Critique and redesign
The capstone, critique one space that gets coexistence wrong, and redesign it so it doesn't.
Due: 28 May 2027 · Weight: 40%
The brief#
Find one shared space that currently gets coexistence wrong, and redesign it so it doesn’t.
By now you’ve diagnosed a space and tested a protocol on a group you belong to. This is where you turn that method outward: pick a space (could be the one from your diagnosis, or somewhere new) where the physical layout, the stated rules, or the process people are expected to follow actively works against good coexistence. A common room with no sightlines into it. A studio where the loud machines and the quiet desks share a wall. An office with a “flexible seating” policy and nowhere to leave your things.
Critique it properly first: name what’s failing and why, using at least two frameworks from the semester. Then redesign it, not a vague aspiration that people be nicer, but a specific change to the layout, the stated norms, or the process that runs the space, that you can argue would actually change the outcome.
What you submit#
A single document, readable without you in the room, that:
- describes the space and its current failure mode in enough detail that the problem is obvious once named
- diagnoses that failure using the course’s frameworks
- proposes a concrete redesign (a floor plan change, a new stated protocol, a changed process) and explains why it would work where the current arrangement doesn’t
- is honest about the redesign’s own limits: no proposal fixes everything, and knowing what it won’t fix is part of the mark
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.
- submitted by the deadline, as a document that stands alone without you present to explain it
- critiques a specific, real space using at least two frameworks from the semester
- proposes a redesign of the space's layout, stated norms, or process, not just a wish that people behaved better
- the work is yours, with any assistance declared
How it is marked
Judged as a whole against the brief. A strong submission diagnoses the space's failure using the semester's frameworks precisely, proposes a redesign that would plausibly fix it without assuming an unlimited budget, and stands on its own without you there to talk it through.
What separates the grades
Where the mark actually lands within a band is a judgement call; this is what tells the bands apart.
| Band | What it looks like |
|---|---|
| HD | The diagnosis reads as inevitable once stated, using two or more frameworks precisely and showing where they compound each other. The redesign is concrete enough that someone could hand it to a builder or a landlord, and the document is honest about a real limitation it doesn't solve. |
| D | The diagnosis is correct and well-argued, and the redesign is concrete, but the document leans on one framework more than the brief's "at least two"; the second is present but thin. |
| C | The document names a real failure and gestures at a framework, but the redesign drifts toward "people should communicate better" in at least one part, or its own limits go unacknowledged. |
| P | All the required parts are present, but the failure described could be fixed by people simply being nicer just as easily as by the proposed redesign; the redesign isn't doing any explanatory work of its own. |