Talk:Planting Design 2013 - Working Group 23: Difference between revisions
Andreea Webb (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Andreea Webb (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Your group seems to have had a good relationship based on communication, as a result the group activity was a productive one. | Your group seems to have had a good relationship based on communication, as a result the group activity was a productive one. | ||
The concept map is fairly detailed and overall the group presentation was good as well. | The concept map is fairly detailed and overall the group presentation was good as well. However the situation is different on the individual case studies. | ||
'''Case Study A - Union Square, Iasi, Romania''' | '''Case Study A - Union Square, Iasi, Romania''' | ||
Latest revision as of 19:58, 8 January 2014
Feedback from Group 8
Your group seems to have had a good relationship based on communication, as a result the group activity was a productive one. The concept map is fairly detailed and overall the group presentation was good as well. However the situation is different on the individual case studies.
Case Study A - Union Square, Iasi, Romania
>good case study
>more information on the existing problems could have been added
>case is not complete
Case Study B - Eko o ni Baje Garden, Lagos
>good choice for the case study
>interesting case being already designed for the people but not used
>you did a great job presenting the space
>would be really curious what the solution for this problem is
>your case is not completed
Case Study C - Hudson Road Recovery, Argentina
>good choice for the case study
>the evaluation and the solution are a little too superficial
>there's an imbalance between the drawings and the description
>the proposal could have been a little more detailed
>in conclusion it is a good case but needed a little bit more work