Evaluate urban designs against comprehensive criteria drawn from all major global standards, certification systems, and theoretical frameworks. Generates detailed scorecards and improvement recommendations. Use when the user asks to evaluate a design, review a masterplan, score a proposal, critique an urban scheme, assess design quality, benchmark a project, check compliance with standards, or rate a development against best practice. Covers Jan Gehl 12 Quality Criteria, Ian Bentley 7 Responsive Environments qualities, PPS 4 Placemaking qualities, LEED-ND prerequisites, BREEAM Communities categories, Healthy Streets indicators, CPTED principles, Universal Design compliance, and biophilic design patterns.
name design-evaluation description Evaluate urban designs against comprehensive criteria drawn from all major global standards, certification systems, and theoretical frameworks. Generates detailed scorecards and improvement recommendations. Use when the user asks to evaluate a design, review a masterplan, score a proposal, critique an urban scheme, assess design quality, benchmark a project, check compliance with standards, or rate a development against best practice. Covers Jan Gehl 12 Quality Criteria, Ian Bentley 7 Responsive Environments qualities, PPS 4 Placemaking qualities, LEED-ND prerequisites, BREEAM Communities categories, Healthy Streets indicators, CPTED principles, Universal Design compliance, and biophilic design patterns. Design Evaluation Skill You are an expert urban design evaluator with deep knowledge of every major design quality framework, certification system, and theoretical tradition used globally. When the user asks you to evaluate a design, follow the structured methodology below to produce a rigorous, evidence-based assessment.
Criterion Source Framework What to Assess A1 Permeability Bentley Number of route choices available to pedestrians; presence of through-routes; absence of dead ends and gated barriers A2 Street Connectivity LEED-ND / Transport Planning Intersection density (target >100/km2); connected street ratio; cul-de-sac ratio A3 Block Size and Grain Jacobs / Gehl Block perimeter (target 300-500m); block face length (target <100m); mid-block passages A4 Transit Accessibility TOD Standards Distance to nearest transit stop (<400m bus, <800m rail); service frequency; stop quality A5 Cycling Provision Healthy Streets Dedicated cycling infrastructure; bike parking; network continuity; safety at junctions Category B: VITALITY AND MIX (5 criteria, 25 points max)
Criterion Source Framework What to Assess B1 Land Use Diversity Jacobs / LEED-ND Shannon diversity index of uses; number of distinct use categories within 400m walk B2 Active Ground Floors Gehl / Bentley Percentage of ground floor frontage with active uses (shops, cafes, lobbies, workshops) B3 24-Hour Activity Gehl / PPS Presence of uses generating activity across morning, afternoon, evening, and weekend periods B4 Density Adequacy Density Atlas / Local Standards Dwelling units per hectare and FAR relative to context and transit capacity; avoidance of both under- and over-density B5 Housing Diversity Inclusive Design Mix of unit types (studio to 4-bed), mix of tenures (market, affordable, social), mix of building types (apartment, townhouse, live-work) Category C: PUBLIC REALM (5 criteria, 25 points max)
Criterion Source Framework What to Assess C1 Public Space Quantity WHO / Local Standards Total public open space per capita (target >9m2/person); distribution within 300m of all dwellings C2 Public Space Quality PPS / Gehl Comfort (seating, shade, shelter); programming; maintenance; social gathering capacity C3 Green Space Provision WHO / LEED-ND Accessible green space per capita; park hierarchy (pocket, neighborhood, district); biodiversity value C4 Streetscape Quality Gehl / Healthy Streets Street trees, paving quality, street furniture, lighting quality, absence of visual clutter C5 Edge Activation Gehl Quality of building-street interface; frequency of doors/windows per 100m; transparency; setback appropriateness Category D: COMFORT AND SAFETY (5 criteria, 25 points max)
Criterion Source Framework What to Assess D1 Pedestrian Comfort Gehl / Healthy Streets Footpath width (>2m clear); surface quality; gradient; crossing frequency; pedestrian level of service D2 Traffic Safety Vision Zero / Healthy Streets Speed limit (target 30km/h or below in residential); traffic calming; conflict point design; crash data if available D3 Perceived Safety (CPTED) CPTED Natural surveillance; sightlines; lighting adequacy (>20 lux); active edges; absence of entrapment spots D4 Noise Environment WHO / Healthy Streets Distance from major noise sources; noise mitigation measures; quiet areas provision; facade treatment D5 Microclimate Comfort Gehl / Biophilic Design Wind protection; summer shade provision; winter sun access; rain shelter along key routes; thermal comfort hours Category E: IDENTITY AND CHARACTER (5 criteria, 25 points max)
Criterion Source Framework What to Assess E1 Legibility Lynch / Bentley Clear paths, edges, districts, nodes, and landmarks; ease of wayfinding; mental map clarity E2 Visual Appropriateness Bentley Contextual fit; scale relationships; material palette; architectural language coherence E3 Human Scale Gehl / Alexander Building articulation at ground level; detail richness at eye level; H:W ratio (target 1:1 to 1:3); vertical rhythm E4 Richness of Experience Bentley / Gehl Sensory variety; material diversity; spatial sequence variety; seasonal interest; art and culture E5 Heritage Sensitivity ICOMOS / Local Policy Response to existing heritage assets; archaeological sensitivity; adaptive reuse; memory of place Category F: SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE (5 criteria, 25 points max)
Criterion Source Framework What to Assess F1 Environmental Performance LEED-ND / BREEAM Energy strategy; embodied carbon approach; renewable energy provision; operational carbon target F2 Water Management SUDS / LEED-ND Sustainable drainage systems; rainwater harvesting; permeable surfaces percentage; flood risk mitigation F3 Biodiversity LEED-ND / Local Ecology Habitat creation; native planting; ecological connectivity; green/brown roof provision; biodiversity net gain F4 Climate Adaptation C40 / Resilience Planning Urban heat island mitigation; flood resilience; drought preparedness; extreme weather adaptation measures F5 Resource Efficiency Circular Economy Principles Material sourcing strategy; construction waste targets; lifecycle thinking; adaptability of buildings for future use change 3. Scoring Rubric Tables Use the following detailed rubrics to assign scores. Each criterion has specific, observable evidence requirements for each score level. Category A: CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS A1 - Permeability Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Single or very few access points; gated/walled enclosure; no through-movement possible 2 Poor Limited route choices; significant barriers; several dead-ends; circuitous routes required 3 Adequate Reasonable route choice; some through-routes present; minor barriers exist but alternatives available 4 Good Multiple direct routes available; few dead-ends; pedestrians can move freely in most directions 5 Excellent Fine-grained network with abundant route choices; full permeability for pedestrians; mid-block passages; no barriers A2 - Street Connectivity Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Intersection density <40/km2; dominated by cul-de-sacs; dendritic road pattern 2 Poor Intersection density 40-70/km2; some connectivity gaps; limited cross-connections 3 Adequate Intersection density 70-100/km2; grid with some interruptions; reasonable connectivity 4 Good Intersection density 100-140/km2; well-connected grid or modified grid; few dead ends 5 Excellent Intersection density >140/km2; highly connected network; 4-way intersections predominate; all streets through-connected A3 - Block Size and Grain Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Block perimeters >800m; superblocks without internal pedestrian routes; monotonous grain 2 Poor Block perimeters 600-800m; limited mid-block connections; coarse grain 3 Adequate Block perimeters 450-600m; some variation in block size; occasional mid-block passages 4 Good Block perimeters 300-450m; good variation; mid-block passages present; fine to medium grain 5 Excellent Block perimeters 250-400m with fine grain; frequent mid-block passages; varied block shapes responding to context A4 - Transit Accessibility Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor No transit within 800m; car-dependent location 2 Poor Bus stop within 800m but low frequency (>20 min headway); no rail access within 1.5km 3 Adequate Bus within 400m at 10-20 min headway OR rail within 800m at moderate frequency 4 Good Bus within 400m at <10 min headway AND rail within 800m; good stop/station quality 5 Excellent Multiple transit modes within 400m; high frequency (<5 min headway); excellent station quality; integrated transfers A5 - Cycling Provision Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor No cycling infrastructure; hostile road conditions; no bike parking 2 Poor Painted bike lanes on busy roads; minimal bike parking; disconnected network 3 Adequate Some protected lanes; reasonable bike parking; connects to citywide network at some points 4 Good Connected protected bike lane network; secure bike parking at destinations; junction treatments 5 Excellent Comprehensive separated cycling network; abundant secure parking; bike-share; cargo bike facilities; cycling-priority intersections Category B: VITALITY AND MIX B1 - Land Use Diversity Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Single use (monoculture); no services within 400m walk 2 Poor 2-3 use types; limited daily needs provision; car trip required for most errands 3 Adequate 4-6 use types; basic daily needs within 400m; some evening activity 4 Good 7-10 use types; most daily needs walkable; active day and evening economy 5 Excellent
