From the first attempt to the final, the development was significant and deliberate.
The first attempt established the basic logic — a vertically exploded sequence showing the hull at the base, floor plates rising through the levels, and the bamboo roof structure lifting free at the top. It communicated the layering of the building but little else. The labels were present but the drawing read as a diagram of parts rather than a drawing of a building. The components were generic in appearance, the structural relationships between them were unclear, and there was no sense of how the building actually stood or how its systems worked together.
In developing the final version, the first thing I addressed was the structural legibility. I introduced the bamboo arched columns, the bamboo ring beams, and the primary beam networks as visibly distinct layers so that a reviewer could understand how loads travel from roof to hull without needing a separate structural drawing. The building's skeleton became readable within the exploded drawing itself.
I then worked on material specificity. Where the first version had undifferentiated white surfaces, the final version shows Accoya wood cladding panels, canvas roofing sheets, fixed glass windows, treated pine railings, and the fiberglass hull as distinct materials with their own visual character. The recycled pontoon system at the base was also developed and labelled, addressing the floating structure's technical resolution.
The labelling became comprehensive and bilateral — running down both sides of the drawing so that no component is unlabelled and the drawing can be read independently without supplementary notes. The dashed leader lines are consistent and organised, which the first version lacked entirely.
The result is a drawing that does what the brief asked — communicates not just what the building looks like taken apart, but how it stands, what it is made of, and how it works.
@feststudio5-26
