Thank You for an impressive initiative, this Architron.. There is much to be said (and may have been said) about how to criticise and document a building. I find the example in v3n1.05.html most interesting and a method well worth investigating in further.

Some very unscientific notes:

Technicalities:

Picture quality as expected, i.e. according to general "state of the art" when it comes to what one uses of software and machine hardware.

Reflections on the medium:

References from text to video would have enhanced the criticism as a whole. Stills from various (carefully chosen..) angles give a better representation (and colour) of materials and composition of volume at hand. To the more experienced "consumer" a simple set of plans would have made it easier to understand the videos.

I missed a sequence showing how it was to enter the building as well as to walk or drive alongside some interesting facade (if it was accessible to pedestrians - or cars) - some sort of "see-yourself-am-I-not-right?" statement from the criticist. Maybe this added up to the "family snapshot" feeling.

All this does however not take away the impression that this sort of criticism can be very effective when it comes to introducing architectural "pieces of work" to the public.

In trying to evaluate how this kind of medium works (the "multimedia" approach or so), I pictured myself trying to explain to someone else, not knowing anything about the building, with words and a pencil and a scrap of paper, how the CCC was to be concieved. Without saying anything of the outcome I recommend You to try that.

Conclusion: