Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

POE in Architectural Design

A quick test to see if it's easier to visualise in Prezi!

Derek Jones

on 1 December 2010

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of POE in Architectural Design

POE in Architectural Design WE HAVE : WE WANT : Structural Stability Water Ingress Thermal Performance From a RISK point of view : Structural Stability
Thermal So we start with Structural Options 1 2 3 monolithic structure... ...leads to... ...detailing problems for water detached structure... ...leads to... ...possible structural solution ...but other less important problems (small, but many)... double structure... ...good water solution... ...leads to... ...but will cost more... oh, and don't forget the ever present : Cost
Buildability So, we end up with two solutions (2, 3) : 2 - Risk is
horrible detailing / possible failure of water barrier
Greater cost
Longer time on site (more cost) 3 - Risk is
Greater cost
Longer time on site (more cost) Note: the main difference Which leads to a validation process with the Client :
"Do you wish cheap, but risky; or expensive but watertight..." Note also - we still haven't come across a really tough cross problem (some slight crosses that I probably haven't even demonstrated here, just removed 'instincitvely')... A simplified, retrospective, solution architecture for a live design problem. NOTE : These 3 criteria are given as the most critical measures of success and perceived to be the most challenging when presented with 'WE HAVE' and 'WE WANT'.
There are many other criteria that are still important and relevant, but these are not presented since, intuitively, they are understodd to be solveable in easier ways (i.e. there are alternatives routes to solution that do not require 'WE HAVE' as a starting condition). And, looking at the 'shape' of it : "I believe the structure is the most important thing to resolve. What are the possible solutions?" Structural Option 1 Structural Option 2 Structural Option 3 Structural Option 1 + Waterproofing Option 1 Structural Option 1 + Waterproofing Option 2 Structural Option 2 + Waterproofing Option 1 Structural Option 3 + Waterproofing Option 1 Structural Option 3 + Waterproofing Option 2 VALIDATION REQUIRED "Then I believe that water ingress is the next priority. What are the possible solutions?" Of course, what is missing ... All of the intuitive decisions left out because they don't work or have additional risk (e.g. miraculous waterproofing systems);
All of the trivial solutions (e.g. sell the monster and buy a proper house);
The (explicit) overriding constraint of money / time (which applies to all processes and decisions);
Possibly 101 other sub-conscious decisions made by an 'experienced' designer(s); ...because we consciously decide that this is most important 'risk' criteria... NO! NO! NO!
Full transcript