Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations
1-1-2005
The evolution of design-build at Iowa State University
Meredith White Iowa State University
Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd
Recommended Citation White, Meredith, "The evolution of design-build at Iowa State University" (2005). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 20999. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/20999
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The evolution of design-build at Iowa State University
by
Meredith White
A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE
Major: Architecture
Program of Study Conunittee: Bruce Bassler, Major Professor Jim Bolluyt Tom Leslie Arvid Osterberg
Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2005 ii
Graduate College Iowa State University
This is to certify that the master's thesis of
Meredith Patricia White has met the thesis requirements of Iowa State University
Signatures have been redacted for privacy lll
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1: The Design-Build Studio Tradition ...... 1
CHAPTER 2: Design-Build in the University Environment ... 5
CHAPTER 3: History of Design-Build at ISU, 1998-2004 .... 7
CHAPTER 4: The Jewell Project Background ...... 13
CHAPTER 5: The Jewell Project: Arch 402/603 .•.•.•...... 21
CHAPTER 6: The Jewell Project: Critical Analysis ...... 25
CHAPTER 7: The Jewell Project: Student Reactions ...... 36
CHAPTER 8: Cone 1 us ion ...... 4 0
APPENDIX A: Arch 402/603 Student Questionnaire ...... 42
APPENDIX B: Questionnaire for Bruce Bassler ...... 43
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 4 4 1
CHAPTER 1
The Design-Build Studio Tradition
The recent tradition of the design-build architecture studio on the university level has existed with two main goals: to provide students with a hands-on design and construction experience, and to provide design services to primarily underserved groups. Different programs have evolved over the last 30 years or so with specific individual goals, but these are the central tenets of the larger idea of design build studio.
Many design-build studios bring together two groups of people who would likely not otherwise make contact - designers, and people who wouldn't normally have the means to hire a designer. Personal interaction with designers is primarily an experience reserved only for those with the means to finance a project. While the public uses architect designed buildings on a daily basis, most of these structures aren't designed specifically with the general population's desires and tastes in mind. It is the owner, client, and/or investor who have direct influence on the design process, usually with minimal involvement from the larger population of day-to-day users. In the case of new construction of private homes, the services of an architect are utilized by a very 2 small percentage of the population. It was reported in 1995 that only 2% of new homebuyers in the U.S. had worked with an architect directly. 1 Design-build studios bring architectural services to the other 98% of the population, not as a package that is simply dropped upon the chosen area, but as a carefully constructed collaboration between young designers and the community or group in need. The working relationship between the student designers and the client is one of the most important parts of the experience, for both parties.
Design-build is not a giver-receiver process. Information flows in both directions. Student designers give shape to the form, but the clients' lives and experiences define the program that informs the design.
In design-build, students begin to realize first-hand the impact their work can have on a real community with real issues that need to be solved. Moving beyond the usual theoretical and paper-bound design, the project is also subjected to real-world problems like budget and constructability. Furthermore, with a "real" client, students' designs, often for the first time, specifically cater to the needs and preferences of an outside party.
Students cannot rely solely on their own preferences.
Decisions about form, materials, spatial layout, etc. are made
1Bell, Bryan. Good Deeds, Good Design: Community Service Through Architecture. 3 with the client in mind, unlike a regular studio, where such decisions are frequently based upon what the student desires.
Students in design-build develop their work to a much higher level of completeness than would generally be required in a normal studio setting, as the details of the designs need to be worked out to such a degree that they can actually be constructed. Furthermore, the period of design development is shortened because of the time needed for fabrication. This combination of condensed design time and an increased need for complete design development means students need to be more conscious of the time they spend in development, and ensure that time is productive. They often become aware of this at the beginning of the studio experience. Iowa State University
Associate Professor Bruce Bassler says,
.. .many students don't know how to work - set a daily or weekly goal and get it done. That may sound silly, but it is uncommon to find students who can identify work that needs to be done and then do it without taking a lot of breaks or simply standing around acting as if somebody else is responsible for completing a task.
He adds that the process,
.. .makes them much more competent designers. They usually have had an opportunity to observe the pitfalls of poor planning or underdeveloped designs first hand and probably won't make many of the same mistakes again. 2
Students in design-build benefit from learning about the
2 Bassler, Bruce. Personal Interview. 4 construction process in different ways. They gain first-hand knowledge about how a building actually goes together. Seeing the order in which components go together and physically putting them into place is a much different experience than reading about it in a book or hearing about it in a lecture.
The process may look straightforward, but until they get on a construction site and start working with the materials, students may not realize how complex even a small-scale building can be. Small errors early in a project can lead to big problems later in construction. Active participation in construction can give students a new appreciation for the responsibilities of a builder, and help them understand how their design decisions can make the builder's job and the construction process run more smoothly. 5
CHAPTER 2
Design-Build in the University Environment
Of the 85 design-build and conununity-based design programs in the U.S. identified by the Association for Conununity
Design, 59 are affiliated with a university. Eleven of the programs are specifically curriculum-based design-build programs in which students design and construct projects under the direction of design faculty. 3
There are a number of reasons why conununity partnership design programs are particularly well suited to the university environment. Getting students involved with service learning activities early in their careers emphasizes the importance of their future public roles as architects. The following statements were taken from the 2004 AIA Code of Ethics and
Personal Conduct, and the AIA Public Policies, 2005:
E.S. 2.2 Public Interest Services: Members should render public interest professional services and encourage their employees to render such services. E.S. 2.3 Civic Responsibility: Members should be involved in civic activities as citizens and professionals, and should strive to improve public appreciation and understanding of architecture and the functions and responsibilities of architects. 4
Architecture profoundly affects people. The work of architects is essential to human well being, and architects must embrace their ethical obligation to uphold this public trust.