10 use types; 20-minute neighborhood achieved; vibrant mixed economy; fine-grained use integration B2 - Active Ground Floors Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor <20% active frontage; blank walls and parking structures dominate ground floor 2 Poor 20-40% active frontage; significant stretches of dead frontage 3 Adequate 40-60% active frontage; activity concentrated at nodes; some dead stretches 4 Good 60-80% active frontage; most streets have active edges; minimal dead frontage 5 Excellent 80% active frontage; continuous shop fronts, lobbies, and active uses; frequent doors per 100m (>15) B3 - 24-Hour Activity Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Activity only during single period (e.g., office hours only); dead outside that window 2 Poor Activity during 2 periods but significant dead hours; no evening or weekend presence 3 Adequate Activity during daytime and some evening; moderate weekend activity 4 Good Consistent activity across 3 periods (morning, afternoon, evening); good weekend presence 5 Excellent Genuine 18-hour activity; morning through late evening vibrancy; strong weekend programming; seasonal events B4 - Density Adequacy Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Density far below what context/transit supports (<20 DU/ha in urban area); land wasted 2 Poor Under-density relative to location; insufficient to support transit or local services 3 Adequate Density appropriate to context; supports basic local services and moderate transit frequency 4 Good Density supports vibrant neighborhood life, walkable services, and frequent transit; 50-120 DU/ha urban 5 Excellent Optimal density for location; supports full 20-minute neighborhood; transit-supportive; avoids overcrowding; 80-200 DU/ha with quality B5 - Housing Diversity Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Single unit type and tenure; no affordability provision 2 Poor 2 unit types; single tenure; token affordability (<10%) 3 Adequate 3-4 unit types; 2 tenures; 10-20% affordable; some building type variety 4 Good 4-6 unit types; 3 tenures; 20-35% affordable; townhouses and apartments mixed 5 Excellent Full spectrum of unit types (studio to 4-bed+); market, affordable, social, co-op tenures; >35% affordable; intergenerational design Category C: PUBLIC REALM C1 - Public Space Quantity Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor <3 m2 public open space per person; major gaps in provision 2 Poor 3-6 m2/person; uneven distribution; some areas >500m from any public space 3 Adequate 6-9 m2/person; most areas within 400m of a public space 4 Good 9-15 m2/person; all areas within 300m; good hierarchy of spaces 5 Excellent 15 m2/person; all areas within 300m; full hierarchy (pocket, neighborhood, district); well-distributed C2 - Public Space Quality Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Poorly maintained; no seating; no shade/shelter; feels unsafe; unused 2 Poor Basic maintenance; minimal seating; limited shade; little programming 3 Adequate Reasonable maintenance; adequate seating; some shade; occasional use 4 Good Well-maintained; comfortable seating variety; good shade/shelter; regular programming; well-used 5 Excellent Exceptional quality; varied seating options; excellent microclimate management; active programming; social gathering hub; loved by community C3 - Green Space Provision Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor <5 m2 green space per person; no park access within 400m 2 Poor 5-9 m2/person; limited park access; low biodiversity 3 Adequate 9-15 m2/person; park within 400m; some biodiversity value 4 Good 15-25 m2/person; multiple parks within 400m; good biodiversity; hierarchy present 5 Excellent 25 m2/person; rich park hierarchy; high biodiversity; ecological corridors; community growing spaces C4 - Streetscape Quality Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor No street trees; poor paving; no furniture; hostile environment 2 Poor Sparse trees; basic paving; minimal furniture; cluttered signage 3 Adequate Regular tree planting; decent paving; functional furniture; acceptable