We’ll be using a zoom meeting for both days of the review. Details and the one-click link to join will be sent via a calendar invite. As with desk crits there will be a waiting room for entry and you’re requested to use your full name for easy identification. You’re also encouraged to visit other section reviews when ours is not in session: see the studio blog for details.
Please plan to join both sessions for the full time. The same professionalism and respect for your peers expected in an in-person review will apply online. Even for the session where you are not presenting please consider yourself a part of the review, representing not just yourself, but also the studio and IIT to the outside reviewers and any other guests. This includes:
- assume camera on for the whole time (an engaged audience)
- good lighting, neutral background, reasonable attire
- microphone muted (mostly) but also setup for speaking and controlling background noise and feedback
I know this rarely happens, but be ready for the discussion to be broadened to include students, particularly if your project was recently discussed and might have relevance to the current project. I expect camera on (mic muted) the entire review for everyone. When you turn your camera off that will be the sign to me that you are temporarily not available (bathroom break, etc.). Also, given that this is occurring over the lunch hour totally understandable to eat your lunch at some point during the review. I only ask that you do turn off your camera and eat during the verbal presentation portion, not during a discussion.
Format
Each session will start with a quick introduction of the jurors and a few minutes of getting everyone up and running with the zoom format then your presentations. We’ll anticipate 25-30 minutes for each student so target 6-8 minutes for your verbal presentation followed by discussion. Each presentation will loosely follow this format:
- At the conclusion of the preceding discussion I’ll introduce you as the next student.
- Camera on, you unmute and introduce yourself. Plan to talk for long enough we can get our bearings. Have your zoom set up so you can see the sidebar with the most recent active participants in the zoom (this should work to keep the jurors visible).
- Share your screen for a FULL SCREEN presentation of your project. Assume you’ll be uninterrupted, but just like an in-person review that might not be the case. I’ll let you know if we’re having audio or video issues.
- At the conclusion of your verbal presentation please keep your screen shared, mic and camera on, and we’ll discuss. Jurors may ask you to go back to certain images in your presentation, but even if not you can still navigate to the appropriate images for the discussion.
There will likely be a break around 2:00 as we transition between jurors and if a departing juror had general remarks to make we may have a quick discussion about the projects from the first half. Otherwise we’ll plan to have a brief concluding discussion at the end of each day’s session.
Jurors
Yaqing Cai, SOM, Chicago.
Daniel Gillen, SOM, Chicago. Previously MAD Architects, Chicago.
Tony Hurtig, IIT, Chicago and Anthony Hurtig Architect, Chicago.
Armel Sagobahn, Office for Urban Experiments, Chicago. (IIT alum)
Phoebe Schenker, Eames Institute, Petaluma, CA. Previously EHDD Architecture, San Francisco.
Juan Suarez, HBRA Architects, Chicago. (UIC alum)
Lisa Tilney, Sterling Project Development, NYC. Previously Jonathan Rose Companies, NYC.
Catherine Wetzel, IIT, Chicago.
Wednesday 4/29
FINAL REVIEW DAY 1: 12:00pm – 4:00pm
- Rishi
- Emily
- Derek
- Shruti
- Nataliya
- Ruth
- Trevor
JURORS (FIRST HALF)
- Tony Hurtig
- Phoebe Schenker
- Juan Suarez
JURORS (SECOND HALF)
- Daniel Gillen
- Armel Sagobahn
- Catherine Wetzel
Friday 5/1
FINAL REVIEW DAY 2: 12:00pm – 4:00pm
- John
- Anna
- Luke
- Michael
- Rebeca
- Zoe
- FINAL DISCUSSION
JURORS (FIRST HALF)
- Yaqing Cai
- Juan Suarez
- Lisa Tilney
JURORS (SECOND HALF)
- Armel Sagobahn
- Phoebe Schenker
- Lisa Tilney
Hathaway Section - Spring 2020 