SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE, BUILDING & DESIGN

Centre for Modern Architecture Studies in Southeast Asia (MASSA)

Bachelor of Science (Honours) (Architecture)

THEORIES OF ARCHITECTURE & URBANISM [ARC61303]

Project: ‘Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space’

Learning
Assessments Type Marks Presentation Submission
outcomes

Case Study
Project 3,4,5 60%
Group/Individual Paper & Research
(Part A & B) (refer to MO) (20%+40%)
Analysis

Images: Life Between Buildings, Jan Gehl, 1971

https://mendeznicolasarchitecture.wordpress.com/2014/04/11/gehl/

Introduction

Students are required to present an in-depth and analytical research study on the designated topic.
Students are to explore the idea of “Life Between Buildings Using Public Space” (1986) by Jahn
Gehl. The project consists of 2 parts; first is case study and the second part is to produce a
comparative analysis essay.

Jahn Gehl, is a Danish architect and urban design consultant based in Copenhagen whose career
has focused on improving the quality of urban life by re-orienting city design towards the pedestrian
and cyclist. He published his influential Life Between Buildings in Danish in 1971, with the first
English translation published in 1987. Gehl advocates a sensible, straightforward approach to
improving urban form: systematically documenting urban spaces, making gradual incremental
improvements, then documenting them again. Gehl receives many awards for his efforts and
participates in and advises many urban design and public projects around the world (Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Gehl)

1
Objectives of Project

The objectives of this project are as follow:

1. To provide critical perspectives on key issues within the contemporary discourse of
architecture, through integration of case-studies and theoretical studies.
2. To enhance the understanding of the complexity of architecture and the ability to undertake
independent research

Learning Outcomes of this Project

1. Analyse architecture and urban forms in relation to relevant architectural theories

2. Analyse and critique the relationship between architecture and its social, cultural and
intellectual context
3. Produce, orally and in writing, a critical interpretation of architecture and urbanism in
relation to relevant theories within the contemporary discourse of architecture.

Brief/Guidelines

This project comprises of 2 parts:

• PROJECT PART 1: CASE STUDY (20%)
• PROJECT PART 2: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ESSAY (40%)

PROJECT PART 1: CASE STUDY (Group) Grouping will be following the Design Studio 5 tutorial group.

Jahn Gehl in the Life Between Buildings (1971) “examined the relationship between patterns of
space use, especially outdoor activities, and the spatial properties of the physical world. He
introduced the concepts of necessary, optimal and social activities (Beatriz Campos,
http://www.journalofspacesyntax.org/).

For this particular task, students are to read Jahn Gehl’s Life Between Buildings (Chapter 1).
Subsequently, the students are to examine patterns of social activities in a city (foreign city to be
provided by instructor*) and identify ‘contact points’. They are to classify the varying degrees of
contact intensity.

Students are expected to research for information from publications and other relevant sources.
Submission Requirements : Two (2) A3 size illustrated diagrams of the city Identifying
Contact points (mimimum of 5) and intensity accompanied
with an introduction of the city and images.

Submission DUE : Wednesday, 27 September 2017 (Week 5)

1
For this semester our case study will be on cities in Asia. (One city per group)
1. Singapore, Singapore
2. Manila, Philippines
3. Hanoi, Vietnam
4. Phnom Penh, Cambodia
5. Hong Kong, Hong Kong
6. Tokyo, Japan
7. Jakarta, Indonesia
8. Taipei, Taiwan
9. Bangkok, Thailand

PROJECT PART 2: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ESSAY (Individual)

Part 2 of the project requires students to write a comparative analysis essay based on findings from
case study (Part 1) and local site research (Studio). Students are to examine similarities and
dissimilarities based on the patterns of social activities, types of ‘contact points’. And the varying
degrees of contact intensity between the two cities.

A comparative analysis essay is a commonly used type of writing assignment where students are
require to critically analyze any two subjects, finding and pointing out their similarities and/or
dissimilarities.

Students are expected to research for information from publications, internet and other relevant
sources. For local site, students are expected to conduct own site observation (Studio)

Submission Requirements : 2000 words comparative analysis essay

Submission DUE : 29 November 2017 (Week 13)

Key References:

1. “Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space”, Jahn Gehl, (1986)

2. http://writingcenter.fas.harvard.edu/pages/how-write-comparative-analysis

SUMMARY OF PROCESS DIAGRAM

CITY SELECTION COMPARATIVE COMPARATIVE
1
PROJECT PAR1

PROJECT PART 2

PROJECT PART 2

RESEARCH ANALYSIS ANALYSIS ESSAY

IDENTIFICATION OF SUBMISSION PART 2 -
"CONTACT POINTS" DIAGRAMS 29 NOVEMBER
AND INTESITY LEVEL
SUBMISSION PART 1 -
27 SEPTEMBER 2017

2
Assessment criteria

1. Critical analyse of architecture and urban forms in relation to relevant architectural

theories. (Part 1)
2. Critical analysis of architecture and urban forms within its social, cultural and intellectual
context. (Part 2)
3. Structure, clarity and logical coherence of the arguments presented. (Part 2)
4. References and research skills. (Part 2)

Note: Kindly refer to Assessment Rubric for reference.

Prepared by: Checked by: Approved by:

Prince Favis Isip Keith Tan Kay Hin Mohd Adib Ramli

……………………………. ……………………………. …………………………….

Date: 24/8/2017 Date: 24/8/2017 Date: 24/8/2017
Email: Princefavis.isip@taylors.edu.my Stream Coordinator Programme Director
Office No.: 0356295498 (Culture, Artistic & Social Studies)
Office Location: Academic Suite C5

Remarks:
1. The Project Brief is to be distributed to the students in the first week of the semester.
2. Any changes to the Project Brief shall be communicated (in writing) to the Programme
Director and the approved revised version must be communicated to the students

3
PROJECT PART 1: CASE STUDY (20%)
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5
No.
Unsatisfactory/Fail Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent

Introduction No evidence of Has an Has written an Has an Has clear

-HistoricalBackground introduction of city introduction but introduction but understandable introduction &
1 -Street Profile and street. lacks clarity. required clarity introduction, appropriate
-Morphological study
&improvements. using good descriptive
of Street (20%)
terminologies. words.
Analysis (Text & No relationship Little Some Identified the Identified the
Diagrams) between theory relationships relationships theory and are theory which
1. Clarity of point and and analysis between theory between theory interrelated with are clearly
analysis. and analysis and analysis. analysis linked to
2 2. Effective use of
analysis
illustration, images
and diagrams.
3. Applied theories
correctly. (50%)

Proper No evidence of Very minimal Satisfactory Good evidence Very good

Referencing relating study to evidence of evidence of of relating study evidence of
3 (20%) required relating study to relating study to required relating study
references. required to required references. to required
references. references. references.
Peer Evaluation Absence in Minimal Satisfactory Substantial Very good
(10%) participation & participation & participation & participation & participation &
3
contribution to contribution to contribution to contribution to contribution to
work & team work & team. work & team work & team work & team

PROJECT PART 2: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ASSESSMENT RUBRIC (40%)

CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5
No.
Unsatisfactory/Fail Poor Satisfactory Good Excellent

Background/ No relationship Little Evidence of Identified Identified

Introduction Streets between theory relationships some theory which theory which
Critical analysis of and analysis between theory relationships are interrelated are clearly
1 architecture and urban and analysis between theory with analysis linked to
forms within its social,
and analysis analysis
cultural and intellectual
context. (20%)

Comparative Essay+ Arrangement of Arrangement of Images and Images and Images and
Illustrated Diagram images and images and illustrations are illustrations are illustrations are
Comparative Analysis illustrations is illustrations is roughly orderly arranged well.
Use of diagrams, confusing. unclear. arranged in a arranged with Clarity & with
illustrations, sketches
2 workable order. annotations annotations.
and images to aide
Comparison is Comparison is Comparison is Comparison is Comparison is
analysis. (50%)
unclear. often unclear generally clear clear with clearly stated
with minimal minimal and justified.
ambiguity. improvements
Referencing & No evidence of Identified at Uses at least 3 Uses at least 4 Uses at least 5
Research Skills sources. Lacks least 2 sources. sources. sources. Clear sources.
3 (30%) in-depth Evidence of Evidence of evidence of Indicated
investigation. investigation investigation investigation rigorous
however lacking. investigation