URSP3200 URBAN DESIGN STUDIO

URBAN STUDIES PROGRAMME

Jointly organized by The Department of Geography and Resource Management & the School of Architecture, Faculty of Social Science, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

2020/2021 Term 2 | URSP3200 | Course Outline | Page 1

2020/2021 | Term 2

URSP3200 URBAN DESIGN STUDIO WEDNESDAY, 2:30AM - 5:30PM @ CKB 510

(Source: KH Mo)

Instructor Prof. MO Kar Him, Assistant Professor, School of Architecture AITB 301 | 3943-6193 / 9830-1614 | [email protected]

Teaching Assistant YEUNG Ha Chi (PGS) [email protected]

Studio Collaborator Hong Kong Arts Centre

INTRODUCTION The Urban Design Studio is an introductory-level design studio, in which students learn fundamental urban design concepts and skills for designing the built environment. Students will explore a study site to learn how to strategically organize major urban design elements—buildings, open spaces, streets, transport, and other infrastructure, taking into account a plethora of associated socioeconomic and environmental factors. Each student will propose an urban design scheme to respond to the following challenges:

▪ What is the vision for the site?

▪ How can the built environment be retrofitted to facilitate that vision?

▪ What would the built environment look like?

▪ How should your plan/design respond to the existing urban fabric and local history?

▪ How would your proposed design evolve over time and what might be its long-term impact?

These are the guiding questions throughout the semester as students engage in precedent studies, site survey and analysis, desktop research, mapping, programming, hand drawing, model making, conceptualization, visualization, oral presentation, etc.

STUDIO FORMAT While the intensity of this Urban Design Studio, which is only 3 hrs/week, is not comparable to a studio offered in any design school, which is often 8-10 hrs/week, students are expected to observe the demand (time and effort) and deliverables required by this Studio. A studio course is fundamentally different from a lecture-based course. Instead of passive learning, it requires students to take initiatives to cultivate and define (or defense/explain) their own projects and to be proactive to engage actively in class and work diligently outside class. Each student interacts and works closely with the studio instructor through desk crits, pin-ups, and formal reviews. Students are urged to take advantage of the provision of URSP Studio Space by working in the studio with other studio-mates and learn from each other.

mailto:[email protected]




URBAN DESIGN OBJECTIVES The study site is North Point (NP). Located in the eastern part of Hong Kong Island, the area has been inhabited before the arrival of the British in the mid-19th century and undergone a series of transformations. Since the opening of the Hong Kong Tramways in the 1900s, NP has become a site for the establishment of public utilities (e.g. the North Point Power Plant) and manufacturing business (e.g. sugar factory, oil company) due to its accessibility to the coastline. During 1940s to 1950s, the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War drastically transformed the socio-spatial setting due to the immense accommodation needs as a result of the influx of refugees from Shanghai, which gave NP the name “Little Shanghai”. The demographic of NP’s population was not a static one. Since 1950s, the district had slowly evolved from “Little Shanghai” to “Little Fujian” as a result of the settlement of the Fujian community, which gives rise to many of the local characteristics of North Point District subsequently. The first public housing estate – North Point Village was completed in 1957 and it was subsequently demolished in 2002. This marked the beginning of the process of urban renewal and the urban fabric has been gradually replaced by up-scale private property developments. In view of the recent announcement of the proposal of boardwalk system underneath Island Eastern Corridor connecting North Point and Quarry Bay, the regeneration process is expected to be further accelerated in the near future and inevitably change the face of North Point. Given this backdrop, the Studio explores how the study area can be transformed in socially and environmentally responsible—more sustainable—ways to address the existing / future challenges. Four themes will be explored:

i) Healthy Cities ii) Inclusion and Exclusion iii) Cultural Landscape and History iv) Urban Informality EXPECTED LEARNING OUTCOMES 1. To develop fundamental design skills in formulating an urban design scheme that incorporates major physical elements of the

city, i.e. buildings, open spaces, streets, transport, and infrastructure, to meet the economic/ social/environmental needs of the community under the framework of SDGs (particularly SDG 11).

