project feedback

olga koma - designing community gathering spaces in an era of technological advancements
clever use of font.
fantastic intro + timeline, but a speculation could have been made as to what is post 2010, or is post 2010 what sociologist will love?
why is the cyber-urbanite a he? that said, it’s an innovative way to introduce an actor who uses space.
sagacious design principles.
how does the diagram at district level show the transit route at a different scale? this could have been further articulated.
land use map could use street names for better orientation.
types of paving could have been explored further.
the creation for spaces for different + serendipitous encounters is a novel idea. this should always be promoted.
It is louis botha [a male] not a female as in louise botha.
overall a great project with crisp layout and numerous sensitive innovations [pavegen etc.] the tech aspect could have been interrogated more. that been said, the plans and sections made the project sparkle.


simiso dlamini - proposal for community gathering space
the heading facilitating social integration through the establishment of open spaces which function as gathering spaces is an excellent departure point which, overall the document made an attempt to fulfil but came out wanting.
document suffers from different font sizes.
on existing issues, sidewalk parking is an illegal operation, so what exactly are you saying? other solutions to existing issues are well thought through.
the project has excellent images, but are they the authors? reference is required. it was also erratic, giving generic solutions to urban design principles. it would have helped to see the entire study area as the context and deal with that instead of the piecemeal solutions offered for piecemeal contexts.
lack of page numbers + reference page.


nokulunga gumede
no title.
numerous spelling + grammatical mistakes making the document at times academically inaccessible.
how is a graffiti wall contested space and what exactly is the theme?
clear locational map + a potentially crisp page of the changing form of louis botha. some mistakes on this which detract like sasol garage along . . . . what? are u sure that the photograph of the circular building is the vodacom tower?
on the louis botha and beyond page, what does the size of the white dot markers indicate?
local examples of community gathering spaces would have helped.
difficult to grasp the meaning of the orienteering colours on the existing community gathering spaces.
jack mincer [mtn] as a taxi rank in influences from surrounds is a sizeable rank and should have been exhibited? is it bree or metro mall? bree is a street metro mall a rank.
how did you arrive at the conceptual diagram? what were the influences? as in what is the path from problem areas → to conceptual diagram → to design plan?
is it houyeo road or street? this has to be consistent.
numerous scale problematic issues in the street profile page.
a spirited project with some lovely touches here and there. because it is fraught with grammar + spell errors it distracts from the ‘real’ issues. it was also not linear, trying to do too much of everything which was its downfall. i found the thread not consistent but rather convoluted and confusion. but it made a bold + fresh attempt at rendering the quality of life.
lack of page numbers + a conclusion.


safiya suliman
no title.
on the vision page, the picture of the interior of the radium beerhall is pixelated, which detracts from the overall collage.
site locational maps are helpful but could have dome with some text especially stating which street is louis botha.
point a: current section is thin. as in what is it pointing out and where is it taken? osborn? louis botha? if it is louis botha, judging from the images, the project says there are is no lighting [streetlight] whereas the photographs show street lights. is it accurate to say the land use is residential and that the buildings back faces the sidewalk?
point a: proposed section amongst other things states informal trading at designated areas. where are these? section is misleading and inaccurate with extremely high impractical curbs.
why should there be informal trading along this strip? what is the rationale?
on point b: proposed section the mixed- (incubator factory) appears too thin to be practical. what is it exactly?
project only starts coming alive with point b: proposed picture. this direction would have enhanced the project as it deals with issues of scale, residue + materiality. this is more convincing place making. pity this was not explored further.
not quite sure what the current and proposed densities + point c: proposed plan pages are showing.
project slowly begins to be something with the design principles for high streets in jhb, but these are spatial and should have been explored spatially.
overall disappointingly thin scant work with no theory + latent potential graphics.
lack of page numbers + reference page.


raeesa ghoor
no title but tight theme as a beautiful intro to the project.
neat packaging and quality paper.
the linkages and connectivity: vision map is an excellent point of departure conceptually. very strong.
a well thought through and surprisingly sensitive project.
beautiful maps and drawings. clear + crisp with a minimalistic sensitive essence to them.
would have been wonderful to layer the sections with text explaining what some of the spaces are, especially on the after.
excellent massing drawing of the recommended densities and as a project very convincing in meeting the set out theme: designing for diversity.
an attempt to render [with collages, sections, photomontages -- ANYTHING!] the proposed community gathering spaces + semi-private community spaces, especially around the victory theatre, along louis botha + osborn, by the author would have made an even more in-depth, comprehensive + “complete” project. also an attempt at rendering the new building typologies along the two streets would have been worth it. this was a lost opportunity.
that being said, well done + excellent quotes.
the only drawback is a lack of page numbers, conclusion + reference page.


