marks on uj spreadsheet

udf provisional_ comments

partsotam narayan

comprehensive document, very well presented. backyards re-use, viatalization and sidewalks good idea, hope the urban design concept will come out in the presentation and conceptually be linked to the tower?

fernandes

very enjoyable sectional design idea in relation to tower, document still a bit too thin.  spelling mistakes and the general framework could demand more observational + academic depth and requires to apply the sectional ideal to more actual situations within the area.  abundant potential but the work discontinues too early.

almeida

finish figure info on content page.  incorrect legend on page 14. research plus case studies thin.  chapter could use an intro page, what you’ll look at and why (relevance for urban tower framework). rooftops could have been part of the case study chapter, there are great samples of roof landscapes, for example new york.  what role do they play in your final proposal? shouldn’t they have been one of the anchors? only herbal roof for muti is indicated in section, that doesn’t correspond to your vision map page 27. sections of page 26,29 need annotations, street names etc. general spelling, particularly page 28, it is phase, not phaze. page 30 too dark. urban design proposal in closer context starts of ok, but the link to the larger area is not made. generally chapters feel slightly disconnected. make a link to the tower design. you must, for the project’s sake, weave the information into one narrative for the oral exam.

letsoisa

check spelling page 1,18, text layout page 5, language page 3 (the concept of my proposal is informed by the problem statement that is based on my analysis and reading of the site.)  page 7 (region 200000, verb missing), page 12,13,14 the underlay should be lighter, difficult to see the analysis/ index. research and case studies thin.  chapter could use an intro page, what you’ll look at and why (relevance for urban tower framework). page 31 fuzzy graphic, text sits in area for ringbinder, p 32,34 graphic fuzzy, p 33, 34 titles and text cut off. 2 pages are numbered 40. your design looks very interesting in the section on page 41, try to link it to the urban design framework. how are the plantation gardens on page 43 connected to it? intentions and ideas all good and viable, but urban implementation stratagem is not clear. some beautiful graphics that you could use to re-construct the urban argument.

almond

check spelling (lower/ capital case, page 1 1.1,  page 4 3.3, 3.4, page 5 principle 3, page 7, special relationships, page 17, key, page 18 spelling dybamic?, page 19, cultural, page 27 redevelopment, page 34 subtitle, ) text formatting (page 8, 3.5), page order (page 8 before page 7). second page 8 (two different pages are numbered 8) 4.0 commercial analysis: it would be good to know on what data you base the maps and what the dots represent (legend/ key). how is the forecast generated? page 13-15 would need short explanation like the pages before. very interesting proposal, ideas and drawings. just make sure you are able to clearly explain it in the time you have. link framework to the tower design.

felix

content page check spelling consistent capital/ low case, general spell and punctuation check, mapping lacks some completeness and accuracy, page 4 legend is not consistent with map, mapping could have gone into micro scale, there are more smaller green spaces, some are missing, for example ernest oppenheimer park next to the old post office, page 6 add legend re: red dotted line and blue dotted line, page 8 noord street taxi rank missing, to and from jan smuts ave missing, why?, page 9: why minibus taxis can’t be completely disgarded – the minibus taxi industry has a highly political history that should be mentioned, page 12 brt stations map not complete, where is west gate?, your movement network framework is an interesting idea, but you would need to explain the rational behind the design – why that route for bikes and not another one, what effect does this have on the existing movement networks etc, reference for example inner city movement framework by asm architects, you need to link your urban design work to the tower design.

coter

general mapping could need some more layers of information, for example page 7 transport is not complete/ accurate: is there nor main road e-w running through the cbd?, page 8 not sure what a green space landmark is,  why is the university of johannesburg a transportation landmark?, page 9 suburbs would need boundaries if a map is dedicated to them, page 11 inner city johannesburg is not a land use nor is braamfontain, page 17 consider renaming the page urban programme rather than land use typologies, page 18 be prepared to answer where you gathered the data to place the red dots, did you observe, walk, photograph, are there statistics? p 26, 27 need legend, sizes for a,b,c,etc, indication to what actual streets in the precinct the specific types could refer to, analysis generally thin with few layers, your framework for the vision on page 34 is not included in the document, only fragments of it, you would need to develop an idea specific guidelines for the different phases. and: link framework to your tower design.

hartman

interesting approach. check spelling. the analysis is a beginning of the process, but would profit from some additional layer and accuracy, from macro to micro scale (the diagram on page 11 does certainly not represent all water flows in the area.) graphic on page 14 missing?

the new york – johannesburg comparison happens slightly abrupt on page 16, and so does the architecture on page 17. your urban water analysis is a commendable beginning, but you collect facts rather than construct an argument. page 30 and 31 are empty, why? p33 blurry, your drawings need a scalebar. the intervention needs to be communicated in relation to your tower and systematically in the recommended layers, in plan and section.

rodrigues

your pages need page numbers. check spelling. abstract: text size too large. your maps about pedestrian and vehicular movement could contain more info or be represented in another scale. they all miss scale, north and legend. you have an interesting idea that needs more information, different scales and context related accuracy to unfold into an urban design framework. check the initial handout of the project and the recommendations made.