3 Pearson, Jason University-Community Design Partnerships: Innovations in Practice. 4 2004 AJA Code of Ethics and Personal Conduct. Online. http://www.aia.org/about ethics 6
As members of their communities, architects are professionally obligated to use their knowledge, skill, and experience to engage in civic life. 5
These statements emphasize the importance the
architectural profession places on serving the community and
taking an active role in its wellbeing. Engaging students in
such activities during their education creates an awareness of what goodwill and volunteer work can do to help a community, with the hope they will carry that experience with them into
their careers. Graduates with architecture degrees are unlikely to encounter service-oriented projects during their
Internship Development Program (IDP), because individual
designers and local nonprofit groups, independent of private
firms, organize many of those types of projects. Getting
young architects involved while they are students not only
reinforces the idea that helping underserved groups can have a profound impact on local communities, but structuring that experience alongside the regular educational curriculum
strengthens students' design skills by requiring them to apply classroom concepts to a real world problem and all it entails.
Furthermore, fostering an early interest in community-based design may encourage students to get involved with such programs as professionals.
5 AJA Public Policies, 2005. Online. http://www.aia.org/about_ethics 7
CHAPTER 3
History of Design-Build at ISU, 1998-2004
The comprehensive design-build studio at Iowa State
University is a relatively young idea. The first studio, called "Concept through Construction" was offered in the spring of 1998. This experimental studio was developed at the request of the students, who were interested in projects offered at other universities, such as Sam Mockbee's Rural
Studio at Auburn University. Associate Professor Bruce
Bassler, an experienced design-build practitioner, approached the Dean of the college about starting a design-build studio at Iowa State. The Dean was supportive of the idea and gave the group a budget of $4000 to construct a canopy system and review space on the fifth floor of the College of Design. 6
Concept through Construction proved to be a popular studio option for students, and Professor Bassler continued as its instructor in the following years. Projects were relatively small in size and contained within the College of
Design, though the studio was given a slightly larger budget and project scope with each passing year. Requests came from other departments within the college for design-build to ----···- create installments around the building. Concept through
Construction has since constructed a cyber cafe on the first
6 Bassler, Bruce. Seasons of Collaboration. 8
floor of the atrium, multiple review spaces around the College
of Design, and a $30,000 GIS lab that houses $100,000 worth of
equipment. 7 The most recent project within the College of
Design was a group of improvements made to the first floor of
the atrium, to create a more effective gathering space. A new
sound and lighting system, display cases, and a media kiosk
with an LCD display screen were all parts of this improvement, which had a budget of $25,000 for materials. 8
The design-build tradition at !SU has several unique
characteristics. Collaboration between programs is
encouraged, not only in terms of the projects that are
undertaken, but the students who participate in the studio
itself. Each semester there have been students from several
different majors within the College of Design, including
architecture, landscape architecture, interior design, and
graphic design, on both the graduate and undergraduate level.
Another major goal of design-build at ISU is getting students
involved with professionals outside the College of Design.
Past projects have included work with a metal fabricator,
electrical and mechanical contractors, materials wholesalers,
a glass fabricator, audio-video consultants, and a plastics
fabricator, to name a few. The Facilities and Planning
7 Bassler, Bruce. Integrated Learning Poster. 8 Bassler, Bruce. Seasons of Learning. 9
Management and Environmental Health and Safety departments have been involved with every project as well, to maintain code compliance. 9
As described by Bruce Bassler, here have been three
"phases" of design-build at ISU thus far: Germination,
Maturation, and Harvest.
Germination (1997-1999)
The Germination Phase was the initial stage of design- build, during which the basic goals and structure of the program were developed. Projects were relatively simple, and material budgets ranged from $1500 to $12,000. It was also during this stage that the first relationships were established with local professionals and appropriate university departments. The collaborative spirit of the program emerged at the outset. The canopy project studio had participants from several departments, including architecture, landscape architecture, materials science engineering, and the honors program. 10
Maturation (2000-2002)
During this phase more students got involved, the projects were larger, and more money was made available.
Relationships with outside sources were strengthened, and the
9 Bassler, Bruce. Seasons of Learning. 10 Bassler, Bruce. Integrated Learning Poster. 10 design-build studio was recognized as a successful program.
