comments analysis

please check the comments on the wall as well, they are often repetitive

that's why we summarized them here.

the marks are provisional and go either way, up or down, depending on what you decide to correct. the amount of work (number of buildings analyzed) has not influenced the mark given yet, but will do int he final calculation. one group has submitted 58 concept drawings, this means, the material must be there. the banners still need to be marked. 

light & size

submitted on monday: 48/ 60

provisional mark 58 -

• Put gradient from light to dark in key
• Show airflow as wavy arrow
• Ensure consistency of visuals across group
• In certain examples, roof-lights were missed, look at the drawings and photos of the documented houses.

circulation+threshold

submitted on monday: 43/ 60

provisional mark 58 –

- threshold not differentiated enough, public + private does also apply to different rooms in the house

- inside+outside spaces often neglected

- at times, the arrangement of units on the site plan shows important thresholds, these are not included

- colorcode, font + size of tiles not consistent

- vertical+horizontal circulation not always well represented

- thresholds/zones indicated in sections should have names

context & cost

submitted on monday: 53/ 60

provisional mark 60-

• Key works well but you need to highlight better i.e don't just make outline bold use colour to show the surroundings (industrial, city, suburb, countryside) and the type of inhabitants (family, single etc)
• If no cost estimate (social, entry level, luxury)
• no borders on photo images
• highlight/ outline the site/ building on the aerial photo
• erase google logo etc where necessary
• group to use colours consistently
• Another thing to consider in terms of context  is whether the houses are case study/ model units, social housing, private developments etc.
• Also consider some types might cater for the extended family (including grandparents etc)

concept

submitted on monday: 58/ 60

provisional mark 58-

• Less text more illustrations
• Looks good, but missing in depth content
• draw a diagram of what is said in text, can't just rely on words
• Find underlying principle, the key generator of the design (this may be evident at a site level, may be about form, may be specifically about planning or about light for instance) find the right drawing ( site plan, plan, section, axo) and scale to show the ideas
• Light cone is illegible in certain drawings and incorrect in others.

adaptabilty

submitted on monday: 50/ 60

provisional mark 55-

at times before + after is missing

growth is not illustrated or understood properly in the samples that where designed to grow (chile+kliptown)

colors in legend do not correspond to colors in diagrams

scale not consistent ( example siza, klaus en kaan)

at times the adapted plans show no change (nofels, austria)

format changed (holzbox)

façade/ composition

submitted on monday: 47/ 60

provisional mark 55-

use different fonts

did not follow template at times ( size of logo, font, color)

different scales for no appearant reason

image of wrong building (andre lucrat, vienna werkbund)

index of spatial organization + façade analysis difficult to understand ( relevance)

at times there is no analysis (arne jacobsen)

you did not include sections or find another way to include depths on the façade, like build in balconies, hanging balconies, bay windows, overhangs etc

structure + material

submitted on monday: 34/ 60

provisional mark 45-

poor submission 

colorcode not consistent with colors used in diagrams

materials often printed as grey box

disgrams generally difficult read, not indexed properly

...