2. To identify issues/problems/opportunities of the study site and resolve into creative urban design proposals. 3. To apply verbal and visual communication skills for effective representation of urban design concepts / solutions. 4. To demonstrate critical thinking in urban design, urban management, and community building. STUDIO ACTIVITIES All studio activities are conducted in group format. Formed by three to four students, each group will choose one theme from above for your research and design exploration. The theme will be explored through specific urban issues in NP, or one or few specific site(s), or an area of interest / a network of spaces.

PHASE 1 – RESEARCH /

SITE MODEL___

Objective This model serves as a base for discussion throughout the entire semester. It should consist of the following urban elements, such as buildings, streets, back-alleys, open spaces and greenery. Through the process of making, each group should study and explore the spatial relationship between streets, buildings and other urban design elements.

Deliverable(s) + Class Site Model 1:1000 Massing model in uniform color (or to be substituted by a high-resolution satellite photo mounted on foam or previous class model) + Group Site Model(s) TBC Scale/materials/approach according to the group’s research/design interest

URBAN ANALYSIS & THEMATIC STUDIES _

Objective A comprehensive site analysis is critical for the formulation of an urban design scheme. It involves two components: i) urban analysis (class); and ii) thematic studies (according to the group’s choice of the theme). Site visit is compulsory. Subject to the choice of the theme, each group is required to develop their own conceptual framework and design their methodology to unfold the urban complexity. Creative methods (e.g. mapping of the daily routine of a specific individual, tracing a found-object), multi-media representation (e.g. video, collage, drawing), and other engagement techniques (e.g. interview, mental mapping) are encouraged.




Apart from the aforesaid, a set of urban analysis should be conducted by the entire class to outline an overview of the urban formation of North Point. The set of mapping should include but not limited to the followings: + Site map (e.g. satellite photo) + Historical development of key urban components (e.g. infrastructure, urban form, reclamation) + Figure and ground + Building age + Building height (actual) and height limit (outline zoning plan) + Function and usage - actual usage on street level and land use stipulated in OZP + Open and green spaces (i.e. designated and informal public space, privatized open spaces, various scale urban parks) + Road and streets (i.e. number of lanes should be represented by different thickness and color intensity of lines, with arrows

suggesting the direction) + Transport system (i.e. MTR, Tram, Bus, Minibus) + Pedestrian walkway (i.e. pedestrian paths, crossroad, traffic lights)

Deliverable(s)

+ Class Task: Urban Analysis Format: A3 report (PDF)

+ Group Task: Thematic Studies Format: A3 report, 20 pages (PDF) + References for thematic studies Whyte, W.H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. The Conservation Foundation, Washington DC. Atelier Bow-wow (2001). Pet architecture guide book. Memo magazine, Tokyo. Frampton, A., Wong, C., & Solomon, J. (2012). Cities without ground: A Hong Kong guidebook. ORO, Rafael, Calif. Lynch, K. (1964). The image of the city. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge.

Urban Wisdom Advancing with China (城城城国)

CASE STUDY __

Objective An important part of design education is to study precedent cases. It helps to understand the decision-making and other factors considered in arriving to a design solution / proposal. Students are encouraged to reflect on the following questions and beyond: + How the design scheme is derived? + What considerations had been made in the process? + Why certain designs were developed? + Who were the key stakeholders involved?

Case Selection Each group should propose their own case(s) for this exercise. The precedent study could be in the form of comparative analysis on a few cases (i.e. identifying pattern, principles, and theory) or in-depth analysis on a single case (i.e. thoroughly and meticulously). While there is no limitation on the geographical context, the group should choose the case(s) by considering the followings: + Key learnings from the thematic studies + Key observation from the urban analysis + Relevance to the urban issues identified + Relevance to the site condition (i.e. scales, geographical features, climate, urban form, etc.)

Expected Findings ▪ Basic Information Size, location, physical and social context, designer team, opening year, details of the urban

design (e.g., number of blocks, units, land uses, etc.)