Studios during this time numbered around 20 students, a group large enough for two separate projects to be completed during each spring semester. Several review spaces throughout the
College of Design were completed during this time, with budget numbers hovering around $10,000. 11
Harvest (2003-2004):
This phase reverted to a single project each spring semester, although the projects were much more complex and had nearly double the budgets of earlier projects. In 2003, design-build completed its largest project to date: a Graduate
Level Information Systems Laboratory on the fifth floor of the
College of Design. The students renovated an old printmaking studio, converting it to house approximately $100,000 worth of
GIS equipment. The materials budget for this project was
$30,0000.
This phase also brought full-circle one of the
Germination Phase projects in the atrium. Concept through
Construction had established a strong presence in the College of Design, and was allocated a budget of $25,000 to design and install lighting, sound, and display improvements on the first floor of the atrium, completing the Cyber Cafe project from
11 Bassler, Bruce. Integrated Learning Poster. 11
19 9 9. 12
Hybrid (2005 and beyond)
The completion of large-scale projects in the College of
Design led to interest in expanding Concept through
Construction to include off-campus projects. It was clear by this time that the studio was capable of producing large amounts of work in one 16-week semester, and students and faculty were eager to push the scope of the experience even further. It is also interesting to note that, up to this point, Concept through Construction had been somewhat one dimensional in terms of the traditional university design build studio. The program had certainly proven its worth in providing students with an intensive, hands-on construction experience that in turn benefited students and faculty throughout the College of Design. However, as a relatively self-contained program, Concept through Construction had yet to prove its worth to the larger surrounding community.
Participants hadn't experienced what it was like to work with a true "client" in the sense that, within the College of
Design (and as users themselves), they had yet to truly design for a third party, especially one unfamiliar with the process of design or working with a designer. As of 2004, nearly all project participants were involved with the field of design in
12 Bassler, Bruce. Integrated Learning Poster. 12
some manner - from the student designers, to the fabricators and contractors, to the Dean, who acted as the "client" in most projects. It was time to branch out into the community and get the public involved.
As a land-grant university, Iowa State University is obligated to share knowledge and experience with communities around the state. Former University President Martin Jischke once stated,
The outreach part of our land-grant mission is the truly radical aspect of the land-grant development. Not only do we teach students on the campus, not only are we engaged in trying to understand the world about us, to answer questions and carry out original investigations, we are institutions of progress for society and are to be engaged in the life of that society. 13
The design-build studio is a perfect example of one way the university and students can share what they've learned with the community, and ideally, build upon that knowledge base through interaction and collaboration with local communities, contributing even more to the "progress" of the
institution.
13 Charles, Linda. Land-Grant Universities Born from Radical Idea. 13
CHAPTER 4
The Jewell Project Background
In the summer of 2003, towards the middle of the Harvest phase of Concept through Construction, I was one of a group of five graduate architecture students in summer studio at ISU that started talking about the design-build experience and how it might apply to our upcoming thesis projects. We each had our own reasons for wanting to undertake a design-build project, but the common denominator was the fact that we each wanted to see how the nuts and bolts of a building went together. By the end of the summer we'd talked about it several times with Claire Cardinal-Pett, who was both our summer studio instructor and the chair of the graduate architecture program. She was very supportive of the idea and encouraged us to look into it further once the fall semester started. We approached Bruce Bassler in the first week of
September about working with us. He was very receptive to the idea, and we talked about some different project options right away. We weren't sure at that point about the type or scope of project we were looking for, only that we wanted to work on an independent structure somewhere outside the College of
Design. At first, we decided to pursue the idea of low-income housing, and met with representatives from Habitat for
Humanity early in the spring 2004 semester. After the 14 meeting, we felt that Habitat's goals and our own were not compatible enough to produce a successful project, and we started looking for another option.
It was around this time that Bruce met Bill McAnally, director of the Building Trades program at Iowa Central
Community College (ICCC). They were asked to work with ISU
Interior Design Professor Lois Warme on the design and construction of a 21st century farmhouse in Alleman for the
2004 Farm Progress show. After talking to one another about their respective programs, they thought it would be interesting to of fer a design-build experience that would bring together students from the carpentry program (builders) and from the College of Design (architects/designers). Our group of grad students met with Bruce, Bill, and one of the students from Bill's program to learn more about the type of work Iowa Central's program was doing, and how the goals of the two groups might work together. After the meeting, we
(ISU group) felt very optimistic about initiating a partnership, and started looking for a project.
We used several different criteria when locating the community and project we would work with. There was still no set project type, so we started by looking at local towns.
Ideally, the town would be about midway between Fort Dodge and
Ames so it was within convenient traveling distance for both 15 programs. The town would have a newspaper that could support
a bi-weekly column in which we would provide construction updates, articles about specific building practices, and other
general pieces of information about the project, as well as
simply generating interest in the community about the project.
Our team was also looking for a town that had a vested
interest in maintaining the historic integrity of the community while encouraging economic growth and development.
