As previously stated, some commendable ideas, but disappointing execution: The reference to traditional wood construction could have been a strong exciting structural motif dictating its logic throughout. But instead of this, it is (as above) “unfortunately superficial”.
All the timber would have looked dramatic if it was the structural support that was allowed to cantilever out another couple of metres. Then, internally, if wooden tables were slotted into the structure to cantilever from it unfixed, there would probably be no need for leg supports at all. “Floating” adaptable tables would then have been the start of some logical design consistency.
Shot No. 201111.01 needed detailing. The grass should have been mown. Its unkempt, overgrown appearance amplifies the design problems. Adding to this are the tables and chairs. They should have been omitted completely. Their style is unsympathetic, and in addition, their placement around the building is very unconvincing for eating positions.
Lighting the interior from the ground outside is very commendable. Doing this creates a very pleasant interior ambiance at night. It is a good feature that should have been demonstrated here, so it has been a missed opportunity.
A waste timber design! Use the original timber can be recycled to the development of ecological, can use the timber is a transition to increase the pressure on the natural approach. A good designer should be moderate, reasonable design, which meet the design height, but also to use function.