sutherland

your binding conflicts with the text. check spelling. your document seems to have the idea of a ‘local code’ (rules and regulations) but you have to apply those to the area, accurately, and show on a medium scale how they could be applied, then link it to your tower. before you do any of that, you have to explain the reasoning behind those rules, why are they important and where do they come from? same applies for constraints and opportunities, otherwise it stays general and unconnected to the area and your design.

makgalemela

page 4: you have to explain where this ‘class’ distinction comes from, what do you base it on, and you might prefer to use the word ‘group’ (although also discussable as acceptable in relation to the ‘group areas’), you need a legend on this page and explain how you mapped these social groupings. your graphics look appealing, but they are not yet linked into one narrative to become an urban design framework. you need to work systematically and look at the layers required. spell check.

lundie

at this stage your abstract should introduce your intention, your design concept and not just describe what you are going to do. beautiful mapping and sketches (page 27,28) pages 29,30: explain why you looked at this precedent and how it is relevant for your project. your framework is still a bit short of strategic decisions (or the communication thereof) imagine someone had to implement it, what other layers would one need to understand. link sections to plans. add scales and north. and: link to urban tower.

badabili

a document with a precise focus. check spelling. analysis on page 8 is thin. legend page 11 is incomplete? how did you collect the data, are you sure these are the only illegal operations occurring in background? same accounts for the dangerous areas. creativity and conceptual sketches great, but you need to make them operational and use urban design vocabulary, land use, heights, densities, edge conditions etc in section and plan with sizes.

ferro

the work looks graphically very pleasing but stays general for large parts of the document and displays information that doesn’t seem to be of primary importance for the urban design framework. images need captions and pages page numbers. (as a result comments cannot be linked to the pages) plans need scale, north indicator. the legends of the maps are not always complete. you need to explain what 3^rd landscape means. image from sagrera precedent fuzzy. graphic on design application page missing and urgently needed. your framework is incomplete. for example ,if you introduce alternative modes of transport and reserve lanes for them, you need to indicate that on a map. objectives need to be implemented.

fick

solid document. check spelling. page 31 fuzzy images. it will be good if you can explain in your oral how you gathered your data that you used for your urban analysis (network densities, public and private spaces, informal and formal networks). not all your pages have page numbers. page 53 needs a legend. not sure if the title morphological studies is correct for pages 62. make sure you use the correct terminology in your urban design discourse. pages 64-69 need to be linked to the larger area in form of a map and generally clarified. they look nice, but the graphics are at times difficult to read. your titles like open gates are evocative but you have a) to explain what they mean and b) render them operational on an urban scale. that is the link between image and strategy. i don’t understand the red lines on page 69. make sure your presentation is clear, organized and the udf goes beyond pure graphics.

kruger

is centred text the best format for 2 columns? a dedicated document. the graphics are difficult to read at times, page 32 is clearer than page 33. it appears more as an effect than academic content, specifically as you use it on page 35 for exact that reason? it is nice that you included hand sketches. the structure of the document is not always clear as udf. you create images of the future, like on page 56/7 but in the immediate context there is not explanation how we will get there. the information might be somewhere in the document, but it needs to be somehow linked to the image to answer the question: how to get there. make sure your presentation in the oral exam is well structured.  

vollmer

an organized document, but the information displayed seems not always related to the project, like on page 17. your urban design framework needs to link to your site in the form of siting for example the bus depot on page 37. you write about it, but the bus depots have no icon and the sentence ends unfinished. the roof extensions appear out of the blue, which doesn’t mean they are wrong. a bicycle lane comes from somewhere and goes somewhere, you need a larger map to indicate that network. the drawings on page 42 do not tell much? is page 46 the ground floor of your tower? if so, thanks for including it, not many others did that. the document misses the link between the image and the strategy/ implementation, which is a main part of an urban design framework. 

wilson

a concise and commendable document. in the future, add captions to photographs and titles to maps, including scale and north (for example page 24-26). the land use map on page 28/9 is difficult to read and possibly to simplified (but beautiful). the images on page 43/4 are fuzzy and you need to author them. the framework is not so easy to access, hopefully you will be able to explain in the oral. careful with the use of the word morphology on page 72, the related drawings are not typically morphological. page 75 add street names. link your tower design to the udf.

schuyt van castricum

a document that shows intensive and consistent work. one of the few which introduces a strategy and uses the structure of urban frameworks. that said, changes in the transport network need to be shown on a larger scale than in the area shown on page 38. the child friendliness doesn’t really come out through the graphics. maybe you have added that in the visualisation of your tower project?  zoom into some points and show us moments of urban life in that ‘new’ johannesburg. as everyone,spell check and link specifically to tower project.

nicolatos

abstract: not sure what the visuals on this page illustrate. check spelling. not sure i can follow your arguments on page 1-3. page 4 illustrates what? you certainly try to cover the layers required in an udf but it is not very clear, why we are looking at them. page 12: legend difficult to read in relation to maps. page 13: perceptional threshold sounds very interesting, but not sure how it operates. page 17: what is a ‘lower class business area’? page 24: some interesting principles, how do you implement them and where? page 26: street name? page 27: what does the red arrow represent and how does the spine work in plan? and then it ends. this is disappointing and concerning. your initial ideas are fine, but you don’t elaborate on them within the context of an urban design framework. what happened to the social businesses? at this point, the work is unfortunately insufficient. i hope to see more in the oral exam. link the udf to the tower design.

falconer

a comprehensive document, however, the maps are at times difficult to read (page 14 vehicular distribution as example) pages 22-29 display an interesting comparison/ overview of different sub/urban areas. the elevated highway along your site clearly seems important to you and the case studies relate well. your urban intervention seems clearly framed and well illustrated. page 46 and 47 are a very good attempt in influencing the urban through the architectural realm. however, in the future, one would wish to see more of the structure of an urban design framework. link it to the tower project.  

provisional marks udf

important to remember now

you HAVE to integrate your tower design into the urban framework. 

while marking i started to write individual comments which takes a bit of time. in addition to the previous check list and the individual remarks to come, please concentrate on this. 

remember the first three paragraphs of the dissertation handout and edit your information accordingly:

term 3 + 4_dissertation: urban design guidelines

term 3 + 4 ask for the development of an urban design framework that integrates your design of a mixed-use alternative energy tower within the larger context of its site along the eastern edge of johannesburg central, between fox and durban street (n-s) and the elevated city highway m31(e-w), which turns into sivewright ave and siemert road before merging into joe slovo drive.

your dissertation needs to show your objectives for the overall area in which the building is located. by large the objective is to create sustainable environments that enable individual creativity to thrive and contribute to community development, identity, cohesion and efficiency. this will be done through alteration of the physical environment. based on your design approach and its locality the following three levels should be revealed in your project:

i. metropolitan scale (city)

explains the location of your site in the city-wide context and makes the connection of the contribution of your design to the creation of a sustainable city.

ii. local scale (neighbourhood)

explains the location of your site within an identifiable functional area. it shows the hierarchy of routes and distribution of public infrastructure. furthermore, it addresses the broader issues of access, circulation and open space networks.

iii. precinct area (block, street and building)

explains the immediate locational area of the chosen site with distinct characteristics which will guide the proposed design. it shows the nature of the proposed infill intervention within its immediate surroundings i.e. relationships at street level.

marks

pud4_urban tower design framework_provisional evaluation of hand in 4(final)

to be posted this pm. marks are broken down in various components, that should give an indication what to work on (if need be). 

content/40		techniques/40		presentation/20
idea, relevance/ 20	scales,layers, understanding/ 20	research,method process/20	design, method, process/20	clarity, language, completeness/ 20

still working on them, post soonest. 13.11. 6.21h

general comments re: urban oral exam

next to the individual content, which we discussed extensively in class throughout the semester, some comments for all submissions:

1
each graphic needs a legend or a key. if you use colors - what do they mean, if you use symbols, what do they represent? remember, a map without a legend is meaningless.
2
each plan, section, elevation need a scale, plans need north orientation
3
link plans to sections and elevation (indicate where the cutting lines are, name sections and elevations accordingly)
4
caption photographs and give diagrams a title, graphics have a meaning and are part of your narrative, not simply illustrations
5
make sure your maps display what you want to show (edges, densities, movement etc), use color if needed
6
make sure you use the right title for your graphics, google the meaning if you are uncertain ( example: 
urban morphology 'is the study of the form of human settlements and the process of their formation and transformation...Typically, analysis of physical form focuses on streetpattern, lot (or, in the UK, plot) pattern and building pattern, sometimes referred to collectively as urban grain' (wikipedia) 
figure ground refers to the relationship between an object and its surrounding, the object in the urban context being the building)
we went through those definitions, surly you'll remember.
7
your project is part of an existing context, make sure it is clearly readable what your intervention is, what you change (before - after illustrations help)
8
check spelling

urban design cd handin_2012

there are outstanding cd's

of the framework that still

haven't been

handedin

note that this is part of the

submission requirement

cd's to be handed in in

my pigeonhole

by thursday 1 nov

final handin 4 of udf

is on monday 22 october at 10.30

page 2 of handout 08 -- 23.7.12 states:

hand in 4                complete document udf                                     22 october

- final document and final drawings

the final document has to be handed in as

-        a hard copy, a4 landscape, bound

-        a digital copy as pdf, preferably on dvd as a class submission

the digital submission has caused problems in the past, perhaps it might be easier to individually burn a disc and submit with hard copy.

the projects that have received red + orange lights have to pull extra hard to get them to an acceptable academic standard.  i implore you to go through handout 08 and critically scrutinise your project and ask if it meets the project outcomes + criteria.  some of the projects i saw on thursday still need several layers to stitch the project together to form a coherent narrative, and some remain a cause for concern.  ask yourself if your project clearly articulates the 3 scales: 

1. city, 
2. neighbourhood and 
3. precinct area, does it tell a singular story that is easily understood + does the project employ an appropriate urban design discourse?

i will not accept work that is handed in after 11.13 am, when i leave the fada building.

goodluck

pergolas of av. icària

some people have said

 that they cannot

find the pinos example.

here it is . . .