▪ Project Background History, institutional mechanism, engagement process, management model, current status

▪ Problem Definition What were the challenges and issues the project team tried to tackle? What was their motivation? What was the public discourse and consensus (if there was one)?

▪ Theory and Design Concept Key idea(s) adopted by the project/design team and the theory behind

▪ Analytical Drawings and Images Contextual plan, design plans, photos, sections, perspectives, diagrams, etc. (Including your drawings unfolding your analysis/interpretation/understanding of the project)

▪ Design Critique and Key Learning Commentary on the effectiveness of the solution in tackling the issues, translation of the theory into practice, and applicability and relevance to the local context

Group Deliverable(s) + Group Task: Case Study (according to the theme chosen)




Format: A3 report, 10 pages (PDF)

PHASE 2 – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT / In this studio, design is conceived as a participatory process fostering interaction between the community, interest groups, professionals (if any) and you, as the urban designer. This task is a class exercise (group’s contribution will be assessed) that all groups should work together to develop and conduct one (1) participatory workshop with the community. The instructor will assist and facilitate the entire process. Students are encouraged to further reach out to local partners, stakeholders and community representatives.

CO-DESIGN WORKSHOP___

Objective The participatory workshop is called Co-Design Workshop. It focuses on sharing of findings, building trust with the locals, understanding needs and preferences, and identification of design characteristics / features that are important to the community. (Subject to the public health condition and university guidelines, if face-to-face engagement is prohibited, alternative forms of community engagement will be adopted, including online survey, exhibition of preliminary proposal, virtual focus group, and social media research.)

Preparation Each group will define the objective of the workshop, design complementary activities, and coordinate cross-theme/warm-up engagements with other groups. The following are some suggestions to be considered by the class: + Stakeholders and community members to be involved* + Background information and findings to be delivered* + Possible method of co-design and engagement activities* + Schedule and logistic of the workshop# + Venue (to be organized by instructor and collaborators) # + Materials and equipment required* + Documentation methods* + Role of each person△

+ Budget proposal△

Organization The workshop is anticipated to be a half-day event that is recommended to be conducted during off-office hours (e.g. weekend). A standard schedule is provided as reference below and it should be adjusted after consulting each group / liaison with respective collaborators.

i. Introduction of the Workshop - Introducing studio members and participants# - Objectives, goals, and expectations# - Consent acknowledgement# - Ice-breaking activities#

ii. Introduction to Design - Introduction of design cycle* - Sharing of findings and design challenges* - Grouping with design teams*

iii. Co-Design Exercise - Introduction of design problems* - Design thinking process* - Developing selection criteria for narrowing ideas* - Design decision and development*

iv. Design Presentation - Brief presentation of the design and Q&A* - Feedback and Wrap-up #

Remarks: (*) To be organized and discussed by students by consulting with instructor (△) To be discussed and assigned by instructor (#) To be organized by instructor with the help of the class

Documentation Appropriate documentation methods to be decided by students to capture the engagement process, findings, and co-design result. Students should consider (strongly recommended) the use of neatly crafted infographics and diagrams to illustrate the method, process, and any findings.

Deliverable(s) + Class Task: Proposal of the engagement activities in A3 report, 10 Pages (PDF)




+ Group Task: Workshop findings (documentation and analysis) in A3 report, 20 pages (PDF)

PHASE 3 – DESIGN PROCESS / In contrast to the nature of other professionals, design is an iterative and never a linear process. Student should expect a constant back-and-forth working model – dancing between scales, details, and stages.

