You are on page 1of 74

19

n
atio
duc
ne
sig
l de
tura
tec
chi
f ar
rk o
wo
net
sub

: no
tion
uca
l ed
tura
itec
rch
na
so
tion
sac
tran

D
a n

n
g
i
s
e
d
l
a
r
g
i
u
s
t
c
e
e
t
d
i
h ral
c
r
a
g
ir n
ctu

e
t
i
h
c
ar

ture
c
e
t
chi
f ar
o
ls
hoo
c
s
ean
p
o
ur
in e
s
n
une
atio
Ant a
c
s
o
l
u
r
An
Ca
ed
ten
re
oao

o
t
i
n
mo

tin
an
nst
Co
or:
dit

a
o
J
Bra
e lf i
a uale B Otto
s
l
ydt
sq
nA
jorn
nt
epu oet
D
st n Pa d B
l

Gra
Jos ilms F hael ssen
ou eeso ry Boy
l
u
o
B
il
Mic J. Jan
Ga
ijn W
rne
xop Simon
Co Willem kan ka
n
le
a
n
i
a
c
l
r
r
E
o
d
h
ke
y G Jir Hu e
xan
log Jan B
i L
d
ao r Erem Kora
g
n
c
le zs Ba
i
i
v
l
lu

m
Se ers
r
ce Ome tt
a
o sanog er Kru ca
Bal ncou rozov s Con
dg
i
i
-Sc
B
a
o O tos
Bet aela r Lu enico ilbert aciha Hein Lojan
J
s
h
Mic agla i Dom Nick G rhan H lenic Milan Novi Pate sen
o
o
D
r
t
m
O
o
n
i
i
s
u
P
o
t
n
N
J.
n
ali
sK
Fau ostan
ada
yen
lu
van
rde entok
s
Milo asa L hy
C
e
i
Gio ert Fro sanog
l
t
a
u
T
S
p
z
o
r
l
t
a
l
b
a
i
n
h
t
Mu arne isio P o Sc
Hu acih aine ina
Van
im
t
f
P
H
i
Lud en
Isil ni Ka n Kuc er J Rosie ic E
ent
n
a
l
rov nefalk Swin ro Va
Juh ent Iva n May os
t
e
P
l
Wim essand Wrona
Doc l zme opou rislav a Ron
l
c
i
d
o
Ber Papa e B eroni n Slyk n A tefan
W
Ja Unwi y S
Lois Payn in
n
n
lle
n
e
Joh n Rob hotto Simo id Wi ilkaya
v
S
a
es
a

h
Y
e
g
D
t
J
be Uluda r
ese
a
z
N
i
e
l
t
E
u
nep ebs
Zey na W enogl
e
l
g
He Ye
n
Hs

s
idi
on
irid
Sp

Index
ix

Part 1
3

preface

Initiations
Origins: Introductory Studio Projects for the Study of Architecture
Simon Beeson, UK

13

Presentation of Architectural Design Studio Course


Michaela Brozov, Jir Hu rka, CZECH REPUBLIC

17

Basic Design: As an Introduction to Architectural Design


Koray Gkan, TURKEY

27

A Delft 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


dellArchitettura 1C"
Alessandro Valenti, ITALY

91

From Hell to Home


Weronica Ronnefalk, SWEDEN

Part 2
107

Articulations
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

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 dellArchitettura 1"


Fausto Novi, L

153

The BlueBox Intensive Course in Architectural Design


Heiner Krumlinde, GERMANY

159

"Happy Students Produce Better Work" An Experimental Approach


to Design Tutoring
Beril zmen Mayer, stn Alsa, 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
Jos 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 aglar, Zeynep Uludag, TURKEY

223

Atelier 3: Adventures of Architectural Design Experiences


in a Vertical Studio
Sevgi Lke, Nese Yesilkaya, TURKEY

229

Architectural Design Course at Prague Faculty of Architecture


Jan Bocan, CZECH REPUBLIC

Part 3
239

Advancements
A Multidisciplinary Approach
Hsn 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

A Civil 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 Europes 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

