Public Realm and Infrastructure Plan

The district after the break: its parks, plazas and streets planned together with the utility networks beneath them, and costed against a budget that will not stretch.

The district after the break, argued as parks, plazas and streets planned with the utility networks beneath them, and funded from the closure you set in Week 8. Livability is the heavy criterion. Fiscal performance is where an unfunded plaza actually loses marks.

This brief is the sole authority for submission, display and defence. The Week 9 studio is the jury. It does not add a second memo length, a second view list, or a live-save contract of its own.

What you submit, Monday 3 May 12:00#

Upload, as one artefact:

• 8–12 in-simulation screenshots, captioned with in-game day and time. Include at least one attractiveness overlay, one land value overlay, one water or sewage info-view, and one street-level view at 19:00 in the evidence pack’s fine-weather state, taken from the issued camera against a marked polygon. Count people inside the polygon during one in-game minute and write the count on the caption. A count with no time of day and no weather state is not evidence.
• A defence memo of no more than 1,200 words, structured against livability, fiscal performance and mobility performance in that order. Show what discretionary spending pays for public realm while both utility increments stay funded.
• One costed monthly line for every public space proposed, funded from the Week 8 closure. Associated happiness or land-value movement is labelled associated, not isolated cause.
• The signed unfunded list from Week 8, as the memo’s last sheet.
• The save <student ID>-w09, matching the wall.

Late work follows the studio policies artefact clock.

What you hang, 13:00–13:25#

Printed A3 is the default. An accessible or on-time digital equivalent occupies the same roster bay and uses the same clock. Memo pinned, not on a laptop. The unfunded list last. Hang in roster order. The hang closes at 13:25.

Defence#

14:00, Studio 2.14. Tobias Wren chairs; Sunniva Marek sits as Visiting Critic. The Course Convenor is not in the room this week; the week’s tutor of record chairs. Four minutes per plan at the wall: ninety seconds for one claim, the rest for questions. Changeover is inside the four minutes. This clock is the brief’s override of the ordinary crit protocol.

At the recess between the two rounds of eight, the chair and the Visiting Critic may return up to three plans they disagree about for a further six minutes each before the whole room. That round is discussion, not extra marked time: the mark for every plan is set from its own four minutes at the wall, the memo and the wall itself, whether or not it is called back.

The question the wall has to survive: did the district get better because you designed something, or because you spent money, and what did each associated point of happiness cost per month.

Marking#

An unfunded plaza is a fiscal fail, not a livability one. Keep the save exactly as submitted; Week 10 reads this district, not a weekend repair.

See resources and upload destinations and the common marking bands.