F MID REVIEW _

Deliverable(s) i) Maximum five A1 panels in horizontal format (Print-out) and slideshow (extract from the panels, PDF), consist of the followings: + Urban analysis and thematic studies + Case studies + Workshop findings + Conceptual diagrams + Organizational diagrams (exploded axonometric) + Design impression (collage/montage) + Design process (sketches and study models) + Key design representation (master layout plan, plans, sections, elevations) + Spatial visualization (perspective) ii) Site Models – 1:1000 (Class) and 1:500 (Group) iii) Conceptual Models (1:500) – study models iv) Project Statement – 300 words with a working title

F FINAL REVIEW _

Deliverable(s) i) Maximum ten A1 panels in horizontal format (Print-out) and slideshow (extract from the panels, PDF), consist of the followings + Urban analysis and thematic studies + Case studies + Workshop findings + Conceptual diagrams + Organizational diagrams (exploded axonometric) + Design impression (collage/montage) + Design process (sketches and study models) + Key design representation (master layout plan, plans, sections, elevations) + Spatial visualization (perspective) ii) Site Models – 1:1000 (Class) and 1:500 (Group) iii) Conceptual Models (1:500) – finalized concept model and study models iv) Final Models (1:300 / 1:100) – according to the design (partial / complete) vi) Partial Model (1:50, optional and bonus to be given) – place-making / urban design / prototypes vii) Project Statement – 300 words with a working title F PORTFOLIO _

Each group is required to develop a comprehensive studio portfolio to document the development process as well as the final design proposal / outcome. The portfolio will form a design narrative by synthesizing the research findings, precedent studies, design development process, diagrams, sketches, drawings, model photos and writings. It should not be treated as a documentation or collection of materials but a curated paper-based exhibition to showcase your ideas, vision, and attempts (including failure). By critically review your own works, each group should reflect and explain why some attempts are successful, and what decision you have made to arrive to the proposal. Comments received from the reviews should be briefly recorded and addressed. To acknowledge individual contribution in the group, you should clarify each groupmate’s involvement in the form of image captions.

Deliverable(s)

+ Booklet in A3 Horizontal Format + InDesign Package (with all original files) + Report of each study in the following folder system: 01_Urban Analysis 01_Thematic Studies 01_Case Studies 02_Workshop Findings




03_Design Process




STUDIO SCHEDULE

PHASE WEEK DATE

1 - R

ESEA

RCH

1 13/01 Introduction | Urban Design Studio and Phase 1 Lecture | Participatory Urbanism (MO)

1 17/01 Field trip | North Point (Guided Tour by HKAC)

2 20/01 Tutorial

3 27/01 (16:30)

Presentation | Urban Analysis Guest Lecture | Ms. Sarah Mui (Co-founder and Design Director of OneBite) Firm Visit | OneBite

4 03/02 Tutorial

2 –

COM

MU

NIT

Y EN

GAGE

MEN

T 5 10/02 Presentation | Thematic Studies Introduction | Phase 2

6 NO CLASS | CHINESE NEW YEAR

7 24/02 Presentation | Case Study Discussion | Workshop Proposal

3 –

DESI

GN

PRO

CESS

7 28/2 CO-DESIGN WORKSHOP

8 03/03 Presentation | Workshop Findings Introduction | Phase 3

9 10/03 Tutorial

10 17/03 MID REVIEW

11 24/03 Tutorial

12 & 13 NO CLASS | READING WEEK | OPTIONAL TUTORIAL SESSION

14 14/04 Tutorial

15 21/04 Mock Presentation | Preparation for Final Review

16 26/04 FINAL REVIEW

Remark: Subject to the public health condition and university guidelines, if face-to-face activities are prohibited, learning activities stated above will be changed to mix-mode or online via Zoom and Mural.

ASSESSMENT SCHEME 25% Phase 1 – Research (Group)

▪ Depth of research ▪ Clarity of presentation

▪ Originality of the urban analysis / thematic studies / case study

15% Phase 2 – Community Engagement (Group) ▪ Effectiveness of communication (visual and verbal) ▪ Creativity and innovation of the engagement method ▪ Depth of analysis

50% Phase 3 – Design Process | 35% Group + 15% Individual (Portfolio Assessment and Peer-Assessment) ▪ Effectiveness of the solution ▪ Creativity and innovation of the design scheme / concept ▪ Comprehensiveness of the design consideration ▪ Clarity of presentation ▪ Quality of the design articulation ▪ Quality of the portfolio

