Please find below the
Semi-Finalist Evaluation
Judges'' comments
The tiny house concept is discussed, and shows some interesting conceptual thought as to an integrated design pattern. There is no proposal to move it forward however. For a proposal to advance, it needs to propose for something to happen. Perhaps the author might like to propose a demo project; and if so it would be worthy to put some time into an appraisal of possible benefits.
This project combines a number of existing technologies (which are not deeply explored for implementation in the proposed scheme) in a questionable suburban development model. While the premise is correct, i.e. the need to subvert sprawl and increasing dwelling size, the proposed model appears over simplified, does not really question the suburban model and does not consider the complexity (social, economic and environmental) of new/regenerated human development: besides work (allegedly using internet) what other facilities (for socialising, entertainment, etc) are provided to avoid people commuting to main centres? Is the model appropriate for different age groups (families with children, elderly, etc)? How can sparsely distributed commercial activities sustain themselves? What is the minimum amount of land/surface needed to maintain each dwelling? The list of unresolved items is very long. The main question though is if this still low density model is the best option in light of one of the main issues highlighted by the author: land scarcity. Reference to existing research on density and infill development and new forms of urbanity is required to show how this proposal is innovative and feasible.
While a useful idea, more detail on how it wlil be implemented is needed so as to take it to the next stage.
0comments
Share conversation:
Share via:
No comments have been posted.