thandeka tshabalala - louis botha avenue business district 2011
good intro but betrayed by different font sizes and some spelling errors.
challenges + principles are clear but how do you arrive at the design plan? from concepts → to connectivity?
the design looks interesting but could have been enhanced by the 3d model of design + land uses being the same scale for easier conceptual connection.
zinzi offers an insightful and fresh narrative to deconstruction the avenue business district and in making the reader accessible to the design.
clear and well done graphics.
a crisp project that is somewhat undone by ‘the missing link” from concept to design + a lack of conclusion.


ntombenhle ndwandwe - area action plan
nice paper -- as in quality of the paper the project is printed on.
intriguing opening page but the preceding page is difficult to read. the text gets lost amidst the graphic.
what is anti social behaviour within communities and how do we design against it?
map of the transport and mobility along louis botha ave is incomplete. there are more main + secondary routes likely to be used. difficulty in deciphering what is residential + business in following map. kes incorrectly positioned.
excellent orientation on the area action plan- lost spaces and potential site for development.
the orientation of the new building and open space in open space design- proposed design is not clear. in this context, the east side of louis botha would have been enhanced by an open space design to complement site 1 as a community space.
overall an exciting, well thought through + easy to grasp project with excellent maps and graphics. this is what louis botha craves. the only criticism is that some of the photographs are printed too dark and the repetition of the louis botha avenue furniture pages. if this is the case, the furniture should be demonstrated spatially and specifically to the sites. a conclusion would have helped. but a very nice touch to the louis botha avenue new experience in 2020 [bring it on]-- perhaps this was the conclusion?
a lack of page numbers.


thulani maphalala
no title.
document suffers from different font sizes.
the methodology states interviews, personal observation + academic literature - where is then the reference page?
in brief analysis, where is zone y, the inside life?
text location of the site is difficult to grasp + follow and the key is confusing.
land use page is erratic with too many spelling errors.
with each page the document should reinforce the goals stated in the brief analysis.
interesting interview page and fresh to have it, but the interviews could have been interrogated further to lend structure to the project. it’s misleading to say: our perceptions as a group were to investigate why that part of louis botha avenue was like that compared to norwood (grant avenue). why is norwood doing better that area yet it is not along a busy street.[?] not quite clear of what this means and too many spell + grammatical errors.
movement page has a lot of potential which suffers due to spelling + grammar. text + graphic could have been married for clarity.
what, exactly, is the purpose of the street analysis page + where is it? how does it inform the project?
goals are slightly different in the conclusion and the only ones demonstrated are: density and pedestrian improvement. how is local economy + integration addressed?
lack of page numbers + reference page.


phiwokuhle nkosi - sociophysical integration
cover image is too pixelated or is that the idea. if it is, what does it mean? does it mean that the city is blurry? what does it have to do with the title.
great title matrix but the surveillance in the ensuing page is difficult to understand + the different font sizes disturbs the flow.
what does sociophysical integration mean?
new urbanism page is confusing.
in the zoning map - densification page, the legend stipulates an empty study area. the lineweight should be consistent.
projects needs to be strongly articulated from the word go, in this instance, after the physical built form page so that its clear that main street is the focus.
project suffers from spelling errors.
although the project has crisp and very beautiful drawings, it suffers from being thin in content and critical interrogation. more urban literature + philosophy would have enhanced the project, as in if + why?
lack of a conclusion page + page numbers.


hashim molvi - blurring the role of louis botha as a barrier
excellent maps + graphics. project would have been enhanced with the analysing of the blocks west of ash street + east of cavendish especially re: concept, design intervention, figure ground, land use + density.
excellent principles page especially the translucent glass sky reflection. this would have been further enhanced with the use of images to illustrate the current ‘deadness’ condition.
a section showing the pedestrian bridge is needed to see whether it’s a viable option + its practical z plane [ steepness, height etc.]
a very strong and pertinent project – a pleasure to read through. keep at it.
wonderful to have page numbers.


raessa soomar - eco grating
in eco-gration explained what does it mean when you say the community of rouxville live with extreme hostility?
in justification, what does “little or no relationship to louis botha” mean? who or what?
some of the images are pixelated.
goals could have been illustrated.
on location, the representative of segment 3 from the locational map is difficult to grasp and incorrect.
types of bicycle lanes - on the major movement spine, its impractical to remove a lane because of traffic volumes. this would work as a quiet neighbourhood street.
scenario section through site - what is the use of the wall separating bicycle repairs + sidewalk? the streets section, after a, is impractical. after c is most practical.
overall a well thought through project with interesting nuances + well written. the bicycle network concept by the project is doable and highly practical – we just have to make the design crisp + confident.
lack of page numbers + reference page.