In January of 2004, the five of us and Bruce traveled up
to Jewell, Iowa, as the first stop on our community
investigations. Jewell is approximately 22 miles north of
Ames, in Hamilton County. It is a small but growing community, with a number of residents commuting to Ames for work. We first made contact with Scott Ervin, the owner/editor of the local newspaper, the South Hamilton Record
News. Scott filled us in on what was going on in the town with respect to the downtown area, a new housing neighborhood,
and existing community spaces. He also told us about the
Jewell Area Development Enterprise (JADE), Jewell's local
branch of the Main Street Iowa program. Main Street Iowa is a
subsidiary of the National Main Street Center, a nonprofit organization that helps small towns across the U.S. improve business, retain quality building designs, and promote the downtown area as a source of, "community pride, social 16 activity and economic development potential."14 Involvement in the program was significant for Hamilton County, as it was chosen in 1991 as the first countywide participant in the U.S. for the National Main Street program. 15 JADE has worked hard to maintain the historic presence of Jewell's downtown buildings by encouraging new businesses to move in. With an organization like JADE active in Jewell, it was clear the town had a strong desire to maintain its roots, while also taking advantage of new opportunities for growth.
After telling Scott about our search for a construction project, and he mentioned a couple of different areas of need in the town. First, Jewell was in dire need of a community and/or senior center, as the local school was the only space in the community available for large gatherings, and the existing senior center was so outdated that its users were unable to navigate the steep and decaying front stairs. It had been out of use for some time. Scott also mentioned that the Jewell Golf and Country Club was in need of a new clubhouse, and were seriously considering new construction in the near future. Their current clubhouse (Fig. 1) was the shell of a nearly 100-year old farmhouse that had a number of additions made over the years. The roof was crumbling and
14 http://www.iowalifechanging.com/community/mainstreet/approach.html 15 http://www.iowalifechanging.com/community/mainstreet/approach.html 17 leaking, the foundation was bad, and the state of general disrepair was such that the cost of repair was beyond the building's financial or sentimental valueo
Figure 1. Old Jewell Golf & C.C. clubhouse Source: Author
Our graduate team and Bruce decided to start looking at the golf clubhouse project, hoping there it might be possible to combine the needs of the golf club and the larger community. Bruce contacted the board president, Dan
Seitsinger, who was interested in learning more about the possibility of working with the two colleges to produce a building. Our graduate group and Bruce met with the entire golf course board in February of 2004 to discuss the board's initial plans for the projecto They had a loan of $250,000 secured from their bank, and Dan had made a basic building 18 design using a home-modeling program on his computer. They had also talked to a couple of contractors, just to get an idea of what it might cost for a building similar to Dan's design.
After meeting with Bill, Bruce and the graduate team, the board was in favor of presenting the ISU/ICCC collaboration to the entire membership at their April meeting for preliminary approval. Following a basic presentation and question and answer session, preliminary approval was granted by a vote. A final vote was to be taken in the fall at another membership meeting, once some of the design work had been completed.
The fall semester of 2004 was an extremely busy one.
Programming and schematic designs had to be completed by the
September 28th membership meeting, which meant we only had about a month to come up with the basic design. The board originally wanted a two-story building with a walkout basement to the north, which would house the event/community room. Our team's first schematic proposal included a two-story design, as requested, and an alternate single-story design. We felt that a single story plan was better suited for the site and program for several reasons. First, a two-story plan required a large amount of grading to provide a walkout basement. The budget was already going to be very tight, and costly site work was not a possibility. It would also have been difficult 19 to provide a wheelchair-accessible entrance on this level.
Second, a two-story plan created some difficulties in the preparation and serving of food. If large, catered events were to be held in the basement, it would be inconvenient to move food down the stairs. There would need to be a separate kitchen area in the basement or a dumbwaiter device, both of which would add significantly to the cost of the building.
The third major issue had to do with the function of the building as a whole. We wanted to keep the spaces as flexible as possible, and a two-story plan would make it difficult for the entire building to be used efficiently for one event, because the two spaces were so cut off from one another.
After presenting our findings to the board, they agreed with the points we made, and the single-story plan was approved.
The final step in the initial planning process was completed on September 28, 2004, when a second membership-wide meeting was held at the Jewell Elementary School to give final approval to the project and allow construction to begin. The membership approved the project, 86 to 22.
The old clubhouse was demolished in late October, over a two-day period. After a broken backhoe and a small incident with the DNR over possible asbestos contamination, the site was clear and we were able to proceed with filling and compacting the void left by the old structure. Work in the 20 fall moved slower than we had anticipated, although we had half of the perimeter foundation poured by winter break (Figs.
2-3). During this time we were refining details and some schematic elements on our design from the September 28t h meeting. We had a major review with our thesis committee in
November, and the outcome led to a final solution for the roof form and the north elevation, both elements we had been struggling with for some time. The end of the semester kept us busy meeting with subcontractors, working out the framing plan, and identifying key feature elements that would be designed in detail by the undergraduate studio joining us in the spring.
Figure 2. Placing formwork Figure 3 . Pouring concrete for new clubhouse foundation for new clubhouse foundation Source: Author Source: Author 21
CHAPTER 5
The Jewell Project: Arch 402/603
The spring semester of 2005 brought a new element to the project when 17 undergraduate students from architecture, landscape architecture, and graphic design joined the project.
Although the shell of the building had been designed, there were still a lot of components that needed to be designed on the exterior and interior. During the first week, we designated 10 different areas that would need design work and split the studio into teams. Major projects included a set of partition doors to separate the golf space from the event
space, the patio and other landscaping components, the
lighting system for the event and bar spaces, and interior trim and finishes for the entire building. Each team had a grad student to coordinate with if they needed more
information or feedback. The grad team was also working up on
site during this time, trying to finish the foundation work so
the floor slabs could be poured.
The first weeks in studio were intensive design work because many of the elements would need considerable
fabrication time. There was also a push to finish the designs as quickly as possible so everyone could be up on the site working. The schedule was still somewhat on target, but we knew it was going to take a lot of work to complete the 22
building by the beginning of May. To move design along as
quickly as we could, there were daily pinups and progress
reports on each component. It was vitally important to keep
on top of the work pace so we could move forward each day and
keep everyone on the same page.
Significant work on the separate components
continued in the ISU studio and in Iowa Central's shop in Fort
Dodge (Figs. 8-9) until spring break week. The idea was to
get most of the fabrication on these projects completed before
break, so the second half of the semester could be completely
devoted to work on the construction site. At this point, with
the exception of the bathroom floors and corridor, the entire
slab was poured, and the exterior walls on the event space had
been put up.
We moved ahead quickly after break, and there were
noticeable changes in the building each day (Figs. 4-8). The
rest of the framing went up, the roof structure and
underlayment were set, the exterior walls had sheathing and
foam installed, and the patio space was laid out and
engineered fill brought in. Almost everyone from the
undergraduate studio was now working up on the site, having essentially completed his or her independent design components. As of this writing, the building was ready for
the fiber-cement board cladding, metal roof, interior 23 insulation, and doorframe placemento Saturday "blitz build" days are planned, involving Bruce's Arch 448 Materials and
Assemblies class, along with our studio group and hopefully some community mernberso It will take a lot of effort on everyone's part, but we're still looking at a completion date in early May.
Figure 4. Construction on Figure 5. Construction on new clubhouse new clubhouse Source: Author Source: Author
Figure 6. Furring out ceiling Figure 7. Placing SIPS For drywall placement panels over golf dining space Source: Author Source: Author 24
Figure 8. Shaping trim Figure 9. Sanding trim pieces in ICCC shop pieces in ICCC shop Source: Author Source: Author 25
CHAPTER 6
The Jewell Project: Critical Analysis
Unique Characteristics
Each University that offers design-build as part of the larger architectural education typically has a specific philosophy that differentiates it from other programs. For
Auburn's Rural Studio, it's the innovation of using uncommon materials in construction. The University of Kansas' Studio
804 constructs award-winning, affordable homes that challenge the "status quo" of architecture. 16 At Iowa State, we've started a program that adds a third dimension to the idea of hands-on construction for underserved populations. By starting a partnership with Iowa Central Community College's
Building Trades program, we've brought together designer, client, and builder. This distinguishes us in that our program truly represents the three parties that are a part of the projects we'll be designing as professionals. Bringing builders and designers together as students offers us the chance to learn from one another early in our careers, hopefully facilitating positive relationships later in life.
We, as architects, have the opportunity to learn firsthand how the design decisions we make affect the constructability of a
16 http://www.studio804.com/aboutus.htm 26 building from the people who will be carrying out those designs for the rest of our working careers. Ideally, the builders also learn from us, in terms of the services we can provide, and the process behind our decision-making.
Furthermore, in the design-build studio we have the opportunity to work side by side. We (designers) aren't just the people who stop on site to "check in" from time to time.
Critical Analysis: What could be improved
The Jewell project was an experiment for all three parties involved. The whole concept of the ISU/ICCC/Community partnership was and is still a learning process and, should it continue, will be continually refined and adapted in years to come. In my opinion, there are a number of aspects of this particular project that should be addressed for the benefit of future endeavors between ISU, ICCC, and local communities.
Community Involvement
Over the course of the project, I felt as if we (ISU/ICCC and the Jewell Golf & cc board) were somewhat isolated from the rest of the community. We've had little interaction with people from the community of Jewell, other than the few who have driven out to the site (most don't actually get out of their vehicles), and members of the golf course who we talked with at the two membership meetings. I know people in the community are interested in the project, but there needs to be 27 definitive action, on our part, to let them know we want and appreciate their involvement. At the beginning of the project, "community education" was supposed to be a central focus of the entire effort. However, as we moved into the design and construction process, we became very tied up in those activities and community communication ended up on the back burner. We did publish a number of informative newspaper articles about progress on the site and some of our methods of construction, but the articles did little to invite community participation or feedback. We also set up a display at the local bank, detailing progress on the site, but this piece of communication wasn't put in place until March, and it was set up at the request of the client.
There have been a small number of negative reactions and incidents involving members of the community, and I think literally extending them an invitation for involvement might solve some of those problems. This project is slightly peculiar in that our "client" is technically a group of around
200 people whose interests are represented by a seven-member board of directors. I think perhaps some of the golf membership felt detached from the project because of this decision-making structure, or that their opinions were insignificant within the larger scope, which may have contributed to some feelings of animosity. 28
In future projects, I think the partnership needs to push harder for community feedback and involvement, keep on top of newspaper articles and other media to relate project updates, and offer people as many opportunities as possible to get involved with both the planning and construction process.