Barcelona ES - Enric Miralles, Carme Pinos - Pergolas of Av. Icària

http://www.google.co.za/search?q=Barcelona+ES+-+Enric+Miralles,+Carme+Pinos+-+Pergolas+of+Av.+Ic%C3%A0ria&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=FbR7UNvIBMKwhAfoqYC4Dg&biw=1126&bih=673&sei=ILR7UO-MG8fBhAfjt4GADw

FRAMEWORK FOR NON-MOTORISED TRANSPORT

http://www.joburg-archive.co.za/2009/pdfs/transport/nmt_framework09.pdf

for thursday:

• a vision which explains your urban design framework
• plans, sections, elevations + volumetric studies
• an all encompassing principle explaining your scheme

use the drawings you have generated + others which will articulate

the project fully.

scenario livable city

http://www.boomandleisure.com/civic/plan12-architektur-biennale-koln

http://www.plan-project.com/

(for english information please scroll down)

photo: bohn & viljoen architects,  urban community gardens in cuba

inter-sections on fox

 The opening of Inter-sections on Fox

 [ dirk bahmann + jason frenkel ]

at the GoetheonMain  on 4 October2012  18h30

The exhibition runs till the 28^th October 2012

Inter-sections on fox is an exhibition that explores and documents the diverse worlds that converge on the streets of the Maboneng District.  Fox street hosts a multiplicity of users who occupy the public space of the street in a way unlike anywhere else in Jo’burg.  The rules of engagement here are ambivalent and there is therefore a constant re-negotiation of how people interact with each other.  This exhibition traces the movements of the various users from Fox street to their destinations throughout Jo’burg. It examines the emerging culture of urbanity and the intersection of worlds that is a unique phenomenon in the still highly fragmented city of Johannesburg. 

Gallery opening hours

Tuesday and Wednesday: 10:00 – 16:00

Thursday: 11:00 – 20:00

Friday and Saturday: 10:00 – 16:00

Sunday: 10:00 – 14:00

Monday: closed

GoetheonMain

245, Main St

City & Suburban

Maboneng Precinct

Johannesburg

GPS coordinates: 26°12'15.43”S & 28° 3'28.79”E

Website: http://www.goethe.de/ins/za/joh/kue/gom/en9799670v.htm

backstage architecture_download your own book

a great publication to have and the download is free
 (+ sa is represented for the first time, check out practice + critics)

http://www.backstage-architecture.org/2012/book

How does it work

Backstage Architecture produces a biannual survey of young architects around the world, aged 35 or under, thus releasing it as a book.

The system it relies on is very simple: the curators asked as many architecture critics as could be reached to select one young office from their country. The aim is to undercover the upcoming generation currently working behind the scenes of the saturated architectural star-system show.

The book's curators are extremely thankful to all those critics and architects who voluntarily and enthusiastically contributed to make it possibile. Not to be understimated, this book is self-produced and printed and distributed as a print-on-demand book by Lulu.com, as well as being available as a free downloadable PDF file at backstage-architecture.org.

It represents a great achievement in sharing knowledge around the world and opening up architectural debate to any interested party.

Bernardina Borra

DEMOarchitects

Lange Leidsedwaarstraat 176-Bel, 

1017NP  Amsterdam NL

s.l.u.m. lab, sustainable living urban model, edition 7, spring 2012

framework comments_II

general:

out of a handful who are confronting the issue headon

the projects tend to suffer from -

• inadequate sourcing + referencing
• too many spelling mistakes
• inappropriate scales
• + a lackadaisical approach

makgalemela – industrial agriculture

curious table of contents.  are these for the framework or for what is handed in at this stage?  what i am looking for is the structure of the project to be handed in for the end of the semester.  in 2. research and investigation, what is the point of mapping 2.2  ethnic groups?  make sure this contribute to the overall framework.  contents state introduction is on page 2, what then is page 1?  in the intro you mention the 2 strips being north-south + east-west.  where are these in the greater context of your project?  before one gets into dissecting demographics etc., it is crucial to root one’s project.  that’s why i stress the following order for clarity: title, contents, project intro, context, history . . .  the locality map on page 10 needs to come sooner for the reader to understand where all this happening and where the strips are.  project is very confusing till page 13.  design objectives on page 14 do not assist in articulating the project.  what are the design objectives?  these should be crystal clear since there are the brief for your project.  once these are articulated, then the project should be about how to make this happen, spatially.  concept plan on page 20 is interesting and begins to say something.  this statement should be in a larger contextual map of downtown.  having reread the project, i struggle to comprehend.  it appears overly complex.  we need to sit and unpack it.  30%

parsotam narayan – creative energy tower [?]

