Milestone map
Milestone map
3 milestones
Select model type, scale, and materials based on design intent
1 week
Choose the model type (conceptual, structural, massing, interior, or physical working model), scale, and materials that best reveal the aspect of your design under investigation. Produce a one-page model brief: what the model will show that drawings cannot, what scale is required to show it, and why the chosen materials are appropriate.
Proof required
Submit your model brief (one page): the type of model, chosen scale and its justification, material choices and why they are appropriate, and a statement of what the model will demonstrate about your design that drawings alone cannot communicate.
What gets checked
- Model type selection is justified in terms of what it reveals — not just what is easiest to make
- Scale choice is justified in terms of the spatial quality or construction detail under investigation
- Material choices are appropriate — materials that misrepresent the design's structural logic or spatial effect are rejected
Common mistakes
- Model brief describes what the model will look like rather than what it will reveal
- Scale chosen for convenience rather than to best communicate the spatial quality under investigation
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm model brief justifies the type, scale, and materials in terms of what the model will reveal
- Verify scale choice is justified by the spatial quality or detail under investigation
- Check material choices are architecturally appropriate — not just convenient
Construct physical or digital architectural model
3–4 weeks (3 hrs/day)
Build the model to the standard of finish appropriate for its type: a conceptual model communicates through clarity and abstraction; a physical working model communicates through precision. Photograph or render the completed model from multiple viewpoints and at a range of scales to show what it reveals about the design.
Proof required
Submit minimum eight photographs or renders of the completed model from at least three different viewpoints — overview, close-up interior view, and section cut through (if applicable). Include a 150-word construction note describing the key making decisions and any changes from the original model brief.
What gets checked
- Model is physically or digitally complete to an appropriate standard of finish for its type
- Photography or rendering shows the model from multiple angles including interior and close-up views
- Construction note identifies at least one decision made during making that changed or strengthened the original brief
Common mistakes
- Model photographs only show the exterior overview — interior spatial quality is not evidenced
- Construction is incomplete — elements are missing or placeholder-quality in ways that undermine the model's spatial argument
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm model photographs include minimum eight images from at least three viewpoints
- Verify photographs include interior and close-up views — not only an exterior overview
- Check construction note identifies a decision made during making that changed or strengthened the brief
Present model for studio critique and document feedback
1 week
Present your completed model in a live studio critique with your tutor or a qualified architect. The reviewer uses the model to challenge your design — are the spatial sequences readable, does the structure hold up, does the model reveal what you claimed it would? Document who attended, the specific challenges raised, and how you responded.
Proof required
Submit: (1) final model photographs; (2) critique documentation — reviewer name and role, date, 200+ words of specific challenges raised and your responses; (3) a 150-word reflection on what the model revealed about your design that could not have been found through drawings alone.
What gets checked
- Critique documentation records specific design challenges raised through the model — not general aesthetic comments
- Reflection articulates what the model uniquely revealed — not just a restatement of the design intent
- Student response addresses each challenge with either a design revision or a principled explanation
Common mistakes
- Critique consisted of general appreciation — no specific spatial or structural challenges documented
- Reflection describes what the model looks like rather than what it revealed about the design
Resources
Foundationstart here
Depthgo deeper
Masteryfor the dedicated
What a verifier looks for
- Confirm a live studio critique session occurred — not async written feedback
- Verify reviewer name and professional role are documented
- Check reflection articulates what the model uniquely revealed about the design — not just describing its appearance