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 3rd 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.
