This master’s thesis investigates the application of multi-sensory design principles within a short-term residential retreat in Brno, aiming to support mental well-being, emotional restoration, and social inclusivity. The work positions itself within a phenomenological and human-centered architectural discourse, drawing on established theoretical references concerned with sensory perception, atmosphere, and embodied experience. The topic is relevant and timely, particularly in relation to contemporary discussions on mental health and the experiential quality of the built environment.

The students has a clearly articulated central research ambition: to explore how multi-sensory architectural strategies can enhance well-being and inclusivity in a residential context. The thesis demonstrates awareness of key architectural theorists such as Pallasmaa, Zumthor, and Rasmussen, and situates the project within this tradition. However, the academic positioning remains largely descriptive. The literature is primarily used to confirm preconceived design intentions rather than to critically interrogate or challenge them.

The research methodology combines literature study, case-study analysis, site analysis, and design-based research. This structure is coherent and appropriate for an architectural master’s thesis. The methodological diagram provides clarity regarding the process. What is missing or could have been better is the fact that it lacks evaluation criteria on the outcome of the research which could have been translated into design decisions.

The design proposal demonstrates an intention to integrate multi-sensory concepts through spatial sequencing, gradation of privacy, material choices, and landscape design. These intentions are consistently present throughout the project. However, the causal relationship between specific research findings and the design decisions could have been better articulated.

From an architectural perspective, the project presents a coherent and readable spatial concept. The retreat typology is competently organised, with a clear hierarchy of spaces and attention to human scale and atmosphere. Nevertheless, the architectural language is not fully developed and somewhat generic. The project does not fully exploit the potential of the chosen theme to generate a more distinct architectural position. For the technical part we conclude that these are addressed only superficially and are not expressing the tectonic ambitions of the project.

The design outcome and output could have been more accurate and extensive. As the concept is clear there still remain some questions on how these buildings work on a tectonic level. For the drawings and visualizations the same remark can be made; they could have been executed in a more sensible way that would endorse the architectural concept more.

Overall, this thesis demonstrates a fair level of architectural competence and a clear commitment to human-centered design. The project successfully integrates research and design and addresses a relevant societal theme. However, from an academic perspective, the thesis would have benefited from stronger critical positioning, clearer graphical output, and more explicit reflection.

The work meets the expected learning outcomes and quality standards of the Masters Thesis, though it does so without fully exploiting the critical and theoretical potential of the chosen topic. Points proposed by supervisor: 70

1. Conceptual and theoretical justification of the presented thesis

The diploma thesis is based on an ambitious concept of a “multi-sensory retreat”, working with the metaphor of the hibiscus flower and with the idea of layering spaces according to levels of intimacy, sensory perception and psychological calm. The author refers to relevant theoretical and reference sources from the fields of therapeutic, contemplative and landscape architecture, and the introductory chapters are conceptually cultivated and convincing.

However, the fundamental problem is that this concept remains largely on the level of words, visual references and symbolic narrative. In the actual spatial and architectural proposal, the multi-sensory approach is not systematically translated into spatial, material or operational solutions. It is not clear how the design works with sound, acoustics, microclimate, tactile qualities of surfaces, vegetation scents, or with a gradation of sensory stimuli within the space. The hibiscus metaphor is readable only in the layout of the accommodation units, but not in the urban structure of the site or in the hierarchy of public, semi-public and quiet zones. The relationship between the declared theoretical framework and the resulting architectural proposal is therefore weak and insufficiently demonstrated. In relation to the assignment, the absence of an operational report and urban analysis further limits the ability to verify the conceptual intentions in a real functional context.

2. Urban solution

The urban layout appears more as a loose composition of buildings in the landscape than as a clearly structured retreat campus. The site plan lacks essential analytical and orientation layers – there is no legend of individual buildings, no clearly indicated main entrance, access roads, parking, service routes, or hierarchy of public, semi-public and quiet areas. The central space with a water feature and amphitheatre is not explained either in terms of its meaning or its operational role.

The accommodation blocks are placed as mirrored objects without evident response to orientation, sunlight, views or terrain, which suggests that the layout was derived from a typological scheme rather than from the specific characteristics of the site. Although the hibiscus flower is presented in the concept as an organising principle of the entire complex, this logic is not legible in the urban structure – it does not govern the system of paths, spatial hierarchy or the relationship of buildings to the central core. The metaphor thus remains mainly a graphic and formal device rather than a true urban tool. The required site plans at 1:1000 scale are missing; the provided 1:1500 drawing is too schematic for a proper evaluation of urban and operational relationships.