project has no contents page no page numbers.  abstract intro is confusing.  be succinct.  chapter 2 cannot simply consist of someone else’s words.  in chapter 3: site evaluation, why are we transported to newtown?  why the education mapping?  the document is saturated with spelling mistakes, making the content inaccessible.  overall, the project left me perplexed as to, what is it?  what is its nature?  see me asap.  13%

hartmann – water tower

intriguing contents page.  appears well structured at this stage but is missing a conclusion.  abstract begins with a quote – whose quote?  project requires a consistent running font size.  page 6 needs a textual explanation, so does page 9.  the following page sets up the argument in an interesting way, but make sure you compare the 2 cities adequately.  demonstrate johannesburg as you have demonstrated manhattan.  is the comparison joburg and manhattan or joburg and nyc?  explain p13.  what is a typical african typology of a courtyard?  africa is the largest continent; does it really consist of a single-all-unifying-courtyard typology?  project gets a little cryptic, even though the facts are refreshing, from p15 – p23.  this is the main argument of your project and it should be crystal clear.  you have a plethora of information, which at this stage, is difficult to access.  rethink it and frame it so that it is easier to access, then state where to from here.  project contains interesting and worthwhile material which is relevant in today’s world, but is the project simply about harvesting storm water from ground and below ground level?  action plan needs better articulation to fully grasp the project.  contents page premise and body project are not in synch, hence the questions and confusion.  dovetail them and you will have a rich project – all the necessary main ingredients are there, all that is left is for their exploitation.  much more interrogatory work plus focus still needs to be done and there is not enough time to be all over the place.  correct sourcing needs to be followed.  43%

fick – creating an integration and heterogeneous public realm for the users of the alternative energy tower.

good table of contents which would be enhanced with a local [south african] case study.  the project brief is to design an udf [context] which absorbs a multi-storey structure, not the other way as you state in the introduction.  a subtle but major difference as how then you unpack the city – starting from a large site to a portion of a cityblock. the second paragraph in grey architecture is thus apt for the genesis of the project.  the fourth paragraph has undertones of a prejudicial nature.  the grey theme is passable, the extremes border on something else.  something more harmful to the evolution of the contemporary city.  that been said, the whole city and suburban premise | theme is beginning to get lost on me.  remember that this is an urban design framework; the site of the energy tower is immaterial to the project. so the opening line on p9 confuses.  graphic on p17 is difficult to access.  what do the red and blue circles convey?  how do the network day | night densities come about?  is a single dot equivalent to a singly person, ten, hundred, thousand?  movement system analysis is too local.  the larger metropolitan area influences this area, not the other way round as the project suggests.  overall, an interesting project with an interesting theme, especially the mark rothko bit.  wish this were more elucidated.  the base map kind of starts to make sense in the design development chapter, as far an acceptable and representative footprint.  the earlier basemaps simply are not sufficient.  acceptable urban design principles, but how do these reinforce the grey theme?  implementation strategy needs 1 map which then layers all inorder for one to see the project in its totality.  basemaps are too local – they need to encompass more and illustrate the project within a significant portion of the city, not just a couple of streets as on p41.  you need to push this for it to be a believable project with oomph.  55%

kruger – transformation of urban energy

excellent table of contents + well structured for an ensuing narrative.  the project might benefit from 6 moving to after 10 and before 11 for continuity.  abstract sets up an interesting point of departure, is it possible to use a less pixelated image, one perhaps not photographed from a moving car?  the project will be successful if it can address, appropriately, the issues raised under the heading main problems  in problem statement p6 and respond to the objectives.  check m2 directions.  doesn’t the m2 run eastwest and m1 northsouth?  site is also connected to the m31 + r24.  graphic on p8 would benefit from naming some routes already mentioned plus others like the n3, n1, r59 etc.  street names on p11, 12 + 13.  it would enhance your narrative if you extended figure 49 on p32 on either side to fill up the page.  this may be done as a line drawing to show more of the building edge [so point 4 hits home] + the area beneath the elevated freeway to fully express point 6.  overall a very well structured document with a clear and concise narrative.  the only thing that is difficult to understand are the maps on p42.  the transport maps on p 48 + 49 feel out of place and not in synch with the rest of the document.  77%

felix – urban wreckcreation

interesting + curious title.  what does it mean?  plus what has it got to do with your project?  crisp contents.  do not forget conclusion + references.  1^st paragraph on the introduction also hints at the chicken/egg scenario of the project.  but to move on, why on your basemap is the carlton centre shown as an open space?  ghandi sq is incorrectly placed on p4.  mandela bridge should be demonstrated on the map like the other landmarks.  rissik street off ramp is incorrectly positioned.  be consistent when annotating the heading pages.  what is the map on page 6 about?  if it is about taxis + their movement, then you have to show and name all the taxi ranks, like metro mall.  this applies to p7 and park station + other stations, and p8 with the brt stations.  what should be or is the alternative to p9?  project is somewhat confusing.  now you have asked the question re: unsustainable movement systems, what then is your solution?  and how will this be manifested onto your site in joburg?  this is what the project is ultimately about.  the sooner you tackle this, the sooner we can engage with your project.  at the moment it is thin, yet asks a pertinent question.  you state that the aim is to create a green complete street that incorporate public transport network system that take the pedestrian as a primary consideration, yet this remains unseen.  40%

