|
|
Teaching-space paradigm
Kolomazníková, Pavla ; Vojtíšek, Jan (referee) ; Rozwalka, Szymon (advisor)
The main task of the project is moving the faculty of architecture to other place because of inconvnient requirements for the future education of students. The new Faculty tries to create a new space for students, which can offer them different types of communication, enough flexibility,, diversity of the space itself it gives them an opportunity to become the real part of the space.
|
|
| |
|
|
Teaching-space paradigm
Belopotocký, Maroš ; Bureš, David (referee) ; Sládeček, Svatopluk (advisor)
The task of the bachelor's thesis is to design the completion of the Faculty of Architecture in the BUT campus in the Brno-centre district between Úvoz, Údolní and Tvrdého streets, due to the planned transfer of the faculty from the current premises on Poříčí Street. The issue of completion allows for the expansion of the faculty premises and the addition of capacities for which the current situation no longer has a place. The project also addresses the use of the original historic buildings and the connection of the Faculty of Architecture with the Faculty of Fine Arts within one area.
|
|
| |
|
|
Teaching-space paradigm
Dimitrov, Georgi ; Štojdl, Václav (referee) ; Kristek, Jan (advisor)
The project is dealing with building of a new Faculty of Architecture at BUT. The target area is located on one of BUT campuses between Údolní, Úvoz and Tvrdého streets.The proposal envisages the placement of the entire FA program in the building of the former barracks from the 19th century on Úvoz Street and adjoining outbuildings. The "extension" is not only an extension, as an enlargement of an existing building, but it is an opportunity for its reconfiguration. This creates a hybrid, a game between the old and the new, which forms a new way of using the object. Programmatically, the entire proposal is divided according to three levels of accessibility: the public, students and teachers and employees. The spatial solution is then solved as the mutual interaction of the three groups of users.
|
|
|
Space kitsch
Helešic, David ; Mitášová,, Monika (referee) ; Kristek, Jan (advisor)
As a student of the final year of my master‘s programme I assume that I have been exposed to myriad perceptions throughout my studies, whether during lectures, compulsory practices or studio work, that have formed me as a student and future architect. Despite the fact I understand my study as an opportunity for personal development and university institution as a platform for „self-improvement“, the subsequent discursive formation cannot be avoided. Primarily, at my study begginings I have perceived theses, informations or solutions presented by teachers, as universal thruths. The lecturers rarely emphasize that their statements are possible interpretations, personal opinions, what means they are existing in certain philosophical or ideological framework. Over time one begins to doubt and relativize. As a critical introspection of „faculty-discourse“, which I have gone through my studies, I decided to question the concept of Space. The analysis I have done in my thesis confirms, that the Space is for the majority of teachers integral part of architect‘s work. The opinions which circulate around this concept penetrate to the students‘ thought apparatus throught teaching. Then they take them as an argumental arsenal for their own practice. To answer the question: „What is the Space?“, however is not the subject of this work. The work with the Space, which for many architects symbolize a boundary between „building“ and „Architecture“, is according to my analysis appearing as a controversial conception what an architect actually does. A clear definition of the architectural Space does not really exist and in this aspect by constant repetition of the term of the Space, we are exposing it to the risk of absolute emptying. The space in architectural theory and consequently in architectural discourse was invented relatively recently (1893).
|
|
|
Teaching-space paradigm
Cingeľ, Adam ; Müller, Rudolf (referee) ; Rozwalka, Szymon (advisor)
Faculty of architecture as one is not just a space for educating the students, it should show its opportunities. It shoul use its potential and allow the users to feel differet types of space on their own. In comparison with other faculties, this faculty is unique because it can use its own space as a paradigm of educating the students
|
|
|
Extension FA Ljubljana
Tomková, Iva ; Marek, Jiří (referee) ; Šindlar, Jiljí (advisor)
The old building of the Faculty of Architecture has inconvenient spaces on the back - south- facade on both sides of the staircase . These two parts were added in later times, in the second half of the 20th century. Into the height of the old building, with high ceilings was crammed twice the number of floors. This resulted in a complicated tangle of small spaces, stairs etc. Headroom is not in allowed limit everywhere. The proposal is based on replacing these two parts with completely new design / independent of old building/. There were several initial basic options and requirements. It is a steel structure in the module 2,9 x 2,9 meters. The volume increases to width with increasing height. It does not occupy a place for access on the ground and at the same time it creates shelter for parked bicycles. In floor plans the new building is divided into two parts. One of the offices, which all have the same ceiling height – 2,9 meters. The remaining part is the so-called multifunctional semi-public, serving to relax, work, presentations, waiting for consultations, ... Each array of module is placed in different height, they're making different levels and different optically connected spaces. Movement through these levels is spiraling and is achieved to entrance from all the existing floor's levels in the old building. The steel bearing structure is fitted with translucent glass. Due to it new spaces are very light and emotionally larger. New volumes are lightweight, transparent and you can see an old original facade through them. Number of office's working places compared to the original number 36 raised to 40 chairs. On the ground floor have been newly designed toilets that are missing and number of booths was expanded to each floor.
|
|
| |
|
| |
guest ::