10% Learning Attitude (10% Individual) and Collaboration (Group - Bonus) ▪ Participation in tutorials and reviews




▪ Synergy in groupworks

PENALTY FOR LATE SUBMISSION Students who fail to submit their assignment without justification before the submission deadline will be subject to the following penalties:

Within 24 hours after the deadline One sub-grade of the assignment will be deducted

Within one week after the deadline A bare passing grade (D) will be given to the assignment

Beyond one week after the deadline A failing grade (F) will be given to the assignment

TURN-AROUND TIME ▪ Two weeks for mid-term review ▪ Four weeks for final review and documentation

(Immediate feedback will be given during desk-critiques, pin-up and reviews.)

IMPORTANT NOTES TO STUDENTS Attendance Class attendance is required in all courses. For an excused absence, the instructor must be notified and presented with documentation of illness or personal matter. Please note: Three or more unexcused absences may result in a failing grade for the course.

Academic Honesty Attention is drawn to University policy and regulations on honesty in academic work, and to the disciplinary guidelines and procedures applicable to breaches of such policy and regulations. Details may be found at: http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/policy/academichonesty/. With each assignment, students may be required to submit a statement that they are aware of these policies, regulations, guidelines and procedures (refer to appendix II).

FEEDBACK FOR EVALUATION

Feedback To whom Where When For Teachers etc. Qualitative feedback from students / discussion forums

Tutors and/or teacher through informal interaction

Inside and outside classroom Throughout the term

Mid-term and end of term course evaluation

Teacher and department Lecture room 1 month into term & end of the term

Reflection of teacher (including evidence from assessment)

Teacher and tutors All learning activities Throughout the term

Panel Assessment Teachers URSP, CUHK Every semester

Curriculum review Related teacher and Programme Committee

CUHK Periodically

Visiting Committee University, department and teacher

CUHK Periodically

For Students Verbal feedback Students Inside and outside classroom Throughout the term




E-discussion forum Students E-learning platform

Feedback sheets on essays Students During class After marking essays

Feedback on examination Students • Teacher’s office • E-learning platform

After examination

INTERNET RESOURCES Places: http://places.designobserver.com/ City Lab: http://www.citylab.com/ Planetizen: http://www.planetizen.com/ Terrain.Org: http://blog.terrain.org/ The Dirt: http://dirt.asla.org/ The Field: The Professional Landscape Architectures’ Network: http://thefield.asla.org/ ASLA Sustainable Design and Development Blog: http://sustainableppn.asla.org/ The Nature of Cities: http://www.thenatureofcities.com/ Land 8 Lounge: http://land8.com/ Landscape Urbanism: http://landscapeurbanism.com/ VIDEO FOR INSPIRATIONS Charles and Ray Eames - 1977 Power of Ten: https://vimeo.com/75568649 Röyksopp - Remind Me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy_h4Lc5QSE

RECOMMENDED READINGS ▪ Beatley T. 2000. Green Urbanism: Learning from European Cities. Island Press, Washington, D. C. ▪ Beatley T. 2011. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Island Press, Washington, D. C. ▪ Gehl J. 2010. Cities for People. Island Press, Washington, D.C. ▪ Gehl J. 2008. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Danish Architectural Press. ▪ Jacobs J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Vintage Books Edition (1992), New York. ▪ Kreger A, Saunders WS, editors. 2009. Urban Design. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. ▪ Mostafavi M, Doherty G, editors. 2010. Ecological Urbanism. Lars Müller Publishers, Baden, Switzerland. ▪ Russel JS. 2011. The Agile City: Building Well-being and Wealth in an Era of Climate Change. Island Press, Washington. ▪ Shane DG. 2005. Recombinant Urbanism: Conceptual Modeling in Architecture, Urban Design and City Theory. John Wiley &

