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. 1st 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 2nd, 3rd + 4th
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%