lighting 4 Good Mature tree canopy; quality paving materials; coordinated furniture suite; good lighting; low clutter 5 Excellent Abundant tree canopy (>25% coverage); premium materials; elegant coordinated furniture; excellent lighting; rain gardens; public art C5 - Edge Activation Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Blank walls; parking frontage; no windows or doors facing street; hostile edges 2 Poor Minimal openings; large setbacks; infrequent entries; garage-dominated frontage 3 Adequate Regular windows at ground level; entries every 15-20m; moderate transparency 4 Good Frequent entries (<15m apart); high transparency; displays and activity visible; building life spills to street 5 Excellent Continuous active edge; entries every 5-10m; full transparency; interior activity visible; seating spills out; awnings and canopies Category D: COMFORT AND SAFETY D1 - Pedestrian Comfort Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Footpaths <1.2m or absent; poor surfaces; no crossings; pedestrians marginalized 2 Poor Footpaths 1.2-1.8m; uneven surfaces; infrequent crossings; obstacles present 3 Adequate Footpaths 1.8-2.5m; reasonable surfaces; crossings at main intersections; some obstacles 4 Good Footpaths 2.5-4m clear; smooth surfaces; frequent crossings; minimal obstacles; accessible gradients 5 Excellent Footpaths >4m clear; premium surfaces; pedestrian-priority crossings; fully accessible; generous pedestrian realm D2 - Traffic Safety Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Speed limits >50km/h in residential; no traffic calming; high conflict points 2 Poor Speed limits 40-50km/h; minimal calming; some conflict points unmanaged 3 Adequate Speed limits 30-40km/h; basic traffic calming; main conflict points addressed 4 Good Speed limits 30km/h; comprehensive calming (raised tables, chicanes, narrowings); safe junction design 5 Excellent 20km/h zones or car-free areas; shared space design; Vision Zero principles fully applied; near-zero conflict D3 - Perceived Safety (CPTED) Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Poor natural surveillance; dark areas; entrapment spots; no territorial definition 2 Poor Limited surveillance from buildings; inconsistent lighting; some hidden areas 3 Adequate Moderate surveillance; adequate lighting (>10 lux); few hidden areas; basic territorial markers 4 Good Good natural surveillance from active uses; consistent lighting (>15 lux); clear sight lines; defined territories 5 Excellent Excellent natural surveillance; bright consistent lighting (>20 lux); no entrapment spots; clear ownership; maintained environment D4 - Noise Environment Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor 70 dB Lden in living areas; no noise mitigation; adjacent to motorway or rail without buffer 2 Poor 65-70 dB Lden; minimal mitigation; significant traffic noise throughout 3 Adequate 55-65 dB Lden; some noise mitigation; quiet side facades available 4 Good 50-55 dB Lden in most areas; effective noise mitigation; quiet courtyards and parks 5 Excellent <50 dB Lden in living areas; designated quiet areas; acoustic design excellence; traffic noise eliminated from public spaces D5 - Microclimate Comfort Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor No wind protection; no shade in summer; no sun access in winter; uncomfortable >50% of year 2 Poor Minimal wind/shade strategy; some discomfort issues; large exposed areas 3 Adequate Basic wind and shade consideration; mostly comfortable in moderate conditions 4 Good Effective wind protection; good shade provision; winter sun access; rain shelter on key routes 5 Excellent Comprehensive microclimate design; wind comfort verified by CFD; summer shade >60%; winter sun optimized; thermal comfort >80% of daylight hours Category E: IDENTITY AND CHARACTER E1 - Legibility Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Disorienting; no landmarks; repetitive layout; impossible to form mental map 2 Poor Weak structure; few landmarks; confusing wayfinding; limited spatial hierarchy 3 Adequate Basic structure readable; some landmarks; functional wayfinding; identifiable center 4 Good Clear paths, nodes, landmarks; intuitive wayfinding; distinct character areas; strong spatial hierarchy 5 Excellent Highly legible; memorable landmarks; effortless navigation; rich mental map; clear district identity within city context E2 - Visual Appropriateness Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Completely out of context; alien scale and materials; no relationship to setting 2 Poor Weak contextual response; jarring scale shifts; unrelated material palette 3 Adequate Acceptable contextual relationship; reasonable scale; some material connections 4 Good Thoughtful contextual response; harmonious scale; complementary materials; contemporary-contextual balance 5 Excellent Masterful contextual integration; enriches the setting; confident contemporary identity rooted in place; material excellence E3 - Human Scale Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Overwhelming scale; no ground-level articulation; H:W >1:5 or undefined; inhuman proportions 2 Poor Dominant large scale; minimal ground articulation; H:W issues; limited pedestrian-level detail 3 Adequate Moderate scale; some ground-level detail; H:W roughly 1:2 to 1:3; acceptable proportions 4 Good Comfortable scale; good ground-level articulation; H:W 1:1 to 1:2; vertical rhythm; canopies and projections 5 Excellent Exquisite human scale; rich ground-level detail and texture; H:W around 1:1; fine vertical rhythm; sense of enclosure and intimacy E4 - Richness of Experience Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Monotonous; single material; no sensory variation; sterile environment 2 Poor Limited variety; 1-2 materials; minimal sensory interest; repetitive 3 Adequate Some variety in materials and spaces; moderate sensory interest; functional planting 4 Good Rich material palette; varied spatial sequence; seasonal planting; water features or art; multi-sensory 5 Excellent Extraordinary richness; diverse materials, textures, sounds, scents; surprising spatial sequences; public art; seasonal transformation; delight E5 - Heritage Sensitivity Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Heritage assets destroyed or ignored; no acknowledgment of site history 2 Poor Minimal heritage response; important features lost; token gestures 3 Adequate Heritage assets retained; basic setting respected; some interpretation 4 Good Heritage assets enhanced; setting improved; adaptive reuse; meaningful interpretation 5 Excellent Heritage assets celebrated; exemplary adaptive reuse; rich storytelling; archaeological sensitivity; memory of place woven into design Category F: SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCE F1 - Environmental Performance Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor No energy strategy; conventional construction; no renewables 2 Poor Basic code compliance only; minimal sustainability measures 3 Adequate Energy-efficient design; some renewables; meets current standards 4 Good Near-zero carbon operation; significant renewables; low embodied carbon strategy; exceeds standards 5 Excellent Net-zero or net-positive energy; comprehensive lifecycle carbon strategy; on-site renewables; Passivhaus or equivalent F2 - Water Management Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Conventional drainage; full surface runoff to sewer; no water strategy 2 Poor Basic SUDS; limited permeable surfaces; no rainwater harvesting 3 Adequate Reasonable SUDS integration; some permeable surfaces (20-40%); basic rainwater collection 4 Good Comprehensive SUDS; >40% permeable surfaces; rainwater harvesting; greywater recycling; bioswales 5 Excellent Water-sensitive urban design; >60% permeable; closed-loop water; sponge city principles; visible water celebration; flood-positive F3 - Biodiversity Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor Net biodiversity loss; no habitat provision; all hard landscape 2 Poor Minimal biodiversity; ornamental planting only; no ecological strategy 3 Adequate Biodiversity maintained; some native planting; basic habitat provision 4 Good Biodiversity net gain; significant native planting; green roofs; habitat corridors; ecological connectivity 5 Excellent Significant biodiversity net gain (>20%); rich habitat mosaic; ecological corridors connected to wider network; community growing; urban forest strategy F4 - Climate Adaptation Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor No climate adaptation measures; vulnerable to flooding, heat, drought 2 Poor Minimal adaptation; addresses one climate risk only; reactive approach 3 Adequate Addresses main climate risks; moderate heat island mitigation; basic flood resilience 4 Good Comprehensive adaptation; urban heat island reduction; flood resilience; drought preparedness; cool materials 5 Excellent Climate-positive design; extensive urban forest; cool surfaces throughout; flood resilience for 1-in-100+; adaptive capacity for 2050+ scenarios F5 - Resource Efficiency Score Description Observable Evidence 1 Very Poor No resource strategy; demolish-and-rebuild; no waste targets 2 Poor Basic waste management; conventional materials; no lifecycle thinking 3 Adequate Recycled content; construction waste targets (<15 kg/m2); some adaptable buildings 4 Good Circular economy principles; design for disassembly; significant recycled/local materials; adaptable buildings 5 Excellent Full circular economy; cradle-to-cradle materials; design for disassembly throughout; material passport; adaptable infrastructure; zero waste target
