z. Adams — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:31:11 +0000

I find that this work is exceptional. Great detail. It reminds me of a “cabin” sketch that I once saw.

By: AIA COD / SO Architecture | ArchDaily

AIA COD / SO Architecture | ArchDaily — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:01:03 +0000

[...] recently shared Albert McDonald’s winning entry for the COD competition, and now SO Architecture just shared their proposal with us. [...]

By: Lucas Gray

Lucas Gray — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:31:21 +0000

you can change the camera setting to 2d perspective which gets the vertical lines to be straight.

By: Lucas Gray

Lucas Gray — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:26:35 +0000

well said. I think Sketch up gets a bad (and undeserved) reputation. It can be a great design tool and can make nice graphics if used by a good designer.

By: ZIED

ZIED — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 09:14:58 +0000

oh dear helen, show us your work then, y do we critisize every thing in a such a very negative way “1st year”.
i think any media or method used to deliver the thoughts of an architect should indeed be used; sketchs, 3d models…etc and this includes what is presented here.

By: helen

helen — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 14:00:16 +0000

im sorry but this is one of the most boring projects ever. totally agree with the 1st year project impression

By: Scott C.

Scott C. — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 13:49:10 +0000

You will all be renderers, not architects.

By: Lewis

Lewis — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 08:28:55 +0000

It is a tad overdone.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 06:37:39 +0000

I dont think this is sketchup because with sketchup vertical lines are not 90 degrees, the field of view always makes it somewhat diagonal, unless there is a trick I don’t know about to make it look like this?

By: Scarpasez

Scarpasez — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:16:06 +0000

I totally agree regarding the faux hand drawing. What’s kind of funny is that they got it backward: I’ve seen some excellent drawings where the hard lines were computer generated but the colors, shading and living landscape elements were hand drawn in afterward. These drawings didn’t endeavor to trick; it was a good collage technique. Here, they’re actually tracing in guide lines and adding vanishing points on top of a render. It’s silly.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:03:48 +0000

On the positive side, the colours are beautiful, and the layout is, in general very nicely done – although obviously rushed. Mistakes are evident when viewing some of the images up close.

The font chosen is quite attractive as is the detail of the underscore between words in titles. Does anyone know which font this is? I know I’ve seen it around quite a bit, but I’m just curious.

The project is well thought out, conceptually, but ultimately, I find the representation distracting from the actual content project. The image where text is placed over the leaders is awful, however. I’m not sure if the font simply does not work in this situation or if it’s just a matter of the text colour being black, but that particular image is horrendous.

By: Jason

Jason — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 22:03:45 +0000

Using a specific software isn’t lame. Trying to make computer drawings look as if they were hand drawn is lame.

I’m with the above poster who commented on the dishonesty of the technique. I also agree with the comparison to a faux finish.

I’ve seen people do this sort of things a lot, recently, and I’ve always thought “wow.. who would actually be impressed by faking a hand drawing”. Now I know my answer, the people who look at archdaily. I’m disappointed more people aren’t calling them on this.

Hand drawings ARE beautiful. Fake hand drawings are not.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:57:57 +0000

I can see nothing we haven’t seen hundred’s of times before.

I like it, but to win an award?

By: GEE WALLY

GEE WALLY — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:15:34 +0000

Though I do think the images are handsome, I’m generally turned off by fake perspective construction lines over shaded model renderings. I understand the desire to express the presence of the human hand in the work, but I can’t get past the dishonesty of the technique. It’s like looking at a faux finish, or cultured stone.

By: josep

josep — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:01:47 +0000

i think the drawings are nice
a less sophisticated old Diller & Scofidios type of presentation
3d first then hand drawing over then photoshop

By: Scarpasez

Scarpasez — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:26:46 +0000

Software tool snobbery has nothing to do with design, just like hate on parametric software and a hankering for the “good old days” is a hallmark of the small-minded curmudgeon. Understanding craft method is very helpful. If the images work, they work. Who cares if the design was created with Maya, Sketchup, hand drawing, CAD, Rhino + Grasshopper, Microstation + GC, or any other platform? Calling software “lame” because it’s easy to use or you find it simplistic is pure idiocy. Is the design smart? Elegant? Effective? A design or rendering tool is just that: a tool. It’s only as good as the designer. People get hung up on these tools, but great design is drawn by a wonderful diversity of means today: please take your techno-phobia, techno-snobbery and tool cliques away from the discussion forum and focus on design. Personally, I don’t go for these renders, but only because I find the hyper-sexy shots of people doing yoga/looking beautiful rather silly and ultimately a distraction from the design itself. The plans and elevations tell a much better story of the design.

By: Jose Antornio

Jose Antornio — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:50:54 +0000

SketchUp

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:14:24 +0000

It’s hand rendered. Might be traced from a 3D print, but in the main living room perspective you can see the traces of eraser and some cockles.

Good perspectives and clear plan.