Sons, New York. ▪ Shane DS. 2011. Urban Design Since 1945: A Global Perspective. John Wiley & Sons, New York. ▪ Spirn AW. 1984. The Granite Garden: Urban Nature and Human Design. Basic Books, New York. ▪ Waldheim C, ed. 2006. The Landscape Urbanism Reader. Princeton Architectural Press, New York ▪ Whyte, W.H., 1980. The social life of small urban spaces. The Conservation Foundation, Washington, DC. ▪ 廖桂賢 (2009) 好城市，怎樣都要住下來：讓你健康有魅力的城市設計。台北：野人出版社。 ▪ Representing Landscapes: A Visual Collection of Landscape Architectural Drawings, by Nadia Amoroso in 2010 by Routledge

Publisher.

http://places.designobserver.com/

http://www.citylab.com/

http://www.planetizen.com/

http://blog.terrain.org/

http://dirt.asla.org/

http://thefield.asla.org/

http://sustainableppn.asla.org/

http://www.thenatureofcities.com/

http://land8.com/

http://landscapeurbanism.com/

https://vimeo.com/75568649

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy_h4Lc5QSE




ACADEMIC HONESTY AND PLAGIARISM

Attention is drawn to University policy and regulations on honesty in academic work, and to the disciplinary guidelines and procedures applicable to breaches of such policy and regulations. Details may be found at http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/policy/academichonesty/ .

With each assignment, students will be required to submit a signed declaration that they are aware of these policies, regulations, guidelines and procedures. For group projects, all students of the same group should be asked to sign on the declaration.

Students are required to submit a softcopy of the assignment to the VeriGuide system at: https://veriguide2.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/cuhk/. After submission, student should receive a receipt and an academic honesty declaration statement via an e-mail from VeriGuide. Please print the receipt and the declaration statement and submit them to the lecturer together with a hardcopy of the assignment.

I declare that the assignment here submitted is original except for source material explicitly acknowledged. I also acknowledge that I am aware of University policy and regulations on honesty in academic work, and of the disciplinary guidelines and procedures applicable to breaches of such policy and regulations, as contained in the website http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/policy/academichonesty/

___________________ _______________________

Signature Date

___________________ _______________________

Name Student ID

__________ ___________________________________________

Course code Course title

http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/policy/academichonesty/

https://veriguide2.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/cuhk/

http://www.cuhk.edu.hk/policy/academichonesty/




APPENDIX I : GRADE DESCRIPTORS 1.0 Assessment Criteria of Writing (Project, Presentation and Documentation)

A B C D F (Fail)

Content Overall structure of Essay

A carefully articulated answer to the key questions.

A clear introduction outlining the structure of the essay with explicit central statement addressing the key questions.

An effective answer to the key questions. However, some key issues may be overlooked or left out of the analysis.

There is an introduction but it does not have a central statement to position the work with reference to the key issues.

Provides fragmented points to the key questions.

Introduction does not provide an overview of the structure of the essay.

A poor answer to the key questions.

There is no introduction to the structure of the essay and position with reference to the key issues is not stated upfront.

Not answering the question or a very poor answer not directly addressing the stated question.

Ability to construct coherent arguments

Arguments are carefully & logically constructed, with strong evidence and data.

Arguments are presented with some solid evidence and information.

Arguments are presented with some evidence and information.

Arguments are made but are weakly supported by evidence.

Arguments are not supported by evidence or by irrelevant evidence.

Use of wider literature

Extensive use of literature that goes well beyond the reference list.

Do not go beyond the provided reference list.

Use some of the provided literature.

Shows little use of literature.

Shows no use of literature.

Understanding of issues

Shows a clear and thorough understanding of concepts and issues through development of synthesised frameworks and deliberations of clear insights.

A sound understanding of concepts/issues with little evidence of efforts to synthesise beyond lectures and cited literature in class.

Shows understanding of concepts/issues but efforts seem to confine to making reference to lecture notes.

Insufficient, inadequate or superficial understanding of concepts and issues.

Wrong understanding of concepts.

