design-evaluation

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.

---

1. Evaluation Framework Selector

Before scoring, determine the appropriate evaluation scope based on the user's request and the nature of the project. Use this decision tree:

If the user asks about general design quality or a broad evaluation:

• Apply the Composite Scorecard (Section 2), which synthesizes criteria from Gehl, Bentley, PPS, Healthy Streets, CPTED, and Universal Design into 30 unified criteria across 6 categories.

If the user asks specifically about sustainability certification:

• Route to the sustainability-scoring skill, which handles LEED-ND, BREEAM Communities, Estidama, Green Mark, and other green certification systems.
• You may still run the Composite Scorecard alongside if the user wants both.

If the user asks about public space quality specifically:

• Run a deep Gehl 12 Quality Criteria evaluation. Refer to references/evaluation-criteria.md for the full rubric.
• Score each of the 12 criteria on a 1-5 scale with observable evidence.

If the user asks about safety and security:

• Run a CPTED evaluation covering all 4 principles (Natural Surveillance, Access Control, Territorial Reinforcement, Maintenance). Refer to references/evaluation-criteria.md.
• Also check lighting, sightlines, and activity scheduling.

If the user asks about inclusivity, accessibility, or universal design:

• Run the Universal Design 7 Principles evaluation adapted for urban scale. Refer to references/evaluation-criteria.md.
• Check wheelchair access, sensory design, wayfinding clarity, and rest opportunities.

If the user asks about street quality:

• Run the Healthy Streets (TfL) 10 Indicators assessment. Refer to references/evaluation-criteria.md.
• Score each indicator 1-5 with specific street-level evidence.

If the user asks for a comprehensive or full evaluation:

• Run the full Composite Scorecard (30 criteria, 150 points).
• Add quantitative benchmarks check (Section 4).
• Add framework-specific deep dives for any categories scoring below 3.0 average.
• Add comparison to exemplar benchmarks from references/benchmarks.md.

If the user provides a specific project name without specifying scope:

• Default to the Composite Scorecard.
• Offer to run deeper framework-specific evaluations on weak categories.

Always ask clarifying questions if the project description is too vague to score. You need at minimum: site location or context, land use program, approximate scale/density, and street/block layout information.

---

2. Composite Scorecard Methodology

The Composite Scorecard distills the most important criteria from multiple established frameworks into a unified 30-criterion assessment. Each criterion is scored 1-5 (1 = very poor, 5 = exemplary). The total score is out of 150 points.

Category A: CONNECTIVITY AND ACCESS (5 criteria, 25 points max)

#	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

---

4. Quantitative Benchmarks

In addition to the qualitative scoring, check the following quantitative metrics against established benchmarks. Report each as pass/fail with the actual value.

Metric	Target Range	Source Standard	Notes
Block Perimeter	300-500m	Gehl / LEED-ND	<300m may be too fine for vehicles; >500m reduces walkability
Intersection Density	>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

---

5. Output Format

Present evaluation results using the following standardized report format. Always complete every section.

# Design Evaluation Report: [Project Name]
**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.]

---

## Overall Score: [X] / 150 - [Rating]

| 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 Summary

| 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]** |

---

## Detailed Scorecard

| # | 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] | ... | ... |

---

## Quantitative Metrics Check

| Metric | Target | Actual / Estimated | Pass/Fail | Notes |
|--------|--------|--------------------|-----------|-------|
| Block Perimeter | 300-500m | [Xm] | [P/F] | [Notes] |
| Intersection Density | >100/km2 | [X/km2] | [P/F] | ... |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

## Radar Chart Data (for visualization)

Category A: [X.X]
Category B: [X.X]
Category C: [X.X]
Category D: [X.X]
Category E: [X.X]
Category F: [X.X]

---

## Top 5 Strengths

1. [Strength with evidence and score reference]
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...

## Top 5 Areas for Improvement

1. [Weakness with evidence, score reference, and impact]
2. ...
3. ...
4. ...
5. ...

---

## Priority Recommendations

### Quick Wins (low cost, high impact, no redesign required)
1. [Action] - Expected improvement: [criterion] from [X] to [Y]
2. ...
3. ...

### Medium-Term Improvements (moderate cost/effort)
1. [Action] - Expected improvement: [criterion] from [X] to [Y]
2. ...
3. ...

### Structural Changes (significant redesign or investment required)
1. [Action] - Expected improvement: [criterion] from [X] to [Y]
2. ...
3. ...

---

## Benchmark Comparison

| 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 - Full criteria from Gehl, Bentley, PPS, Healthy Streets, CPTED, Universal Design, and Biophilic Design frameworks
• references/benchmarks.md - Exemplar project metrics for benchmarking comparisons

External references:

• Jan Gehl, "Cities for People" (2010) - 12 Quality Criteria
• Ian Bentley et al., "Responsive Environments" (1985) - 7 Qualities
• Project for Public Spaces, "What Makes a Successful Place?" - 4 Qualities Framework
• Transport for London, "Healthy Streets Indicators" (2017) - 10 Indicators
• LEED for Neighborhood Development v4.1 - Rating System
• BREEAM Communities Technical Manual (2023)
• CPTED Guidelines - ICA (International CPTED Association)
• Universal Design Principles - Centre for Universal Design, NC State University
• Terrapin Bright Green, "14 Patterns of Biophilic Design" (2014)
• WHO Urban Green Space Recommendations
• ITDP TOD Standard v3.1