wilson – mobius; transformation in the city

fantastic cover page and an equally poignant quote.  well structured contents, just remember that in the final document you will have to conclude.  make sure you spell correctly.  note spelling of gandhi square in precedents.  strong commencement page, slightly marred by the last sentence of the second to last paragraph.   perhaps something along these lines, my design uses these systematic acts to generate an inclusive open city network which will then form the principles employed to develop a mixed-use alternative . . . will assist is structuring your argument.  remember this is ultimately about a framework.  the architecture is generated from the principles sourced from the framework, not vice versa.  physical content could be enhanced with an image depicting the greater johannesburg area, especially after all the accolades mentioned on p5.  unmarked p13 needs structuring.  transit maps on the lefthand column are too small and not very communicative.  the 2^nd, 3^rd + 4^th info should be collapsed onto a single map with your site demonstrated so that it is clear what is where and how it interact or fails to interact with your site.  overall a well structured and well presented document.  proper sourcing is needed + spellcheck.  the only major problem encountered is the basemap of the urban mapping.  this is not sufficient.  the scale is too small.  the basemap used for urban mapping should be the map used for detail precinct design, which you have started to do in the latter part of the document.  document suffers from appropriate metropolitan + local scales.  this needs to be addressed urgently to get a complete performing and well executed project.  all photographs to be properly referenced.  74%

rodrigues – urban respirator

well articulated abstract.  sets up the project’s brief very nicely + effectively.  00:49 reads city and suburbia, the area is city & suburban.  before the film gets to 0:29, kwa mai mai market and taxi rank slide, there needs to been a lot more info regarding the project.  proper into, history layer and the whole respiratory explanation thing re: the framework and the site in more detail.  the jump in scale from inner city to  kmmm + tr is too sudden.  movement systems need to be on an inner city scale, pedestrian density can remain at that scale.  are there no pedestrian on city & suburban weg – is there a barrier on jules street?  01:46 check spelling of pedestrian.  street sections 01:57 are too narrow.  they should be the entire eastwest + northsouth of the basemap.  on the urban fabric, 02:17, use something on the images to pint the various things you highlight like narrow sidewalk etc.  the business opportunity, 03:26, shift thing is beautiful.  explore this representation further.  lovely that the camera, repeatedly, gets into the interior of spaces, e.g., the panda factory and spray painting space.  why is it that the images are static?  lost opportunity.  spell check – 03:56 mai mai, 04:31 traditional.  get to the layers on energy sooner, which cannot be just about traffic.  no need to map faraday photographically.  the info on the maps of faraday, noord should all be on one map, like density and movement systems.  the interviews in faraday, noord are welcome, but rather lengthy.  this structure should be employed to your specific site, but only with structured question.  make sure you are after something, then seek out to get it.  is the respirator about taxi washing?  love the use of music.  the graphic at 21:18 is beyond everything!  this is the project!  the green belt of infrastructure.  everything you do, from the opening credits to the end, should be about reinforcing the concept of the greenbelt.  keep thinking.  overall a pleasantly mild project, still in its embryonic stage containing serious editing issues, but with the correct tlc, a mature entity of unadulterated beauty.  58%

nicolatos – social business

curious title.  an extension of the paper submitted.  very good.  contents are clear.  why do sun studies + map ethnic, social groups?  what do sun studies et al do for your framework?  in the abstract you write about connecting two areas, jeppestown in the east and some upmarket business district in the west – name it.  be specific.  framework is 1 word, not 2.  confused by the opening sentence of 2. intro.  what do you mean?  3. massing mentions apartheid and segregation laws, but then incorrectly states that the “less wealthy” races were forced to move . . , this is an odd line which opens a pandora’s box, since it assumes that if you were white you were automatically wealthy and black automatically poor.  rethink this.  look at figure 9 and rephrase to better and concise reading.  landuse statement suffers a similar thing.  what do the numbers on p8 signify, and why have you just colour coded only a few building and not all?  overall the project is difficult to access.   the format obscure with the large central image and text in the top left hand corner of the page.  why not marry the two for a richer narrative?  project needs much more work.  45%

sutherland -- ?

why are the contents on the cover page?  what does part a mean?  is there are part b, c, d, e + f?  the abstract states that the area caters for lower income demographic in terms of culture + tradition, what is lower income culture + tradition?  p3 needs clarity.  actually the project needs clarity re: subject, scale + methodology.  it is difficult to access and has an obscure structure.  this needs articulation.  sooner than later.  27%

van castricum – a new approach; child friendly cities

interesting contents page and is well structured except that some of the text is difficult to read in the toolbox – not sure if this is a colour thing or a printing thing.  solve this for the project to be legible.  nowhere in the introduction does the text hint at child friendly cities?  why?  it focuses on not creating new systems, new networks and connections, but to allow for their coexistence + progression of all networks – this appears to be a tall order, but an interesting one.  just be careful that you do not bite more than you can chew.  p8 is not believable.  are there 7 vacant buildings in the area?  make some observations on p9 re: morphology or built and unbuilt cityspace.  explain on p11 the relationship the school to hillbrow + mulbarton.  what info is the reader meant to extract on p12, 13, 14 + 15?  pedestrian routes, street edge, playground and transport stops images confuse.  why after, does the area look like that?  is this what it looks like after your intervention?  then i question the merit of the project and why it goes from beauty to bland.  sections need to show more of the relationship between buildings and open space.  the road reserve cannot be at the same level as the pedestrian realm and ground floor of the buildings.  this might promote people t drive into shops and leave their cars on the public realm.  is this your concept?  project needs more clarity.  the narrative should be clear, as you have set out in your toolbox by asking the 4 question.  perhaps you need to clarify to yourself the 4 questions.  what do you mean by who, why, what + how?  answer them in full and then do just that.  44%

