grades

	P1 6%	P2 6%	P3 8%	MID 30%	COMMENT	concept	presentation	process/ development of concept
Joy Salameh.	B+	B+	A-	A-	good project. Interesting form. Need to work out connections between library and landscape.	xxxxx	xxx	xxxx
Fady Haddad.	A	A-	A-	A-	mature project. Integrate ramp as main circulation inside volumes. Link both volumes in a more direct way. Think of scale and reduce ramp redundacies.	xxxxx	xxxx	xxxx
Mohammad Ali Ahmad.	B	C+	C-	B	interesting landmark but with no integration with context. need to integrate form and ground floor  with context,develop  landscape and circulation from floor to floor.	xxxx	xx	xxx
Cindrella Semaan.	C+	C	C-	C	weak concept and arguments. Pedestrian circulation and entrances are not integrated. No relationship between landscape, volume and roof. Needs a lot of development.	xx	x	xx
Georges El Hachem.	C+	C	C	C+	interesting concept but no relationship to surroundings. Idea needs more development. Weak presentation and architectural interpretation.  Lots of work to be done.	xxxx	xx	x
Younes Saad.	C+	C	C	B	promising project, interesting integration that still need work on achrafieh side, but weak argumentation and presentation. Space/circulation should not be conventional.	xxxx	x	xxx
Mohammad DaaDaa.	C+	C	D+	C+	need to restart with concept model bands:link between form and program.Lots of work to be done.	xxxx	xx	x
Patrick Sfeir.	C+	C	C	C+	good start, but no site strategy. Need to go back and  invent an architectural language related to light study and program.	xxx	xx	x
Sebastian Itani.	C+	C-	C	C	no hierarchy between positive and negative space, no good relations between functions, form is too stiff and does not adapt to program.	xx	xx	xx
Khaled Fares.	C	C-	C	C+	good enclosure strategy BUT no good height, program relationships and proportions of building. Misuse of precedents.	xxx	xxx	x
HampI Safarian.	C+	C	C	B	good urban section. Problems with site integration. Adapt architectural language to approach sequence and site.	xxxx	xxx	xx
Amira Torbay.	C+	C+	C	C	confused entrances, no integration with site. Weak presentation and development of idea.Lots of work to be done.	xx	x	xx
Hamza Zain.	B-	C+	C-	C	monotonous shape and experience. Building out of scale. Need to rethink the loop on a manageable scale and develop the architectural language to provide interesting experience.Lots of work to be done.	xx	xx	x
Mohammad Samadi.	C+	C+	C-
Nour Obeid.	C+	C+	B+	B+	good analysis. Work on steps and sequence, urban integration	xxxx	xxx	xxx
Nisreen Khalifeh.	C-	D	C-	C-	analysis is weak, concept is not existant. Project very rigid and did not take in consideration the site.	x	x	x
Youssef Moussa.	C	C-	C-	C+/B-	need to have a better argument for two towers (manifesto's argument is too immature). Need to integrate project on the ground levels and develop architecture language according to circulation and program.	xxx	xxx	x
Stephanie Kortbaoui	C	C	C	C+/B-	Interesting exploded library.Need to develop circulation and program with form. Experience of approach as well. Because of simple volumes, architectural concept need to be much stronger and linked with the landscape.	xxx	xxx	x
Imad Kazan.	C	C+	A-	A-	good analysis, project, and integration. Need to develop further the experience within the building to avoid monotonous stacking.	xxxxx	xxxxx	xxx
Ali Taha.	C	D	C-	C-	enclosure system is too heavy and out of proportion.	x	x	x
Rani Wehbe.	C	C	C	C+/B-	interesting process. Need to develop design with as much rigor. Design should clearly reflect intentions. Need a lot of work. The cliff needs to be visible and the form/experience interesting.	xxx	xx	xx