We could do this through "town hall" type meetings, informational mailings, partnerships with local businesses, or even by knocking on doors and asking people what they think about potential projects and how they'd like to get involved.
As we discovered, it's easy to become so engrossed in the details of making the project happen physically that the community interaction falls by the wayside, when it should be one of the most important aspects of the endeavor. Gaining the trust and support of the community is half the battle in a small town like Jewell. Furthermore, fostering a sense of pride and ownership toward the project early in its development should help improve the community's impression of the overall efforts being put forth.
Non-Profit Component
One of the major hurdles we faced in securing ICCC's involvement in the project was that a private golf course clubhouse was technically a for-profit project, and they were only allowed to work for non-profit organizations. To meet the non-profit requirement, the board agreed to designate the 29 larger event space portion of the building as a "community space" that could be used, without charge, by local civic groups and organizations. The small change in program allowed
!CCC to be involved with construction of the vast majority of the building, as almost every space within it would serve the community/event space. From the beginning of our presence in
Jewell, we had been interested in the idea of a community center, so this seemed like an agreeable solution to everyone.
In theory, the community room is a wonderful idea. In practice, I'm not convinced we've built a project that is truly for the community of Jewell. The new clubhouse will without a doubt benefit the community indirectly in several ways. Increased golf course traffic means more people in town in general, which brings in revenue for both the golf course and local businesses. A major improvement to the golf course also adds to the amenities Jewell had to offer, increasing the town's overall attractiveness. The problem with the community benefiting directly lies in the fact that the "community center" aspect is still managed by a private group, and its use by the community is somewhat at their discretion. If it were a true community center, it would be open to use by anyone, at any time. In this building, golf course events, private rentals, and community events will all need to be accommodated. When we started the design, we were under the 30
impression that there would be some type of community advisory
board, made up of people from the JADE organization or other
interested residents, who would attend the meetings we had
with the golf course board. I'm not certain why this never
materialized, but I think part of the lack of community {non
golf course) involvement was because the project was funded
entirely by a private enterprise. This goes back to the
argument that architectural services are often "reserved" for
those who can finance a project, which isn't to say that a
small-town golf course is part of an elite group, but that
whoever has the money {any amount) has the most influence in
the design process. The only argument I would make here is
that, in the future, I think it will be important to look very
carefully at how the chosen project will operate after
construction is complete, and whether the end usage will
reflect the initial goal. Creating an "identity" for ISU's
community-based design-build by developing a mission or vision
statement may help better define the program's goals, and make
it easier to choose projects that fall within those
parameters.
Work Schedules
For the ISU students, one of our biggest frustrations was
trying to coordinate work schedules with Iowa Central and the various subcontractors who needed to be on site. Our typical 31
studio work time is 12 hours a week, on Monday, Wednesday and
Friday afternoons, and Iowa Central works Monday through
Friday until 3 p.m. each day. When the project started, we
(ISU) were of the understanding that ICCC would be working most days of· the week, most weeks, and that the five of us graduate students would join them on the afternoons we had
studio time. Due to dedication to other projects and the loss of an instructor, it was difficult for the ICCC group to put in as much time on the Jewell project as we had anticipated.
This put strain on the construction schedule, and with other
factors like winter weather, equipment breakdowns, and the DNR
shutdown, we found ourselves behind schedule early in construction.
Despite earlier setbacks, we've made an enormous amount of progress over the last few weeks, and with the warmer weather, longer days, and addition of more manpower in the
form of Arch 402 and Arch 448 students, we should meet our
goal on time.
Staying on schedule can be difficult even for professional contractors with experienced workers, and in our
situation, some of the schedule issues were due to elements we didn't have much control over. However, I think we could mitigate some of these unexpected issues by being more attentive to what we can control: work schedules. I think in 32 the future we may find it easier to keep the momentum going on the project by laying out multi-week work schedules that outline everyone's responsibilities and group goals to be accomplished. Bruce did something similar to this through his daily email updates in the spring semester, but ideally it would be a student-led initiative. It needs to become a regular routine at the very start of the design process, rather than a necessity when the schedule gets extremely tight.
Scale of Student Involvement
The nature of the evolution of the Jewell project meant that not everyone would be involved through the entire process. From the very first meeting with Bruce in the fall of 2003, through construction in the spring of 2005, the project has been at least three semesters in the making.
Currently, the architecture curriculum at ISU is set up so that design-build is offered as a single-semester option studio in the spring of the 5th year B. Arch program or the 3rct year M. Arch program. Undertaking a project the size of the one in Jewell requires a much larger time investment than preparation for an in-house design-build project, meaning the studio needs to be extended to at least a full-year course for everyone involved. Another option would be to have a smaller
"core" team of students do the groundwork and preliminary 33 design in one semester, with a larger studio group joining them the next semester for detail designs and construction, similar to the Jewell project's evolution.