ferro – urban agriculture

contents should always be on 1 page unless its for an encyclopaedia containing 100 000 pages with even more headings.  try not to repeat images.  abstract and intro set a believable premise with a very minimalistic and thin history layer.  you cannot have continuous written text when presenting on an a3 landscape sheet.  i have said this numerous times.  you have to break it up into a minimum of 2 columns.  urban mapping is inaccurate.  i do not comprehend the project and this is disconcerting at this stage.  something needs to happen very quickly.  13%

framework comments

will post the rest soon.  but to begin the discussion we start with these . . .

letsoisa – ecological urbanism

abstract page should follow contents page.  structure of contents page is understandable.  even at this stage, pages need to be numbered, following a discernable narrative.  abstract page sets up in intriguing argument, which you now have to follow to completion for a rich project.  the link should be the link between builtform [structure], greenery [landscape] and people [actors].  keep trying to make the structure more succinct so that you may then do – a, b + c.  why are pages printed upside down?  is this a concept?  if it is, it fails to work.

historical analysis is thin.  joburg has a rich and complex history, which cannot be explained in a paragraph of 200 words.  images, drawings, maps et al would enhance the explanation of joburg’s development.  as much as i don’t support wikipedia, have a look-see of their structure in describing joburg, if you are stuck as how to proceed.  timelines are a good way to say something.

context is also thin.  joburg has infrastructure.  roads, freeways, waterbodies etc.  you need to say much more before you get to the landuse map, which should be a larger scale, as in showing more of joburg’s landuse and not just a pretty graphic.  where is this in context?  what do you mean, status quo?

vehicular movement cannot be just local as depicted in the project.  the city is more than just the demonstrated 10 routes exhibited.

the manner in which the document is printed makes it difficult to access. 

it is though an interesting beginning, which, with the appropriate interrogation would result in a fantastic study.  you should have been at this stage 2 weeks after project handout.  i fear you might be leaving things a little too late.  30%

almeida – sustainable energy tower [?]

contents should be:

1.     intro

2.     history

3.     analysis

4.     research + case studies

5.     concept

6.     udf

7.     conclusion

8.     refs

have a look at by ikemeleng + 26’10 for direction + orientation.

figure 1.  location map is too local.  we need to know your site in relation to the greater gauteng area before you zoom in onto the site.  figure 3.  under highway.  what highway?  be specific when describing the city + urban space.  the meandering nature of the project makes it difficult to access and decipher.  spend some time restructuring it for a finer and deeper narrative.  make the case studies, douglas village, brickfields + cosmo much more stronger and integrated into your project.  use these to justify what you are doing and how you will do it.  not quite sure what we are learning from braamfontein except how the rich play and consume the city from plushysafe heights.  hammer home joburgs historical development, especially the lack of water, gold reserves and segregation, to justify and enhance the need for citywide connections + networks.  use the metropolitan scale map on page 15 as a base map for all your concepts + explorations with appropriate key.  the basemap, figure 17.  axis map for  more detailed illustrations, as a local | precinct scale context.  sections on page 22 need to be longer, showing more context and relationship of built + open space.  overall a finely tuned, well drawn and beautiful project, which with the proper structure can be a much required and educational cityscheme.  bring more of dewar & uytenbogaadrt concepts and illustrations.  50%

fernandes – urban frame work: johannesburg inner city

confusing title.  are you really going to produce a framework for the inner city?  your objectives are honourable and are a city requirement, the question is, will you be able to do this?  i think you can if you focus and use your time wisely.  contents need a history layer.  after reading and reading the document, i am still not sure or clear where it is going.  the observations i have are these:  objectives should be illustrated [as in the observation graphic, on page 5] since they are the components, which inform and direct the framework and they are strong.  through their illustration, only then will you be able to tell what is, and what is not, possible.  locality map on page 7 is thin.  the yellow circles are too prominent.  these can be expressed in a milder manner and other data should be displayed.  what is the point of mapping ethnic groups?  what is the map on page 9?  why are you illustrating massing on page 10?  what will this ultimately inform?  from what one reads, the project has an interesting genesis, asks the correct questions then abruptly terminates on page 5.  you need to structure this so that it has a coherent narrative because for now it ambles along.  i see more of newtown than of your site.  at this stage of the journey, this is disconcerting.  33%

badabili – urban informality [using the unused]

like the play on words of the title.  like saying the unsayable.  contents page has to be accompanied with page numbers or else it uninformative.  what is the purpose of point 5 in the contents page?  what role does it have in the greater scheme of things?  diagram illustrating the character of the area is too cryptic.  in your abstract, you mention the corner of fox + durban street numerously.  clearly this is a crucial corner and is pertinent to your project.  why, then is it not photographed extensively to illustrate the issues, like boundaries, publicness + informality, you raise?  esoteric photographs need captions and sources to assist in their communication.  objectives on page 2 are too complex:

§  to provide a status quo with regards to the proposed study area and surrounding areas of influence – if you can do this, then you are a genius who deserves a nobel peace prize + other human accolades.  just this one objective, would be enough as a way forward.

