Due:
Schematic Design: Sunday, March 1, 9pm (5%)
Design Development: Sunday, April 5, 9pm (5%)
Length: 1000 – 1500 words, uploaded as a new blog post.
To better understand the nature of giving critiques, you will be providing peer reviews to your classmates’ design work. The aim of these activities are to:
- internalize evaluation criteria for your own work by using it to evaluate another’s work
- begin to develop your own critical (and constructive!) voice when writing about architecture that has not yet received critical attention.
For design peer reviews, you will attend the design review of one of your classmates, and your writing should consider the following:
Critique according to evaluation metrics:
Based on the criteria provided in the Studio Rubric NAAB 2014 (which is, in turn, based on NAAB criteria) comment on the success of your classmate’s project in meeting these evaluation metrics.
Also provide evaluation metrics that you believe should be included, and evaluate your classmate’s project on that as well.
Provide constructive suggestions for how your classmate can improve his or her project based on the evaluation criteria. Be as specific as possible in your suggestions (e.g., “try moving the parking lot to the other side of the bridge” rather than “think more about parking”).
Note that I am not asking for a comprehensive list of how the student met each criteria. Rather, I would like you to craft a critical text that includes the categories of evaluation where the student most succeeds, as well as the categories where they most need to improve. This thinking should be clearly synthesized in your writing. You may create a table to clarify your categories if it clarifies your message and/or thinking.
Critique of the critique:
Include a separate section that examines the reviewers’ comments regarding the student’s project. Use the Orders of Worth matrix as a guideline to identify which order the reviewers brought to bear on the project.
photo by John & Mel Kots