Proceeding with total group involvement has some advantage, primarily that everyone has a sense of complete
"ownership" in the project, and sees it through from start to finish. In the Jewell project, I think the graduate students probably had a richer experience and a greater overall sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, because we were there for the entire process. The undergraduates certainly benefited from being involved with the project, but their experience was quite different from ours in that they came in halfway through the project and had to work within a lot of set parameters.
They also had less interaction with the client, which in my opinion was one of the most valuable learning experiences in the whole project.
There are also some advantages to having a smaller group handle the major design aspects, the largest being that the design of an entire building form and structure is perhaps better suited to a smaller number of participants because
"design by committee" is quite difficult and time consuming.
While working on the Jewell project during the fall semester, we struggled at times to come to consensus with only five members. It would be very difficult for a group of 15-20 34 students to produce a cohesive, full-scale building design in one semester. I think having a core group also gives the design process more clarity for the 402 studio because there's a sense of creative control, which helps all of the building components reflect a certain continuity, no matter who designed them.
Builder/Architect Collaboration
In theory, the partnership between ISU and ICCC would include a continuous flow of information between the two groups. We would meet regularly with the ICCC students during the design process to get their feedback on the various systems and details we were proposing, and we would explain the thought process behind our decisions. Nearing the end of the project, there's no doubt that we did learn from each other, but I'm not sure the partnership was as successful with regard to the educational aspect as it was with the construction effort. In the future, I think the two groups need to work more closely with one another to fully benefit from the partnership we've started. We (ISU) worked with Bill
McAnally frequently during schematic and detail design, but there wasn't as much student involvement as there could have been. I think the learning environment could be enriched by holding weekly or bi-weekly meetings with students from both
ICCC and ISU, to go over the proposed designs together and 35
discuss their constructability. I don't think we took full
advantage of working with the carpentry students on site, as we were often split into two groups, performing different
tasks, and didn't really interact with each other on a regular
basis. I think regular meetings earlier in the design process would allow the two groups to become familiar with each other
and create a more effective partnership between the two
schools. 36
CHAPTER 7
The Jewell Project: Student Reactions
When asked about their experience in the Arch 402/603 studio, most students first mention construction experience as the most important thing they've learned. 5th year
Architecture student Angela Currie said,
I think it [hands-on experience} will help me understand more completely how the pieces go together to make a whole, and hopefully that will boost my level of confidence and skill in the realm of design.
She adds,
The work in the studio is so much more fun and intriguing because it is REAL and isn't a 1/8" model of something. It is awesome to have the opportunity to let your thoughts and ideas become true, rather than stuck on paper and in a small model. 17
5th year Landscape Architecture student Angie Hulsebus shared a similar reaction to being in design-build:
Hands-on experience will definitely help me to more thoroughly consider the final level of design - constructing or building something. There are so many details that I would not have known to think about without having been a part of a design/build course. 18
One aspect of design-build that differentiates it from other studios is the higher level of responsibility placed on individuals, especially with the tight schedule of the Jewell project. Students reacted to this accountability in a positive way. 5th year Architecture student Michael Goslinga
17 Currie, Angela. Personal Interview. 18 Hulsebus, Angie. Personal Interview. 37
said,
I think the responsibility aspect is one of the strongest aspects of the design-build studio. There is true responsibility placed on a person; their project is part of a whole, the project is only as good as it's weakest piece. I think we've accomplished a successful project so far because there was collaboration between groups and each piece was accounted for and designed individually but with a collaborative spirit in mind. 19
Other students pointed to a number of different skills they'd developed as a result of their design-build experience.
3rd year Graduate Architecture students JaDee Goehring and Beau
Fey found that the process of communicating their designs was an important part of the learning process. JaDee said,
It [design-build] has taught me how to 2-dimenisionally communicate my concept and come to terms with all the nuts and bolts needed to successfully finish my design, i.e., the glass canopy. 20
Beau thought the experience of building helped his work as a designer in that constructing a design helped him realize the importance of clear drawings. He said,
Practically, one cannot know how something goes together by simply drawing it. By drawing and building something one becomes familiar with that object so that they can l) know what worked well/badly with regard to the interface from drawing to construction, 2) know how similar objects are built, and 3) recognize the confusion someone else might have when trying to build the object from drawings. 21
Dealing with a real client was another aspect of the
19 Goslinga, Michael. Personal Interview. 20 Goehring, JaDee. Personal Interview. 21 Fey, Beau. Personal Interview. 38 project that students felt was important. Designing for someone else is an experience students don't typically have in traditional studios. 5th year Architecture student Angela
Currie, who helped design the interior trim and finishes, said,
We came to the solution for our trim detailing through multiple ideas, drawings and mock-ups. Without those mock ups and chats with Bruce we would have stuck with a design that wasn't right for the country club at all. We also considered the type of people and the size of town and the comfort level (with regards to design) of the people we were designing for. 22
In my own personal experience on the project, I think what
I've learned the most about is the amount of coordination it takes between the parties involved to complete a building in an efficient and timely manner. Specifying and ordering materials, scheduling subcontractors, and getting everyone and everything on site at the right time was a challenge for us throughout the semester. I didn't realize how interdependent all these different factors were until we got into the project. At times, though we had a lot of work to do, we were unable to proceed because something else was holding us up.
The other experience I found valuable in the project was working with a real client. I didn't expect this to be as big an aspect of the project as it turned out to be, and I think it's a major advantage to this type of studio. While full-
22 Currie, Angela. Personal Interview. 39 scale construction is not the norm in regular studios, we do build models and spend a lot of time studying building systems and assemblies. However, working with clients is something students typically never experience on any level in a traditional studio setting. There's really no training for it, other than a small section of the professional practice course that's devoted to client relations.
The final aspect of the design-build studio I found exceptionally valuable as a learning experience was the role of the subcontractor. It made me realize how important it is to meet with them early in the design process to avoid potential conflicts later. I've had course material in other classes about integrating mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, but I didn't realize the impact they would have on the actual form of the building, particularly the mechanical system. We spent many hours during schematic design talking to our mechanical subcontractor, Jim Converse, about what type of system was appropriate for the project. Moving into detail design, Brent Sevcik was in almost daily contact with Jim to make sure the designs we were proposing would integrate with the system he would be installing. CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION
The essential function of this writing has been to provide an introduction to the current practice of design-build curriculum; give a brief history of how ISU's design-build program has evolved, including the current community hybrid project; and provide an analysis of the hybrid's value as an educational tool and community outreach program.
In some ways, this is not a complete investigation of the new module for design-build because the project is not yet complete. To be entirely conclusive, I would need to look at the project several years out to make a definitive statement
about its impact on the community and how (if) the experience helped then-students in their professional careers. On the other hand, it is useful to analyze the project at the present, from inside the process, because the difficulties and
shortcomings are more clear, as we're still dealing with them.
The purpose of the analysis is not to uncover glaring defects
in the system, but rather to identify areas of concern so they can be altered, refined, and adapted during future projects to provide a better experience for everyone involved.
I say "future projects" because I believe the partnership we've started with ICCC and local communities has unlimited potential to expand and develop. Iowa State's 41 responsibilities as a land-grant university include outreach to local communities to disseminate knowledge and share skills developed on campus. The new model of design-build that moves outside the College of Design benefits area residents as well as students who participate in the studio. Furthermore, ISU's innovative approach to design-build involving the local community college adds yet another dimension to an established tradition. Founding a solid relationship between student designers and builders serves to benefit not only the professions, but also the community that will live and work within the structures they complete during their careers. 42
APPENDIX A: ARCH 402/602 STUDENT QUESTIONNAIRE
1. State your full name, year, and degree program.
2. Do you feel that being involved with a Design/Build studio has given you an advantage over students who have not had the same experience?
3. How do you think hands-on experience (in terms of actually building something you've designed) might help you later in your professional career?
4. With regard to your personal uproject" within the larger scope of the design, what is your reaction to being asked to take responsibility for the creation of the item(s)?
5. How does your work in this studio differ from others you've had?
6. How did you come to the solution for your particular design component? Did you have any precedents? Do other parts of the building inform your design (or vice versa)? Have you learned any specific new skills in order to complete construction of your component? 43
APPENDIX B: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR BRUCE BASSLER
1. What kind of advantages do you think D/B students have after graduation over students who haven't been involved with design build (if any)?
2. How do you see D/B aiding students in their development as designers? What kind of new (or improved) skills do you see coming out of D/B?
3. Were you personally involved with D/B (or similar) when you were in school? Do you feel as though the experience helped you in your professional career?
4. What kind of role does/should design build play in architectural education? I mean big picture .... should it be something that is mandatory at every university?
5. Are there any negative aspects or recurring issues you have seen in D/B studios (relating to student work, university support, other faculty .... anything really)
6. I've heard people say that students have plenty of time to get real-world experience after they're done with school. What is your reaction to this statement?
7. How did you get involved with D/B at ISU? BIBLIOGRAPHY
2004 AIA Code of Ethics and Personal Conduct. Online [Available] http://www.aia.org/about ethics Accessed March 22, 2005.
AIA Public Policies, 2005. Online [Available] http://www.aia.org/about ethics Accessed March 22, 2005.
Bassler, Bruce. Personal Interview. March 30, 2005.
Bassler, Bruce. Seasons of Collaboration. 2004.
Bassler, Bruce. Integrated Learning Poster. 2004.
Bell, Bryan. Good Deeds, Good Design: Community Service Through Architecture. Princeton Architectural Press, 2004.
Charles, Linda. Land-Grant Universities Born from Radical Idea. The Iowa Stater. February, 1997. Online [Available] http://www.iastate.edu/IaStater/1997/feb/landgrant.html Accessed March 24, 2005.
Currie, Angela. Personal Interview. March 29, 2005.
Fey, Beau. Personal Interview. March 28, 2005.
Goehring, JaDee. Personal Interview. March 26, 2005.
Goslinga, Michael. Personal Interview. March 30, 2005.
Hulsebus, Angie. Personal Interview. March 27, 2005.
Main Street Iowa. Online. [Available] http://www.iowalifechanging.com/community/mainstreet/appr each.html Accessed March 24, 2005.
Pearson, Jason. University-Community Design Partnerships: innovations in practice. Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.