3. Architectural solution

The massing of the accommodation buildings is visually interesting and shows a certain degree of originality in the articulation and branching of volumes. However, the architectural expression contradicts the declared sensory and landscape-oriented character of the project. The façade materiality is limited mainly to white plaster, glass and concrete slabs, resulting in a cold and generic appearance that lacks the tactile and visual depth emphasised in the references for a therapeutic environment.

The yoga and meditation pavilions, which should be the most sensitive and landscape-integrated elements of the project, paradoxically appear the least responsive to their surroundings. Their white, highly glazed forms read more as abstract objects than as buildings embedded in a natural park and forest setting. For a comprehensive architectural assessment, systematic sections through all major buildings and their relation to the terrain would be necessary; in the submitted material, sections are provided only for selected parts of the complex.

4. Operational solution

The operational concept of the project is difficult to assess because the thesis lacks a systematic operational report, room schedules and a clear operational diagram of the campus. In many buildings, it is not evident from the floor plans or site layout where the main entrances are located, how individual functions are connected, or how guests, staff and services are supposed to move through the complex.

The site plan at 1:1500 does not allow for a clear identification of functional units and their mutual relationships. For example, the location of the massage facilities and their connection to changing rooms and other support spaces is unclear; it is not evident where this building is situated within the campus or how it is accessed. Similarly, the staff facilities and their operational links to the various functions are not defined.

It is also unclear for which target group the retreat is primarily designed – whether for people with physical or psychological health issues, persons with disabilities, or for healthy clients seeking rest and regeneration. This ambiguity has a direct impact on the operational concept, particularly on requirements for staffing (medical staff, therapists, assistants, supervision, hygiene and safety standards), which are not reflected spatially or in capacity terms.

For key functions (accommodation, dining, wellness, meditation), no comprehensive capacity and operational balance is provided. The relationship between the accommodation capacity and the dining facilities is not explained, and since no kitchenettes are provided in the rooms, guests are fully dependent on the central catering. Without room schedules, dimensions and operational diagrams, it is impossible to evaluate whether the facilities are realistically dimensioned and interconnected. Overall, the operational concept remains implicit and cannot be reliably assessed as a functional and sustainable system.

5. Technical and structural solution

The technical details reveal significant shortcomings. The proposed assemblies of external walls, green façades, roofs and ground connections do not correspond to common construction practice or to basic principles of building physics. Thermal insulation is interrupted, thermal bridges (especially at balconies, terraces and the foundation slab) are not resolved, waterproofing is applied inconsistently, and green façades lack ventilated and drainage layers.

The underground wellness facilities are not supported by sections or by a technical concept addressing moisture, thermal stability and ventilation. The declared sustainability strategies (solar energy, water management, green roofs) remain at a symbolic level and are not spatially or technically specified. However, the assignment required a demonstration of technical feasibility, which cannot be considered fulfilled in this form.

6. Formal Level

The graphic presentation is visually cultivated, but from a formal perspective the diploma project lacks several essential components. Readable site plans at 1:1000 scale, building legends, orientation to cardinal directions, operational diagrams, capacity tables and economic balances are missing. In the floor plans, room legends, entrance markings and north arrows are absent, which significantly complicates the understanding of spatial and operational organisation. The assignment also required a physical model, which is not documented even photographically, limiting the possibility of verifying spatial relationships at the campus scale.

7. Overall assessment of the diploma thesis, including a statement on whether the thesis is recommended for defense

The diploma thesis by Tarini Bala is conceptually ambitious and visually appealing, but as an architectural, urban and operational proposal it remains incomplete. There is a clear discrepancy between the theoretical framework, the urban design, the architecture, the operational concept and the technical solution. The project does not fulfil several key requirements of the assignment, particularly in the areas of urban structure, operation and technical feasibility.

Nevertheless, considering the scope of the work, the level of conceptual ambition and the effort invested, I recommend the thesis for defence. Topics for thesis defence:

1. From the documentation it is not entirely clear which target group the retreat is primarily intended for (healthy guests, people with psychological difficulties, users with disabilities, etc.). How would you define the target group more precisely, and how is this choice reflected in the operational concept, staffing and spatial requirements of the complex?
2. In your project you work with the metaphor of the hibiscus flower and with the principle of layering sensory and spatial qualities. Could you explain more specifically how this concept is reflected in the urban layout of the site and in the hierarchy of its spaces? Which elements of the site plan do you consider to be the key carriers of this idea?
3. In your thesis you declare a sustainable and environmentally sensitive approach (green roofs, vegetated façades, water and energy management). Could you describe how the complex would realistically function in terms of energy balance, water management and technical sustainability in year-round operation?

Points proposed by reviewer: 60