1. The proposal was forwarded directly by the architect (online) at the conceptual stage for consideration by the Commission.
2. The layout and building plan proposal received (online) at conceptual stage was scrutinised and following observations are to be complied with:
A. Site planning:
a) The Commission observed that the proposal cannot be studied in isolation i.e. it needs to be reviewed in conjunction with the surrounding facilities, therefore, 3D views of the site shall be superimposed with the existing context of the surroundings including road networks, structures around the site, for better understanding of the proposal in the actual environment to make it clearer.
b) The 3D views have been submitted without annotations thus making it difficult to comprehend the materials etc. on the façade which could have a bearing on the visual, urban aesthetics of the complex. A sufficient number of Self-explanatory, annotated 3D views (at least 6 in numbers), at various angles, clearly showing the proposed design scheme with proper annotations and corresponding to proposal drawings be submitted for better understanding of the proposal.
c) The site seems to be vehicle oriented rather than pedestrian friendly. Therefore, Road network needs to be minimised by redesign and wherever possible shall be converted to Hard green surface. A lot of space is getting wasted in the circulation in the entire scheme. This can be minimized by efficient building design. Space shall be efficiently planned for users.
d) The presence of Tar road to be minimised in the site. Instead, appropriate pedestrian connections shall be established which are appropriately landscaped. Proper signages to be provided throughout the site at various locations to ensure proper wayfinding.
B. Fire Station:
a) The placement of parking arrangements made on the surface area and the double stack parking provisions at the rear are not appreciated by the Commission. It could have an impact on the visual, urban aesthetics of the area. Therefore, alternative options for creating a basement shall be explored to relocate all surface parking (including double stack parking) requirements of the fire-station and the freed-up space to be put to judicious use.
b) Elevations, materials, finishes, architectural elements etc. shall be such designed/selected to give distinctiveness to the fire station. Aesthetics to be improved, architectural elements to be simplified.
c) Areas segregating the fire station with the residential blocks shall be screened using appropriate architectural mechanism including vertical greens so as to enhance the aesthetics of the building complex, and its details shall be submitted (plans/elevations/3D views etc.).
C. Residential Quarters:
a) The placement of parking arrangements made in the stilt area are not appreciated by the Commission. Alternative option for creating a basement shall be explored to relocate all surface parking requirements of the fire-station and the freed-up space to be put to judicious use including utilising the stilt space as community/social space for the residents (elderly, children etc.). A provision needs to be made for toilets and sitting area for maids/guards/drivers in the stilt area.
b) A combined mobility plan showing seamless, conflict-free pedestrian and vehicular movement plan from outside to the various parts of the resident blocks to be submitted, to understand the movement pattern within site.
c) The balconies need to be screened appropriately along with the provision of screening of drying clothes, dish antennas etc.
D. General observations (for fire station and Residential blocks):
a) The air-conditioners could be an eye-sore to the building façade. To avoid the same, the provision shall be made in the design to accommodate the outdoor units, at this stage, so as not to mar the aesthetics. A scheme needs to be submitted to show the placement, screening and material of screening for the same in plans/elevations and 3d views. In the case of VRV systems, their location shall be highlighted in the relevant drawings etc. and shown.
b) The skin sections (in detail) shall be submitted to understand the elevation of the façade with materials.
c) The boundary wall and entrance gate would have a bearing on the overall aesthetics of the area and need to be designed appropriately and shown with relevant details (plans/elevations/sections/3D views etc.)
d) Submitted landscape plans lack clarity in explaining the landscape scheme. The sites’ landscaping to be improved with appropriate treatment (Hardscape & Softscape). They shall be submitted in the respective drawings, shall indicate the details of the trees planted, types of species on an appropriate scale, (in terms of the point nos. Six of the CPAA ( Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval ) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.
e) A lot of waste (dry and wet, food items, etc.) supposed to be generated in the complex, a detailed solid waste management plan proposal along with its location on the site plan be submitted.
f) The elements of sustainability are missing in the design scheme. These shall be identified and marked on the plans. Roof-top utilities are not shown in the plan/ 3D views and thus require to be shown on the relevant drawings. Sustainability features shall be as per point no. 7 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org.
g) All plumbing pipes/sanitary pipes, outdoor AC units, and service equipments at the terrace should be camouflaged appropriately (in terms of the point nos. 10, 11 &12 of the CPAA (Criterion for Project Assessment and Approval) available on the DUAC website at www.duac.org using the same architectural elements and materials.
3. The architect was advised to adhere to the above observations & furnish a pointwise incorporation/reply.