pud4: September 2012

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%

pud4

29.9.12

scenario livable city

inter-sections on fox

27.9.12

backstage architecture_download your own book

How does it work

11.9.12

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

6.9.12

framework comments_II