Ability to criticise and evaluate arguments

Demonstrate an ability to understand issues in the wider socio-economic, institutional and policy contexts.

Able to interpret or comment on gathered factual statements with insights when developing arguments.

Shows some understanding of the issues in the wider socio-economic, institutional and policy contexts.

Not critical in adopting factual information in developing arguments.

Shows little understanding of the issues in the wider context.

Evidence of using some relevant facts in developing arguments.

Arguments not convincingly developed.

Shows little efforts to understand issues in the wider context.

Inadequate use of evidence in developing arguments.

Arguments are not convincing.

Shows no efforts in understanding issues in the wider context.

No use of evidence in developing arguments or use the wrong / inappropriate evidence.

Ability to link data to theoretical discussions

Data shown in the paper are carefully analysed and there are few gaps between data.

There are data gaps. Data are not well or fully analysed.

Data are used but some may appear inconsistent or wrongly interpreted and analysed.

There are many data gaps. Data are poorly analysed.

There is a scarcity of data. Data are not analysed.

Project Project or

practical report dealing with real-world ill-

Well-structured project or practical report on an open task

Reasonably well- structured project or practical report

Poorly structured project report or practical report on open task.

Failure to understand the scope or nature of the project.




A B C D F (Fail) defined topic.

Clear identification of the aim(s) of the project report, linked to explicit methodology that is more sophisticated than expected.

Evidence of wide reading from many sources.

Rigorous findings and insightful conclusions.

where decisions need to be made about a preferred solution.

Clear methodology for the design of the project.

Good rationale for decision making.

on open task where decisions need to be made about a preferred solution.

However, the rationale for decision-making may be limited.

Many aspects of the context ignored or grossly simplified.

Poorly written account of work.

Presentation Clarity of presentation

Presentation and paragraphing are done skillfully. Figures and tables are clearly numbered and presented.

Presentation and paragraphing are done clearly. Figures and tables are in order.

The paper is not properly paragraphed orlaid out. Tables and figures not properly numbered.

Paragraphing is not properly done. Figures are blurred and tables are confusing.

Poor presentation. No proper paragraphing. Tables and figures are done poorly.

Citation & referencing

All citation and referencing are done properly and consistently.

Some citations are not done properly.

Some references are missing.

Citation is NOT done properly.

References are missing or not listed properly.

Citations are missing (plagiarism, when identified, could cause failure).

References are arranged haphazardly.

No citation and referencing is not properly done.

English Writing Spelling No spelling

mistakes. Few spelling mistakes.

Quite a few spelling mistakes.

Clear evidence of not using spell check.

Many spelling mistakes

Grammar Few, if any, grammatical mistakes.

Grammatical mistakes can be found, often due to weak English foundation.

Quite a few grammatical mistakes. Writing style difficult to follow.

Full of grammatical mistakes.

Full of grammatical mistakes.

Writing style Clear and effective writing style that facilitates understanding and communication.

Generally clear and effective writing style that serve to communicate.

Writing style that fails to communicate effectively.

Poor writing style that fails to articulate a particular point of view.

Poor readability.




2.0 Assessment Criteria of Design Studio Works

Design concept / idea Design realization / technique Design presentation / communication

Grade Degree of innovation Demonstration of critical thinking

Degree of resolution Demonstration of technical knowledge

Quality of graphic communication Quality of oral presentation

A

• High level independent and critical thinking • Insightful observation and excellent analysis • Rigorous process of design exploration • Distinctive ideas

developed to their full potential

• An elegant solution

• Inspired integration of design theme and systems

• Careful attention to requirements of human use

• Excellent development of scheme from concept to detail

• Articulate and insightful oral presentation • Complete

graphic presentation with exceptional high level consistency

• High level of craftsmanship in physical modeling • High level and effective demonstration of tool use

B

• Evidence of independent and critical thinking • Idea supported by careful analysis • Process of design exploration evident • A coherent

design concept with clear potential

• Systems integration present and effective • Function and

requirements of human use considered

• Good development of scheme from concept

to detail

• Comprehensible and concise oral presentation • Graphic presentation meets all requirements with good consistency • Competent level of craftsmanship in physical modeling • Competent level of skill in tool use.