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 Subnetwork 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

g
n
i
r
ito
n
o
m
t1
r
a
p

n
g
i
s
e
d
l
a
r
u
t
c
s
e
t
i
n
h
c
r
tio
a

a
i
t
i
n
I

kan
G o
ay
Kor ceica Unwin
a
n
on
Hurk Luis C Simo
Jir
s
r
ov raaten Odge
roz
a B Otto B ll Jo
l
e
ha jorn arne falk
is, tudies
e
Mic
hat
B
P
es, t ear of s
sie Ronn
s
n loet
r
o
o
u
R
s
a
co hird y ogic
Bee ilms F nes eronic
t
tary
g
on
men n in the e peda ith the this
Sim mijn W s Antu ti W
le
e
u
w
h
r
n
e arlo
t
of asic
l
n
l
o
e
i
n
e
e
W oC
b
esig igat
ions
tanc logic
Val
ibut tural d invest cquain g. The s whose
r
t
Joa sandro
n
c
o
o
t
o
in
t
a
t
e
c
n
n
r
t
s
it
this
de
es
sig
de
firs
ch
e is
Ale
clud s to ar the rea ts their t of de d to stu bjectiv texts in ing
in
t
e
r
c
e
h
e
o
c
Th
pa cours ables tuden the a dress main
ing. of tea
f
s
first
n
d
y
The ductor t. This e to give issues o s are a d their n think mber e can :
n
u
ig
intro e lates pplied ctical course rting a e des the n ourse. W riterion n 200
o
h
a
at th egies a and pr t these just sta y and t rding t esign c o this c ore tha
t
t
o
l
a
i
is
d
a
c
m
v
a
h
gt
r
l
i
t
t
n
c
t
s
ac
tura ordin with
retic n is
da
atio
theo sificatio l educ design classifie rchitec rt acc ourses
a
a
a
clas itectur to the ciple, to this this p s and c
r
in
arch te them e, in pr icates urses in g hou
d
initia ion wer ool de es of co teachin
t
sec rs a sch two typ hat 200
hou guish h less t
distin rses wit urs.
o
Cou hing h
teac

Origins:
Introductory Studio Projects
for the Study of Architecture

Simon BEESON
Edinburgh College of Art
Edinburgh
Scotland
United Kingdom

60
3
20
10
10
100
Compulsory

Number of Students
Number of Staff
Student/Staff ratio
Teaching weeks
Teaching hours per week
Total hours

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 years Academic
Portfolio, necessary to proceed to Level 2 or graduate with a Certificate of Higher Education.
The aims for level 1 are:
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.
An understanding of the main theories, principles and concepts of the discipline of architecture.
Familiarity 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:
Awareness of basic architectural elements and issues that inform their disposition.
Awareness of spatial and material qualities of interior space and exterior envelope.
Awareness 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):
Awareness of characteristics of the architectural design process.
Awareness of basic architectural elements and issues that inform their disposition.
Awareness 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
students 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 years 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 childrens 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. Pr 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 BROZOV
Jir HURKA
Czech Technical
University of Prague,
Faculty of Architecture
Prague
CZECH REPUBLIC

24
2
12
28
4
112
Compulsory

Number of Students
Number of Staff
Student/Staff ratio
Teaching weeks
Teaching hours per week
Total hours

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 students 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 Meisses 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. Zemanek: While I am
descending below the ceiling of a cave the
entrance opening above, seen against the sky,
becomes just a small point of light. I feel as if
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.

Working cardboard model, scale 1/50 of student


S. U., theme: space for Durrenmatts play Physics.

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 foundation 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 Brozov, Jir Hu rka, CZECH REPUBLIC | 15

dual antonyms: earth-air, openness-closeness, lightdarkness, 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 Lbus, 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 "instruments" 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 accompanying lectures, such as on "Geometry in Classical and
Modern Architecture", "Structures under the Earth", "Basic
Space Types and Their Representatives", "Colour in
Architecture", etc.

Working cardboard model, scale 1/50 of


student J. V., theme: inspiration from OBriens
book Third policeman

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 architectural means is also a contribution to the school-wide
discussion on the focus of the curricula in the first year
of study.

16 | Presentation of Architectural Design Studio Course

Basic Design:
As an Introduction
to Architectural Design

Koray GKAN
Istanbul Kltr University,
Department of Architecture
Istanbul
TURKEY

40
2
20
15
8
120
Compulsory

Number of Students
Number of Staff
Student/Staff ratio
Teaching weeks
Teaching hours per week
Total hours

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 Kltr 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:
Primarily a form of inquiry and reaction to environment,
An attitude of individual brains,
An inquiry into environmental structures (basically physical but conceptual too),
An inquiry into the foundations and settings of personal expression and reaction to the
environment around us,
Concerned with visual expressive forms (and their functions) and requires intensive rethinking
of our attitude to "realism" or practicality,
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),
Cultivating individual inquisitiveness about environmental phenomena,
Fosters 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
Rhythm of Lines
Light

