Project 1 - My Responses     1. Eric --   First of all, you had some really interesting ideas, especially, in my opinion, the interaction of light and dark to help create an atmosphere on campus.   A few thoughts:   - The “book ends” style of intro and conclusion is a nice technique, but I would just work on tying it into your argument more closely to make your paper more cohesive. At this point, the intro feels a little extraneous.    - Though probably entirely unintentionally, your writing seems a little repetitive. If you made your writing less wordy, I think you’d get a much tighter argument and paper.   (Example: … in my ideal college campus, I would incorporate that type of architecture into the campus. What we have to remember is the purpose of a college campus. College campuses are for learning and growing.  In designing the perfect master plan campus…)   - Your ideas are good, but your organization feels a little jumbled to me. If I were you revising this paper, I would step back, decide exactly what I want to say, reorganize the paper in a connected outline, and then move the text around and rewrite. I think restructuring your organization will strengthen your argument and paper immensely, without too much work.   - That Robert Berdahl quote in the fourth paragraph is a beast! Try to pull out the salient points that most relate to your argument.   Sentence revision.   Original: In my opinion, this interaction with nature mixed with the Spanish Mediterranean architecture would allow students to identify and appreciate nature and the architecture around them more.   Revision: By interacting with their environment, students would better appreciate the nature and architecture around them. Hope this was helpful!   Megan       2. Mauro --   I really liked the way you approached the prompt and I think your solution is unique and convincing. I liked the way you emphasized the building’s relation to the area of study it housed and your argument presents a good example of learning from the buildings we inhabit.   The one main overarching thing I would suggest developing is your argument for diversity. You need to have a strong, assertive ending! Try rephrasing your ideas in a way that, instead of admitting the “problems” with your campus plan or the “alienation of unity”, emphasize the merits of having a diverse campus. Perhaps recognize the fact that unity is important, but then explain why a diverse campus reflective of the programs in it is more important. Basically it’s the whole argumentative strategy of predicting and addressing your opponent’s points before they make them.   Also, some of your sentences seem more complicated than they have to be, which makes it harder for the reader to understand what you’re arguing. If you want, I’d be more than happy to edit your paper for stuff like that, just let me know.   Sentence revision.   Original: The final installation in my argument comes to schools that involve science or mathematics, namely Natural Sciences and the school of Business .   Revision: The last style of architecture would resonate with studies that involve science and mathematics, such as the Natural Sciences or School of Business .   Good job!   Megan     3. Trevor --   You had some really interesting ideas, and once you do a little polishing, I think you’ll have a great paper! Here are some things I noticed:   - Your intro sentence presents an interesting idea, but make it snappy, give it a kick, do something to capture your reader’s attention!   - Here’s another suggestion for your intro. Perhaps make a more obvious distinction between environment and place and develop the idea of architecture as the creation of places. Can you make this part of your argument, how Post-Modern architecture creates “places” instead of “environments” and why that’s important for UT’s campus?   - It might be more effective to rearrange the order in which you discuss Modernism and Postmodernism. If you started with a paragraph about what people typically associate with “modern” architecture (coldness, lack of ornamentation, ugly floating box, etc), you could in the next paragraph explain that these are actually aspects of Modernism. In the next paragraph, you could present Postmodernism as a counter-movement, and elaborate on, and highlight, the characteristics of Postmodernism that are opposite to those undesirable characteristics of modernism. By doing it this way, you’d separate people’s negative associations with modern architecture from Postmodernism, and I think that would help to strengthen your argument.   - Try to incorporate your quotes more smoothly   - I think commas might look and flow better than parentheses   - “Postmodern Architecture provides the crucial link between structure and freedom that is required for an environment favorable to this goal.” This was an interesting idea, but some elaboration would be helpful.   Sentence revision.   Original: One of the primary aims of this campus plan’s use of the postmodern style is to create a subtle integration and blending of the buildings with the natural world around them.   Revision: One important function of using Postmodern architecture on UT’s campus would be to blend the university buildings naturally into their environment.   So, hopefully some of these suggestions are helpful!   Megan     4. Liz –   Wow, I was really impressed by your paper! Though I never considered Modernism a style that would in any way fit UT’s campus, your argument was quite convincing.   I liked your concrete description at the beginning of your paper, that you gave a more complete description of the philosophy behind, and details of, Le Corbusier’s architecture, and your argument for the functionality of Modernism.   I can’t say I have many suggestions for your paper as a whole, because I think your argument and organization are solid. I think you’re basically down to polishing your writing itself, so here are a few things I noticed about it.   - Though you do want to be assertive about your position, you also don’t want to go too far with it. The two places where I noticed this were “When my master plan is accepted…” and another part, perhaps on the second page (which for some reason I can’t access now), where the wording is something along the lines of “My master plan incorporates nature …and above any other plan.” The first part of the incorporating nature sentence comparing your plan to other people’s is fine, but you might want to be careful about the second part: one, because it sounded condescending (to me at least), and two, there are other styles of architecture that arguably blend with nature better than Modernism, so you’re making an extremely firm assertion on somewhat shaky ground.   - Sometimes your sentences can get a little wordy, so you might try breaking up some of your longer sentences into shorter ones or condensing what you want to say into fewer words.   Sorry this wasn’t as helpful as it could have been, but no “big picture” stuff really jumped out at me as needing revision. If you want someone to look over nit-picky stuff like sentence construction, diction, and all that, I’d be happy to edit it!   Sentence Revision.   Original: The occasional surprising splashes of color inside the buildings will help to relieve the tension of students weary of reading and writing as they catch the eye.   Revision: An occasional surprising splash of color will catch the eye of work-weary students, helping to relieve the tension (of a long day)*   *Or something to that effect   But really, great job!   Megan     5. Prianka --   I really like a lot of the ideas you have in this paper: the you way you set up the “scale” of architecture with Modernism on one end and Gothic architecture on the other, your three qualifications for good architecture, and your point about maintaining a kind of unity by hiring same architect. So good job on that!   Here are some suggestions I have:   Make assertions instead of asking questions. It’ll strengthen your argument and make you seem more assertive. Instead of asking your audience, tell them!   For example, how much stronger is   “Being environmentally-conscious is a vital aspect of a building’s truth to nature”   than   “Isn’t being environmentally-conscious part of having truth to nature?”?   Another thing I noticed was in your writing style. To me, it seemed a bit casual, and I think elevating it a bit to make it more formal would add more authority to your argument.   Here’s the last thing. I might make references back to your original three objectives of “perfect style of collegiate architecture” throughout your paper to connect your ideas and unify your argument. This would be especially, especially useful in the paragraph where you suggest that Post-Modernism is that ideal style (the paragraph “In the middle of these two…”). I also got a little lost after that paragraph in terms of organization, and a lot of new ideas were introduced at the end without being connected back to your main argument. So basically, I’d suggest tying your ideas together a little more clearly.   Sentence revision.   Original: I have deduced my perfect style of collegiate architecture to have three main objectives: functionality, aesthetically pleasing and thus memorable, and thought provoking.   Revision: My ideal style of collegiate architecture has three main objectives: to be functional, to be aesthetically pleasing and, therefore, memorable, and to be thought provoking. (Or just get rid of the “and, therefore, memorable” altogether).   Overall, good work!   Megan   6. Mary –   Good job! I really enjoyed reading your paper for a few reasons. I liked that you distinguished between the interior and exterior designs of your campus plan. This was an angle I hadn’t thought of before and I realize how important it is. I also liked that you actually presented a master plan, map and all, using concrete, specific examples. This really helped convey your ideas well.   Besides going through and doing some basic polishing, there was really only one thing I’d suggest changing. It seemed to me that you used “I” too often. Yes, you are arguing for your own master plan, but if there were a way to say the same thing using different words, taking out many of the “I” statements, I think it might lend your paper an air of authority and assertiveness. You would think that using “I” would be the most assertive way to go about doing, but I found myself starting to focus more on your use of “I” than on your argument. So maybe less emphasis on you and more emphasis on your plan itself…? Sorry if this isn’t very clear, I had a hard time teasing out my idea.   Oh, and perhaps try to vary your word choice a little bit, as there were quite a few “will”s!   Sentence Revision.   Original: My campus will teach the importance of remaining true to our roots and our past, while at the same time having a forward-looking perspective on our ever-changing world.   Revision: This campus will teach the importance of a connection with our past while looking forward to the future of our dynamic world.   Basically, I think that, besides needing a little polishing, your ideas and argument are good.   Well done!   Megan     7. Chetna --   I liked that you picked a very unique style of architecture; it made an interesting argument.   A few suggestions:   Though your argument for using a Vedic style on campus was good, I wasn’t thoroughly convinced of the merits of Vedic architecture itself. Basically, if I took the results and components of Vedic architecture to be true, your argument was convincing. I would have been more convinced by more science-based facts that support Vedic’s claims of unifying and providing a better environment (perhaps that’s just the Bio major in me), because it seemed to me to be largely theoretical (and perhaps it is). Perhaps Vedic architecture is largely theoretical, and if it is, I would suggest trying to ground some of the proposed merits of this style less in grand and vague concepts like “soul” and “universal intelligence” and more in concrete examples, if that makes sense.   