§  to provide a basis for future recommendations regarding mobility, infrastructure development, social etc. – is too complex an undertaking.  identify to simplify your objectives then do them.  this all the project requires you to accomplish.  identify 3 key issues then wrestle with these employing intellect, an academic discourse and appropriate graphics to make your argument then demonstrate your ability to unpack the argument and offer fitting and relevant solutions.

site interpretation and analysis_metropolitan scale, local scale, precinct area is incomprehensible.  what is the relevance of sithole’s journey?  what does the concept_collage mean?  you need to simply your project, make the narrative accessible to, firstly, yourself then to the reader.  you will need to use appropriate text + graphics to convey your thought as succinctly as possible.  the danger here, is that you may have left it too late.  you need to push to make this project come to fruition and to reach an acceptable submission.  20%

lundie – cultural fusion

clear + crisp structure.  remember, when all is said and done, you have to conclude.  excellent history page.  how about some images to supplement the text to make the text richer, like an image of chief moselekatsi, doornfontein farm or what newtown looked like back then.  beautiful graphics which are communicative.  on 2.1, name the airports and locate the rand airport as well.  be consistent with the spelling of medicine in zulu, it should either be muthi or muti, not both.  missing a scale between 2.2 and 2.3.  the jump presently, is too radical and disturbing.  find something comfortable, to illustrate your findings from 2.3 [page 12] onwards.  2.3 small scale mapping,, demographics, what does it add to your document?  building edges + height is where it at, but sections would have enhanced your findings and the beginnings of a spatial plan.  the photographic documentation is most welcome.  supplement it with your observations in a text format for a richer narrative.

3.1 nodes and connections, traveling possibilities . . . you state ‘through analysing movement patterns, public transport nodes as well as places of interest a new precinct is identified that should . . .’  ‘the idea is not to give this precinct a very harsh cut of boundaries but rather to establish an area . . .’  then you draw a precinct with a hard impenetrable black line.  why?  you mention public transport and movement, then your precinct boundary omits park station, mtn taxi rank and gandhi sq.  i find that perplexing.  overall a comprehensive and well research projects, with minor glitches here and there.  there is still time to fix these and really get into the framework for a strong submission.  70%

vollmer – intersection of durban street & berea street

table of contents is rather long and too much of it is on newtown + jeppestown.  that being said, 3 and 4 should contain the same heading, which will then be applied in maboneng, otherwise one compares apples and oranges.  why do you map pedestrian routes, landuse and zoning?  these will be different for different parts of the city.  what about the walking distances?  walking distances from what?  are these linked to public transport?  if so, what does this information translate to the maboneng precinct?  as much as the work done in the 2 precincts is commendable, the correlation to the study area is not clear and this is concerning since this should be the project.  what is the nature of your project and what are you doing to fulfil this?  this, ultimately, is the question.  presently the project remains vague and the sooner it is articulated the sooner one can engage with it in a critical manner.  we should meet soon.  25%

falconer – urban to detail

kudos for the preface and an engaging cover plus title.  intriguing table of contents.  the only concern is that the project appears well framed from 1 – 3.13.  what happens between 4 and 9?  is it a similar structure with subpoints?  you oscillate between city and suburb and city and suburban.  why?  city and suburb is clearer.  pick one and be consistent. metropolitan contextual maps are fine, just make sure the educational facilities are well covered – use the material you unpacked last semester at your intersection.  parktown boys, roseneath, rand girls, helpmekaar, etc.?  2.22 observations can be amplified with more images demonstrating traffic + pedestrian congestion issues and others.  project gets positive dose + injection of substance from 3.2 – 3.7.  well done.  substitute precedence with precedent.  overall, this has the genesis and the making of a brilliant document.  one hopes and prays that the initial energy isn’t lost to otherness or unfathomable added distractions.  73%

coter – linking people and places

excellent intro quote by ms jacobs.  strong contents, but where is the framework?  am i missing something?  is it under operation?  in line with your contents, it should be demonstrated after precedent.  speaking of, 4. precedent –  source and locate some local examples, we cannot always look over there to shape what is here.  the abstract addresses 2 different key issues:

1.     uncovering a hidden city by minimising segregation

2.     bringing 2 worlds together in a common space in order to reveal their hidden qualities

these may appear similar but are not.  get a clear and concise depiction of what you intend to do and then do it.  articulate this to yourself till you begin to fully grasp it and then make this your concept.  from then on, everything you do – transport, landmarks, suburbs, gateways and landuse – must relate to it.  the principles component of the document isn’t clear.

phase 2,on the vision graphic, is between maboneng and?  is it rissik, harrison or sauer?  if phase to is to link to newtown, then why terminate here?  this is also the case for small street, why does it terminate between pritchard and president?  project gets more confusing after the phase development perspective – whats with the sections?  what do they communicate?  why the larger font?  try to be clear to get an interesting project to move forward without too many unexplained questions.  50%