Dots Center
Rhythm of Shapes
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 designers own vision, all other associations are
supplementary. The designers 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 periods
contemplated.7

Koray Gkan, 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:
Each persons 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,
Each problem situation requires seeking always-individual solutions,
It emphasizes intuitive and analytical work with materials in compliance with formative
principles,
Students primary concerns are visual response to what is taking place around their
environment,
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 Kltr 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


My Home is a Balloon

Various Activities of my Family at Home and in the


Neighborhood

Image 5

Image 6

Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students


Folks Disembarking a Passenger Boat

Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students


A Town ViewThroughmyWindow

Koray Gkan, 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


Historical Buildings at Golden Horn

Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students


Deterioration of Environment at Golden Horn

Image 9

Image 10

Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students


Pedestrian Crossing over a Busy Street

Environmental Issues as Perceived by Students


A Cross-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 Gkan, 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 Studios 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 Leaders 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, McGrawHill, Inc., 1992), p.7.
9. K. Gkan, Mhendislik ve Mimarlk Egitiminde evre Bilinci-Gren Akllar, Dsnen Gzler (TMMOB Mhendislik
ve Mimarlk Egitimi Sempozyumu, MMO Yayn No: 232, 1999), pp.56-68.
10. R. S. Feldman, Elements of Psychology (International Edition, University of Massachusetts- Amherst, McGrawHill, Inc., 1992), 138-139.
11. Gkan, 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. Gkan, Mimarlk Egitiminde evre Bilinci gretisi (Mimarist, Yl: 1, Say: 2, 2001), pp.137-142.
18. B. Denel, Temel Tasarm ve Yaratclk (O.D.T.U., Mimarlk Fakltesi, Ankara, 1981), pp.20-21.
19. Gkan, 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
Navy Headquarter by Golden Horn

Bulgarian Church by the Water Front

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 Gkan, TURKEY | 25

Image 14
Ancient Covered Bazaars in Old Istanbul

26 | Basic Design: As an Introduction to Architectural Design

A Delft Method

Willemijn Wilms FLOET


Delft University of Technology,
Faculty of Architecture
Delft
THE NETHERLANDS

300
20
15
20
8
160
Compulsory

Number of Students
Number of Staff
Student/Staff ratio
Teaching weeks
Teaching hours per week
Total hours

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 (wellreasoned 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

A start 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.
A start 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--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

A well-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.
A plan 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 finetuning 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
1 For more information, see www.bk.tudelft.nl
2 Twice 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
3
23
14
12
168
Compulsory

Number of Students
Number of Staff
Student/Staff ratio
Teaching weeks
Teaching hours per week
Total hours

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


fishery village of Sula.

First section, Sula.

First plan, Sula.

Bjorn Otto Braaten, NORWAY | 37

First sketch model,


made in 15 minutes.

From the sketch model


workshop.

Structures in the landscape, 1:1 scale

38 | Structure: Space and Form

First sketch model, made in 15 minutes.


(Visual Communication Workshops)

Scalemodel 1:10. UBO 02, Sondresen/Ruud

Section 1:10. UBO 02,


Sondresen/Ruud

Interior. Scalemodel 1:10. UBO 02,


Sondresen/Ruud

Cabin at the Norwegian


westcoast, scalemodel1:20.
Tommy Wilhelmsen/Saunders

Construction for the drying of


fishnet, Northern Norwegian
building tradition. Scalemodel
1:20.

Interior of barnconstruction,
scalemodel1:20.Westcoast
building-tradition.

Sami-hut. Northern Norwegian


building tradition. Scalemodel
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 workinggroup 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 scaleindicators 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 years course had to be taken out, because of a very restricted timeschedule. 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
2
13
32
9
288
Compulsory

Number of Students
Number of Staff
Student/Staff ratio
Teaching weeks
Teaching hours per week
Total hours

The course we are referring to is the first years 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:
General knowledge of the contemporary Architectural concepts, ideas, theories and skills;
Basic knowledge of traditional and erudite composition; proportion, canonic geometry,
harmony.
Basic notions on shape, scale, space and dimensioning; the design process.
First approach to the basic architectural vocabulary; the typology of spaces.
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 trum, 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 well 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 socalled period of Enlightenment. From now-a-days brilliance to its lightening start. The idea is, you
understand better whats happening today, if you go back to todays immediate origins.
The structure of the THA course goes as follows:

Who is outside looking in

The Poetic of Space

Luis Conceicao, Joao Carlos Antunes, PORTUGAL | 47

The non-built Beauty and the building of spontaneity


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
Analysis, characterization and taxonomy of the poetic constants in architectural creation
throughout time: analysis, characterization and taxonomy of that which translates whats
perennial in Man, by inherence and specificity to his condition and nature.
- Geometry
- The aesthetic values
Unity / Contrast / Symmetry
Proportion and Canon
Style
Matter
Surface
Colour
Function
Is Architecture a technological art; an artistic technology; or both?
- Architecture as a discipline
- Technologic dimension of architectural design
- The architectonic method:
The designing steps
The programs
The clients
- The great Treatises and their writers
Space structuring and volume composition as necessity and circumstance translators, but
also as builders of other inner circumstances.
- Composition
The dominant level / The plan
Free/built space
Reading, analysis and critics of architectural programs.
The architectural method
Proposals / Postulates / Confirmation / Postulates / Proposals
Structure / Model / Type
Volume / Space
Static / Dynamic
From ideological models to the design system
- The speech of Power, its typologies and manifestations / representations
- The city / the country
The territory of Architecture
Other territories
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 theyre able to present "by heart" the shape theyve made
in plasticine, another item is introduced to the exercise: composition. Everything has to be redrawn 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 youve 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 students 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 ?
Whats 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?". "Whats 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


Platos 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 dont 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 boats 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:
materiality charge, mass, building system, supporting materials.
distributive system entrance, horizontal and vertical circulation, typology;
skin outside / inside relationship; light / shade; plasticity, marginality;
geometrical support - symmetry, axiality, ruling plan, canonical support;
sematology - vocabulary, language, additional expression;
scenography urban insertion, context, scenic effects (assertion, neutrality, generative
capacity;
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 whats
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 exams 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 Dinmica da Forma Arquitectonica, Editorial Presena, 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 - Espao, Tempo e Arquitectura
PEVSNER, Nicolau - Pioneiros do Desenho Moderno
RAGON, Michelle - Historia da Arquitectura e da Urbanstica 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 no uma rvore
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 Contradio na Arquitectura
ZEVI, Bruno - Saber ver a Arquitectura
BENEVOLLO, Leonardo - Introduo Arquitectura
KAHN, Louis - Declarao sobre a Arquitectura - Rev. Zodiac n 17
LE CORBUSIER, Jean Pierre Jeanneret - O Modulor
NORBERG-SCHULTZ, C. - Intentions in Architecture *Objectivos na Arquitectura*
RUSKIN - As sete lmpadas da Arquitectura
Treaties
ALBERTI, Leon Baptista - A Arquitectura
PALLADIO, Andrea - Os quatro livros da Arquitectura
SERLIO, Sebastian - O quarto livro e o livro extraordinrio
VITRUVIO - Os dez livros da Arquitectura
Critics of Architectural Literature
ECO, Umberto - Obra aberta
ECO, Umberto - Para uma anlise semntica 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
7
15
24
14
336
Compulsory

Number of Students
Number of Staff
Student/Staff ratio
Teaching weeks
Teaching hours per week
Total hours

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:
To develop imaginative thinking, from the articulation of abstract ideas to the creative
manipulation of materials;
To encourage an awareness of the diversity of architectural ideas and participation in critical
evaluation and debate;
To initiate an understanding of the relationship between creative intentions, their representation
in drawings and models, and the reality of built works of architecture;
To develop graphic dexterity, model-making and computer skills and the ability to communicate
ideas verbally;
To 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;
To begin to understand the potential value of working, co-operatively, with colleagues; the
juxtaposition of individual and team;
To 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 technicians 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 someones 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 semidetached), is far more challenging. Weisberg (1993) points out that the way to increase and
sustain peoples 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 selfesteem.
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 students 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 students
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 peoples 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 architecture.

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
students 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 assemblers 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 architects 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;
a video artists take on space; sound music architecture;
and using urban geography techniques to map space.

P3: Room Archaeology (3 weeks, group


work) factors defining space, relationship
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 groups 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 students 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 selfreviewing with no formal crit. The
submitted work is summatively
assessed by tutors using the criteria
of design, tectonics, representation
and process.

