Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
17
27
A Delft Method
Willemijn Wilms Floet, THE NEDERLANDS
35
45
55
67
Drawing on Experience
Jo Odgers, Simon Unwin, UK
81
91
Part 2
107
Articulations
Tight fit: Loose fit - People, Place and Architectural Position
David Willey, Nick Gilbert-Scott, UK
119
125
133
143
153
159
167
177
191
201
211
223
229
Part 3
239
Advancements
A Multidisciplinary Approach
Hsn Yegenoglu, THE NEDERLANDS
249
255
vi
265
277
289
293
301
313
323
329
339
343
357
365
Strategic Initiatives
Elizabeth Shotton, IRELAND
375
381
vii
ix
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.
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?
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
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.
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
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
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
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).
Simon Beeson, UK | 11
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.
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 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
Working cardboard model, scale 1/50 of student P. V., theme: "Mystery of our ancestors" exhibition pavilion
for pictures.
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.
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
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
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.
Image 3
Image 4
Image 5
Image 6
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
Image 9
Image 10
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.
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
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:
Image 11
Image 12
Image 14
Ancient Covered Bazaars in Old Istanbul
A Delft Method
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).
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.
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).
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.
30 | A Delft Method
Overview
Part 0
week 1
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
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
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
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.
week 6
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
part 2
Settlement
week 10
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
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
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
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
week 19
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.
70
3
23
14
12
168
Compulsory
Number of Students
Number of Staff
Student/Staff ratio
Teaching weeks
Teaching hours per week
Total hours
- drawings
Interior of barnconstruction,
scalemodel1:20.Westcoast
building-tradition.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
- Neo-Classicism
- Utopias
- Industrial Revolution
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.
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.
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.
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!).
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
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
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:
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
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
P1: Home Truths (week one, group work) discussion: exposing the curriculum
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.
Rosie Parnell, UK | 61
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.
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.
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.
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
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
frequency
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
very good
good
average
poor
very poor
frequency
50
40
30
20
10
0
very good
good
average
poor
very poor
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.
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