I agree with Rachel’s assertion that some of the information about Vedic architecture could be cut or condense   I couldn’t follow your structure of organization easily and it seemed to me that that weakened your argument. I think it would be helpful for the reader if you condensed your argument and streamlined it a bit.   Sentence Revision.   Original: A university undertakes the monumental task of incorporating every aspect of life into one collective haven, where each facet of the campus, each building, classroom, and courtyard successfully interweaves people with place to build the underpinning from which memories originate.   Revision: A university undertakes the monumental task of interweaving its inhabitants with their environment – the buildings, classrooms, and courtyards –  to create a character for the place.   I hope these suggestions are helpful!   Megan   8. Amanda --   Wow, good job! You have a great line of reasoning for the construction of your argument, it was very convincing, and the structure made it easy to follow.   Here are some things to think about:   A more thorough explanation of Beaux-Arts would have helped me. Though you argued for it well, I still wasn’t exactly sure what it meant for a building to be built in a Beaux-Arts style. The definition seemed very broad, which may just relate to the fact that the style itself is very dynamic, but more images of buildings designed in that style or more detailed explanations and examples of how you would have combined Beaux-Arts with Spanish would have helped me have a clearer picture of your idea. It was also a little confusing for me when you mentioned the Tower and Hogg as examples of Beaux-Arts, because I associate both with Spanish style architecture more than anything else. Are the references to the past the only things that make them Beaux-Arts? If so, does ornamentation alone make a building in the Beaux-Arts style? Basically, if you could point out exactly which aspects of those buildings are Beaux-Arts, I think the example would be clearer.   This is just stupid, but in the sentence “Another, not as apparent, function of the university that can be assisted by campus architecture is described in the current master plan,” perhaps use “more elusive” or “less obvious” instead of “not as apparent”?   Sentence Revision:   Original: Many of the existing Beaux-Arts buildings on campus provide keen examples: the Main Building, covered with symbols of antiquity and forever reminding all who pass its walls that “the truth shall set you free” (partly shown in the above picture), and the Will C. Hogg Building, exhibiting “a frieze reproducing in stone the animals of prehistoric times, the fossils they have left, the crystals and ores of minerals” on its walls (379), being only two.   Revision: The existing Beaux-Arts buildings on campus provide keen examples: the Main Building is covered with symbols of antiquity and forever reminds that “the truth shall make you free”; the Hogg Building exhibits “a frieze reproducing in stone the animals of prehistoric times, the fossils they have left, the crystals and ores of minerals” on its walls (379).   -          I took out the “many” from the beginning of the sentence because I didn’t think there were any other examples on campus, but I could be wrong. -          The Italics are just to point out that it’s “make” instead of “set” (though personally I think “set” sounds a lot better!)   Nice job!   9. Alex   First of all, I thought your ideas to combine Modern and Spanish architecture and to use different styles/interpretations of architecture to reflect the use of the building was intriguing, so good job on that.   Here are a few suggestions:   The main aspect of your paper that I suggest working on is the organization. It think it would be helpful if you gave the reader a general layout of the way your paper and your argument are structured somewhere in your introduction. This doesn’t have to be a stereotypical three-prong thesis, but just some indication about the structure of your argument. This will also I think make the rest of your paper seem more connected. For example, in this draft the introduction, paragraph about transportation, and paragraph about open space, though valuable points, seemed extraneous to your main argument. Can you find a way to integrate them into your initial argument so they become more pertinent?   Something else that I think you could tease out a little is the way you talk about combining the styles. The way I understood it, one the one hand, you suggest we can use elements of the two to create a single style. On the other, you suggest that we could simply have a combination of Modern style buildings and Spanish style buildings. How does this second proposal fit into your argument that a campus must be unified? Wouldn’t the contrast between the two styles, side by side, still be jarring?   One last thing. Monolith is a great word, just be careful not to overuse it. :) Try colossal/colossus, giant, gargantuan, monstrous/monstrosity, etc.   And the sentence revision…   Original: At first glance, all of UT seems fairly uniform, but one soon finds that too many buildings contrast displeasingly with each other or and strike the viewer as aesthetically distasteful.   Suggestion: Though at first UT seems architecturally (“architecturally” might be overkill) unified, upon closer inspection the contrast between many of the buildings is discordant, breaking the initial sense of unity.   Hope these were somewhat helpful!   Megan