Architecture
Design development: a studio project at review
One task. A studio project shown at design development stage, marked on the questions a jury already asks in the room. Six things to mark, each described at four levels.
How to read this
What you are looking at
A scorecard lists what you are marking. For each item, it describes what the work looks like at four levels.
The descriptions say what is on the page, not how the marker felt. So two teachers marking the same work look for the same things.
Students get this with the brief, before they start. Nobody is marked against something they were not shown.
- 1
- Not yet competent
- 2
- Developing
- 3
- Competent
- 4
- Strong
The same four levels are used on every scorecard here. A 3 means the same thing wherever you see it.
The scorecard
What gets marked, and what good work looks like
6 things to mark. Each one scored on its own, from 1 to 4.
-
1 of 6
Concept carried into the design
Whether the stated design intention is visible in the drawings, and whether it survives development.
- 1 Not yet competent
- The stated concept is a description that could be attached to any scheme. Nothing in the plans, sections, or elevations would change if the concept were removed from the presentation.
- 2 Developing
- The concept is specific and is visible in one or two moves, usually in plan, but it disappears at the scale of the section and the detail. Decisions taken since the previous review were made on other grounds and have not been reconciled with it.
- 3 Competent
- The concept is stated in one or two sentences and can be traced through plan, section, and the treatment of the envelope. Where development forced a change, the change is shown and the reasoning for it is given.
- 4 Strong
- As competent, and the concept has been tested against the constraints that emerged at this stage and revised rather than defended. The scheme is stronger than the version shown at the previous review, and the drawings show where the difference lies.
-
2 of 6
Response to site and context
Whether the scheme is shaped by this specific site rather than placed on it.
- 1 Not yet competent
- The site appears only as a boundary line. Orientation, levels, access, and neighbouring buildings are not represented in any way that could have informed the design.
- 2 Developing
- Site analysis is presented but is not carried into the proposal. Sun path, prevailing wind, levels, and adjacent uses are drawn, and then the plan and the section do not answer them.
- 3 Competent
- The plan responds to levels, orientation, and access as they are on this site. Openings, entrances, and outdoor space are placed by reference to that analysis, and a site section shows the relationship to what adjoins.
- 4 Strong
- As competent, and the scheme takes a position on the wider context, including the street, the block, and the local building type. The drawings show what the proposal returns to the public side of the boundary.
-
3 of 6
Spatial and functional resolution
Whether the brief is accommodated, and whether the plan works when the building is used.
- 1 Not yet competent
- Required accommodation is missing, or is labelled at an area the drawing does not support. Circulation is incomplete, rooms are reached through other rooms where that is not appropriate, and vertical circulation does not resolve between levels.
- 2 Developing
- The accommodation is all present and the areas are close to the brief, but circulation is long or duplicated, service and storage space is left over rather than planned, and floors do not align where they need to.
- 3 Competent
- The plan accommodates the brief at workable dimensions. Circulation is direct, servicing and storage are planned, levels align, and the drawings demonstrate means of escape and step free access rather than asserting them.
- 4 Strong
- As competent, and the plan does more than accommodate. Spaces are dimensioned for a particular use rather than to a schedule, and the sequence from arrival to the principal space is legible from the plan alone.
-
4 of 6
Construction and material logic
Whether the building can be built as drawn, and whether the materials are chosen for reasons that are stated.
- 1 Not yet competent
- No structural system is identified. Spans, supports, and the route loads take to the ground cannot be read from the drawings. Materials are named in the presentation but appear in no drawing.
- 2 Developing
- A structure is indicated and is broadly plausible but is not coordinated with the plan. Columns land in openings, spans exceed what the stated system carries, and the envelope is drawn as a single line with no thickness.
- 3 Competent
- The structural system is stated and is consistent with the spans shown. The envelope is drawn with thickness, and at least one bay or junction is developed at a scale where the layers of the construction and their sequence are visible. Materials are chosen for stated reasons that hold for the climate and for what is available.
- 4 Strong
- As competent, and the construction and the architectural intention are the same decision rather than two. The detail drawing explains something about the scheme rather than only demonstrating technical competence.
-
5 of 6
Environmental and regulatory response
Whether comfort, energy, and the applicable code are treated as design decisions.
- 1 Not yet competent
- Environmental performance and code compliance are not addressed. Habitable rooms depend on artificial light and mechanical ventilation with no analysis, and no setback, height, or coverage constraint is acknowledged.
- 2 Developing
- A strategy is stated in words, for example cross ventilation or shading, but no drawing shows it working. Regulatory constraints appear in the analysis sheets and are not reflected in the proposal.
- 3 Competent
- Daylight, ventilation, and shading are shown in plan and section at the openings that carry them. Setback, height, and coverage are drawn against the applicable local requirement, and the drawings show the scheme sits within it or state the relaxation being sought.
- 4 Strong
- As competent, and the environmental strategy is tested rather than asserted, with shading studied for the actual latitude and orientation, and the drawings showing where the result changed the design.
-
6 of 6
Presentation and defence of the scheme
Whether the drawing set communicates the scheme without narration, and whether the reasoning holds when it is questioned.
- 1 Not yet competent
- Drawings are unscaled, unlabelled, or inconsistent between sheets. A juror cannot establish what is being proposed without asking.
- 2 Developing
- The set is complete and legible, but the sequence does not build an argument. Key drawings are reproduced too small to read, and the scheme becomes clear only once it has been described in person.
- 3 Competent
- The set is scaled, labelled, and consistent between sheets, and it presents the scheme in an order a reader can follow. Questions about specific decisions are answered by reference to a drawing rather than to intention.
- 4 Strong
- As competent, and the response to challenge sets out the alternatives that were considered and why they were set aside. Where a criticism lands, it is accepted and the consequence for the scheme is stated.
Setting the task
Notes for the teacher who sets this
This runs alongside the crit, not instead of it
The crit has been how architecture schools give feedback for more than a century. This scorecard records what a jury already does. It does not add a second process.
The six criteria are the ones jurors raise in the room, in the order they usually raise them.
What writing it down gains, and what it costs
Gains: the student can see what they will be marked on before they present. And anyone who looks at the mark later can see the reasoning behind it, instead of taking it on trust.
Costs: the back and forth between juror and student is what the room is for, and a written review does not have it. So keep the crit. Run this beside it.
Before you set it
State the stage. These descriptions assume design development. A scheme at concept stage will score low on construction and on regulation for reasons that have nothing to do with how good the work is.
State the drawing set you want, the scales, and the local code that applies. The fifth and sixth criteria refer to them.
What it does not cover
Cost, procurement, and structural calculation.
One honest limit. Drawings and models are much harder for software to read than text. On a project like this the first draft score is the weakest part, so your teachers and the jury carry more of the judgment than they would on a written piece.
Make it yours
Take this, change it, or write your own
This scorecard is free to use, adapt, and build on, including commercially. The one condition is credit to the original.
Most teachers will change something. Reword a level, drop a criterion, add one of your own. Give your version its own number so the two are never confused.
The software does not know what subject you teach. It reads a scorecard and a brief, whatever they are about. These four are a starting point so nobody begins from a blank page. They are not a list of what ReadyHo covers.
Machine readable file: /rubrics/design-development-studio-project.json. Holds the criteria, the four levels, the version, and the licence, for loading into your own system.
Cite it as: ReadyHo rubric library. Design development: a studio project at review, version 0.2. https://readyho.com/rubrics/design-development-studio-project. Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.
Next
Get started
ReadyHo is free and open source. Start with one course, or run it across your departments.
Your teachers set the project and keep the final say on every mark. A first draft score and comments come back in minutes. Then a working professional from industry checks the finished work and puts their name to it.
Other scorecards published so far
Four so far, in law, architecture, and design, because those were written first. A scorecard for any other subject is written the same way and runs the same way.