Parametric Logic (7/10) – Good explanation of the drivers and choice of user-centric independent parameters (e.g. hand size, temperature). The diagram notation needs work: which are goals, independent and dependent parameters? Is ‘volume’ intended to be a constraint? This is clear from your presentation and by inspecting the model, but not from the diagram.

Implementation (9/10) - The initial intent did carry through in the resulting geometry. Doing the assignment twice – as much of a headache as that probably was – will serve you well. It is apparent that you learned a lot through this process. You demonstrate the ability to relate one driving parameter to multiple driven parameters. Good exploration of parameter ranges to uncover where your model breaks – you may consider setting parameter ranges based on what you think is feasible. Overall good execution in CAD, with a nod toward the extra complexity that you took on.

Presentation (9/10) - The logic was clearly explained. Might be a good idea to take a screen shot of your driving sketch to illustrate how the parameters in the diagram map to the model geometry. Overall well done!

What to work on – Your lessons learned are insightful and worth building on for future projects. Parameterizing a model requires a precise understanding of what you are trying to achieve. Designers are commonly not used to thinking this way in the early stage as their goals tend to change as they prototype different ideas. You clearly understand the concepts…it just takes practice! It will be interesting to see your ambitious imagination embodied into more robust CAD models in future projects.

Logic Diagram (9/10) - This did not show up on the site, though I have in my notes that it was very well done, thorough and comprehensive.

Implementation of logic to model (9/10) - The logic does implement well to the model. Questions arise as to whether this would improve the quality of public transit, as some of the forms seem somewhat corral-like. The shade structure appears well-created, though it does appear to crash into the model at times.

Overall - Logically, the model is cohesive, and represents a strong connection between parametric drivers and resulting geometry. The result could be better visually communicated, and could factor the human into the quality of the space better.

GROUP : Diana, Sophia, Jeffrey and Rajiv

NEEDFINDING/ADDRESSING USER NEEDS IN CONCEPTUAL MODEL (25/25) - Well done. Especially noted is how you paid attention to how people actually interact with the space – they mill about, they lean, they do everything but the strict, intended purpose of a seated bus station environment.

The development of your design concept was every well done. You demonstrated playfulness and a willingness to experiment in your process that paid off in the final result. This process was well documented with sketches, physical models and embarrassing photos.

The logic diagram was well laid out.

MODEL IMPLEMENTATION, FLEXIBILITY (21/25) - Making your model adaptable to all the site configurations was particularly challenging in your case given the complex geometry of your design. Although you did not get all the way there, you made an excellent effort and were able to communicate the flexibility of the model. In particular we appreciated the subtle attention to detail in your logic (i.e. adjustment of bench height to steep slopes, positioning the enclosure on the site).

OVERALL (46/50) - The complex contours required an unorthodox solution. Overall, it worked, and you learned about the process and solution sets. The resulting form is tastefully fluid, and shows a good sensitivity toward how people really interact with public spaces, not simply how we intend them to. The forms are contemporary and clean, yet identifiable from a glance, offering a valuable branding opportunity for public transit. Overall you showed excellent command to the material, both on a conceptual and practical level. Well done!