P5: Covering Space design through materials, design through


play (photomontage)P5: Covering Space design through materials,
design through play (photomontage)

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 architectural/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 DAYSon 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 faade. 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 coordinators 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

frequency

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
very good

good

average

poor

very poor

Level 1 02/03 - Year as a whole - value


60

frequency

50
40
30
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) Its 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

g
n
i
r
ito
n
o
m
t2
r
a
p

n
g
i
s
e
d
l
s
a
r
n
u
t
c
o
e
i
t
t
i
h
a
c
l
r
a

u
c
i
t
r
A

en u
l
nss
J. Ja sanog
a er
n
h
i
e
ac
ay
erd
out rhan H en M nic
Sch
O l zm mle aglar
o
o
i
Lud oglu
Ber ilos K Nur
M y
an de
tt
s
o
a
c
n
h
h
i
rt-S Haci ruml trovic Murp ocan
K
e Jim
il
B
ilbe
an
k G n Is einer islav P
c
i
N oye
r
H
d ya J
o
o
y
B
o
r
i
y
B
ed t
F
a
v
e
ill
ress y in
ert to No nica Gary Yesilk
d
W
b
d
u
s
d
a
a
i
H Fau
g
e
sa
Loj
ne
Dav sen
Nes
t are is to signin
ilan Pay
s tha es that nd de racter
e
s
J. Po r Erem M John Lke
r
a
i
a
e
ch
cou tud
ng
ng
gi
Om n Alsa ydt
s of r of s hinki ctory achi
Sev
udie ird yea ay of t introdu ated te the
t
s
st Depu dag
w
r
g
se r th

u
o
of a in an integ alon ours
s ca
Jos ep Ul
lude second ulation re, aga more ssified ching h f
n
c
y
n
i
e
Z
rt
he e artic herefo into a are cla of tea ypes o
d pa at t
e
t
r
t
con ho are ards th have, to delv section umbe in four hat 100 een
e
s
The ents w ps tow ourses nd try in this is the n ivision less t rs betw rses
stud r first ste . The c ound a e texts rt: that a subd ses with ng hou th cou s
e
f
thei itectur re pro sign. Th first pa make rt cour teachi ng leng collect to
o
arch they m ural de e in the we can rns sho rse with erns lo which longing
e
c
t
but rchitec as thos is part conc ns cou e con rth type ents be
e cer
p
h
t
o
y
a
s
n
f
t
ud
f
e
o
n
I
o e lin
is a
to st
con third
The
o it.
sam ated t ourse. other rs, the rs. There ressed
e
c
c
u
allo ented urs, th ing ho ng hou ios add
o
pres hing h 0 teach teachi ay stud
teac and 20 hat 200 t is to s
100 more t ios, tha tudies.
d
with ical stu ars of s
vert rent ye
diffe

g
n
i
r
ito
n
o
m
t3
r
a
p

n
g
i
s
e
d
l
s
a
t
r
u
n
t
e
c
e
t
i
m
h
e
c
arc

n
a
v
d
A

a
ron
nen
nW
win
a
S
f
e
St ada
Wim
L
h
Slyk Sasa zalis
log
n
a
a
t
i
J
u
il
o P alazs B r
i
o
l
s
n
i
i
f
u
rne
obe exopo re E s B ebste lin Co
R
n
l
E
W
Jea dra Belfio atesto lena ur
He nco
an uale ino P
u
l
x
g
e
l
t
a
is
eno li Pasq ostan cina a Bet
ign
u
n
Yeg
des
l
n entoka oulos o C Ivan K n A
s
a
r

tu ellc
t
H ta T
op
itec
w
eni ocen Shotto
s an d
D
Van Papad i Dom
arch latively s well a ad an
h
t
w
e
o
e
D
s
a
h
r
ahe are
e
a
es
Loi anni ainen Elizab
v
t
scrib quired tial issu o steps section the
e
d
Gio ni Ka ant
c
a f spa
at
to g in this that is ain
r
a
o
ts th ady
em
Juh ael G
s tex ve alre cience mits th e texts s parts, ere ag
h
e
c
d
i
h
s
a
r
M
on
pe
iou
ish h
nclu o h
s. T
art i nts wh e and c which n issue he prev istingu an 100 d 200
p
d
n d ss th
an
dg
in t
0
thir
nce esig
tude
The ht to s knowle xperie ced d s those t. We ca with le en 100 than 20
e van
i
g
e
s
d
a
u
e
n
e
o
w
e
r
t
s
t
s
t
a
g
t
ad
mo
our s be
line
ora desi
ted
elab quate te more e same alloca ength c g hour ios with
l
s
n
d
r
a
e
i
h
t
u
t
r
u
h
g
d
t
i
a vest long g ho
sho teac gth s
to in sified a teachin rses: the es with eat len
s
s
f
u
r
a
o
l
o
u the gr
c ber
of c e co
num e types ours, th d finally
thre hing h ours an
teac hing h ours.
teac hing h
teac

You might also like