Torcello was once the most populous island in the lagoon. Today fewer than twenty people live there, and the island holds what the centuries left behind. The seventh-century cathedral, the bell tower, the artichoke fields reverting to reed, the walled garden where Dorona persisted through four centuries of neglect. This vacancy is not an absence. It is a clearing, and it is where the work of this module happens.
Modules 01 and 02 built toward this. Module 01 read the territory and set the grounds of inquiry. Module 02 started processes, three interventions that unfold through time. Module 03, back in Charlottesville, makes those processes real. It asks you to develop a comprehensive proposal for Torcello as a productive viticultural landscape, a proposal detailed in how it is implemented, how it is maintained, and how it changes through time.
A comprehensive proposal is not a larger version of a sketch. It is a design proposition situated in reality while challenging assumptions. It names the materials, the assemblies, the phasing, the people who tend it, and the conditions under which it succeeds or fails. Speculation remains, but it is tempered. Implementation gives the speculation its constraints and its credibility.
Your proposal will situate a productive viticultural landscape and its associated buildings. The elements first raised in Module 02 must now be developed to the point of implementation.
A visitor building or pavilion. Where visitors arrive, what they see, how the building frames the vineyard and the lagoon, and how it performs across the seasons.
Processing and storage buildings. The equipment and the grape processing, the winery, the cellar, and the daily work of turning fruit into wine. How these buildings relate to the field and to the water.
A residential building for ten to fifteen people. The site manager and the seasonal workers who tend the vines. A building that houses the people whose attention makes the landscape productive.
Access by land and by water. Service access, harvest access, visitor access. How materials, machines, fruit, and people arrive and leave, and how the two systems, land and water, meet.
The field layout and the work of landscape production. The vineyard itself, the rows and trellises, the compost, the storage, the daily tending of vines, and the soil and water that sustain them.
Habitat creation. The non-agricultural landscapes that support the working ground. The hedgerows, the wet edges, the barene, the places where the vineyard yields to the lagoon's other life.
Each element must be addressed. Within each you have room to interpret and to speculate. You must also propose how the element is implemented.
A comprehensive proposal is a proposal in time. It does not describe a single finished condition. It describes a sequence of working conditions.
Your three interventions from Module 02 carry into this module. Each evolves, and each must function in every stage of its evolution. Show the proposal at the first season, at the first decade, at the first century. Show what the first cut produces, how the next two interventions steer it, and how the whole system answers the lagoon's rhythms, the tide, the salt, the flood, the slow rise of the sea.
The temporal is not a separate drawing. It is the frame that holds every other drawing together.
Each team formed a position in Module 01. Refine it. Give the project a title. Write a statement of one or two sentences. Write a design statement of two hundred to three hundred words that names the position and the values it stakes. The position drives the work. Every drawing, every model, every decision traces back to it.
Each team's topic came from the Module 01 atlas and was refined through Module 02. Revisit it. The topic should name the pressing issue the project addresses and how it relates to the position. The topic can evolve, but it should not drift.
The proposals operate at scales that are hard to hold in the mind, and this is where they are most vulnerable. Ground the proposition. Articulate how the project is implemented. Implementation can take several forms. It may be a detailed drawing that shows how materials are assembled. It may be a management plan tied to a season or to an institution. It may be a phasing diagram that shows what happens first and what follows. Take implementation seriously. It gives the project its constraints and helps an outside audience place the concepts within a plausible future. Be clear about the relationship between speculation and implementation, where one ends and the other begins.
The method from Module 02 carries into this module, and it must now do two things. Animate the critical dynamics of the project. Develop representations that show the proposal in its multiple states, the events that catalyze change, the staging, the adaptation over time.
The project began on the first day of studio. Module 03 requires intense development before the final review in December. Time is short. Identify the critical questions and the deliverables they require. Derive a schedule and hold to it.
The final review is delivered digitally and physically to a panel of internal and external critics. The presentation must deliver the semester's work concisely and cohesively. It should read as one project, unified across media. Every team member participates, and you should develop a shared script and practice it to present the work.
A refined atlas that carries the drawings and diagrams from all three modules into a single document.
A project title, a statement of one or two sentences, and a written design statement.
Representations of the proposal's processes, interventions, and states over time.
An aerial view of Torcello showing a speculative future, annotated.
A large drawing, to scale, of a critical moment, showing formal expression and design intent.
A physical model of the overall system.
Each project will determine its own additional deliverables from this list, and may add to it.
A timeline of the cycles the project engages, hydrologic, ecological, seasonal, and programmatic, and how these durations define the proposal.
A generative framework plan showing the large scale flows that deploy the project across the site.
A catalog of the landscape, programmatic, and building components, with enlargements of typical edge conditions.
Site plan showing grading and important features.
Architectural plans and sections.
A sectional model showing the system in detail.
Serial sections that describe the relationship between infrastructure, production, architecture, and landscape, and how the site is occupied through time.
A temporal exploration, a drawing somewhere between technical documentation and illustration, that focuses on change through time.
Illustrative vignettes of key moments, the transitions and adjacencies between landscape, building, agriculture, and water, depicting the physical conditions and the atmospheres they generate.
The rubric takes the information presented in the brief and breaks it down for evaluation. Each criteria highlights what the brief asks, then describes four levels of achievement. The levels are Exemplary, Proficient, Developing, and Beginning.
The brief asks that each team refine its position from Module 01, give the project a title, write a statement of one or two sentences, and write a design statement of two hundred to three hundred words naming the position and the values it stakes. The topic should name the pressing issue the project addresses.
Exemplary. The position is refined and named. The title carries it. The statement is one or two sentences, the design statement two hundred to three hundred words, and every drawing, model, and decision traces back to it. The topic names the pressing issue without drifting.
Proficient. The position is clear and the statements are written, but not every decision yet traces back to them.
Developing. The position is stated but does not yet drive the work.
Beginning. No position, or one that drifts from drawing to drawing.
The brief asks that the proposal be grounded, articulating how the project is implemented, whether through a detailed drawing, a management plan, or a phasing diagram, and to be clear about where speculation ends and implementation begins.
Exemplary. The proposal names the materials, the assemblies, the phasing, the people who tend it, and the conditions under which it succeeds or fails. The boundary between speculation and implementation is drawn clearly.
Proficient. Implementation is present in parts, a detailed drawing or a phasing diagram, but not yet across the whole proposal.
Developing. Implementation is gestured at. Speculation is not yet tempered.
Beginning. No implementation.
The brief asks that the elements first raised in Module 02 be developed to the point of implementation. A visitor building or pavilion, processing and storage buildings, a residential building for ten to fifteen people, access by land and by water, the field layout and the work of landscape production, and habitat creation.
Exemplary. All six elements are developed to the point of implementation, and their relationships to the field and to the water are resolved.
Proficient. All six are addressed, some developed further than others.
Developing. Several elements remain sketchy.
Beginning. Elements are missing.
The brief asks that the proposal be a proposal in time, showing the project at the first season, at the first decade, at the first century, and carrying the three interventions from Module 02 through each stage.
Exemplary. The three interventions carry through, and the proposal is shown at the first season, the first decade, and the first century, answering the tide, the salt, the flood, and the slow rise of the sea.
Proficient. The three stages are shown, and the interventions evolve, but the long horizon is less resolved.
Developing. Time is shown in one stage or as a single sequence.
Beginning. Time is absent.
The brief asks that the method animate the critical dynamics of the project, developing representations that show the proposal in its multiple states, the events that catalyze change, the staging, and the adaptation over time.
Exemplary. The representations show the proposal in its multiple states, the events that catalyze change, the staging, and the adaptation over time. The method animates the critical dynamics rather than illustrating them.
Proficient. The method is present but does not yet animate all the dynamics.
Developing. The method is shown for part of the project.
Beginning. Static representation.
The brief asks that the final review read as one project, unified across media, with a shared script practiced and every team member participating.
Exemplary. The work reads as one project across media. The script is shared and practiced, and every member participates.
Proficient. Cohesive but with seams between media.
Developing. The parts read as separate projects.
Beginning. Uncoordinated.
The brief requires a refined atlas carrying the drawings and diagrams from all three modules, a title and statements, representations of the proposal's processes and states over time, an annotated aerial view of Torcello, a large drawing to scale of a critical moment, and a physical model of the overall system.
Exemplary. All required deliverables are present and complete, and the chosen additional deliverables deepen the proposal rather than pad it.
Proficient. All required deliverables are present, with some weaker than others.
Developing. Required deliverables are missing or incomplete.
Beginning. The deliverable set is substantially incomplete.
Each criterion is scored out of one hundred, then weighted. The levels map to these bands.
| Level | Score range |
|---|---|
| Exemplary | 93-100 |
| Proficient | 86-92 |
| Developing | 78-85 |
| Beginning | 70-77 |
The weights below are proposed and can be adjusted. The total is one hundred.
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| Position and topic | 15 |
| Implementation and speculation | 20 |
| The elements | 20 |
| The temporal | 15 |
| Method | 10 |
| Presentation | 10 |
| Deliverables | 10 |