Plan and defend a single neighbourhood unit — its block pattern, its zoning, and the amenity everything else is arranged around. First assessed pin-up of the semester.
Artefact deadline: · Weight: 25%
Deadline passed. The artefact clock has stopped — what late work costs.
One residential cell on Halstead Reach, at Perry’s dimensions, designed to a walkable amenity standard, argued as a neighbourhood unit. The cell is the ground you zoned in Weeks 1–3 and upzoned around a named amenity core before this deadline. The jury has not watched you build it.
This brief is the sole authority for what you submit and how you are defended. The Week 4 studio is the jury. It does not invent a second list of views, a second word count, or a production exercise after 12:00.
What you submit, Monday 15 March 12:00#
Upload, as one artefact:
- A defence memo of no more than 800 words. Name the two metrics you traded and the element of the plan where that trade is visible. Cite the Week 1 site report for why the unit sits on the Reach. Cite the Week 2 block dimension and its upkeep. Cite the Week 3 scheme and the named front door.
- In-simulation screenshots, captioned with in-game day and 08:00, including at least: the land value overlay over the cell; the coverage radius of every service building you sited, each captured with that building selected; the traffic volume layer showing the Kerrow corridor on the cell boundary.
- The save
<student ID>-w04, matching the screenshots.
Work uploaded after 12:00 is late under the studio policies artefact clock.
What you hang, 13:00#
An A3 plan of the cell with the district-tool boundary visible, the amenity core at Pelling Cross, and the Kerrow corridor drawn where it actually runs. The three required views printed beneath it. A card at the bottom of the bay stating, as two figures in ₡, what the cell costs per month and what it returns per month — allocated on the issued district-cost worksheet, not described as a native per-district budget.
Hang in roster order. Work that is not on the wall at 13:00 is marked from the 12:00 upload alone.
Defence#
14:00, Studio 2.14, one bay run in two rounds of eight. Marisol Quaye chairs both rounds; Sunniva Marek sits as Visiting Critic throughout. Six minutes per plan: two presenting, four questions. This clock is the brief’s override of the ordinary five-minute crit protocol; the evidence does not change.
The first question is always: which two of the three metrics did you trade, and where on the wall is that visible.
Production is not the pin-up#
Upzoning the Pelling Cross frontage, reading each service coverage from the
selected building, and comparing an inside-cell clinic with a shared-corridor
clinic on the issued three-cell scaffold, are homework completed before
12:00. Do not overwrite <student ID>-w03 to make those branches; keep them
as disposable comparison files. The session after 13:00 is hanging and jury.
Nothing built after 12:00 changes the artefact.
Perry’s exclusion question — who the school catchment leaves out — is asked in the Week 4 lecture, before this deadline, so it can still change the plan.
Marking#
A plan that closed a shortfall without recording which move closed it marks in the middle band and no higher.
See resources and upload destinations and the common marking bands.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- Your defence memo is no more than 800 words and names the two metrics you traded and the element of the plan where the trade is visible.
- Your memo cites the Week 1 site report, the Week 2 block dimension and its upkeep, and the Week 3 scheme and named front door.
- Your screenshots are captioned with in-game day and 08:00, and include the land value overlay over the cell, the coverage radius of every service building you sited (each captured with that building selected), and the traffic volume layer at the Kerrow corridor boundary.
- The hung A3 shows the district-tool boundary, the amenity core at Pelling Cross, and the Kerrow corridor drawn where it actually runs, with the three required views printed beneath it.
- The bay card states the cell's monthly cost and monthly return in ₡, from the issued district-cost worksheet.
- The save `<student ID>-w04` matches the screenshots and the hung plan.
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Livability | 40% |
| Fiscal performance | 30% |
| Mobility performance | 30% |