C

• Satisfactory results achieved from conventional or derivative thinking

• Limited analysis with minor influence on design • Minimal process of design exploration • A design

concept with problems and inconsistencies

• Systems present but lacking integration • Problems existing in function and human use • Some development of the scheme

• Incomplete or problematic oral presentation • Graphic presentation meets minimum requirements • Models lacking in craftsmanship and quality • Minimum level of skill in tool use.

D

• Poor results lacking in creativity and critical thinking

• Analysis insufficient and unrelated to design • An immature design process lacking direction • A flawed or incoherent design concept

• Clarity and understanding of systems lacking • Function and human use largely ignored • Design is undeveloped and schematic at best

• Oral presentation unfocused and inarticulate • Graphic presentation lacking in many areas • Models incomplete and of poor craftsmanship • Incorrect or very weak skill in tool use

F

• Design solution with extreme flaws and fundamental inadequacies

• No analysis evident • Lack of exploration with

little or no process evident

• A project lacking a design concept

• Understanding of building systems integration absent

• Function and human use totally unresolved • Design is at best diagrammatic

• Oral presentation either absent or incoherent • Graphic presentation very incomplete or below minimum standards • Models missing or of extremely poor craftsmanship • Skill in tool use is severely impaired




APPENDIX II: PENALTY FOR ACADEMIC DISHONESTY ALL cases of academic dishonesty concerning courses taken in the first term of 2018-19 and thereafter should be handled in

accordance with the updated guidelines with effect from 2018-19.

Case of academic dishonesty Minimum Penalties

Plagiarism First offence

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

one demerit;

a mark of zero for that component of the course; and

completion of relevant training in academic honesty. Second or further offence (and a first offence that is serious as decided by the disciplinary committee concerned/the FTP Committee)

(i) two demerits (of which one will remain in the University’s record permanently and one is reviewable); and

a failure grade for the course concerned. (ii)

Undeclared multiple submissions

First offence

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

one demerit;

a mark of zero for that component of the course; and

completion of relevant training in academic honesty.

Second or further offence (and a first offence that is serious as decided by the disciplinary committee concerned/the FTP Committee)



Buying or selling, possibly through third parties, papers/essays/ dissertations

(i) three demerits (of which one will remain in the University’s record permanently and two are reviewable);

a failure grade for the course concerned (not applicable to the student who sells the papers/essays/dissertations);

suspension from the University for one term [Note 1]; and

lowering the degree classification by one level upon graduation (not applicable to undergraduate students who graduate with a Pass Degree, MBChB students and postgraduate students) [Note 2].

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

Violating rules 15 or 16 of the University’s Rules to be Observed by Candidates at Examination Centre

First offence

(i) one demerit.


(i) two demerits (of which one will remain in the University’s record permanently and one is reviewable).




Case of academic dishonesty Minimum Penalties

Cheating in tests and examinations (including violation of rules 17 or 18 of the University’s Rules to be Observed by Candidates at Examination Centre)

First offence

(i)

(ii)

One demerit (which will remain in the University’s record permanently); and

a failure grade for the course concerned.




Impersonation fraud in tests and examinations (including violation of rule 19 of the University’s Rules to be Observed by Candidates at Examination Centre)

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

(iv)

three demerits (of which one will remain in the University’s record permanently and two are reviewable);

a failure grade for the course concerned;

suspension from the University for one term [Note 1]; and

lowering the degree classification by one level upon graduation (not applicable to undergraduate students who graduate with a Pass Degree, MBChB students and postgraduate students) [Note 2].

[The same penalties apply to the student who asks/allows someone to assume his/her identity to sit for a test/an examination as well as to the student who sits for a test/an examination if both parties are students of the University, except that penalty (ii) will not apply to the latter.]

Date post:	23-Jan-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

URSP3200 URBAN DESIGN STUDIO

Documents