D6 & AD2 2011 Assignments


There will be two components to the urban analysis: the hard facts and the critical understandings derived from them. It is important to critically assess the information gathered, always answer why is this relevant, or what does this mean, let’s call it the ‘so what’ question. The urban analysis will be the foundation upon which the brief will be set and the design proposals developed.

The topics and teams are:
– Structure & Geology (Johnathan, Scott, and Khang)
– Water (Richard, Charlotte and Jason)
– Public Spaces (Thomas, Tina and David)
– DenCITY (David, Jacky, Praveen)
– Urban Patterns (Seth, Alexander, Mikhail)
– Economics (Thomas, Sam and Jeremy)
– Circulation & Transportation (Eric, Justin, Yvonne)
– Micro Urbanism (Jordan, Yankong, Adrian)
– Heritage (Logan, Rickey, Henry)

Each team is required to prepare an A3 landscape booklet, use both sides of the page, ie double sided. The number of pages is not limited, but each page should serve a purpose and lend to your thesis. Please provide a single printed version bound, as well as a digital archive of your final work; in this archive we want a PDF document of the A3 booklet as well as all components used (diagrams and images). Take a moment and collect into one folder the final version of each diagram saved in whichever program you used to create it, we will need these for the final course publication.

As a general guideline, your booklets should start with an introductory statement which quickly explains your research topic and generally what you learned through the research. Following on you should build your argument starting with the hard facts, then use the interpretive diagrams to illustrate your specific conclusions. Think of it like telling a story, your work should be structured to walk a reader through your research and share with them what you have learned.

It is crucial that each page’s intention is clear, title your diagrams so we know what they are about, use captions to explain your conclusions, and label the variables in each of the diagrams. Ask yourself ‘does this page say what I need it to say, does it lend to the thesis, is what I am trying to say self evident’ if not work on it so that each page and each diagram is clear.

The objective with this research is to expose the range of possible urban approaches by comparing different cities effected by major earthquakes and their respective approaches to reconstruction. This should be similar to an atlas, to make this work each team needs to collect the same information so we can easily compare the different cities. Once we bring each of your cities together we will have a catalogue of different urban approaches to reconstruction.

Each team should make a single double spread A3 (two facing pages). Again please provide a digital archive – a PDF of the document and all components used to create it. Once we bring each of your studies together they will form a chapter in the final course publication. The reason for limiting you to two pages is to learn to be concise, it does not mean you should do less, but instead be very focused. Each team needs to make sure that the following is included:
– City Name
– Location
– Population (pre earthquake, post earthquake)
– Date of earthquake
– Magnitude and location of earthquake
– Quantify scale of destruction (number of buildings collapsed/damaged, number of deaths, other?)
– Plan showing the city prior to the earthquake, indicate area(s) affected (identify characteristics of the urban fabric)
– Plan of city post earthquake (identify characteristics of the urban fabric that changed, that remained the same)
– Use diagrams and text to summarize how the city was rebuilt, where it was rebuilt, time frame it took to rebuild, type of construction (wood, masonry, steel), style of architecture if relevant.
– Include other unique information regarding the reconstruction of the city if relevant

Select from the following reconstructed cities:
– Basel, Switzerland (1356)
– Ragusa, Sicily, Italy (1693)
– Lisbon, Portugal (November 1, 1755)
– San Francisco, California, USA (April 18, 1906)
– Kansu, China (December 16, 1920)
– Tokyo-Yokohama, Japan (September 1, 1923)
– Napier, New Zealand (February 3, 1931)
– Agadir, Morocco (January 13, 1960)
– Tangshan, China (July 27, 1976)
– Mexico City, Mexico (September 19, 1985)
– Armenia, USSR (December 7, 1988)
– Kobe, Japan (January 16, 1995)
– Gölcük, Turkey (August 17, 1999)
– Nantou, Taiwan (September 20, 1999)

Each team will prepare and present a list of points they believe should be included in the brief, these should be derived from your urban analysis and comparative research. We will have a full day workshop (13.09) to develop a list of points we would suggest Christchurch incorporate into their future plan.

Micro Scale (D6): Patterns, Heritage, Circulation & Transport, Public Spaces, Water
As a team you will define design perameters and a general framework that will guide your individual projects. From your research derive a program and identify the site(s), you have a certain amount of creative freedom here, but it is important to be specific and clearly define a program. While each of you will create a unique project, the motivation for the design decisions should come from your research, the brief and the general guidelines that your team sets. The key is to identify and develop the relationships between your individual works.

Macro Scale (AD2): Structutre & Geology, Economics, Density, Micro-Urbanism
As a team you will further develop your research to drive urban scale design strategies, think of these as design guidelines. Each of you can identify a component within the overall team’s analysis that you will develop. The scale for your proposals can be defined by your team, some may take on larger and others smaller, but clearly identify the scope within which your team is working. Like the micro scale you have a certain amount of creative license, but the proposals must be grounded in your work to date. And while each of you may develop individual projects, they should come together to create a project as a team. To do this use the relationships between your individual works to generate the design strategies.

FINAL HAND-IN (3:00 the day before presentations)
– A4 print of all boards (each A4 equivalent to each A1)
– All final boards (see below for requirements)
– Digital archive (PDF, packaged Indesign file)

Presentation Boards: As many/few as you need to explain your project, it is about quality not quantity. On these boards you need to include the following:
– The previous research that supports your design project, don’t show everything, just the key points that support your design.
– If you are working individually, show the relationship between your design projects.
– A design statement – this should be a succinct summary of your project.
– The design proposal – graphically laid out to walk the jury through your work, include the following: scope of project, site, design concept, diagrams, plan(s)/section(s), perspective, etc
* YOUR BOARDS NEED TO BE LAID OUT USING INDESIGN * This is so that we can use your work to put together the final book.

Micro: 3:00 October 18th HAND-IN
Micro: 10:00-5:00 October 19th FINAL PRESENTATIONS
Macro: 3:00 October 20th HAND-IN
Micro: 10:00-5:00 October 21th FINAL PRESENTATIONS


Comments are closed.