GRADING RUBRIC FOR DESIGN 6 TO DESIGN 8 PLATES AND ESQUISSES (for projects with high SDP importance)

NOT OR HARDLY FAIRLY EVIDENT EXCEPTIONALLY

LESS EVIDENT VERY EVIDENT
PROJECT ISSUES EVIDENT (70-79%) EVIDENT SCORE
(60-69%) (80-89%) FACTOR
(Criteria) (0-59%) (Minimally (90-100%) (ADD DOWN)
(Below Expectation) (As Expected)
(Unacceptable) Acceptable) (Beyond Expectation)
ACCEPTABILITY AND No work was done in this area Work did not reflect any design Design concept was expressed, Design concept was clearly Design concept was very
SUCCESSFUL TRANSLATION or there was hardly any work or concept/ character; the work although its relationship to the related to the Design clearly related to the Design
OF THE DESIGN CONCEPT; output here had no conceptual basis Design Philosophy and its Philosophy, Philosophy, well-explained and
10% translation had obvious Explained and translated successfully translated in the
inconsistencies in the work, with very work
minor inconsistencies
ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE 0 or 59 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4
GRADE ------ > 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 1
SOUNDNESS OF THE SITE No work was done in this area Work did not show any logical There was an attempt to The site was well-planned, The planning solution
DE’VT PLAN: TRAFFIC or there was hardly any work or planning approach or strategy put the site in order but a site constraints were solved, demonstrated an exemplary
CIRCULATION, output here number of incoherent maximized the site potentials example of good site planning in
SEGREGATION, ZONING OF solutions were committed but have some minor flaws all aspects
AREAS, LANDSCAPING; 15%
ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE 0 or 59 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4
GRADE ------ > 0 or 59 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 2.5
SOUNDNESS & CREATIVITY No work was done in this area The work showed poor and The work showed an attempt The work was well- The work was very impressive,
OF THE FLOOR PLANS: or there was hardly any work or unacceptable layout of floor to design; spaces were designed, coherent, almost faultless, exhibited fresh
CIRCULATION, output here plans logically acceptable but had followed the standards ideas in designing and had
SEGREGATION, ZONING OF violation of design standards, and codes but was consistently followed the codes
AREAS; 35% bldg code and other related observed to have some and standards
national / local laws very minor design faults
ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE 0 or 59 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4
GRADE ------ > 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 3
INNOVATIVE AND No work was done in this area The work showed poor and The work showed an The work was well- The work was very
EFFECTIVE or there was hardly any work or inconsistent interpretation of attempt to design the designed, coherent, but impressive, almost faultless,
INTERPRETATION OF output here elevations and sections vertical aspect; logically was observed to have some exhibited fresh ideas in
ELEVATIONS AND SECTIONS acceptable but had very minor design faults designing and had consistently
BASED ON THE DESIGN inconsistencies with the floor followed the codes and
CONCEPT 20% plans standards
ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE 0 or 59 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4
GRADE ------ > 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 1.5
COMPETENT TRANSLATION No work was done in this area The work showed poor and The work showed an attempt to The work was well- The work was very
OF EXTERIOR AND or there was hardly any work or inconsistent interpretation of interpret the design in 3– designed, coherent, but impressive, almost faultless,
INTERIOR PERSPECTIVES output here exterior and interior dimensional form but had was observed to have some exhibited fresh ideas in
10% perspectives inconsistencies with the floor very minor design faults designing and rendering 3-
plans, elevations and sections dimensional images
ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE 0 or 59 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4
GRADE ------ > 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 1
OVERALL CORRECTNESS OF No work was done in this area The work did not observe The work showed an attempt to The work was well- The work was very
DRAWINGS AND CREATIVITY or there was hardly any work or drafting standards, untidy, and interpret the design in 3– designed, coherent, but impressive, almost faultless,
OF PRESENTATION 10% output here did not meet basic acceptable dimensional form but had was observed to have some exhibited fresh ideas in
presentation inconsistencies with the floor very minor design faults designing and rendering 3-
plans, elevations and sections dimensional images
ENCIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE 0 or 59 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4
GRADE ------ > 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.9 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 1

GRADE