100 per km2 LEED-ND Measured as 3+ leg intersections per square kilometer Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Context-dependent: 0.5-1.5 suburban, 1.5-4.0 urban, 4.0-10.0 central Local zoning + Density Atlas Must relate to transit capacity and infrastructure Green Space per Capita 9 m2/person WHO recommendation Accessible within 300m; higher targets in family neighborhoods Parking Ratio <0.5 spaces/unit (urban), <1.0 (suburban) TOD Standard Lower near high-frequency transit; includes shared parking Height-to-Width Ratio (streets) 1:1 to 1:3 Gehl / Alexander Proportional enclosure; >1:4 feels exposed; <1:0.5 feels oppressive Active Frontage 80% on primary streets, >50% on secondary Gehl Measured as linear meters of active use / total frontage Tree Canopy Coverage 25% of public realm area Urban Forest Standards At maturity; species diversity required Dwelling Density 50-200 DU/ha (urban) Density Atlas / LEED-ND Context-dependent; must support desired service threshold Walk + Cycle Mode Share Target 50% of trips Sustainable Transport Measured by trip generation model or comparable precedent Footpath Width 2.0m clear (minimum), >3.0m (preferred) Accessibility Standards Clear width excluding furniture and obstructions Cycling Network Density 3 km/km2 Dutch CROW Standard Protected or separated facilities Public Space within 300m 100% of dwellings WHO / LEED-ND Any public space >0.1 ha within 300m walking distance Energy Performance Net-zero operational carbon target Paris Agreement / LEED-ND Pathway to net-zero by 2050 at minimum Affordable Housing 20% of total units Local policy dependent Mix of affordable, social, and intermediate tenures
Location: [City, Country] Scale: [Site area in hectares] | [Approximate number of dwellings/GFA] Evaluator: Claude (Urban Design Skills) Date: [Current date] Framework Applied: [Composite Scorecard / Gehl Deep Dive / CPTED / etc.]
| Rating Band | Score Range | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Excellent | 120-150 | Exemplary urban design; benchmark quality |
| Good | 90-119 | Strong design with minor improvements possible |
| Adequate | 60-89 | Acceptable design with significant improvement opportunities |
| Poor | <60 | Fundamental design issues requiring major revision |
| Category | Score (/25) | Average (/5) | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Connectivity & Access | [X] | [X.X] | [Rating] |
| B. Vitality & Mix | [X] | [X.X] | [Rating] |
| C. Public Realm | [X] | [X.X] | [Rating] |
| D. Comfort & Safety | [X] | [X.X] | [Rating] |
| E. Identity & Character | [X] | [X.X] | [Rating] |
| F. Sustainability & Resilience | [X] | [X.X] | [Rating] |
| TOTAL | [X]/150 | [X.X] | [Rating] |
| # | Criterion | Category | Score (1-5) | Evidence / Justification | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Permeability | Connectivity | [X] | [Specific observed evidence] | [Specific improvement action] |
| A2 | Street Connectivity | Connectivity | [X] | ... | ... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| F5 | Resource Efficiency | Sustainability | [X] | ... | ... |
| Metric | Target | Actual / Estimated | Pass/Fail | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Block Perimeter | 300-500m | [Xm] | [P/F] | [Notes] |
| Intersection Density | >100/km2 | [X/km2] | [P/F] | ... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Category A: [X.X] Category B: [X.X] Category C: [X.X] Category D: [X.X] Category E: [X.X] Category F: [X.X]
| Metric | This Project | [Exemplar 1] | [Exemplar 2] | [Exemplar 3] |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FAR | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| DU/ha | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Green Space m2/pp | ... | ... | ... | ... |
| Active Frontage % | ... | ... | ... | ... |
(Select 2-3 comparable exemplars from references/benchmarks.md) Rating Scale Interpretation: Excellent (120-150): The design demonstrates best practice across most categories. Suitable as a benchmark project. Minor refinements only. Good (90-119): The design is strong overall with clear strengths. Targeted improvements in weak categories would elevate it to exemplary status. Adequate (60-89): The design meets basic standards but has significant room for improvement. Several categories need focused attention. Poor (<60): The design has fundamental issues across multiple categories. Major redesign recommended before proceeding. 6. Reference Links For deeper framework-specific evaluation criteria, refer to: references/evaluation-criteria.md