The jury for both the semester (I & III) happened to be on the same day. It’s a good idea to have the two semester jury on same day as an event where we can see the work collectively and juror also can have larger & collective canvas to react to. It brings concerns & patrons of KRVIA together on common platform and also allows us to create larger visibility.
The beginning of the studio was envisaged as individual reaction to urban phenomena & come collective as grouping of cognitive experiences as a larger experiential map. Although it may have slight classical bend but it always remains effective tool to introduce the course to such diverse group at master level. The experiential map supersedes the hard data map as a reactive response to the urban conditions. The studio comes together in small design intervention at the level of micro inserts and allowing students to create the palette of typologies.
It is still not convincing that the collection of data as analysis never seems to empower the tools for design. However studio was appreciated but larger open-endedness towards the realm of design is still to be plugged. Students enthusiasm were at the best what we have seen in last four years and can be easily claimed to be the best batch we have so far.
My argument is far more convincing at the level of semester III studio. The area under study seems to be much larger than group is capable of handling. The data collection have overpower the intuitive reaction to various opportunity that studio could have offered. As commented by the juror “ It appears more of planning studio than urban design”. Although comments seems slightly harsh but studio at the interim level had immense possibilities & engagement could have been focused on the diagram that students have generated rather than problem solving approach.