a recall of the order 1569333, got to resubmit the work. following comments from the order 1569333 to be taking into consideration for the update. Not correct, garden cities date from around 1900 and so predate the first and second world wars. Not correct, garden cities date from around 1900 and so predate the first and second world wars. Howards Garden cities are agreed to be around 1898 / 1900. The post-war New Towns programme drew some inspiration from tha idea but were different entities. Howards Garden cities are agreed to be around 1898 / 1900. The post-war New Towns programme drew some inspiration from tha idea but were different entities. Howards Garden cities are agreed to be around 1898 / 1900. The post-war New Towns programme drew some inspiration from tha idea but were different entities There is quite a lot of improvised discussion here which needed to be anchored into the actual characteristics of the garden communities as promoted by government and influenced by the TCPA. Again there is a lack of referencing to sources. comments; What you did well in this assignment: The discussion was very positive about the virtues of the garden community concept and there did not seem to be very many negatives associated with the model. The political opportunity dimension was considered but there did not seem to be grounds to support that allegation as the garden model looks like a suitable fit for our times and the housing challenges it has produced. What you could improve in this assignment: A lot of the discussion was random and improvised waffle and the workwas not a convincing exploration of the question at this level. There was no referencing of sources nor for the few statistics that surfaced. The list of sources at the end looks like a reproduced list from the folder but it bore little relationship to the work. For example some precision and recognition could have been given to the criteria from the government’ prospectus for garden communities. From that position some evaluation would have been possible and whether, for example, the schemes coming forward are at least economically sustainable i.e. are they paying for themselves rather than relying on large tax-payer subsidies. Howard’s original schemes were also about balancing the figures and making sure that developments (in his terms) did not get into debt, as there were no state subsidies to pay for the infrastructure back then. This has translated into the criteria today on land value capture. There are numerous word choice and grammatical errors suggesting hurried production and that not enough care and attention has been paid to the submission. What you can take forward to your next assignment: Unfortunately there is very little that can be recommend to be taken forward. Overall there was room to improve just about every aspect of this submission, which unfortunately is nowhere near a pass standard at Master’s level. The submission has attracted a mark of 14% derived from the application of the four assessment criteria shown in the brief and which are: Structure, style, presentation and legibility of the discussion: 5/20. Evidence of research, referencing and judgment in the use of sources: 2/30. Degree of analysis, critical insight and innovative interpretation of the topic: 4/30 Overall quality, sustained focus on the topic and credibility of conclusions reached: 3/20.
Our essay writers will gladly help you with: