transactions on architectural education: no 19
sub network of architectural design education
aD
Antunes Ana education in european schoolsJoao Carlos of architecture Belfiore Braaten architecturalAlsaçPa squale designBjorn Otto Üstün Depuydt ■ José Floet Grant eeson Boyd ■ B Gary il MichaelJ. Janssen ■ ∞lexopoulouSimon Corne an Elin Willemijn WilmsÆ rka monitoring Bocan Gök í Hu ■ ∞lexandra logh Jan Koray Jir Lökçe Ba á Erem Sevgi Balazs ˇov onceicaoOmer e is C Krumlinde tancour Broz Lu Heiner Jo Odgers d Be Lojanica ito Michaelaˇ lar Gilbert-ScottHacihasanoglu estos Çag Nick enic Milan Novi Pat architecturalNur Di Domenico design Orhan tino sen Koml Fausto J. Po r: C Milos Lada Costan GiovanniFroyen Sasa ll Tentokali Hubert Murphy PitzalisS chouterden Vanta o inen Jim Efisio Isil Hacihasanogluta ucina Parne Ludo i n Ka K Rosie sta Juhani Mayer innen Valent ocent Ivan Petrovic Sw D RonnefalkWim ona Borislav AlessandroWr n Beril Özmen onica yk apadopoulosWer Sl Stefan tin Lois P ne Jan Pay Unwin John on Simon Robein Willey¸ S Jean Shott ˇ David ilkaya p Yes Elizabeth Uludag Nese irid ynep Ze Webster Helena o Yegenoglu n Hüsnü id
is Index
ix preface
Part 1 Initiations
3 Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture Simon Beeson, UK
13 Presentation of Architectural Design Studio Course Michaela Broˇzová, Jirˇí Hu° rka, CZECH REPUBLIC
17 Basic Design: As an Introduction to Architectural Design Koray Gökan, TURKEY
27 ADelft Method Willemijn Wilms Floet, THE NEDERLANDS
35 Structure; Space and Form Bjorn Otto Braaten, NORWAY
45 First Grade Architectural Design Studio Course: an Experience Luis Conceicao, Joao Carlos Antunes, PORTUGAL
55 The University of Sheffield School of Architecture: Year One Design Studio Rosie Parnell, UK
67 Drawing on Experience Jo Odgers, Simon Unwin, UK
81 Record of the Studio Course "Laboratorio di Progettazione dell’Architettura 1C" Alessandro Valenti, ITALY
91 From Hell to Home Weronica Ronnefalk, SWEDEN
Part 2 Articulations
107 Tight fit: Loose fit - People, Place and Architectural Position David Willey, Nick Gilbert-Scott, UK
119 Social Housing on the Test Bench Ludo Schouterden, J. Janssen, J. Posen, BELGIUM
125 Universal Design Education Hubert Froyen, BELGIUM
v 133 Architectural Design Studio 6 Course at Instanbul Technical University Isil Hacihasanoglu, Orhan Hacihasanoglu, Omer Erem, TURKEY
143 Record of the Studio Course "Laboratorio di Costruzione dell’Architettura 1" Fausto Novi, π∆∞LÀ
153 The BlueBox Intensive Course in Architectural Design Heiner Krumlinde, GERMANY
159 "Happy Students Produce Better Work" An Experimental Approach to Design Tutoring Beril Özmen Mayer, Üstün Alsaç, Northern Cyprus
167 The Educational Part of the Desing Process Milan Lojanica, Borislav Petrovic, Milos Komlenic, SERVIA & MONTENEGRO
177 The Integrative Design Studio: Mediator Exchanging and Creating Architectural Knowledge José Depuydt, BELGIUM
191 Investigations into Particularity at Edinburgh College of Art John Payne, UK
201 Third Year Architectural Design Studio Course Gary Boyd, Jim Murphy, IRELAND
211 Vertically-Structured Design Studios: Developing Critical Concepts on Conceptualization and Organization of Social Space within Urban Contexts Nur Çagˇlar, Zeynep Uludagˇ, TURKEY
223 Atelier 3: Adventures of Architectural Design Experiences in a Vertical Studio Sevgi Lökçe, Nese Yes¸ilkaya, TURKEY
229 Architectural Design Course at Prague Faculty of Architecture Jan Bocan, CZECH REPUBLIC
Part 3 Advancements
239 AMultidisciplinary Approach Hüsnü Yegenoglu, THE NEDERLANDS
249 Proposed Guidelines for the Presentation of Architectural Design Studio Courses Jean Robein, FRANCE
255 Complement through Understanding Jan Slyk, Stefan Wrona, POLAND
vi 265 A"Play" with Architectural "Textuality" Vanta Tentokali, GREECE
277 Transitional Spaces: A Spatial Construction of Identities, an Architectural Design Workshop (1996 - 2004) ∞lexandra ∞lexopoulou, Sasa Lada, Lois Papadopoulos, GREECE
289 First of all Composition then Design Pasquale Belfiore, Efisio Pitzalis, ITALY
293 Building Construction Focused Architectural Design Wim Swinnen, BELGIUM
301 Fourth Year Architectural Design Studio Course Giovanni Di Domenico, ITALY
313 ACivil and Realist Architectural Education Costantino Patestos, ITALY
323 Comprehensive Design Studio I-II Balazs Balogh, HUNGARY
329 Architectural Design, Advanced Course Juhani Katainen, FINLAND
339 Architectural Design In-Between Theory and Practice Docent Ivan Kucina, SERVIA & MONTENEGRO
343 The Design Diary: Promoting Reflective Practice in the Design Studio Helena Webster, UK
357 Computer Aided Building Design Michael Grant, UK
365 Strategic Initiatives Elizabeth Shotton, IRELAND
375 A+ URL: Design as Research Ana Betancour, SWEDEN
381 Four Fall Studios Elin Corneil, NORWAY
vii Monitoring Architectural Design Education in European Schools of Architecture
Constantin Spiridonidis School of Architecture, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece ENHSA Coordinator
Monitoring Educational Structures
The present volume includes a series of texts that describe courses taught at schools of architecture in Europe and focused on the design of architectural space. The collection of these texts was realised and funded by Socrates Thematic Networks, in the framework of activities of the European Network of Heads of Schools of Architecture (ENHSA) Thematic Network. The basis for the creation of the ENHSA Thematic Network was the need of Europe’s schools of architecture to organise a supporting framework in order to integrate themselves into the European Higher Architectural Education Area. Three years ago, eighty schools of architecture undertook, through their Heads of School and Academic Program Coordinators and with the support of the European Association for Architectural Education (EAAE), to coordinate a series of academic activities allocated by the appropriate members of the academic community. These activities aimed at creating a working environment for dialogue and exchange of information, data and ideas, as well as for the comprehensive monitoring of architectural education structures in Europe. As is widely known, the EU policies towards a cohesive European Higher Education Area, as expressed by the Sorbonne-Bologna-Prague-Berlin process, stimulated a vigorous mobility of ideas and views on the future of architectural education in Europe. The perspective of the creation of a European Higher Architectural Education Area is presented not only as a demand, or as an EU request, but principally as a great challenge: to re-form, creatively, architectural studies in Europe for a more coherent, more qualitative and more attractive European architectural education worldwide. This prospect has triggered the interest of the architectural education community. The central issue in the debates on architectural education today is the way (values, principles, objectives, priorities, methods, strategies and actions) that each school will manage its reform processes in order to be an active, valuable and influential part of this new European environment. Moreover, it is becoming more and more evident that cooperation and coordinated collective efforts are essential to the creation of such a new environment. In an attempt to promote and enhance the academic physiognomy of European schools of architecture through cooperation and collaboration, ENHSA in the spring of 2003 invited the Deans, Vice-Deans, Heads of School and Academic Program Coordinators to call on their architectural design teachers to contribute to the creation of a working document that will be a record of the teaching practices, teaching strategies and pedagogic methods of the subject area of architectural design. This record is incorporated in the present volume, entitled ‘Architectural Design Education in European Schools of Architecture’, which will be distributed to all Schools of Architecture, Partners of the ENHSA Thematic Network and members of the EAAE. All the material will also appear on the ENHSA Website (www.enhsa.net), to reach a greater number of architectural design teachers and serve as widely as possible as a useful tool. This volume is expected to constitute a starting point for the creation in the near future of a valuable and extended corpus into which all educators can delve for information on the state of the art in architectural design education around Europe.
ix Architectural Design Education in Europe
The initiative for the creation of this volume, is a part of a broader effort to shape a milieu for exchanges of views, ideas and teaching practices between teachers of architectural design in schools of architecture in Europe. Architectural Design is the fundamental subject in architectural education. It constitutes the core of architectural education and possesses the greatest part of the total of teaching that any school of architecture dedicates to educate an architect. Despite the fact that architectural design has the greatest weight in the education of architects, it is interesting to follow the expression of this weight in figures. According to the results of a recent (May-August 2003) inquiry carried out in the framework of the activities of the ENHSA Thematic Network and aimed at recording the state of the art of architectural education in Europe, in a sample of sixty schools in the average total of teaching hours required for the diploma in architecture, Architectural Design accounted for 33%. It is interesting to note that this percentage, as an expression of the weight given to the subject area, has the following characteristics. The mean, which is 33%, is close to the median, which is 32,33%; in most schools of architecture, in other words, the curricular share of architectural design teaching is close to the average. The extremes of teaching time in the schools of the sample are 19% (minimum) and 62% (maximum). With a standard deviation of 10,12% we can see that the majority of schools of the sample attribute to architectural design teaching time that fluctuates between 23% and 43% of the total teaching time. The weight of the presence of architectural design in the curriculum of schools of architecture in Europe is not different in big schools (with more than 1000 students) compared to smaller ones (with fewer than 1000 students). Moreover, no differentiations are observed with regard to the geographical position of schools in the different parts of Europe. It is also interesting to observe that the more the teaching time dedicated to architectural design deviates from the average, the more the differentiation of the overall physiognomy of a school. It becomes evident, therefore, that these approximations to the maximum or minimum rates correspond to entirely different curricula. These curricula, in turn, correspond to different educational perceptions, teaching methods which lead to different learning outcomes and competences, and effectively to titles and degrees with different qualitative aspects. Thus, such an x-ray of school curricula is meaningful not in an effort to facilitate convergence of differences but, on the contrary, in an effort to support the creation of groups with similar approaches to architectural design that, through collaboration and exchange, would enable the development and advancement of the characteristics of their particular identity.
The Teaching of Architectural Design
Though the investigation of the quantitative aspects of architectural design teaching in Europe give us a series of clues on the identity of this teaching, this does not mean that they could substitute its qualitative investigation, which is itself a special research pursuit. In what way could we study a teaching practice in the subject area of architectural design? How can we record the qualitative aspects of the contemporary complexity, pluralism and polyphony of architectural education in Europe? Even though this question is not new, there is very little we can testify as valuable and broadly accepted responses. As the debate on architectural education advances and as the details for the content and articulation of architectural studies become central to this debate, the breadth of polyphony in architectural education in Europe becomes evident. Every attempt to investigate and record ends up with a broad spectrum of approaches and views on how schools appreciate the subject area of architecture. This fact is directly translated into a broad spectrum of teaching strategies, practices and methods which, in turn, are reflected in the various skills and competences ensured by the various diplomas awarded to graduates. Our sense that awareness of the existing
x differentiations constitutes a particularly fertile experience was the departure point for the development of initiatives aiming at the creation of a network of teachers of architectural design that will explore these differentiations and arrive at constructive conclusions. The initiative started with the consensus that it is necessary for a genuine material to offer particular information about different teaching paradigms around Europe. ∆hat this information would facilitate the exchange of ideas and research in architectural education, so useful to all eager educators. It is expected that this monitoring would provide a row material for further investigation and research, will enhance the dialogue among them and will enrich their experience in the teaching of architectural design. The creation of this volume is the first step in that direction.
Monitoring Architectural Design Education
The research on architectural design pedagogy that is to say the investigation of ways in which the subject area of architectural design becomes a teaching subject, presupposes the definition of some fundamental issues, the analysis of which could reveal views, positions, theses, logics, approaches, principles and values as well as strategies, actions, operations and design processes. Our investigation was oriented towards two broader categories of issues. The first one concerns issues relating to the content of teaching, and the second one to pedagogic strategies and teaching methods. In other words, the first one concerns what is taught in an architectural design course and the second one, how this content is taught. The invitation to architectural design teachers to contribute to the creation of the present volume was structured on the basis of these questions. The invitation was open to all those who felt that their contribution could help the reader comprehend the pedagogy of the subject area, the educational objectives and the techniques, methods and means that ensure the fulfilment of these objectives. Contributors were invited to describe, within certain guidelines, the course they teach, and to explain the overall philosophy of their teaching of the subject area. The number of contributors per school was limited to two, and their task was to describe at most two different key courses for the subject area that could be considered innovative and/or experimental. The suggested guidelines did not only deal with practical issues of presentation but also prescribed a possible structure to allow for comparability and, if possible, for homogeneity. The descriptions are therefore structured around four key issues, which form the common ground of the presentations.
The first of the issues the contributors were asked to deal was the philosophy of the course, with emphasis on the perception of Architectural Design and Architecture in general, the educational objectives, the knowledge expected to be acquired and the skills and competences expected to be developed, the priorities and values on which the teaching of Architectural Design focuses. These issues may be expressed in the following questions: What do I teach in the Architectural Design course I run? Why do I teach what I teach in the Architectural Design course I am describing?
The second issue includes a description of the chosen Architectural Design course, the pedagogy and educational method adopted. It was considered useful to discuss the pedagogic techniques and strategies for the development of the course (stages and phases, vehicles, activities, lectures, debates, presentations, visits, bibliography, precedent study, etc.) the issues dealt with at each stage of the course and the reason(s) behind this choice, and the general organization and structure of the course. All the points mentioned aimed at allowing for an explicit and effective description of the philosophy and the educational objectives of the course. These issues may be expressed in the following questions: How do I teach in the Architectural Design course for which I am responsible? Why do I choose to teach in this way the Architectural Design course I am describing?
xi The third issue concerns the Architectural Design exercise(s) the students work on. It would be useful to describe the general and special characteristics of the design theme(s) and the exercise(s) of the Course, the criteria upon which this design theme is chosen, the way it is introduced to the students, the questions the exercise poses, the method whereby the teacher monitors the development of the exercise, the focal points of the exercise, the submission requirements, the evaluation of the exercise. The above descriptions were to be supported by references to the way and the extent to which the choice of the exercise(s) ensures the fulfillment of the educational objectives of the course and allows for the best grasp of its overall philosophy by the students. These issues may be expressed in the following questions: What exercise(s) and design themes I run? Why do I suggest these exercises for the teaching of Architectural Design?
The fourth issue is suggested to cover questions related to the difficulties encountered by the teacher in running the course. More specifically, the teacher was asked to offer an overview and a critical appreciation of the course with regard to its effectiveness and contribution to the overall school curriculum, with suggestions as to how its quality might be improved. These issues may be expressed in the following questions: How satisfied am I with the course of Architectural Design I teach? How could I improve my course?
The Structure of the Volume
Forty one responses from architectural design teachers from Schools of Architecture around Europe were received in this first step, and are presented in this volume. Their contributions are organised in three parts. The division was not based on similarities relating to perceptions of architectural design or to the teaching practices applied: attempts to follow such a taxonomy led to a great number of sections and of cases difficult to compare, to blurred distinctions between them and to a new realization of the complexity and variety of approaches to architectural design teaching. Rather, since the main objective of this volume was to record teaching practices in the subject area, it was organized on the basis of criteria related to the teaching process. More specifically, the criteria governing the organization of the volume were the characteristics of the course, as these derive from its position in the school curriculum (year of studies the course is taught, teaching hours dedicated to the course), and the characteristics of the recipient, that is, the class to which the course is addressed (number of students, number of teaching staff, student/staff ratio). The reader can find for each presented course, information about the number of students of each course, the number of staff teaching this course, the student /staff ratio, the duration of the course in terms of number of weeks and in terms of teaching hours. The interest is thus focused on the teaching itself, inviting the reader to investigate, through the strategies and methods described, the attestations, views and positions of teachers on the subject they teach. The first part, entitled "initiations", includes contributions on elementary courses, that is, introductory courses to architectural design run in the third year of studies at the latest. This enables the reader to investigate the pedagogic strategies applied to give students their first acquaintance with the theoretical and practical issues of the act of designing. The logic of this classification is that these courses are addressed to students whose basic architectural education is just starting and their main objective is to initiate them to the design activity and the design thinking. The texts in this section were, in principle, classified according to the number of teaching hours a school dedicates to this architectural design course. We can distinguish two types of courses in this part according to this criterion: Courses with less that 200 teaching hours and courses with more than 200 teaching hours. The second part, entitled "articulations", includes case studies of courses that are addressed to
xii students who are at the second or third year of studies, that is to say in their first steps towards the articulation of a way of thinking and designing architecture. The courses have, therefore, again an introductory character but they more profound and try to delve into a more integrated teaching of architectural design. The texts in this section are classified along the same lines as those in the first part: that is the number of teaching hours allocated to it. In this part we can make a subdivision in four types of presented course. The one concerns short courses with less that 100 teaching hours, the other concerns course with teaching hours between 100 and 200 teaching hours, the third type concerns long length courses with more that 200 teaching hours. There is a forth type which collects vertical studios, that is to say studios addressed to students belonging to different years of studies. The third part, entitled "advancements", includes texts that describe how architectural design is taught to students who have already acquired a relatively well-elaborated knowledge and conscience of spatial issues as well as an adequate design experience which permits them to go steps ahead and to investigate more advanced design issues. The texts in this section are classified along the same lines as those in the previous parts, that is the number of teaching hours allocated to it. We can distinguish here again three types of courses: the short length courses with less than 100 teaching hours, the courses with teaching hours between 100 and 200 teaching hours and finally the great length studios with more than 200 teaching hours. The present volume is a first attempt to elaborate the raw material that tackled issues related to architectural design education. The ENHSA Thematic Network, and the Architectural Design Sub- network in particular, are committed to the further development and the critical and constructive processing of this material and of new material to come from new initiatives, in order to provide a useful and functional tool for the advancement of architectural design teaching in schools of architecture in Europe.
xiii
kan Gö architectural designray o a in g Ko eic nw in °rka onc n U r Hu C imo Jiˇr í Luis S ito rs n vá ten ge o ozˇo aa Od Br Br Jo m ■ ela tto l ha rn O nel lk is, ies ■ Mic jo ar efa at tud B ie P nn s, th of s Initiations■ on et os Ro rse ar u t 1 es Flo R ica co d ye ic r Be ms es on ary thir og a on Wil un er ent the dag e p Sim ijn nt W lem in pe h th is em s A ti n e run the wit f th c ill arlo len s o ign te ce ic o asi W C Va tion es tiga tan log e b ao ro ribu ral d ves uain The hos Jo nd ont ctu o in cq ng. s w ssa s c ite er t st a gni ent is to this Ale de rch ad ir fir esi tud ive in nclu to a e re the of d to s ect exts g rt i ses th nts ct ed obj e t hin t pa our les de e a ess in . Th ac firs y c nab stu f th ddr ma king of te he tor is e ive es o e a heir hin er an T duc . Th to g ssu s ar d t n t mb e c tro test ed al i rse an esig nu e. W on: in la pli ctic ou ting e d the urs iteri 200 the ap pra se c tar th to co cr an at gies nd the st s and ing ign this e th ate l a at is ju ity ord des to or str tica is th ion ctiv acc ral ing th m ore on at n a ed ctu ord s wi the ati duc sig ssifi hite acc rse sific al e de cla arc art ou las tur the le, his s p d c c itec to cip to t thi s an rch em prin es s in our a e th , in icat rse g h itiat ere ed cou hin in n w ol d of ac ctio ho pes 0 te se a sc o ty t 20 urs tw tha ho uish ess ing ith l dist s w s. rse our Cou g h chin tea Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture
Simon BEESON Edinburgh College of Art Edinburgh Scotland United Kingdom
60 Number of Students 3 Number of Staff 20 Student/Staff ratio 10 Teaching weeks 10 Teaching hours per week 100 Total hours Compulsory Introduction
This year (2003-2004) sees the introduction of a new first year course for the undergraduate Bachelor of Architecture with Honours degree at Edinburgh College of Art. This paper presents the aims and objectives of the introductory studio course in architectural design. Studio exercises have regularly changed over the years, but this is the first comprehensive re-design of the course for many years. The changes have been made in the light of external influences and reflection within the institution. The intention is to address some particular issues that have developed over recent years. There will be an opportunity to evaluate these changes in at some point in the future. This paper concentrates on the first term of teaching architectural design and the context of that course. Level 1 at ECA is an introductory course, achieving awareness of many of the key skills and knowledge for the study of architecture. There are three main subjects of study: design, technology and cultural context. In all three subjects students aim to demonstrate skills in communication, especially in conveying complex ideas in a well-structured and coherent form. Much of the work of all three subjects takes place in a studio environment, either within the School of Architecture or in the School of First Year Studies. The course complies with Level 7 of the SCQF (Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework). All work undertaken in the year contributes to the year’s Academic Portfolio, necessary to proceed to Level 2 or graduate with a Certificate of Higher Education. The aims for level 1 are: ñ An outline knowledge of the scope and main issues of the discipline of architecture and its links with related subjects and a more extensive knowledge of some of these key issues. ñ An understanding of the main theories, principles and concepts of the discipline of architecture. ñFamiliarity with some of the routine materials, techniques and practices of architecture. Further to these aims, Level 1 is the first of three years of the Architectural Registration Board (ARB) part 1 Prescription of qualification, the professional accreditation for architects in Great Britain. Level 1 introduces the use of some basic and routine professional skills, techniques, practices and materials associated with the discipline and practice of architecture.
Architectural Design
The subject of architectural design is introduced in a series of lectures and studio projects. These projects are progressively more complex, introducing in sequence: ñAwareness of basic architectural elements and issues that inform their disposition. ñAwareness of spatial and material qualities of interior space and exterior envelope. ñAwareness of how a complex programme is resolved in architectural design. Successful studio projects aim to demonstrate the ability to integrate skills and knowledge from all Level 1 courses in a coherent architectural project. The new architectural design course is clearly focused on introducing architectural design as a specific field of design practice, with a particular emphasis on the "work of architecture" as a tangible, built representation of human ideas. An attempt has been made to disentangle the various possible meanings of the term "architecture", such as architecture as profession, history, theory, practice, or education. The emphasis of architectural design is intended to introduce the materials and methods by which a work of architecture is made (and made meaningful), while also introducing the general and specific nature of architectural design as a process of exploration and enquiry. The first issue is addressed through a sequence of projects intended to increase in complexity while building in a constructive way on proceeding projects. The second issue, of design process, is guided by encouraging a particular method of architectural enquiry. Students learn to think through making and ask questions through tangible propositions. The aim is to equip the student by the end of the Level 1 course with a broad awareness of the ideas of architecture and methods of enquiry necessary to proceed as a student. The course is
4| Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture not primarily focused on architecture as a professional activity, or on being an architect, but a general introductory course in undergraduate architectural education. The student is introduced to architecture as a field of creative human endeavour and as a particular way of expressing what it means to be human. Through architecture we locate ourselves in relationship to the natural world and each other. The buildings we create enable us to do particular things in particular ways. The new structure of teaching at Level 1 (described below) has led to a more focused course on architectural design than previously. Therefore the priorities of this course have had to be carefully considered. The first priority of the course is to ground architectural ideas in the made artefact of architecture. Architecture is presented as an act of re-making the world for human habitation, from which issues of theory originate. The work of architecture is prioritised over the theoretical notions of architecture. Indeed students are encouraged to explore how through making things (architectural models) it is possible to develop both an expressive form and abstract thought. Students are encouraged to ground their discussion and speculation in tangible proposals and representations of works of architecture. While there is no specific influence, the course draws heavily on the mid-twentieth century attempts to reconcile modernism with the social and phenomenological role of architecture. Works and writings of Aldo van Eyck, Louis Kahn, and Charles Moore have been particularly influential, as have the texts of Kenneth Frampton. "Body, Memory and Architecture" remains an important introductory text for a first year student of architecture with no previous architectural education (Kent C. Bloomer and Charles W. Moore 1977, New Haven, Yale University Press). These and other writers and architects locate the origin of architectural ideas in the making of places, the expressive potential of the material elements of architecture and their spatial arrangement. Other theoretical positions are discussed, though always grounded in the works they generate. Contributions to architecture by non-architects are also mentioned, especially where an individual body of work focuses on a particular issue in built form, such as the pre-occupations of some contemporary artists. While this is not necessarily a mode of enquiry throughout the degree, it seems an appropriate way to begin architectural education. The methods of exploration are intended to raise some of the critical questions students need to identify and to transfer architectural knowledge and skills from one project to another. By the end of the course, students will hopefully be asking appropriate questions about how meaning can be constructed through architectural means in concrete proposals, clearly represented.
Course Structure
The college has a modular course structure. The design and representation of "works of architecture" is the central focus of a three-term sequence of modules in architectural design, with an assessment point at the end of each term. These modules run in parallel with courses in technology, culture and visual representation. In the third term a fourth module in architectural design concentrates on precedent study and field work, undertaken in groups. The architectural design course is narrower in focus and reduced from a full half of the Level 1 education (previously six of twelve Level 1 modules). However, the concentration on a specifically architectural course has been possible by devolving certain other activities that use to happen in the broader course. The decision was made to have two consecutive courses taught by the School of First Year Studies (FYS), where the faculty have no architectural background, but are mostly practising artist. Expressive drawing, digital media, photography, printmaking, and workshop techniques are all taught outside the school and alongside students from the school of landscape architecture, in courses similar to those taught to the students of visual arts. These skills are expected to be widely applied in the architectural studio. Similarly, architectural technology (including materials, construction, structures, environmental control and sustainability) is taught in parallel with architectural design and is expected to be addressed in the project work. This leaves the architectural design course free to focus on a constructive educational sequence.
Simon Beeson, UK | 5 Students (currently 65 in 2003-2004 entry) are divided into three groups, between six studio bays. Each group has a different tutor (one full-time year co-ordinator, and two part-time practising architects). The tutors rotate through the studio after each term. Each group is then divided in two and attend FYS courses in other studios on either a Tuesday or Thursday. The logistics of this matter because one principle of the new course is to give each student an untutored day of architectural design, when the studio is half full and project work can be undertaken. Tutored studio happens on Monday and Friday afternoon, enabling time between tutorials for students to attempt exercises. The exploratory, student centred nature of the studio requires this kind of structure where students can create a body of work between tutorials. These tutorials take the form of either individual or group discussion about work that has been made. Every two weeks students present work in review, which enables all three tutors to discuss work with each group in turn. There is also a weekly lecture that puts the students’ exploration in a wider context of architectural ideas proposed by built works. The structure of the architectural design course is a specific response to the educational environment in which the subject is taught, as well as a development of ideas in architectural education. The context is an important element of the new course. Firstly, although the School of Architecture is based within a College of Art the relationship between the entry level education of students has diverged over the years. Students entering the visual arts and general design courses (including graphic design, interior design, furniture and glass) share a common first year taught by the School of First Year Studies (FYS) and the Centre for Visual and Cultural Studies (CVCS). Students of Architecture and Landscape architecture undergraduate education enter directly into their chosen school. The new level 1 course is an attempt to re-connect the education of architecture with FYS and expose students to a more general visual arts course in the first year. Secondly, pressure from many directions has increased the number of students while reducing the staff time and space available. This has led to developing a more focused course that has clear priorities. With a larger student intake comes more diverse backgrounds, including students from overseas. Further issues arise in wishing to both diversify the entry and early education while still fulfilling professional accreditation (ARB requirements) and integrating knowledge across the various taught subjects, including cultural studies and technology. Until this year "studio courses" meant architectural design courses. One intention has been to protect the idea of studio education as a place where various educational objectives and subject areas are addressed through architectural design, while also providing specialist studio courses in FYS. Another previous characteristic of the course was a "front loading" of taught subjects and an increasing amount of studio time during the year to demonstrate students learning. Architectural design is now taught in parallel with other subject areas in all three teaching terms, while the studio environment remains the predominant method of delivery. The opportunity offered by re-structuring the Level 1 course has helped shape priorities of the new architectural design course. This is in some sense a revisiting of a method common in both the old art academy tradition and the Bauhaus model. Architectural design can be positioned within the broader arts, while its special characteristics can be identified. The influence of the art college context is seen as a positive way of both engaging with the college community, collaborative teaching practice, and giving a distinct character and content to the architectural education of our students. Students have always valued (and demanded) collaborative courses with the other specialisms of the college. While allowing the architectural design course to focus on particular content, the students now bring new experiences from the FYS course into the studio. Similarly the first cultural context course is now a general introduction to contemporary visual culture taught by CVCS, followed by two architectural courses taught within the School of Architecture. The architectural design course is designed to take advantage of the new structure of courses, providing time for the students to reflect and integrate knowledge from other courses. The projects are a method of student centred learning where specific issues are introduced for broad enquiry. Students are encouraged to see the studio environment as a laboratory of creative enquiry, where their proposals enrich and broaden the work of a large group of fellow students. Termly assessments are based on an accumulated portfolio of work and the final submission. This final presentation is designed to demonstrate the accumulated learning over the term.
6| Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture Course Content
At the heart of the new architectural design course is a completely new first term introductory course (ARD1001). This uses model making as a central method of representation and exploration of architectural expression. Students undertake three two-week exploratory exercises. These examine the architectural potential of the ground, wall and frame. Finally a three-week project asks students to apply the issues raised in the first three exercises to a loosely programmed design. The final project is used as a vehicle for undertaking assignments in the technology course. In the second term students design a small retreat for a writer, with domestic servicing and construction requirements (based on Michael Pollan 1997 "A Place of My Own" London, Bloomsbury). The third term project is to design a live/work facility on an urban site, with more challenging social and programmatic requirements. Each term concludes in a concrete architectural proposition, while the staged exercises are more exploratory in nature. All assessments include the portfolio of work as well as the final proposition. Each module requires 10 student effort hours per week over 9 teaching weeks, followed by assessment and interviews.
Frame study: aluminium tube and wire, Jane Mulvey 2003
The first term is the greatest departure from the existing course and deserves particular attention. It was first run as a short workshop for a group of third year students in Copenhagen, before making some adjustment for delivery in the current year. It is now nearing its first complete term. The term begins with an exercise on the ground as an architectural element and an origin or architectural expression. Students are asked to select three materials and use a single method for each material to create an A3 (420x297mm) horizontal relief that suggests a possible inhabited landscape, including a sense of path and place making. Students select a range of material (clay, sand), some expected, some more surprising (newspaper, glass). While the materials lead to certain possibilities, the various methods by which they are applied introduce further possibilities, while also introducing secondary materials (glue). Students are then asked to select one material and method to develop in the second week. Part of this selection involves questioning whether the relief can be interpreted as an architectural model, and if so at what scale (scale figures are placed on the relief). If the model is similar to a scale representation of the ground, questions of what quality of the ground is being explored. The models are drawn at full scale on A3 paper, including aerial plans, elevations and sections. Students are encouraged to use expressive drawing
Simon Beeson, UK | 7 Plan drawing of frame study: silver pen on black paper, Jane Mulvey 2003
Studies for Renga/Playground, plastercine, match sticks, acrylic, Colm Morgan 2003
8| Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture techniques, including using materials that emulate the qualities of the model. Digital photography is also encouraged, especially at the theoretical eye-level of the landscape. There is no final proposal, but the last three studies are discussed along side there two-dimensional representation. Questions across the year look at the qualities of ground represented, orientation, the way in which path and place is defined, different drawing methods to accurately record the model or express the quality of materials and light. The next two exercises follow the same two week sequence, The second exercise concentrates on retaining a flat A3 base board while exploring the "labyrinthine" quality of the wall in defining path and place. The third exercise explores the creation of path and place using linear elements of "framed shelters". This extends the vertical plane into notions of roofing and protection from the weather. Finally, a last three week exercise asks students to use the previous exercises to create a small park, where the A3 board is scaled at 1:100, including a small sheltered place. This shelter is also represented at 1:50. Precedents are drawn from contemporary small projects (especially Phyllis Richardson 2001 "XS: Big Ideas, Small Buildings" London, Thames & Hudson, and the AR+D Annual Competition published by Architectural Review every December). Once again, drawings are done from the model. Developments in drawing are then allowed to feed back into changing the models. Each exercise is summarised in a portfolio along side the final proposition. On completion the student work is assessed under three "learning outcomes" (each weighted equally): ñAwareness of characteristics of the architectural design process. ñAwareness of basic architectural elements and issues that inform their disposition. ñAwareness of appropriate visualisation and communication methods. These have been bases on the traditional architectural project assessment criteria of process, product and presentation. As already stated, the concentration in the architectural design course is on the work of architecture as the tangible, material embodiment of expression and meaning. It follows that the two dimensional representation of architecture is a highly abstract view of the material elements of architecture. While the architect learns to manipulate architectural ideas predominantly in drawings, the lines represent tangible material and associated expression. It was therefore decided to directly engage students in this process of representation. The models firstly introduce the horizontal base board as a representation of the ground, where materials have to acknowledge gravity, and where the issue of scale can be directly seen by placing a small figure on the board. Drawings are then taken from the models. While it is often said that architects need to "think in three dimensions", their true skill is to imagine the tangible, three-dimensional spatial experience of inhabitation in two-dimensional representations (including in highly abstracted diagrams). Together this use of models and drawings of various techniques opens up an exploration of issues in both the making of architecture and its representation. Students directly experience this process of representation and design. The lines on the paper need to represent something material, especially when it comes to representing the construction process. A further reasoning for these exercises is that a broad enquiry on a narrow element over 1300 combined hours generates up to 390 models exploring various aspects of a single element every two weeks. When seen together, either in the final review or in the studio, these create an invaluable teaching resource for discussion. The model is introduced as a method of enquiry into materials, methods of construction, issues of scale, human habitation, orientation, personnel experience, and recurring architectural concerns. The educational conversation becomes focused on the student’s own work, and that of the group or year. At an early stage of architectural education discussion can focus on those issues from which the potential for architectural expression originates: the origin of architecture. As well as awareness of the issues in making and representation of works of architecture, the course also attempts to introduce issues of architectural design process. This is perhaps a more contentious issue in architectural design and rightly deserves far more attention here. However,
Simon Beeson, UK | 9 Frame Study: card and straws, Simon Winters 2003
Elevation of frame study: pencil, Simon Winters 2003 in brief, the introductory term introduces two types of thinking necessary for design. The first is the exploration of alternatives, as seen in the first three studies, which always ask for different materials and different methods. This exploration of alternatives is as much about asking questions of the assignment (or programme) as of the appropriateness of the proposition. Comparison and contrast (two fundamentals of constructive education) illuminate the issues raised and the potential of each alternative. Decision-making rather than problem solving is prioritised. The second group of models ask students to explore the notion of design development. This is sometime reduced to simply improving a solution, but includes exploration of the materials qualities and the contribution of the methods used to shape or assembles them. While in later professional work models often get modified, and the drawings alone record changes made, one aspect familiar in many examples of architectural education is the use of development models to show the evolution of a design as it undergoes constant interrogation through design. These two types of study are introduced as "parallel" and "sequential" studies. Both broaden the understanding of an architectural proposal. While both types of thinking are deployed with greater freedom in advanced architectural design, these preliminary exercises are structured to follow the parallel studies with a sequence of development models, and encourages the use of drawing to both emulate and speed up the reflection that occurs between stages. The final design project does not deal with creating architecture in response to a programmatic problem, but suggests the creation of an architectural landscape capable of encouraging inhabitation. This is generic in form: walking, sitting, meeting. A structured programme has been
10 | Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture introduced not as a method of permanent occupation but of temporary structured use. This is a renga event, a collective poetry writing day, when a group of people work together on a common piece haiku of writing, while pausing to walk, lunch and talk together. (The Renga Platform programme has been developed by Alex Finlay and others in Edinburgh from a Japanese tradition, but not specifically for Level 1 architectural students, see Alec Finlay 2003 "Verse Chain" Edinburgh, Morning Star). A further suggestion to students is that when not in formal use the elements of the proposal become a place for children to play. (This idea was inspired by the writings of Colin Ward and projects by Aldo van Eyck, and Isamu Noguchi, as well as from personnel experience).
Conclusion and evaluation
ARD1001 was developed over the proceeding year and first tested in a two-week workshop in Copenhagen, with third year architectural students, before this year’s implementation. The course structure changes are broadly written to allow some modification, or alternative exercises to be developed. At this early stage it is not possible to give a full evaluation of the course. The three staff delivering the course each bring their own experience and priorities to their teaching. However, the assignments are written to allow the students themselves to raise issues, to explore, experiment, make judgements, discuss and present ideas about architecture as an expressive art, while stressing the technical and cultural context. There are some things the course omits, specifically professional education. While this leaves a greater responsibility of following years, it is appropriate to a method of architectural education that follows an "hourglass model", with broad early study to a diverse intake of students, leading to professional experience at the end of undergraduate education and specialisms at postgraduate level. It is important to give each year of study a particular character. However, even at this early stage of application it is possible to see certain issues coming forward. The sequence of first exercises seems very important. The ground study is quite difficult, but immediately introduces the nature of human habitation as gravity-bound and issues of scale. The project also encourages student to occupy the studio and accumulate materials in the first week of study. This creates a lively and energetic studio environment. The repetition of the exercises in model and drawing means that the standard of each exercise improves, as students understand better what is possible. Students are encouraged to continue building their portfolio over the term and revisit early work. The FYS courses give students an increased confidence in using expressive drawing and digital photography to further explore their work and ideas. The introduction of some key concepts to the design process has given some assistance to students with no previous design education and establishes a critical discussion about process in the first term of study. The specific requirements for the parallel and sequential studies raises issues such as of exploration, experimentation, comparison, contrast, design development, redundancy, discovery (rather than invention), judgement and decision making. From the beginning work is diverse and textural, individual and challenging. Some work takes extreme positions, but in the context of a large group this is acceptable. Conversation about architectural process and products becomes focused on tangible artefacts. Utility and architectural programme is introduced as a way of inhabiting architectural form. Often architecture is seen as following from a programme of use or accommodation. In an alternative view, architecture creates the opportunity for various uses to inhabit certain places in particular ways, and defines potential movement between places. The architect Florian Beigel has used the term "specific indeterminacy" to describe the idea of designing places that suit various uses and potential changes; an infrastructure for freedom (Florian Beigel 1998 "Time Architecture" University of North London). The invitation to inhabit is created through the disposition of ground, wall, frame, and canopy. Students respond well to this "open" programme and introduce diverse issues of utility and use. The temporary programme of the renga event appears to raise many questions about architectural intentions and social context, beyond the use of built environments for children’s play. These issues will all be addressed in a future evaluation of the course.
Simon Beeson, UK | 11 It is hoped to develop ARD1001 as a general introduction to architectural design for students of Landscape Architecture and as an optional subject for other art students. The aim is to be more specifically architectural and relevant to a social environment than other more general spatial studies courses, while retaining the creative expression and exploration necessary for a successful architectural education.
Acknowledgements
The ARD1001 course is taught with part-time tutors Andrea Faed and Iain Scott. The course draws on my research and experiences in architectural education at the University of Manchester, Hull School of Architecture and the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (CALA) at the University of Minnesota. I am also grateful for the advice and friendship of all the teaching faculty at CALA, including Gunter Dittmar, Dale Mulfinger and Julia Robinson. While acknowledging the generosity of all my teachers, I am especially grateful to Prof. Lance LaVine (CALA) for his mentorship, continued encouragement, advice and friendship. My experiences of working with public artist Siah Armajani in Minneapolis have also contributed a great deal, for which I thank him. I would also like to thank Prof. Pär Gustafsson (SLU, Alnarp) for his continuing good advice and friendship over many years. Further research into ideas of horizontal relief sculpture and architectural models has been undertaken as a Research Fellow at the Henry Moore Institute. I would like to thank the third year students at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts School of Architecture in Copenhagen who gave me the opportunity to test these ideas, which was made possible by Jens Bertelsen, Peter Bertram and Lise Juel Gr_nbjerg. A final acknowledgement to all those who have supported my teaching at Edinburgh College of Art.
12 | Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture Presentation of Architectural Design Studio Course
Michaela BROZOVÁ Jirˇí HURKA Czech Technical University of Prague, Faculty of Architecture Prague CZECH REPUBLIC
24 Number of Students 2 Number of Staff 12 Student/Staff ratio 28 Teaching weeks 4Teaching hours per week 112 Total hours Compulsory What Do I Teach in the Architectural Design Course I Run? Why Do I Teach what I teach in the Architectural Design Course I am Describing?
Our Design Studio focuses on the basics of architectural designing work and is intended for students in the first year of study. Actually, it is a preparatory course for later work in the Design Studio. There, starting from the second year, students learn real designing work, i.e., they implement "real" programs in real places, which is a complex matter that requires solution to many problems in different areas. Contrary to that, we reduce these problems to the basic - perhaps archetypal - ones, to the eternal problems faced by the architect, existing regardless of the currently prevailing style or fashion that the students often tend to accept without understanding their substance. Our main pedagogical goal consists in making the students understand and learn how to use the basic instruments of their future profession, namely geometry, measures and proportions, spatial relations, work with light and colour, and understand dual polarities. Learning these categories is in our opinion a necessary condition of the student’s further progress, perhaps even a test of his ability to perform the job of architect. In the particular tasks we encourage students to develop their specific inventiveness and their readiness to experiment, and make them acquire the skills of sketching and drawing as well as of processing different materials. One of the main teaching goals of our Architectural Design course is the integrity of work, which consists in a unity of its content (idea) and form (space, structure, and light).
How Do I Teach in the Architectural Design Course for which I am Responsible? Why Do I Choose to Teach in this Way the Architectural Design Course I am Describing?
Our teaching method is based on the methodology developed by Pierre von Meisse, architect and teacher at the EPFL in Lausanne, as published in his book "De la cave au toit" (Presse polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 1991). The method is intended for students beginning their study of architecture, and consists in teaching the main principles of architecture that have survived without major changes thousands of years of architectural evolution. This reduction of problems accompanying the designing process makes it possible for the student to fully concentrate on the substance of his work, and offers him a chance for individual experimentation and poetic expression. A great advantage of this method is its high efficiency: from the very beginning of the course the students pay much attention to and are keen on working with structure, space and light. The method stimulates critical, conceptual and poetic search, the final goal being the achievement of a coherent result. Another important teaching aspect is the fact that the student is trained for independent work, his ability for discussion is developed and he is taught to accept criticism of his work while keeping his own authenticity.
What Exercises and Design Theme Do I Run? Why Do I Suggest these Exercises for Architectural Design to be Taught?
Two main topics are available in the first year (one for either semester), accompanied by several minor exercises that are included according to the time available. In the first semester the topic is called "Rooting of Building"; it is a study of an in-ground structure, without links to any particular place. The main topic in the second semester is a study of three different space types: the free plan (Le Corbusier), the Raumplan (A. Loos), and the structural plan (L. Khan). To illustrate the type of work in the Design Studio course we shall describe the first topic called "Rooting or Archaeology of Building". The approximately eight-week task is based on the introductory exercise of Pierre von Meisse’s teaching method mentioned above, however adapted to our specific conditions. The original exercise was extended by adding certain content, which is in our opinion very important for creating interior space. This is not meant as a typological
14 | Presentation of Architectural Design Studio Course Working cardboard model, scale 1/50 of student P. V., theme: "Mystery of our ancestors" – exhibition pavilion for pictures. determination of building, but as content in the conceptual (abstract) plane. (The buildings designed have their specific purpose and sense defined by the student himself, but are not burdened with any typology yet). Starting work, each student makes up a story of the building and formulates it as a libretto (short text, part of poem). This explains the purpose of the space, what will take place inside, what feeling it should produce. (For example the "story" of our student M. Zema’ nek: While I am descending below the ceiling of a cave the entrance opening above, seen against the sky, Working cardboard model, scale 1/50 of student becomes just a small point of light. I feel as if S. U., theme: space for D’’urrenmatt’s play Physics. I was under the roof of a cathedral. Rays of sunshine cut the darkness. Except for the blood throbbing in my ears there is absolute silence in the cave. Louise is consternated like me, her face is filled with awe and apprehension...) The story helps the student not to divert from the initial concept during his work, and after completing the task he tries to make its "architectural" interpretation. The building is a basement - a sort of "crypt" – in an earth or rock massif into which light must be somehow brought (thus, the student becomes aware of the "non-self-evidence" of light). The basement must be connected to the space above ground and covered with a roof. The student looks for ways to descend, to move inside, and to distinguish quiet places from active ones. These requirements create fundamental architectural problems (delimitation and foun- dation of building; entrance design; connection of basement to the space above ground; degree of openness/closeness; tightness of connection; delimitation of interior space; links between structure, openings and lighting; roof). While coping with these questions, the student becomes aware of the relationship between
Michaela Brozˇová, Jirˇí Hu° rka, CZECH REPUBLIC | 15 dual antonyms: earth-air, openness-closeness, light- darkness, inside-outside, full-empty, massive-subtle, transparent-opaque, motion-tranquillity, etc. The student plays the role of experimentalist; after approximately two weeks of concept sketching a "laboratory" for his next work is a cardboard model, scale 1/50. The output is a final model on the same scale, record drawings (plan-view, sections, roof 1/50) and perspective sketches. Two public presentations take place during the work where students explain and defend their designs. After the final presentation each design is marked from 1 (excellent) to 4 (insufficient). The student obtains a total of 14 credits for his work in the Architectural Design course (2 lessons a week, 2 semesters). The main assessing criteria are as follows: 1. Formal and material fulfilment of the task, 2. Integrity of the building, compliance with the "story" and its translation into architecture (unity of structure, space, light, and content of building), 3. Hard work, consistency, independence, creativity, level of experimentation, own inventiveness and will.
How Satisfied am I with the Architectural Design Course I Teach? How Could I Improve my Course?
It is my first year of teaching in this Studio, after seven years of experience with teaching in the Architectural Design Studio led by Professor Ladislav Lábus, intended for students ranging from the second year up to the graduates. The dissatisfaction with the low level of preparation of students in the first year of study and the absence of important knowledge of the above-mentioned "instru- ments" that are necessary for the ability to design made us introduce this method in our Design Institute. In the future, we plan to introduce additional short accompa- nying lectures, such as on "Geometry in Classical and Modern Architecture", "Structures under the Earth", "Basic Space Types and Their Representatives", "Colour in Architecture", etc. There are about ten architectural design studios in our School for students in the first year of study, with different teaching methods, from methodologically sophisticated methods, concentrating mainly on composition, to almost free architectural tasks. Our application of teaching methods based on the use of basic archi- tectural means is also a contribution to the school-wide discussion on the focus of the curricula in the first year Working cardboard model, scale 1/50 of student J. V., theme: inspiration from O’Brien’s of study. book Third policeman
16 | Presentation of Architectural Design Studio Course Basic Design: As an Introduction to Architectural Design
Koray GÖKAN Istanbul Kültür University, Department of Architecture Istanbul TURKEY
40 Number of Students 2 Number of Staff 20 Student/Staff ratio 15 Teaching weeks 8Teaching hours per week 120 Total hours Compulsory Introduction
A clarification of certain fundamentals and constant concern and inquiry about the substance and method of instruction of a Basic Design Atelier outline are the contents of this paper. For this purpose, an experimental Basic and Creative Design "course of training" has been programmed at the Department of Architecture, Istanbul Kültür University and the program is presented in this paper with its consequential visual products. Conclusions are drawn in terms of principles emphasized and concepts recovered and then presented for any repercussion. "Basic Design Atelier" is a first semester requirement for the first year architecture students. They are at the entrance of the world of design with a very strong somewhat bewildered wish to become a designer but with little or no experience and sound knowledge of any kind in any related fields. It should be appreciated that it is challenging to drive these students immediately into the world of visual art, questioning about both environmental phenomena and visual expressions of such phenomena.
Basic Design Activity
In the Atelier, "Basic Design" is in reality an introduction to a field of which extensions can be design of any kind: in our case it is architectural but it can be urban or even mechanical design1. It cannot be comprehensive and complete training; and yet, the intention is to formulate an introductory course, creative, constructive and stimulating as much as possible. It should also be realized that it is not simple to get the student to start working right away. One cannot ask any student, who has not much experience even in drawing, to express himself and his thoughts instantaneously on a piece of paper. Perhaps, it may be necessary for such students to be constantly active and looking for such knowledge and skill. In fact, this has been the basic goal of the Atelier and it has been the basis of our inquiry and the experiments in the content and method of instruction. In the Atelier, they are provided with an atmosphere where they are confronted with the problems of basic design and start formulating their inquiries towards the ends of almost limitless extension in accordance with their personal variation and individual emphasis. At the beginning, for a short period, they need to accept what they can find at the Atelier; yet, it is necessary for all students to prove the dependability of what they accumulate; furthermore, they ought to look for additional knowledge and skill to complete their training. It is a fact that changes and developments are taking place constantly in the visual arts2. Such significant phases of development in all art subjects and also in the field of architecture, social, commercial, and industrial design inevitably necessitate revisions and extensions in the training of the students of basic design. The nature of art and design strongly and permanently is affected. In fact, one can object to any traditional academic training especially of which basic aspects become meaningless within the terms of a rapidly changing social and cultural life patterns of towns.3 We may start on that "Basic Design" in such an environment as below: ñ Primarily a form of inquiry and reaction to environment, ñ An attitude of individual brains, ñ An inquiry into environmental structures (basically physical but conceptual too), ñ An inquiry into the foundations and settings of personal expression and reaction to the environment around us, ñConcerned with visual expressive forms (and their functions) and requires intensive rethinking of our attitude to "realism" or practicality, ñ Helps individuals to develop means and makes them aware of expressive tools and resources at their command, e.g., (Image 1: A Basic Design Language), ñ Cultivating individual inquisitiveness about environmental phenomena, ñFosters personal reactions and preferences and thus builds up a better world of visions.
18 | Basic Design: As an Introduction to Architectural Design Image 1. Basic Design Assignments on "Basic Design Language" Dots Dots’ Center Rhythm of Lines Rhythm of Shapes Light Dots and Lines
At the Atelier, factors that seem to dominate and affect both basic design activity and thus ideas of training are: It has been accepted that only information derived from students’ own experience can be considered valid for their visual expressions of any conceptual or physical material.4 Such thinking may sometimes lead one to reject conventions.5 In case the information is restricted to the visual facts, the information we gain from an appreciation of the physical aspects of any material becomes significant in understanding its formal and spatial functioning, Basic Design is dependent upon the masterly use of the designer’s own vision, all other associations are supplementary. The designer’s total personality and preferences are inevitably involved in making aesthetic decisions of all and any individual expressions.6 Art changes sequentially its character and emphasis in accordance with the intellectual and emotional concepts of the period’s contemplated.7
Koray Gökan, TURKEY | 19 Having completed six years of experience in experimental training at the Atelier, certain consequences of the principles above can be summarized as follows: ñ Each person’s fundamental training in creative design or in basic design should be based upon and develop personal inquiry on the basis of practice and more practice, ñ Each problem situation requires seeking always-individual solutions, ñ It emphasizes intuitive and analytical work with materials in compliance with formative principles, ñ Student’s primary concerns are visual response to what is taking place around their environment, ñ Visual decisions will be dependent and inevitably influenced by subjective preferences and the psychology of the individuals.8
Image 2. Basic Design Work is an Iterative And Tiring Process
It should be distinguished that training at the "Basic Design Atelier" of the department of Architecture in Istanbul Kültür University is an introduction to the fundamental concepts of art and design and, at the same time, of environment and space. To revise our approach to such initial training and attempt to reflect and interpret the new problems evolved, constant and critical thinking about the nature and content of the Atelier should be considered. At the Atelier, a specific and influencing environment for students’ "creative activities" is crucial. The danger is the creation of a frighteningly consistent, entirely self sufficient and new academicism for young brains to adapt a short route to design activities.9 To avoid such an outcome the following belief is our main and constant concern for the design activities at the Atelier: the predominantly visual data collection and analysis-involved methods followed by the processes of expressive and communicative creative synthesis has proved in the majority of cases appropriate training processes.
20 | Basic Design: As an Introduction to Architectural Design Sensing the Environment around us
We can respond to the environment or its components only through the information we can accumulate through our senses.10 In fact the information our brain takes in through its senses and the ways in which we interpret such information are important components of the ways we react against the environment. In our case it is a training program aiming the students of architecture to gain indispensable knowledge and skill for the basic design process. This is why the students in the Basic Design Studio are involved in sensation, the process by which the students respond to events and physical objects which make up the environment, and the perception: sorting out, interpretation, analysis and integration of the information accumulated.11 Perception is defined as the process by which the sensory information about the environment is interpreted, analyzed and integrated into a new organized knowledge.12 In Basic Design Studio we ask the students to concentrate on collecting information about a defined environment whether within the limits of its physical appearance or within the limits of the events taking place. The students are to accumulate information about the specified environment within their different level of sensual capabilities. The students usually begin the their work task with identifying the physical objects that make up the environment specified. The sensitivity of the students to the physical objects making up the environment varies to the degree which different level of students’ natural abilities and their interest in their perception that is the interpretation, analysis and integration of the information into a new organized knowledge. Eventually, various kinds of responses are differentiated from one individual student to another (Images 3-10: Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students).
Image 3 Image 4 Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students Various Activities of my Family at Home and in the My Home is a Balloon Neighborhood
Image 5 Image 6 Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students Folks Disembarking a Passenger Boat ATown View Through myWindow
Koray Gökan, TURKEY | 21 There are certainly a number of issues to be discussed in relation to such environmental perception trials of the students: how the students organize the way by which they accumulate information, and how the students are to achieve and vigorously make sense of the environment they experience for a specified or limited period of time. Their expectations, their previous knowledge and the changing nature of the physical components of the environment and of the environmental affairs all of course affect their detection capabilities.13 Conceivably we need to consider the individual visions of the students in any attempt to perceive the environment. How is the information accumulated and transformed into new organized knowledge and how such knowledge is elaborated and utilized for basic design? What kind of a language do the students of basic design need to develop to describe the environment they would like to recreate? When such a number of issues are discussed then one might arrive deliberating important clues for understanding the general environmental perceptual mechanism and ultimately the basic design process.
Image 7 Image 8 Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students Historical Buildings at Golden Horn Deterioration of Environment at Golden Horn
Image 9 Image 10 Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students Pedestrian Crossing over a Busy Street ACross-Section of a Modern City
Information collected
To get familiar with the environmental phenomena under study, students observe and collect information in a limited but defined duration of time. In addition to the information collected, as a result of the perception of the physical components of the events taking place within the environment, students of course retrieve (however unwillingly) knowledge from their memory (recollection of similar experiences). This is unavoidable simply because such information collected from such unsophisticated observations are limited to certain duration that student can afford.
22 | Basic Design: As an Introduction to Architectural Design From information collected both from observation and past experiences, students devise solutions to their specific problems about the (environmental) phenomena under consideration. Thus, knowledge retrieved from memory and information collected from observation is elaborated upon and prepared for utilization. Such a process requires higher mental process of the students14. Students necessarily deal with questions related to such a mental process in the Studio. They process information collected and knowledge retrieved, make judgments and decision towards new organization of knowledge of their environment and ultimately describe their new knowledge and present it to the understanding of others. Of course, by observation and its consequential experimental information alone students cannot build new organizations, it would simply be impossible. Students need to adapt their knowledge in their memory to new experiences and the information collected15. This is then what we may call a "new organization of knowledge and facts about the environment around them".
Processing Information
One of the main questions is how and to what degree new information (knowledge) is mentally analyzed by students.16 In analyzing and considering new information, the greater the intensity and the amount (and greater the time allocated for observations) the more likely the students are successful in their basic design process. Because the students do not pay much attention to the information to which they are exposed and only a short (mostly inadequate) mental processing takes place, they tend to forget most of the information before the basic design process takes place.17 However the information to which they pay more attention is processed more thoroughly. In the beginning when the environmental phenomena is encountered, the information collected is processed merely in terms of physical shapes. Then such physical shapes are translated into meaningful units and ultimately such units are considered in a new context. New organized knowledge is realized only when the processing involves analyzing information in terms of its meaning. Such students’ synthesizing skill to combine existing information in a new way is in fact the indispensable mental process outlining interpretation of visual information distinguished by students’ inductive and deductive thinking. This analytical skill is essential to an effective evaluation of new information that has potential and worth for further work.18 Visual artful and creative design is based on perceived visual phenomena and activities related to conceptions of environment. Thus the ultimate design is placed within both the perceptual realm and the conceptual realm.19
Creativity - The Process of Visual Expression of Thoughts
In the "Basic Design Studio" we consider the basic design process guides students to accomplish things that they have never done before. Most of the students who end up with "creative" design works have got the capacity to learn and desire to think. By just looking at any environmental phenomena for a moment in time, an optimum student can only collect simple "static" information. To appreciate the phenomena they need more "dynamic" information in detail and need to think more "dynamically". (Image 1). Any student who can afford such repetitive trials, with no guarantee of any successful outcome, may reach "newly organized knowledge".
Conclusive Principles
Studies at the "Basic Design Studio" let students analyze the changing character of some fundamental concepts of art and design, as well as some basic concepts of environment and space. Selected conclusive principles are:
Koray Gökan, TURKEY | 23 Personal Space, Privacy and Personal Problem Solving The environment created within the Basic Design Studio, where students discuss, criticize and share diversified ideas of theirs and of the others, proved not appropriate since most of the students are timid, fearful or apprehensive to involve common arguments and are not enthusiastic to work in the Studio’s circumstances. Optimum students tend to look for their own private space where the physical features of such an environment have no significance, so he can achieve his ultimate goal of visualization within the term of his vision.
Individuality Creative Design Work is essentially an individualist enterprise. Students are encouraged to be firm in their individual thinking and findings. Instead of accepting what he sees passively around him, he questions common assumptions and rules that he is being thought. This may bring them into conflict with each other. However the students learn to tolerate such conflicts aroused amongst them.
Personality The Studio provides students with an environment where they are to learn and develop skills to reason why any new idea is worth pursuing. An optimum student very often shows the courage to persist the other students’ and especially the Leader’s objections and criticism, even, if he, himself, gets ridiculed and unnecessarily stubborn. Students sort such personality problems easily and at the same time they personally explore ideas that may be tentative, intuitive and difficult to communicate with others.
Motivation Students seem to have a sense of motivation as result of curiosity, enthusiasm and imagination. They feel they have to "sell" their ideas to the other students and the Studio’ Leader. They set extrinsic goals as praise from the Leader of the Studio or fame amongst the fellow students.
New Knowledge Students are given chances to experience and recognize what is new to them. Reinventions and in certain cases "copying" are not discouraged. Aiming at "what is genuinely new" is not the ultimate goal of the Studio. Discovery of "good" ideas to perceive the environment around and achievement of a sense of "environmental consciousness and awareness" are our main goal.
References 1. D. M. Sausmares, Basic Design: The Dynamics of Visual Form (Studio Vista, London 1964), pp.9-12. 2. D. M. Sausmares, Basic Design: The Dynamics of Visual Form (Studio Vista, London 1964), pp. 9-12. 3. P. D. Spreiregen, Urban Design: The Architecture of Towns and Cities (Mc Graw -Hill Book Company, A.I.P., 1965), pp.29-48. 4. O. M. Luke, Some Thoughts About the Relationship Between Information and Understanding (www.asis.org/midyear-96/luke1.html, 1996), p.5. 5. R. B. Standler, Creativity in Science and Engineering (www.rbs0.com/create.htm, 1998), pp.3-5. 6. Sausmares, Op. cit., p.12. 7. J. Itten, Design and Form, The Basic Course at The Bauhaus and Later (Revised Edition, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1975). 8. R. S. Feldman, Elements of Psychology (International Edition, University of Massachusetts- Amherst, McGraw- Hill, Inc., 1992), p.7. 9. K. Gökan, Mühendislik ve Mimarlık Egitiminde Çevre Bilinci-Gören AkÈllar, Düs¸ünen Gözler (TMMOB Mühendislik ve MimarlÈk Egitimi Sempozyumu, MMO YayÈn No: 232, 1999), pp.56-68. 10. R. S. Feldman, Elements of Psychology (International Edition, University of Massachusetts- Amherst, McGraw- Hill, Inc., 1992), 138-139. 11. Gökan, Op. cit., pp.58-59. 12. Feldman, Op. cit., pp.109-122. 13. Feldman, Op. cit., p.122.
24 | Basic Design: As an Introduction to Architectural Design 14. Feldman, Op. cit., p.119. 15. Feldman, Op. cit., p.186. 16. O. M. Luke, Some Thoughts about the Relationship Between Information and Understanding (www.asis.org/midyear-96/luke1.html, 1996), p.1. 17. K. Gökan, MimarlÈk Egitiminde Çevre Bilinci Ögretisi (Mimarist, YÈl: 1, SayÈ: 2, 2001), pp.137-142. 18. B. Denel, Temel TasarÈm ve YaratÈcÈlÈk (O.D.T.U., MimarlÈk Fakültesi, Ankara, 1981), pp.20-21. 19. Gökan, Op. cit., pp.80-81.
Image 11 Image 12 Drying Clothes on Ropes Pipe Smoking, Smoker and the Smoke
Image 13. Visualizations of Various Phenomena at Golden Horn Housing, Industry and Historical Buildings by the Water Front Bulgarian Church by the Water Front Navy Headquarter by Golden Horn A Typical Cross Section of Golden Horn towards Water Front Densely Populated Built Up Area at the Entrance of Golden Horn An Old Passenger Boat Station
Koray Gökan, TURKEY | 25 Image 14 Ancient Covered Bazaars in Old Istanbul
26 | Basic Design: As an Introduction to Architectural Design ADelft Method
Willemijn Wilms FLOET Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture Delft THE NETHERLANDS
300 Number of Students 20 Number of Staff 15 Student/Staff ratio 20 Teaching weeks 8Teaching hours per week 160 Total hours Compulsory Most institutions for architectural education and research in Europe are bastions of modernism. Modernistic didactics assumes that forms of buildings can be derived in a logical way from programmatic and structural considerations. In its desire for a new way of life modernism makes a radical break with tradition. It directs itself towards universal, generally applicable methods and solutions and regards the design as an important means in the development of society. The didactics of modernism was developed above all in the Bauhaus. There students learned to design in integration in workshops by means of trial and error. This experiment took the place of the curriculum with subjects from disciplines relevant to building, where knowledge was passed on in mass lectures and practical training with masters. But with the emphasis on the experiment the knowledge and experience bound up with tradition disappeared. This is not a problem as long as the teachers still know the tradition from their own education. Now that the older teachers are disappearing a vacuum is being created. In a social and technical sense the form and design of structures is no longer connected with the tradition of the profession. There is a task here for today's schools of architecture. It is at present important for the profession to formulate and propagate points of departure clearly so as to offer architecture new possibilities. In other words, no experimental projects that please and with which you can show off, but clear projects that are rooted in the profession and thus have a wide impact. Projects that are refractory but naturally motivated have at present more effect on the development of the profession than beautiful projects without reason. Architecture is a cultural phenomenon that is rooted in history and society. To find one's own way in this it is important that the student becomes acquainted with the major questions and developments in architecture. Because the student must measure up to existing solutions and views, the student learns to develop in his own design a clear point of view in respect of the whole field of possible approaches. The emphasis lies on the development of a 'reasoned' design attitude, in which the students teach themselves to be aware of what they do. The break with tradition by the modernistic approach must therefore be repaired. Architecture is not a free experiment or undiscriminate reproduction, but is rather an active investigation into the possible representation of an architectonic idea. Last year, Delft University of Technology's Faculty of Architecture introduced the Bachelor-Master system qualification. We switched from five education periods per year to two, and from one study programme to a separate BSc and MSc course. The entire curriculum has been redesigned. The BSc design curriculum is a constructive and complementary series: from simple to complex, from small-scale to large-scale and vice versa, and covers various types of assignments. BSc-1's subject is ‘house & settlement’, BSc-2 deals with ‘building & materialization’, BSc-3 with ‘dwelling & town’, BSc-4 with ‘small public buildings’, BSc-5 with ‘re-use buildings & function mixing’. BSc-6 is optionally architecture, urban planning, construction techniques or real estate & project management, and prepares for the Master courses. The programme of study comprises approximately 1/3 design, 1/3 lectures and 1/3 practicals. Some lectures and practicals are closely associated with the design instruction but there are also independent ‘knowledge lines’ and there is a class programme that has to be followed by all BSc students at Delft University of Technology (applied mechanics, mathematics, nature & technology. The master programme is organised into laboratory-like graduate studios, related to the faculty's research programmes (note 1).
Example: The First Year Design Studio ‘House & Settlement’
Architectural and urban design will be practised for the first time in the study in the 1st semester's design project. Designing is an activity in which you translate various wishes and requirements for particular accommodation into a spatial design. Designing is a complex activity because you usually have to solve problems involving various parameters. You can only learn to design by doing it. It is important to learn early on in the study whether students have an affinity for designing and whether they have the creative talent it requires. Delft University of Technology's Faculty of Architecture endeavours to provide a selective foundation course (note 2). It is also
28 | A Delft Method important to form an impression in the first year of the broad field of work of the building engineer for which Delft University of Technology's Faculty of Architecture provides the training: (interior) architect, urban designer and planner, landscape architect, building technologist, public-housing organisation, real estate manager, project developer. It was therefore decided that the assignment for BSc-1 should be a simple one covering the scale level of architecture up to that of the landscape: the design of a small country home that is subsequently placed in a settlement. An assignment has been chosen in which students can easily immerse themselves and that readily speaks to the imagination. The intention is to look at the world around you in a different way, namely from the technical point of view of an architect and building engineer. It is also the intention to expand the horizon of the student's own world, to that of the professional architectural culture. Design is a creative process based on knowledge and intuition. The relationship between the two and the way in which you arrive at a design are different for each design approach (and per study programme). Delft University of Technology's large Faculty of Architecture (3000 students) includes a broad range of opinions and approaches. There is reasonable agreement among the tutors and researchers (often architects who also work in the field) that designs are based on professional knowledge and insights and must be accounted for in a scientific manner (well- reasoned on the basis of an architectural formulation of a problem): research by design. Knowledge of architectural and urban planning design is not only acquired from theory books but especially from studying the designs of other architects. This ‘plan analysis’ is therefore also an important part of the design project. The design project is structured so that the topics in the plan analysis arise simultaneously with those in the design, so that the designs of students can be looked at in terms of those of professionals. An important part of the training is learning how to deploy the knowledge and conclusions drawn from the plan analysis in the design. It is a tradition in Delft to produce a book for each (longer term) design assignment, in which comparable architectural projects are documented and placed in a typological framework: the ‘ TUDelft series on Architecture’ (note 3). There are excursions as well as books.
General Arrangement of the Course
The semester is divided into two quarterly periods. In the first quarter, with the HOUSE assignment, the weekly assignments are formulated so that you develop the design further every week, on the basis of a new approach: context, programme, space, construction, materialization and architectural representation. The emphasis lies more on the acquisition of basic skills rather than on self-expression. The tight organization of the design exercise gives students something to go by. In the design studio the design assignments are defined from week to week in the form of a requested model or drawings. The topics of the plan analysis and the design arise at the same time. Always approaching the design from a new aspect means things will be added and changed in the design. The aim is to make an attractive design but it is more important for students to become familiar with architectural concepts and the logic of architectural planning, and to consciously attempt to fit them into the design. To bridge the important and considerable difference between reality and the drawing, designs are made in scale models as far as possible, which are then drawn and worked in the interaction. In the second quarter, with the SETTLEMENT assignment, the plan analysis is concentrated. Because urban planning design is more abstract, it is more advisable to first gather knowledge. This is combined with a survey of the design location. The work in this quarter is carried out at various scale levels: from landscape up to and including the garden and back to the house.
Method of Working
The BSc-1 semester runs 20 groups existing of maximum 18 students each. Students are supervised by a tutor one day a week and by a student mentor one morning a week in the studio (note 4).
Willemijn Wilms Floet, THE NEDERLANDS | 29 The students are expected to practice 8 hours a week on design work independently. On the ‘studio day’, the past week's work is discussed and the new tasks are introduced and prepared. The tutors give their own shape to this and students are also expected to provide their own input and an independent contribution. Each week, students present past week's work in the group, so that every one can learn from each other's work and approach. Comments from tutors and fellow students must, of course, be incorporated. An efficient method of working in the classroom is to think in groups about the possible solutions to new stages in the design. The best ideas have to be used. Architectural students soon start to think they have to be original. This is nonsense! Practically every architectural solution has been thought of before or, more to the point, famous designs often explicitly build on ideas taken from existing designs.
Assignment
The assignment is to design a small country home for spending leisure time, a house in which your way of life differs from normal. Students have to imagine the accommodation wishes of someone else and work out an idea about living in the countryside into a spatial design. Students are free to choose their own dream client. The assignment is to make the house look like a house. Each house offers space to live, sleep and follow leisure pursuits. The house also has a bathroom and the kitchen may be part of the living room. The assignment is also to make use of characteristics of the landscape and to respond to characteristics of local context. The maximum floor area of the entire house is 50 m2. Each house has a covered outside space of 10 m2. The design of each house must also include a tree, bush or hedge. The size of the plot of land is a free choice and must be determined on a well-reasoned basis. The starting point in the first quarter is just one house in a fictitious location; several country homes have to be built in a small settlement in the second quarter, The Rijp (peat excavations/parcelled landscape) or Schoorl (on the edge of the dunes and polder). Six small houses have to be situated within the built up area and six small houses around the village or in the outlying area. On the one hand, this is concerned with fitting the houses into the context. On the other hand, building the houses will bring about changes in the village. A survey has to be conducted of where and how the buildings can be situated there. How will the houses be situated on the property and how should the public space be laid out? Each country home has its own space for parking a car on the property.
Student Y. van der Starren, location Jisp, 2003
30 | A Delft Method Overview
Part 0 Introduction to the Faculty week 1 Architecture * Urbanism * Building Technology In this week the above mentioned scientific fields are introduced by lectures and workshops. Dutch coryphea are invited to explain their work in practice. The workshop ‘architecture’ is to design, build and draw a ‘gossip bench’, to be used in the design project later. The workshop ‘urbanism’ concerns a puzzle- trip by bicycle in and around Delft . The ‘building technology’ workshop is about constructing the tallest, steadiest or most beautifull tower. part 1 House week 2 Housing Concepts and Housing Culture from Inside Astart is made on a ‘schedule of requirements’ in which you learn to delineate the quantitative and qualitative preconditions/conditions that a spatial design has to fulfil: functions, use, atmosphere, dimensions, ergonomics, building-physics requirements, regulations, etc. The following questions are asked about both existing designs (plan analysis) and the student's own design: What is a country home? What activities take place? How is a country home used? What is the nature of the house? Who will use the country home? What are the dimensions, areas and height measurements for activities and components? study products: ‘housing concepts and schedule of requirements’ plan analysis; the design starting points for the interior of a country home: an idea about living there, a schedule of requirements and size surveys for components of and in the house. week 3 Housing Concepts and Housing Culture from Outside What is the interaction between the interior of a country home and the situation? How do the residents of the country home use the outside space? What characteristics of the surrounding landscape could play a role in the country home's design and how will you approach these in your design? Take into account criteria that the country home's exterior has to fulfil. What sort of appearance should it have? What types of houses would fit in there? This week includes an excursion to the design location and visits to architectural country homes in the neighbourhood. study products: ‘situation’ plan analysis: design starting points for the outside of a country home; drawings and/or scale-model sketch of the design location scale 1:500/1:200; excursion report. weeks 4 + 5 The Country Home from Inside How do you translate the programmed and situational starting points into a spatial design for a country home? When you are designing, there is an interaction between various aspects: the situation, the programmed planning, the spatial planning and the material planning of the house. Astart is made in this week on producing the design. Students have to use the planning principles from the plan analysis and existing types of country homes: for example, a house with a pitched roof, a bungalow, a hut, a tent house or an accommodation machine. A scale model based on sketches will be made, which will then be drawn architecturally. The assignment plan analysis is a study of the ‘spatial design’ (planning of rooms, traffic circulation, structure and composition of floor plan and sections, incidence of light) and ‘material design’ (constructional system, materials, building method). Study products: ‘spatial design’ plan analysis; scale-model sketch, floor plans, sections 1:100/50.
Willemijn Wilms Floet, THE NEDERLANDS | 31 week 6 The Country Home from Outside Once the draft spatial plan for the inside is available, students concentrate on the design of the house's exterior wall and roof. Exterior wall openings (windows, doors, loggias) and extensions (bay windows, porticos, rooftop units, verandas, wind shields, chimneys) are, on the one hand, concerned with the spaces inside and, on the other, they are part of the exterior wall composition. What will the style of the country home be? Will it look like a house? Will it fit in with the situation? What geometrical planning principles will you use? What materials would you like to use to construct the exterior wall? Study products: ‘building mass’ and ‘concept and style’ plan analysis; scale-model sketch, elevations 1:100/50. week 7 Interim Presentation The contribution of each new design aspect should have consequences for the design that already existed. The design is completely reconsidered in the presentation phase and any changes are incorporated. The result of the whole workshop is a ‘catalogue of country homes’. weeks 8 + 9 Break for exams part 2 Settlement week 10 Design Location Analysis The design locations are specifically and carefully delineated and analysed during this week; this involves planning functions, street profiles, characteristic sightlines and image-determining elements of the building and public spaces. What will be the nature of the steps taken and which issues will determine the character? Where and how should the new country homes be built? How should one situate the houses vis-à-vis the landscape and existing buildings? Answering the above questions in the form of a design requires a well-planned excursion and a location analysis based on an checklist, plus recent and historical maps of various scales. A distinction is made between four layers: ‘the ground-water-nature landscape’, ‘land parcelling’, ’open space’ and ‘buildings’. week 11 Urban Planning Design Starting Points Awell-reasoned decision is made on the basis of the location study about where the new country homes will be situated and which extra programme will be added. How does the expansion fit in with the existing buildings (spatially and functionally) ? What current issues relating to spatial planning play a role and could the design be of any help in this? What infrastructure and open spaces are necessary? What facilities do the houses themselves have and what are their dimensions? Simultaneously with drawing up the starting points and the programme for the urban planning design, a 1:1000/500 scale model is built as a background for the design. weeks 12 + 13 Urban Design An urban planning design is made in this week for the settlement with 12 (2x6) private country homes in and around the settlement: the plots of land, streets, paths, square and/or other outside spaces and possibly extra facilities are designed at a scale of 1:1000/500. An examination is made of which urban design concepts and planning principles are possible (ensemble, row, grid, scattered …). Choose a planning principle, a pattern for the new country homes, taking into account the existing pattern or, better still, improve on the existing pattern.
32 | A Delft Method Which of the location's properties and qualities will you involve in the design? Which preconditions does urban planning set for the buildings and the plots of land? Examine which houses in the catalogue are suitable for which land parcelling. week 14 Urban Design and Analysis Settlement It is useful to study comparable design projects to enable you to substantiate your own design decisions more effectively, Therefore, in parallel with designing and analogous to the study of the design location, a plan analysis is made of another small settlement in the Netherlands that has recently undergone developments in the recreational sector. Special plan documentation on 20 small settlements in the Netherlands has been published for this. week 15 Detailing of the Urban Planning Design Subarea: House on Plot of Land and Open Space The house becomes the focus of attention again, once the main design of the urban plan is ready. Aplan is made for the layout around the house and, at the same time, the design for the house is altered to fit in with the new situation. Orientation, view, entrance and outside space may be reasons for altering the design of the house. week 16 Midterm Review weeks 17 + 18 Christmas Holidays and Process Comments week 19 Final Presentation and Assessemnt Exhibition, Portfolio and Review with External Critics
The design project ‘house and settlement’ are going well in theory. Improvement is about ‘fine- tuning’ the programme and coaching the tutors not to stray from the path. The methodology for urban planning research and design will be developed further. The faculty initiated the developing of ‘assessment-methods’ to improve the equivalence of the assessments and designs (over 300 projects). Besides, points for improvement mainly concern the balance in the use of time for the entire BSc-1 programme: avoiding fragmentation by small study components, finding time for self-practice during the weeks devoted to education, a balanced ‘peak-load’ for completing designs, papers and examinations. Gearing in terms of the content of lectures and the subjects in the design project should also lead to a substantial improvement in the quality of the education. notes 1For more information, see www.bk.tudelft.nl 2Twice per year, the faculty presents the student with binding study recommendations based on the achieved study results and interviews with the design tutor. A special method has been developed for this in which study results, design talent and effort play a role. 3 The following have now been published in the Delft University of Technology series on architecture: ‘kleine woonhuizen’ (small houses), ‘grote woonhuizen’ (large houses), ‘woongebouwen’ (residential buildings), ‘studentshuisvesting’ (student accommodation), ‘bibliotheken’ (libraries), ‘wereldtentoonstellingen’ (world exhibitions), ‘scholen’ (schools), ‘musea’ (museums), ‘atlas van 20 kleine nederzettingen’ (atlas of 20 small settlements), ‘atlas van het Hollands bouwblok’ (atlas of the Dutch housing block). 4 Student mentors are good MSc students who (in return for payment) help first-year students to learn to study and show them their way around the faculty and Dutch architectural culture.
Willemijn Wilms Floet, THE NEDERLANDS | 33 Structure; Space and Form
Bjorn Otto BRAATEN Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Architecture and Fine Arts Trondheim NORWAY
70 Number of Students 3 Number of Staff 23 Student/Staff ratio 14 Teaching weeks 12 Teaching hours per week 168 Total hours Compulsory Educational Objectives, Priorities and Values
The course here described, is the first semester (19 weeks) of the 5 year long architectural education at the Faculty of Architecture and Fine Arts, Norwegian University of Technology and Science. It is called Architecture 1; Structure; Space and Form and is an introduction to the basic themes of architecture. The main elements of the introductory-course are: 1. Body-experience of space and landscape. 2. The silent language of space. 3. Structure, materiality, form and construction. 4. The use of space;how architecture concerns interhuman relations and activity. 5. Tools for discovering, creating and representing space.
At one level architecture can be said to be a very simple thing. Every child responds to it. At another level it is so complex that it takes more than a lifespan to explore the dephts of it. Space has an influence on all living things, it is fundamental for our being. We can only choose if we want to be conscious of it or not. To develop as an architect deals with the understanding of the way space structures our way of living and which way we can structure space. Bordieau claims that, when a child is 5-6 years old, it has already, through the body, integrated the most basic experiences of space. What happens later, is a cultivation of these early experiences. This cultivation depends on the social, cultural and economical context. What we seek is not a "relearning" of cultural codes, but letting the students rediscover the basic spatial experiences they have built into their bodies from childhood. Thus developing conciousness about space is not about learning "new codes", but about discovering what they already know,- their own bodily experiences of space. We think this is of special importance in Norway, where the landscape is so different from the deep fiords of the west-coast, the mountain-valleys of the south-east and the subarctic climate and landscape north of the arctic circle. Within such a context, landscape is a vital factor in the development of the basic spacial experiences. Main intentions for our teaching is for the students to: -develop personal experience of discovering, sensing and creating space. -develop basic knowledge about a) the interrelation of space and personal and social human life. b) the interrelation of space, form, material and simple constructions. c) the tools for creating and representing space. -develop attitude towards studying architecture based on curiosity, open mindness, playfulness and seriousness at the same time.
Description and Structure of the Course
There are three main assignments during the course, c), d) and e). The others are supplementary tasks, a), b) and f).
a) Introduction workshops (8 days) - body language, awareness and sensitivity, body and space - the visual language,- visual structures of sand made on a beach (groupwork) - the different "looking-glasses" of architecture (landscape, construction, arch. history etc. at an old farm) - making your own space, scale 1:1
36 | Structure: Space and Form Analytical freehand drawings (3 weeks, individual work) -not a part of the course, but tightly connected b) Discovering and representing space (3 days, groupwork) - the first architectural drawings,- making plans, sections and elevations on site at a little village on the coast. c) Structures in the landscape (4 1/2 weeks, groupwork) -their first project: Constructing structures in the landscape, scale 1:1. d) The silent language of space (3 weeks, groupwork) - space concepts (Visual Communication Workshops) - the atmosphere of space (Visual Communication Workshops) - analyzing existing projects. - making models, architectural drawings, concept diagrams. e) Spaces for invitation (5 weeks, indidvidual work) - memories of space (from the inside world to the outside world). - personal attitude and value - the use of space; arhitecture as interhuman relation and communication - making something of value for others f) Visual communication workshops,- tools for discovering, creating and representing space (9 weeks/running paralell with other assignments, individual work). - models sketch models/ analytical models/ 1:1 scale models -drawings analytical free hand drawings/ intuitive free hand drawings - geometry plans, sections,elevations/ perspective drawings/ computer-aided construction. -lay-out computer- aided design/ photo documentation/ principles of lay-out
First sketch model, made in 15 minutes. (Visual Communication Workshops)
Aquarell, from the small First section, Sula. First plan, Sula. fishery village of Sula.
Bjorn Otto Braaten, NORWAY | 37 First sketch model, From the sketch model First sketch model, made in 15 minutes. made in 15 minutes. workshop. (Visual Communication Workshops)
Structures in the landscape, 1:1 scale
38 | Structure: Space and Form Scalemodel 1:10. UBO 02, Sondresen/Ruud
Section 1:10. UBO 02, Sondresen/Ruud
Interior of barnconstruction, Interior. Scalemodel 1:10. UBO 02, scalemodel1:20.Westcoast Sondresen/Ruud building-tradition.
Cabin at the Norwegian Construction for the drying of Sami-hut. Northern Norwegian westcoast, scalemodel1:20. fishnet, Northern Norwegian building tradition. Scalemodel Tommy Wilhelmsen/Saunders building tradition. Scalemodel 1:20. 1:20.
Pedagogical and Educational Methods
The students We deal with a total amount of ca. 70 students. Most of them are between 19-23 years old. They are divided into three main groups (20-24 students). One teacher and two student assistants are
Bjorn Otto Braaten, NORWAY | 39 Space for invitation.
40 | Structure: Space and Form connected to each group. Within this framework, each student belongs to a smaller working- group of four,- making the total amount of 17-18 working-groups.
Way of teaching The introductory course, consists of mainly two ways of working. Project work and workshops.
Facilitating project work The three main tasks during the course are all project work. The first two are done as groupwork (4 students), the last is an individual project. During the development of the projects, our contribution as teachers are mainly facilitating the process. The students discuss within their groups (which is maybe the most important part), and so in the end, every project is discussed at an exibition.
Giving workshops The students also attend different kinds of workshops. The workshops (20-25 students in each) focus on learning to use tools for creating and representing space.
Giving lectures Two lectures are held once a week for all the 70 students,- one concerning architectural history in the 20th century and one about a freely chosen (smaller) architectural work that the teachers find interesting to talk about ("Space of the week"). Ca 10% of our teaching is in the form of lectures. 90% is facilitating groups or individual students.
From teaching to learning There is an interesting point of view in the saying; "There is no such thing as teaching,- only learning". At the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) there is quite a big turning-operation going on regarding pedagogical methods. The slogan is: "From teaching to learning". Traditional lecture-based teaching and exam- focused studying tend to be changed into a learning environment where groupwork and projectwork, seminars and individual discussions with the students are emphasized. Our course is based on these pedagogical principles. Our intention is to create a fertile field where learning can take place.
The social climate of learning -in the beginning we put some effort into creating a social climate where everybody knows each other. This is f.ex. done by fieldwork far away from the city, where students and teachers stay together for a couple of days, working, discussing and sharing common meals.
Learning by doing -we often start project-periods by asking the student to do things they have minimal or no background- information on how to solve. "Learning by doing". - when something has been done, the teachers come in and discuss how things are working,- what is working well, what is not working. In this way the students decide their own point of departure and have to take responsibility for where they want to go. Our role as teachers are more like guiding them through the "swamp-areas". -in a similar way the groupwork makes the students learn through discussions with each other. The teachers sometimes guide the discussions, but the groups choose their own way of dealing with the problems.
Showing your work -every project-period is finished with an exibition where all the works are shown. It is emphasized that the product of their work is not only valuable for themselves, but also for the rest of the students and teachers in the school. In this way they take part in a bigger discussion about
Bjorn Otto Braaten, NORWAY | 41 what they find important and what others find important concerning their projects and the course. -exibitions play an important role in learning from each other. The students then are given the opportunity to compare and discuss their own process with the others.
The Design Themes and Exercises
Introduction workshops The first 14 days of the course, the new students take part in workshops as an introduction to what comes later on. They visit an old farm on the outskirts of town and are asked to see the place with different kinds of "looking-glasses". One is about the landscape it is placed in, one is about architectural history, about form and color, about construction and materials and so on. Through lectures at the place, they are given some hints about what to look for. The students document their work through drawings which are shown at an exibition. Another workshop is about body awareness, sensitivity , body language and body and space. One day is spent at a long beach by the sea where the students build free forms in the sand. Here they work in groups, four-five people in each group. While the tide comes in to wash it all away, the teachers’ task is to interpret the works without any explanation from the students. Each year we try to do something new. This year Sami Rintala and Marco Casagrande from Finland, were invited to give a workshop. Instead of teachers telling the students what is "good" or "bad", the students made two small spaces each, scale 1:1 ,- one which was "good" architecture and one which was "bad". A lot of work and a lot of fun! We do these workshops mainly to introduce the students to the way of working that they will meet later on in the course (in a little more diciplined way, though), to let them work together so they socially get to know each other, to let them learn by doing, and to let them start to reflect on- and discuss, what architecture is all about.
Discovering and representing space After the introductory workshops, the students take a course in free-hand drawing, conducted by artists at our faculty. This is not directly connected to our course, but still is of great importance for our next task,- making their first architectural drawings. This is done at a fishery settlement situated at some small islands far out in the sea, on the coast of north-western Norway. The students find their own sites and use theit own bodies as scale- indicators to measure the places. Then they make a plan drawing and a section/elevation of their site, based on information given from the teachers at a gathering in the dusk of morning. We pay special attention to the drawings, representing different kinds of materiality and the qualities of the particular place. The teachers discuss the problems with the students at their site,- it makes it both easier to explain and to understand. In the beginning architectural drawings can be quite abstract for some, so we want the students to know what the line on the paper really represents. Out in this windy and sometimes very rainy surroundings, the students learn to know the place through the codes of scale- drawings, plans, sections and elevation. At the same time we all get to know each other better, through meals of crabs and fish fresh from the fishermen.
Constructing structures in the landscape 1:1 scale The first project they do is actually a complete construction procedure in miniature. The students are presented to a given site where they are going to construct a structure in 1:1 scale, which is going to be both an architectonical interpretation of the qualities of the place, and a meeting place.
42 | Structure: Space and Form The students plan their structure, find out the amount of materials they need, they have a little budget, they have to build it all by themselves, and they have to finish it within three weeks. After the initial mapping at the site and the concept-developments are done in scalemodels indoors, most of the facilitating is done at the site. What was possible in a scale model is not always possible in real life size, so most of the discussion is about what is most important to achieve,- what is the vital aspects of the project. The primary construction- elements should be connected by bolts, not nails. In this way they learn something about how the forces are working within the construction. The project ends in a big outdoor exhibition for the public.
The silent language of space (3 weeks, groupwork) The second project focus on the language of architecture. The students are presented to a built project which they are going to analyze. This is done by literature studies, making scale models and drawing plans, sections and elevations of the project. The most important part though, is the understanding of the regional, historical and cultural context, the structure of space, and the link between construction, use, form and site. Through the Visual Communication Workshops they are introduced to basic space concepts (borders, transitions, lines, points, sequences). Through collaboration with a freestanding, experimental pedagogical center ("the Oases"), the students do exercises in developing awareness of the atmosphere of space. The main intention is to create a basic understanding of how architecture expresses itself, -as a silent language that must be understood not only as an intellectual discipline, but also by the senses.
Space for invitation (5 weeks, individual work) Architecture is of course not just dealing with the material aspect of space. It concerns issues like meaning and human values. As architects, we are set to create something of value for others. But it is difficult to make something of value for others, if we are not aware of our own values, and how to express them through architecture. The basis for the assignment "Space for invitation", is the students’ own memory of "a good space". What kind of qualities did this space express in terms of colour, smell, tactility, sound, light etc.? This part is done as a workshop " From inner space to the outside world", again by the experimental pedagogical center "the Oases". In the same area as the students built the structures in 1:1 scale, these inner memories of a "good space" shall be connected to a site where they find one or more of these qualities. The next step is to choose an activity (active or passive) connected to the qualities of the place/memory. The last step is to develop a project that is an expression of the students own experience of value, meaning and what is "good". The assignment triggers discussions about what is private and what is personal. It also triggers the question how to create something of value for others.
Visual communication workshops,- tools for discovering, creating and representing space. Parallel with the three main assignments, we run workshops where the students learn different kind of tools for discovering, creating and representing space. These are called "The Visual Communication Workshops". They share a common framework of some specific elements, so that freehand- drawing , perspective drawings, computer-drawings, sketch models, 1:1 scale models etc. are seen as different tools for dealing with the same issue,- space. Each workshop runs for two hours in three days (a total of 6 hours).
The workshops are: 1. Body and space. - the students make experiences about body language and the relationship between body and space. 2. Analytical free-hand drawings I. -structure, materiality, light,- represented by pencil on paper.
Bjorn Otto Braaten, NORWAY | 43 3. Analytical free-hand drawings II - "From map to space", charcoal on paper 4. Graphic Design - computer-aided graphic design 5. Geometry I - the principles of constructing perspective. 6. Geometry II - computer-aided construction (Form Z) 7. Sketch models 8. 1:1 scale models - body-experience of space,1:1 scale, materiality and light 9. Lay-out -how to structure visual information
Critic
We try to develop the introductory course all the time, even if the basic elements have been the same for 6 years. There is always something to improve. The Visual Communication Workshops are something we introduced this year, to establish a bridge between the courses given by different departments at the faculty. The structure of the course here described is based on the way it is executed this year. Some of the good elements from last year’s course had to be taken out, because of a very restricted time- schedule. This concerns mainly the "Body/space workshops", that is given less time than we want it to be in the future. To develop an understanding and sensivity towards space, we want the students to experience space in 1:1 scale. Even if the assigment "Analizing a Built Project/The Silent Language of Space" is working quite well, we are now discussing changes to this so that the students can experience the buildings themselves, not just get information through magazines, books and internet. Next year we will focus on good examples within our local context. All in all, we feel we are walking an interesting path, so far. The students are motivated, curious and work hard.
44 | Structure: Space and Form First Grade Architectural Design Studio Course: an Experience
Luis CONCEICAO Joao ANTUNES Modern University of Setubal, Department of Architecture Setubal PORTUGAL
25 Number of Students 2 Number of Staff 13 Student/Staff ratio 32 Teaching weeks 9Teaching hours per week 288 Total hours Compulsory The course we are referring to is the first year’s Architectural Design Studio Course, named Arquitectura Analitica (Analytic Architecture - AA) at our School, along with the support of the Theory and History of Architecture (THA) discipline. AA is driven by Luis Conceicao (LC) and THA, by Joao Carlos Antunes (JCA). This text is written by both of us, as part of a larger team of the first grade (Drawing, Geometry and Computer Aided Drafting), whose main aims are introducing and discovering a culture, a language, a lexical approach towards architectural design. It will be written as superimposed layers of wishes, understandings, and "knowledge", in a stream of discoveries, interrogations and unveiled happiness… LC – After 18 years of teaching higher levels of Architectural Design Studio at a big public school (mostly 5th grade), I begun, 7 years ago, a new teaching experience: starting a new school of Architecture, at a small town (120 thousand inhabitants) nearby Lisbon, with my own teaching staff, following a brand new program, which started giving its own fruits last academic year. Unlike any already existing school, we were able to start with a real working team, from ground zero. Naturally, I had the opportunity of hosting the "nursery" of the program, as a teacher of the first grade Architectural Design Studio – AA. JCA was, right from the beginning, essential humus in this task, holding the difficult area of Architectural Theory. It must be said that, being both an architect and a professor of architecture - an academic -, more used to the final outcome of the design education, it was a great defiance, and a marvellous feature, to discover I was old enough and sufficiently mature to nourish positively a bunch of 76 first grade students. As for JCA, a very experienced Architect and senior civil practitioner, far, far away from the academic ground, a meticulous and passionate investigator, he was to become the other part of me - an outlaw poet with no anchors, a better poet, as his anchors set their own wings… This is not the right place to talk about the whole building of the Architectural Program in Setubal, but it was really built, with lots of effort, trust and passion, set off by every piece of the creative system our team turned out to become. As for the first year, the first question was: what must a student know, understand and be able to perform, by the end of this first year of work, in relation to the discipline? We set up the following objectives: ñGeneral knowledge of the contemporary Architectural concepts, ideas, theories and skills; ñ Basic knowledge of traditional and erudite composition; proportion, canonic geometry, harmony. ñ Basic notions on shape, scale, space and dimensioning; the design process. ñ First approach to the basic architectural vocabulary; the typology of spaces. ñ Flashlight on reality. Function and form; construction and form; elementary forms. Topology, pragmatism and tectonics. The AA Studio was designed into four phases, supported in practical exercises, along with a team research task, cutting through the academic year: 1. First Exercise: "the thinking of the hand". Objectives: shape analysis, analytical composition, and first approach to space understanding, dimensioning and scale awareness. Time: 2.5 months (From October to Christmas). 2. Second Exercise: "The cube and the stairs". Objectives: dialogue between order and chaos. The rule and the exception. Composition and decomposition. Construction and deconstruction. Time: 1,5 months (January, February). 3. Third Exercise: "The allegory of the cavern". Objectives: The shaping of space without an outer shape; the underground space; reality and utopia; emotion and reason; the sensitive atmosphere; the dualities: up and down, darkness and lightness, narrow and large, heavy and light, perceptive non-perceptive, hot and cold, etc. Time: 1,5 months ( March to Easter) 4. Fourth Exercise: "the wood and canvas shelter". Objectives: an approach to reality: site, program, materiality, construction. A short story by Daniel Defoe, and others… Time: all the time, from May to late July.
46 | First Grade Architectural Design Studio Course: an Experience 5. Research team work: "Analysis of a given existing building". Objectives: discovering composition, through geometry; typological approach (the distributive structure); context (relationships towards the environment); language (architectural vocabulary); time (historical context). All exercises are accompanied by theoretical lectures, consistent and constant tutorial help, and complementary actions, such as study visits, invited lecturers, debates. In the mean time, JCA classes support our knowledge in order to guide the students in terms of self awareness within the disciplinary conception, that is, to make and let them, grow as human beings in the specific context of architectural thinking. The Architectural teaching embodies a particular methodological difficulty, considering that the disciplinary nature is, in itself, generator of equivoques and misunderstandings. As a matter of fact the seldom ambiguous, ambivalent, and transitory character conveyed by ‘moods and fashions’ which often inflates and distorts the architectural world, is one of the possible clear examples of such statement. Architecture is art, is techniques, is anthropology, is economy, is mathematics, is, at sum, and in the very end, the GEOMETRY of SPACE and TIME, of our dreams and phantoms, of our ‘träum’, the GEOMETRY of Life itself. What is it to be an architect in the present day and what has it been during the past ages? Since when have we formed the architectural concept and, consequently, that of the architect? Finally, what is the meaning of ARCHITECTURE and ARCHITECT? ‘In the very beginning there was Chaos, then the Light came, and the Light divided the Universe and in the Universe there also came Darkness’ How can we reach self consciousness if we’ll not be able to project oneself outside himself in an effort to look inside ourselves, as sung by Denny Laine and Clint Warwick, in the album ‘In Search of the Lost Chord’, about Timothy Leary1? The poetics and mystery of the inside-outside, as written by Gaston Bachelard2, or the ‘Genius Loci’, from Norberg-Schulz, or, as mentioned by Heiddegger, the limit from where the infinite begins, in that paradox which lies in the fact of giving birth to that, which already ‘is’, and has ever ‘been’, and will ever ‘be’: SPACE. Why and how do we go straight towards SPACE and ARCHITECTURE? What attracts us, and has attracted us, towards this ‘pro(faith)ssional’ gathering; to this place of re-union, of ‘re-ligare’, from which derives the latin word ‘Re-ligion’, in a territory, more than shared, cohabited, as is that of ARCHITECTURE? These are the starting questions we try to lead the youngster-pupil-apprentice, to reflect upon in a sense of communication acknowledgement, but also in a sense of wisdom sharing: the wisdom of youth, and apprenticeship, the wisdom of ‘pro-faith-master’ or, of the ‘professional’. In this butte we try to stress the importance of communication, whatever media we might use: from the spoken and written WORD, to the symbolic and metaphoric architectural ‘intercourse’. We begin by asking students for some reflection about the reason why they have chosen to become architects, encouraging them to support their parts, their surrounding constructed world, from their own home, to their neighbourhood or city. Than we try to deal with the distinction between the caption of the surrounding world and its related decoding process, i.e., the understanding between perception and conception, and the ways we use to gather the infinite inputs into significant and meaningful items. Finally we enter the history of human construction, backwards from the present day to the so- called period of Enlightenment. From now-a-day’s brilliance to its lightening start. The idea is, you understand better what’s happening today, if you go back to today’s immediate origins. The structure of the THA course goes as follows:
1 ‘Who is outside looking in’ 2 ‘The Poetic of Space’
Luis Conceicao, Joao Carlos Antunes, PORTUGAL | 47 ñ The non-built Beauty and the building of spontaneity
ñ The Work of Art as an emitter or as a medium / as a continent of an intrinsic Beauty, versus the extrinsic Beauty of this same medium/continent. -Art and aesthetic feeling ñ Analysis, characterization and taxonomy of the poetic constants in architectural creation throughout time: analysis, characterization and taxonomy of that which translates what’s perennial in Man, by inherence and specificity to his condition and nature. -Geometry - The aesthetic values ñ Unity / Contrast / Symmetry ñProportion and Canon ñStyle ñ Matter Surface Colour Function
ñ Is Architecture a technological art; an artistic technology; or both? -Architecture as a discipline -Technologic dimension of architectural design - The architectonic method: ñ The designing steps ñ The programs ñ The clients - The great Treatises and their writers
ñ Space structuring and volume composition as necessity and circumstance translators, but also as builders of other inner circumstances. -Composition ñ The dominant level / The plan ñFree/built space ñReading, analysis and critics of architectural programs. ñ The architectural method Proposals / Postulates / Confirmation / Postulates / Proposals ñ Structure / Model / Type ñVolume / Space ñStatic / Dynamic
ñFrom ideological models to the design system - The speech of Power, its typologies and manifestations / representations - The city / the country ñThe territory of Architecture ñ Other territories ñ Neo-Classicism and Modern Movement - Cultural /territorial / technical evolutions
48 | First Grade Architectural Design Studio Course: an Experience - Neo-Classicism -Utopias -Industrial Revolution
Arts and Crafts reaction Actuality Art Nouveau Post-Modernism Art Deco Neo-Rationalism De Stijl Regionalism Rationalism Deconstructivism Cubism / Bauhaus Minimalism
THA Exercises
Beside the above mentioned matters, we usually propose the following themes to the alumni: ‘Is Architecture a technological Art or an artistic technology?’ ‘What is modernism, or the spirit or ‘modernity’ versus ‘conservationism’ from the XVII century till nowadays?
AA Exercises
"The Thinking of the Hand" The students are asked to conceive a non-realistic shape in plasticine. They do it, draw it, until they know it by heart, and then they are asked to draft it, in the way of plans and elevations. This takes one to two weeks, while the teacher explores classical composition and the use of geometry in his lectures.
"The thinking of the hand", Nuno Marcelino
When drawing and drafting is done, till they’re able to present "by heart" the shape they’ve made in plasticine, another item is introduced to the exercise: composition. Everything has to be re- drawn based in standard geometrical relationships. "If it tends to be a cube, it wants to be a cube, if it tends to be any regular shape, it wants to be that particular shape!". Magically, all shapes tend to be regular ones, letting you draw them as a system, rather than a collection of forms. Here, we introduce them to classical composition, using matricial geometrical shapes as form generators. The whole is not the summing up of parts; each part is derived from the whole.
Luis Conceicao, Joao Carlos Antunes, PORTUGAL | 49 Geometrical topology is starting to be discovered. We are now talking about another two to three weeks of hard labour, based on tutorial work. This is when we introduce a new set of questions: "Suppose the shape you’ve created in plasticine has an inner space!". "Suppose that that inner space is walkable, has an entrance and a system of describable spaces". "Suppose that those spaces, bearing no function at all, are informed by such dualities as: high/low, weak/strong, narrow/large, up/down, light/darkness, inside/outside, mass/lightness, etc..." And we work on it. We look at each of the student’s shapes, trying to find out what is visible and what is invisible, real and virtual, and start a long dialogue within it. Questions: "what do you really want to be?"; "What does geometry ask your inner space to look like?". This is the most exciting part of this exercise, as no functional, no real aim is lying inside, but the discovery of the hidden potential of each and every plasticine/geometrical shape in scene. This is the most difficult part of the exercise, as it calls for a great deal of abstraction, and usually takes more than three weeks of intensive tutorial work. When things come up, we introduce a new question: dimensioning. "How do you feel one should walk inside that space? Do you want to be an ant or, rather an elephant, when you cross it ? What’s the relationship between a regular human being and the dimensions of the space systems created?". Lots of work is spent here, either theoretically, showing diverse relationships between human dimensions and space atmosphere. "How big is your room? How big is your home town cathedral?". "What’s the difference between big and small? Large and narrow? High and low? According to what?"… "How do light and shade enlarge or shrink the same amount of space?"… Dimension is introduced. And now, we shall work according to a scale. A regular scale (1:200, 1:100, etc.). Plans, sections and elevations have to be done, at a particular scale, along with a cardboard model at the same scale. We are talking about another two to three weeks. Well. This is our first exercise, which is done in the first period of time, from October to December as an introduction to Architecture in the first year of studies. It allows us to introduce the first concepts of shape, composition, space, scale and dimensioning. At the same time, students start finding out the poetry of architecture, the musicality of space sequences and harmonies… Scale: 1:200 to 1:100.
The Cube and the Stairs We borrowed the cube from Hejduck (Cooper Union) and introduced some stairs and ramps in order to go through it. Imagine the dialogue between a perfectly ruled shape: the cube; and the infinite possibilities of a stairway… The cube means proportion, security, passivity, balance, equilibrium, either sitting on a face, or on an edge or on a vertex. The stairs may be subversive, provocative, talkative… Either the cube absorbs the stairs to its rule, as a part of its composition, or the stairs are able to disrupt, corrupt, lead astray, deconstruct, reduce to fragments the assertiveness of the cube. The dimensions of the cube are given: an edge of 10 meters. In the first exercise, an alien shape, made by the hand, is the parting point to a discovery of rules and geometrical relationships. Here, the rule either persists or is driven to alien shapes. Experiencing composition is the very aim of this exercise. Everything is possible… Scale 1:50.
The Cube and the stairs, Hugo Guerreiro
50 | First Grade Architectural Design Studio Course: an Experience The Allegory of the Cavern Plato’s allegory allows us to travel from darkness to light, on an ascending trip from ignorance to knowledge, from chaos to order. Underground space has no outer shape. Many skills have to be discovered in order to be able to draw their understanding. All dualities are welcome: male female, high and low, darkness and light, narrow and large, and so on. The alumni are invited to draw emotions, to explore those emotions throughout antagonistic sequences of spaces coming out from darkness into full light. The final aim is characterizing, through design, the limits between the antagonisms: the space of union, which gathers the opposite fields, is simultaneously a space of separation, a space full of tension. It is an extraordinary experience for both teacher and student, the discovery of possibilities lounged in this exercise. Poetic souls explode and more pragmatic ones dig deeper in their minds. There is a general idea that order prevails over chaos, not getting rid of it but, instead, keeping it in its hands: ordo ab chao! The good Order is not an absolute order… We have experienced this exercise only twice, so far, and are starting to collect its fruits on some misty darkness. Yet, students are very much involved in it. Soon we will know something more about it… Scale: whatever, if possible… This is the kind of space system you don’t have to walk through. You might only travel through it with your sight, or you might even swim throughout it… no gravity obliged!
The allegory of the cavern, Andre Ribeiro
The Wood and Canvas Shelter This is a recurrent exercise bearing in springtime. A touch of reality. We build up a story where a real person, usually a hermit, builds up his/her shelter in a natural environment – a given one – plane, steep, by the shore or well into the woods, out of wood and canvas. Normally, a fixed object – a piece of furniture, a musical instrument of big dimensions, a boat’s mast, etc – is also a given set off. It has to do with site analysis and site choosing, with a minimum dwelling program – sleeping, cooking, doing personal hygiene, sitting and staring out -, and instinctive construction. Timber and canvas are more or less instinctive building materials. Usually, boat and basket building are brought into scene as references, along with primitive shelter building. Umbrellas are also welcome.
The wood and canvas shelter, Bruno Rodrigues
Luis Conceicao, Joao Carlos Antunes, PORTUGAL | 51 Site analysis and insertion are very important tasks. Scale: 1:20. All the referred exercises oblige plan, section and elevation drawings, along with built models. Everything else is allowable.
Research Team Work Groups of three to four alumni are gathered in order for each of them, to study, a given building. It could either (and preferably) be a nearby building or a reference one (v.g. Kaufman House, Ville Savoye, Villa Rotonda). The groups start forming in early December, as soon as the alumni have developed their own relationships, tend to know one another and generate their own empathies. This exercise is extended throughout the year, from December to May/June, and is expected to create a happening. Students are invited to discover, with our tutorial help, the hidden geometries of the building in study, along with its structural typology: the system of "parcours", from entrance to the more intimate spaces; its language, based on a given vocabulary; its relationship towards the environment (context); its history (original functions and use and meaning alterations); capacity of generating public space, if inserted in an urban context; shape and language migrations (similar buildings in other locations); typological relationships (discovery of similar building inner structures, regardless of time and use), and so on. Main themes of analysis: ñ materiality – charge, mass, building system, supporting materials. ñdistributive system – entrance, horizontal and vertical circulation, typology; ñ skin – outside / inside relationship; light / shade; plasticity, marginality; ñ geometrical support - symmetry, axiality, ruling plan, canonical support; ñ sematology - vocabulary, language, additional expression; ñ scenography – urban insertion, context, scenic effects (assertion, neutrality, generative capacity; ñ genetic migration – formal genesis, analogical and anagogic supports (iconography); Students discover a lexicon and a collection of building images throughout this exercise, which helps them start building up their own imagination. They also discover the related theoretical ground upon which architecture stands, hic et nunc. Usually, the presentation of this exercise is bound to be very theatrical and live. The other exercises are always subjected to two to three presentations, with a critical approach made by the other students and a final discussion lead by the teacher. Students are strongly invited to express their thoughts naturally in front of the audience of their colleagues, and to present synthetic oral and written justifications of their work, supported by images and whatever they may find useful. The last exercise (The Shelter), is presented to a jury, where the second grade architectural design teachers take their active place.
We know that nothing of what was said or shown in this text is new or transcendent in what’s related to architectural design teaching in the first grade. But we thought we ought to share our experience with someone else, as we are really proud to feel and watch our students grow up in a mere academic year, with our humble, but passionate help. We are also proud, six years after, as members of their final exam’s juries, to be able to notice some of our footprints in their architectural performances. Of course this is only a tiny part of the real master-apprentice system… (If they only knew about what we learn with them!).
52 | First Grade Architectural Design Studio Course: an Experience Basic Bibliography AA ARNHEIM, Rudolf, A Dinâmica da Forma Arquitectonica, Editorial Presença, Lisboa. CHING, Francis, Arquitectura, Forma, Espacio y Orden, Gustavo Gili, Barcelona. CONSIGLIERI, Victor, A Morfologia da Arquitectura 1920-1970 -vol. I e II, Editorial Estampa, Lisboa. FONATTI, Franco, Principios Elementales de la Forma en Arquitectura, Gustavo Gili, Barcelona. KRIER, Rob, Architectural Composition, Academy Editions, London. MEISS, Pierre von, De la Forme au Lieu, Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne. QUARONI, Ludovico, Progettare un Edificio - Otto Lezione di Architettura, Gangemi Editore, Roma.
THA History of Architecture GIEDION, Siegefried - Espaço, Tempo e Arquitectura PEVSNER, Nicolau - Pioneiros do Desenho Moderno RAGON, Michelle - Historia da Arquitectura e da UrbanÍstica Moderna BENEVOLO, Leonardo - Historia da Arquitectura Moderna Ed. Pinguim - Dicionario da Arquitectura MUMFORD, L. - A Cidade na Historia PEVSNER, Nicolau - Historia da Arquitectura Europeia ZEVI, Bruno - Historia da Arquitectura Moderna Essays and writings on Architecture ALEXANDER, Christoffer - A Cidade não é uma árvore’ JENCKS, Charles - Movimentos Modernos na Arquitectura LE CORBUSIER, Jean Pierre Jeanneret - ‘Vers une Architecture’ *Para uma Arquitectura* LE CORBUSIER, Jean Pierre Jeanneret - A Carta de Atenas QUARONI, Ludovico - A Torre de Babel ROSSI, Aldo - A Arquitectura da Cidade VENTURI, Robert - Aprendendo com Las Vegas VENTURI, Robert - Complexidade e Contradição na Arquitectura ZEVI, Bruno - Saber ver a Arquitectura BENEVOLLO, Leonardo - Introdução à Arquitectura KAHN, Louis - Declaração sobre a Arquitectura - Rev. ‘Zodiac’ nÆ 17 LE CORBUSIER, Jean Pierre Jeanneret - O ‘Modulor’ NORBERG-SCHULTZ, C. - ‘Intentions in Architecture’ *Objectivos na Arquitectura* RUSKIN - As sete lâmpadas da Arquitectura Treaties ALBERTI, Leon Baptista - A Arquitectura PALLADIO, Andrea - Os quatro livros da Arquitectura SERLIO, Sebastian - O quarto livro e o livro extraordinário VITRUVIO - ‘Os dez livros da Arquitectura’ Critics of Architectural Literature ECO, Umberto - Obra aberta ECO, Umberto - Para uma análise semântica dos sinais arquitectonicos
Luis Conceicao, Joao Carlos Antunes, PORTUGAL | 53 The University of Sheffield School of Architecture: Year One Design Studio
Rosie PARNELL University of Sheffield, School of Architecture Sheffield UNITED KINGDOM
108 Number of Students 7 Number of Staff 15 Student/Staff ratio 24 Teaching weeks 14 Teaching hours per week 336 Total hours Compulsory The Philosophy of the Course
Aims and Objectives The year one studio course has three main aims. First, to widen the students’ perception of architecture by introducing them to the diversity and richness of historical and contemporary ideas and in so doing offer a range of potential starting points for the design process. Second, to provide the practical opportunity to experiment with and develop representational skills in graphics and model-making, through which architectural ideas may be communicated. Third, to introduce primary issues of cultural and technological significance within a series of studio projects intended to stimulate both individual exploration and collective discussion. These aims are achieved through the following objectives: ñTo develop imaginative thinking, from the articulation of abstract ideas to the creative manipulation of materials; ñTo encourage an awareness of the diversity of architectural ideas and participation in critical evaluation and debate; ñTo initiate an understanding of the relationship between creative intentions, their representation in drawings and models, and the reality of built works of architecture; ñTo develop graphic dexterity, model-making and computer skills and the ability to communicate ideas verbally; ñTo become aware of the library as a source of information and inspiration, and learn how to use it fully. Including the use and application of Information Technology; ñTo begin to understand the potential value of working, co-operatively, with colleagues; the juxtaposition of individual and team; ñTo develop an understanding of domestic scale construction, structure and services within a sustainable context.
Reality versus Creativity Underlying these core educational aims and objectives is a desire to dispel the perceived conflict between reality and creativity. More often than not reality is considered a constraint on creativity: in the context of teaching architecture the general perception is that an early emphasis on the practical aspects of architecture will develop a technician’s approach to design (Morrow et al. 2001). Among the staff involved in devising the course there was a strong feeling that this perceived oppositional relationship between creativity and reality resulted more frequently in confusion and lethargy than innovation. It was, therefore, the intention that this course be constructed to permit opportunities to allow one to activate and enliven the other. Morrow et al. (2001) expand on their understanding of ‘reality’:
‘Reality in the context of architectural education can be seen as a set of constraints, falling into three categories: skills, knowledge and context. Skills are concerned largely with communication, and include representational skills (graphical, visual, model-making and computer technology) and verbal and written communication. Knowledge acquired by architectural students is in the areas of tectonics (structure, materials and construction), humanities (theory and history of architecture) and environment (sustainable environmental design). The context of architectural design is how it fits into society, and the constraints imposed by clients and users of buildings, society, industry and resources come into this category.’
When it comes to creativity - a central concern of many first year courses - the usual approach is to isolate the students from reality in order to allow them ‘space to fly’:
56 | The University of Sheffield School of Architecture: Year One Design Studio ‘Students are brought via design briefs to the edges of architecture (design a space for a juggler) in the hope that this ‘stretching’ will unleash their creative potential (Ibid).’
However, it is argued that unleashing someone’s creative potential is relatively simple and achievable through well-documented methodologies. Sustaining creativity, on the other hand, particularly when faced with the constraints or the banality of reality (design a porch for a semi- detached), is far more challenging. Weisberg (1993) points out that the way to increase and sustain people’s creative performance is to ‘provide an environment that encourages them to develop expertise, and maximize their motivation.’ This environment is one which simultaneously builds student confidence. It is this environment that is central to the organisation of this first year course.
Empathy and Collaboration The School of Architecture at Sheffield does not claim to educate for a particular set of values and attitudes, instead aiming to develop actively engaged students with a critical outlook. However, the year one studio is by no means value-free and certain priorities can be identified. These are reflected in what Bottery (2000) has called the four major processes central to values education for a democracy: the development of empathy; the fostering of empowerment and self-esteem; furthering co-operation and the promotion of rationality. Rationality is not something that this course explicitly strives for, but its relevance becomes clear in the context of the other three qualities:
"Rationality is cited as a core process in values education for, among other reasons, the way in which it demands other moral commitments such as impartiality, a willingness to listen to others’ points of view, and fairness. Empathy is described in terms of its balancing effect on reason and rationality. It provides for reflective understanding and tolerance and acts as the mainspring to action. Empowerment and self-esteem are the ingredients which enable the individual to take action based on their rationality and empathy...Finally, Bottery describes cooperation as a way to help improve basic teaching processes, helping students to like and trust each other: ‘it might well be seen as a crucial means of educating students to a less authoritarian way of learning and living in society.’" (Parnell, 2002)
The highly competitive and exam orientated systems that we see at all levels of education today can encourage students to view themselves as pursuing independent, individualistic routes through their educational careers: ‘…others are seen as, at best, irrelevant, at worst as competitors.’ (Bottery, 2000:11) The teaching and learning approach in the year one studio strives to counter this system, providing opportunities for collaboration, the development of empathy and self- esteem.
Encouraging Reflection/ Managing Disjunction A primarily didactic school-based experience of learning can result in a tendency among new students to value knowledge deemed ‘valid’ by the tutor. The contradictions that inevitably ensue can lead to what has been termed ‘disjunction’. Described as a sense of fragmentation of part of, or all of, the self, disjunction typically results in frustration, confusion, a loss of sense of self and a desire for ‘right’ answers (Savin-Baden 2000). When teamed with a desire to attain good grades, students can turn their attention to discovering perceived covert criteria to enable them to do well, rather than exploring learning approaches that might best suit their individual qualities (Parnell, 2001). While it has been claimed that in fact, ‘disjunction lies at the heart of learning’ (Jarvis cited in Savin Baden, 2000) Dewey argued that if disjunction is consistently mismanaged, it can actually be disabling in nature. Hence, where the adopted mode of learning causes a distinct challenge
Rosie Parnell, UK | 57 to a student’s world-view, disjunction and its management become a pedagogical concern (Savin-Baden 2000). It is therefore argued that mechanisms should be in place in the design studio to proactively aid its effective management. This is addressed in the first year studio through discussions surrounding project reviews and more specifically through the provision of design studio reflection sessions.
Course Description: the Adopted Pedagogy and Educational Method
Course Structure The year one course is structured around a number of modules; half of which are studio-based and half of which are lecture-based. However, the credits allocated to each of these modules are heavily weighted towards the studio (80v40), reflecting the fact that the majority of the student’s time should be spent working on studio-based projects. There are two strands within each of the teaching settings: the studio modules comprise Communication and Architectural Design (the latter including some technical components); the lecture modules comprise Humanities and Science & Technology.
Studio Projects Studio work loosely focuses on the idea of ‘Dwelling’, in particular, the nature and significance of the ‘home’ as represented by the architecture of the house (University of Sheffield, 2002). By focusing on such a familiar cultural phenomenon, students can be encouraged to both recognise and also draw and build upon their prior experience. This is one of the key strategies employed to build confidence in students. Acknowledging students’ existing knowledge avoids problems associated with the ‘empty vessel’ approach: ‘by denying or mistrusting your own experiences a vacuum is created that may become filled with other people’s assumptions, regardless of their value’ (Morrow et al, 2003). It also encourages students to keep alive their memory of being an ordinary user - an important factor in the development of empathy and key principle of inclusive design. At the same time, studio projects challenge pre-conceptions and encourage exploration by revealing the rich and complicated matrix of human situations embodied in the idea of home. In order to instil motivation and build confidence the studio is constructed to offer a pluralistic learning environment. The projects expose the range of ideas from which architecture can develop and the way in which the resultant architectures can be valued in different ways by different people and at different times. A variety of voices is, therefore, heard and students from all points on the creativity/reality spectrum are given an opportunity to identify their strengths. The approach is reinforced through use of peer review, group-working and in certain projects, the introduction of ‘others’ into the studio. These mechanisms serve to challenge the view that only tutors can judge the value of the work produced. Students are offered the opportunity to work with Diploma students during a ‘live’ project at a very early stage in their course. This again reflects the value placed on collaborative working and peer learning. Each semester there is also a research project which is carried out in groups over the course of the semester. These projects introduce students to research and presentation skills, while exposing them to a variety of architects and architectural precedents.
Studio Assessment The pluralistic approach demands what may be seen by some as alternative assessment procedures. If students are to be encouraged to develop a variety of routes in the design process then these processes need to be valued through the assessment criteria. There is also a need to be consistent and reinforce the message that ‘other’ voices are valued. There is a continued interest in the relationship between assessment in general and the dichotomous relationship between reality and creativity. Assessment undoubtedly contributes to sustained creativity, since
58 | Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture for many it is an extrinsic source of motivation. This may not be the ideal sort of motivation, but it is important to provide adequate forms of assessment to avoid leaving students feeling confused, demotivated and lacking confidence. Formative assessment is separated from summative assessment to help ensure that the reviews are seen as places to learn rather than to be judged. Reviews potentially play an important role in the development of critical skills. Traditional review formats are used, but peer reviews and alternative peer feedback approaches, at certain points in the course, render a formal ‘crit’ unnecessary. These alternative approaches proactively engage students in the critical process and encourage them to value their own work. At the extreme, one project is not summatively assessed at all.
Lectures The content of the lecture courses is designed to unfold from general ideas and concepts towards more specific concerns. The approach aims to encourage cross-fertilisation and an increasing awareness of the relevance of theoretical and abstract ideas, in both humanities and technical subjects, to the practical activity of designing and making. Where appropriate lecture modules are assessed through integrated studio project work in an effort to reinforce the links between learning in the lecture theatre and learning in the studio.
Workshops The studio projects are also complemented by a series of workshops. Since representation and communication of design ideas is a key strand in the studio work, many of the workshops focus on building skills in these areas. There are also workshops in basic IT skills, library skills and sustainability, with further emphasis on communication through ‘groupworking’ and ‘meet the client’ workshops. Further workshops are offered in relation to some specific studio projects.
Design Studio Reflection While individual and group tutorials, standard and peer reviews all potentially encourage reflection, a series of peer discussion groups is constructed to proactively aid students in managing disjunction. These ‘design studio reflection sessions’ are conducted at intervals through the year, facilitated by a member of staff who does not otherwise teach in the first year design studio. They provide an opportunity for students to step back from specific project details and critically reflect on process and contextual issues (Parnell, 2001). This potentially results in greater student understanding and critical awareness of the context of both architectural production and education. Also provided is an opportunity for the facilitator to observe the effects of the programme on student learning. Through small group discussion the facilitator hears and discusses the views and experiences of individual students and compares these to the intended educational aims. Key findings can then be fed back to the teaching staff.
Extra Activities A field trip generally takes place in the first semester. This permits exploration of a different city in Britain, the focus of which will depend on the city itself. Perhaps most importantly, the year group is able to get to know each other in another context while focused on architectural (and social) pursuits. There may be additional day trips to various sites as time and funds allow. There is a vibrant programme of inter-level optional events that take place within the school – many of which are organised by the students themselves. There is a series of talks by visiting practitioners, research seminars by departmental staff and visiting speakers and the whole school event. The latter adopts a different theme annually and takes place over a two-day period, incorporating talks, events, workshops and social gatherings.
Rosie Parnell, UK | 59 The Architectural Design exercise(s) the students work on
The descriptions presented here focus on the studio design projects, their associated workshops and formative evaluation methods.
P1 Home Truths The first project asks student to work in groups to design and build a model of a house for themselves, as a group, to live in on a site in Sheffield. While the location and the family group are new, the day to day problems that need to be solved are familiar: sharing, individuality, eating, sleeping, relaxing etc. hence the students are asked to start with what they know. Following the design, students are asked to reflect on the process they have been through and identify all the things they feel they need to learn to be an architect. Students, therefore, in the first week of their study, define their own curriculum for a school of architecture. This is the first step in encouraging students to recognise what they already know and to identify their own individual learning portfolio. Sharing the outcomes leads to a vibrant debate about the nature of learning in a school of archi- tecture.
P1: ‘Home Truths’ (week one, group work) discussion: exposing the curriculum
P2 Designers, Kings and Assemblers Project two has two key stages. The first week is spent designing an object that the individual student needs in their life. This is to be built from a standard sheet of cardboard, a sample of which is provided at the beginning. By the end of week one each design should be represented by a set of drawings, which can be used by someone else to construct the object. The second week sees the students move from being designers to assemblers. Each assembler is given another student’s drawing and asked to make the object. The assemblers are asked to mark up the drawings with any missing information and are allowed to ‘call the designers to site’ to discuss changes. While the first week is typical of traditional studio projects, week two has ‘the smell of practice’ – fraught, hectic and demanding negotiation skills (Morrow et al. 2003). It is this week that demands students - perhaps those who might have traditionally succeeded after week one - to acknowledge their design flaws and to work with someone else to come up with a better solution. The best
60 | Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture P2: ‘Designers, Kings and Assemblers’ (2 weeks) week two: ‘the smell of practice’
results tend to flow from this kind of collaboration. On completion, each designer is asked to complete a questionnaire in which the assembler’s views on the drawings, method of assembly and design are recorded. The structure of the project engages students in critical assessment throughout the process. The project closes with the sharing of designs and processes through small group discussions which centre on the architect’s responsibility to integrate the processes of design, representation and construction.
P3 Room Archaeology Room Archaeology is about observation and representation. Students are encouraged to think about space and place through the analysis and representation of a room in the city. The first task, working in groups, is to represent the room through conventional architectural drawings. The group then attempts to understand and interpret the space and its meaning, ascribed through: history and memory, temporality and use, material, texture, sound and light etc. The challenge is to find a means to represent these layers - both to communicate them and also to further expose them. Workshops support this process, with students opting for one of a number of options, each exploring space and its representation in a different way. Workshops have included the following themes: the body and its movements defining and reflecting space; animating inanimate objects to animate space; human scale and costume as a response to built form; P3: ‘Room Archaeology’ (3 weeks, group a video artist’s take on space; sound music architecture; work) factors defining space, relationship and using urban geography techniques to map space. between representation and understanding
Rosie Parnell, UK | 61 P4 Space for a Client At the end of the first semester there is a traditional integrated project in which the students are asked to design a domestic scale space for a client and specific activity. The influence of site, form and real clients are exposed. A range of people from outside the school act as clients: ‘This rare event in a 1st year design studio is believed to bring contradictions and confusion into the workplace. We, however, build discussion around this confusion, in the belief that the development of the necessary skills to mange and negotiate solutions with clients must begin as early as possible.’ (Morrow et al, 2003) An important part of this project is the brief-building stage. A number of students take part in a specially devised communication workshop. These students then inform their group’s strategy for meeting and questioning the client in order to build a brief.
P4: ‘Space for a Client’ meeting clients, making a brief, influence of site
The students then work individually for two weeks to develop designs and are asked to use the techniques explored in P3 as design tools. Emphasis is placed on exploiting a range of representation methods appropriate for communicating with the clients. Initial design ideas are presented to the clients and feedback gained. At this point the site is introduced. This artificial delay allows students to see the impact of the site on their design and vice-versa. A further two weeks are spent working on the final proposal, primarily through models. The final review takes a traditional format with staff and peers offering feedback. Summative assessment is based on proficiency in the following areas: appropriate response to client; development of spatial relationships accommodating person and activity; development of internal and external volume and form; appropriate response to site; effective methods of representation.
P5 Covering Space Covering Space entails building a model of a short span paper canopy with uncomplicated functional requirements. The student’s attention is focussed on the physical properties of a material (paper) and the implications that they have on form and structure. The project also highlights the limitations imposed by scaling down and aims to develop an understanding of model-making: as a creative exploratory process; as a working tool; as a method of understanding the structural behaviour of materials; and as a means of presenting ideas.
62 | Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture Students are asked to submit all working models, a final 1:5 scale model and a model or 3D drawing of a typical joint at full size. The narrow focus and deliberately manipulated format of the project is designed to engage students in a critical assessment process throughout, encouraging them to value their own work. The core of this project is therefore self- reviewing with no formal crit. The submitted work is summatively P5: ‘Covering Space’ design through materials, design through assessed by tutors using the criteria play (photomontage)P5: ‘Covering Space’ design through materials, of design, tectonics, representation design through play (photomontage) and process. Following submission, students are asked to represent their design, in-situ, using photomontage. As a final twist, this image is reviewed in a more traditional process, by visiting critics alongside peers and tutors. This review shifts the focus to the formal aesthetic value of the images as archite- ctural/sculptural objects in a place and hence an entirely opposite set of values is introduced. With few exceptions, this review has seen the work with lower grades gain the most praise and vice-versa. Perhaps most valuable is the discussion that ensues, focusing on how work is valued under different conditions. Such discussions, in which values are questioned and usually hidden agenda are made explicit, are a feature of this studio.
P6 Four Days on the Outside At this stage in the year the students are exposed to an intense yet pressure free week of workshops outside the studio. The project is not summatively assessed in an attempt to free students from the pressure of achieving (which for some can act as a distraction from learning). The workshops encourage more interaction between the University and the city, being located in various urban venues. Workshops vary each year, but have included small ‘live’ projects with/for local organisations, the building of a P5 structure at 1:1, construction with artists tackling issues such as spatial politics, work with Diploma students addressing issues of commodities and value within architectural processes and website design to disseminate the activities of the four days. These activities reflect on wider readings of architecture and the built environment. They are intended to help focus creativity, developing the critical analytical skills that ultimately enable a personal design methodology to emerge.
P6: 4 DAYS……on the outside."breaking down the walls of a school of architecture."
Rosie Parnell, UK | 63 P7 A House of Sorts The final project of the year is a 6 week integrated project to design a transgenerational, two unit piece of accommodation. The building provides a domestic space for two independent but related households: a single, working parent household and her retired parents. The students are asked to seek innovative solutions to often conflicting conditions of domestic living: inside/outside, communal/ individual, public/private. As well as being domestic, the building also has a public information function within its park setting. To inform the project there is a presentation by a member of staff who is an expert in designing for older people. A group of babies and toddlers have in past also been invited into the studio to meet a sub-group of students. Final submission requirements include process drawings and models, a design submission (to be agreed with tutors on an individual basis) and a technical submission to include plans, elevation and a sketch constructional section through an external façade. The project also acts as a vehicle to test learning in lecture-based science and technology modules. The students, therefore, also produce sound, light and colour studies of their design and attend a construction workshop on the detailed design of an opening.
P7: ‘A House of Sorts’(6 weeks) Sustainability: social and site strategies
The length of this project permits interim reviews as well as final. In response to student feedback, however, the final review takes place seven days in advance of the final portfolio submission and assessment to enable students to act on feedback. The review has two student groups, each with around eight members, and two tutors are present throughout. One group acts as the reviewees while the other acts as the reviewers. The reviewees present their work, one after another and then leave the room. The reviewers and staff then have a closer look at the work and decide upon their response and feedback. Once the students have delivered their feedback staff support or supplement this, taking care to avoid repetition. The staff also help each student to identify one area to work on to improve the scheme over the coming week. Roles are reversed and the process repeated. This review structure is likely to be more effective than most traditional reviews, permitting students more time to evaluate work and encouraging them to develop their critical skills. This in turn means that the review is more likely to be a valuable learning experience rather than an opportunity to be judged. This, we hope, describes the first year in the studio as a whole. The assessment criteria reflect the value placed on process and response to user needs as well as the more traditional criteria of integrated design, response to site, tectonics and representation.
Questions related to the difficulties encountered by the teacher in running the course
There is no doubt that the studio succeeds in being a pluralistic learning environment, providing an opportunity for students to explore many different design processes and to hear and respond
64 | Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture to many different voices. The success of this pluralism is reflected in the fact that there is no standard mark profile over the course of the year. Different students shine in different projects. In particular, the assessment of P5 has shown a distinct reversal in the fortunes of students. This raises some interesting questions about the traditional foci of student projects and methods of evaluation. This studio is founded on the belief that creative engagement with reality, despite its challenges, enriches rather than impoverishes design. In order to develop the ‘expertise’ and ‘motivation’ to sustain this creative engagement it is argued that this process of engagement must begin in first year. There is no evidence in student work that this engagement with reality impoverishes design. The general level of creativity exhibited in the students’ work astounds the year tutors annually. We do not claim to get it right every time: our approach to involving users in the studio is something which has evolved overtime. Simply introducing reality does not automatically support creativity. In the early stages of this course it was apparent that for many students there was a lack of cognitive link between the integrated building design projects and other perhaps more exploratory projects. This has been addressed and improved upon each year, so that tutorials encourage these links and the project programmes now make explicit the requirement for one to inform the other. There still potentially remains the problematic view that the integrated building projects are the ‘proper’ projects while those that do not involve designing buildings are ‘arty’ or simply fun. Tutors strive to support students in discovering the value of all projects. The way that projects are introduced and the discussions that ensue from the written project programmes are important in catalysing the students’ responses. There will always be times when the tutors feel the project framework has been made explicit, but the students are left in the dark. However, the questioning and critical ethos of the studio and specific vehicles, such as the design reflection sessions, permit students to voice concerns and be heard. In terms of feedback, there is certainly scope to explore further alternative approaches to formative assessment – other review formats that might encourage student participation and the development of critical skills. Would these perhaps negate the traditional ‘crit’ format altogether? This studio, with its diverse range of activities, its engagement with different groups and individuals from outside the University, its range of review and feedback techniques, is a labour and time intensive approach. It places high demands on the staff involved, especially the year coordinator(s). The organisation that is demanded is far greater than that for a ‘traditional’ first year studio approach and there is no doubt that a traditional approach would be far easier. On top of all of these demands, there are two dual courses of architecture with landscape and engineering respectively that must be also be integrated into the timetable of activities. With large (potentially increasing) student numbers and the parallel research demands on staff, one may question whether such a labour intensive approach is realistic. However, the distribution of tasks among the part-time staff team has seen the year coordinator’s load lighten and it is hoped that this will represent a sustainable approach. Perhaps the most successful aspect of the studio is the general policy to expose and make explicit any agendas that may usually lay hidden. Rather than isolating architecture and the students’ experience of ‘design’ from the messy aspects of society and politics, environment and economy, this studio embraces contextual issues. These issues by their very nature immediately question ‘Architecture’ and its position. Projects are constructed so as to allow conflicting voices to emerge, but more important are the vital discussions that students, staff and others engage in following such conflicts. No one is there to provide ‘the answer’; instead the students, through their participation, develop extremely high levels of critical skills which have been commented upon by tutors each year. These skills are further developed through the design reflection sessions and through the structured self- and peer-review processes. Finally, to return to motivation and its close relative - enjoyment. It should be noted that this critical pedagogy has led to a lively, critical and enjoyable environment (see fig X). From experience we can confidently claim that the first year studio reflects what Dutton describes as ‘the creation of a space where students can come to voice and be empowered by what they say, singularly, and collectively’. (Morrow et al 2001) Our thanks go to Ruth Morrow, the principal architect of this course.
Rosie Parnell, UK | 65 Level 1 02/03 Year as a whole - enjoyment 45 40 35 30 25 20
frequency 15 10 5 0 very good good average poor very poor
Level 1 02/03 - Year as a whole - value 60
50
40
30
frequency 20
10
0 very good good average poor very poor
Students feedback showing high levels of enjoyment and value
N.B. This paper draws heavily on a publication called Building Clouds, Drifting Walls (see references). This booklet offers a critical appraisal of the year one design studio comprising contributions from individual members of the year one teaching team.
References Bottery, M. (2000) Values Education. In Bailey, R. (ed.) Teaching Values and Citizenship Across the Curriculum, London: Kogan. Boud, D. & Walker, D. (1998) Promoting Reflection in Professional Courses: the challenge of context. Studies in Higher Education 23(2). pp. 191-206 Dutton, D (1991) Architectural Education and Society: an interview with J.Max Bond, Jr. in T. Dutton (ed) Voices in Architectural Education. Cultural Politics and Pedagogy. New York: Bergin and Garvey. Dutton, D (1991) The Hidden Curriculum and the Design Studio In T. Dutton (ed) Voices in Architectural Education. Cultural Politics and Pedagogy. New York: Bergin and Garvey. Jarvis, P. (1987) Adult Learning in the Social Context. London: Croom Helm. Morrow et al. (2003) Building Clouds Drifting Walls: The University of Sheffield School of Architecture year one design studio: a critical appraisal. Bank of Ideas. Morrow, R., Parnell, R., Torrington, J., (2001) Reality Versus Creativity? Architectural Education Exchange, 2001. website: http://cebe.cf.ac.uk/aee/papers.html (last visited 10.11.03) Parnell, R. (2001) It’s Good to Talk: managing disjunction through peer discussion. Architectural Education Exchange, 2001. website: http://cebe.cf.ac.uk/aee/papers.html (last visited 10.11.03) Parnell, R. (2002) Knowledge Skills and Arrogance: educating for collaborative practice. In E Harder (ed) Writings in Architectural Education: EAAE Transaction on architectural education No 15. Copenhagen: EAAE. Savin-Baden, M. (2000) Problem-based Learning in Higher Education: untold stories. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University. University of Sheffield School of Architecture (2003) BA Architectural Studies, BA Architecture and Landscape Course Handbook. 2003-2004 Weisberg W. R. (1993) Creativity Beyond the Myth of Genius, New York: Freeman.
66 | Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture architectural designJ. Janssen HacihasanogluMayer SchouterdenOrhan enic lar agˇ Ludo Beril ÖzmenKoml Ç Milos Nur ic monitoring ■ HacihasanogluKrumlinde Murphy ocan Gilbert-ScottIsil PetrovJim B ■ Nick Heiner Jan Articulations■ Borislav d to Froyen Boyd¸ ilkaya sse Willey Novi Gary Yes ddre Hubert a say in g part 2 David Fausto Lojanicane Nese t are nin a at is to esig ter Posen Milan Pay s th s th d d rac J. Erem John Lökçe urse die an ha f co king ry c hing Omer Alsaç Sevgi s o r of stu in cto ac die a f th du d te Üstün epuydt ˇ stu ird ye ay o tro te the D ase r th w n in gra ng rs José Uludag es c d o of a in a inte alo ou lud on tion ga ore d ing h ynep inc sec ula re, a m ssifie ch f Ze art e rtic refo to a cla a es o d p at th e a e in are r of te on re s th ve, th elve n be ur typ 00 sec ho a ard a d ctio um fo at 1 een The w s h is se e n n in etw ents w ps to ourse nd try to th ivisio less th rses d e c d a xts in at is th bd ith ours b ou stu . Th un e te rt: th su s w g h th c eir first steture rofo . Th a ke a ourse chin ng cts th itec re p n ma rt c tea ng le olle to rch o esig e first p an o ith s lo h c ing a ey m ral d in th e c rns sh w ern hic ng ut th ctu ose rt w ce urse nc e w elo b hite s th a on s co co typ nts b rc s a this p ne c ern type forth de of a line e o nc ird stu me to it. In . Th r co th re is a d to sa ted urse the e e sse ca co e o urs, th urs. Th dre allo ted rs, th ho ho d sen ou hing ing dios a pre g h ac ach chin 0 te 0 te y stu tea d 20 0 sa an at 2 at is to 100 re th ies. mo dios, th d with l stu f stu rtica ars o ve rent ye diffe ona architectural designWr innen Sw Stefan Lada Wim Slyk Sasa gh Jan Pitzalis Balo obein Efisio Balazs Corneil monitoring R WebsterElin ■ Jean ∞lexopouloulfiore ■ Be PatestosHelena Advancements■ ∞lexandra tino tancour Pasquale Be n is Yegenogluli Costan Kucina Ana esig ral d part 3 Hüsnü Tentoka ctu ll- n hite e s a d Vanta Docent IvanShotton arc ly w ell a an Papadopoulos ow lative s w ead Lois Di Domenico e h a re es a h are inen Elizabeth rib ired ps a tion Kata esc qu tial issu o ste c e Giovanni at d c a g is se t is th Grant ady a of sp m to th a ain Juhani xts th lre ce e xts in rts, th ag des te ve a ien its th e te a ere Michael clu ha onsc erm us p h rt in ho d c h p es. Th revio guish 00 pa ts w an hic issu e p n 1 200 ird den ge ce w n th distin a nd e th stu led n esig in an ss th 0 a 00 Th t to ow erie ed d ose e c ith le n 10 an 2 ugh d kn exp nc s th it. W s w ee th ta rate sign dva es a d to urse etw ore bo de re a e lin ate co rs b ith m ela ate mo m lloc gth ou s w equ ate e sa rs a len ing h dio ad stig ng th ou ort ach stu ve lo ing h e sh te gth to in d a ch s: th ith t len ssifie a rse s w rea cla r of te ou ourse e g be s of c e c num e s, th ally th e typ our d fin thre g h n chin ours a tea g h chin ours. tea g h chin tea