Design dialogues. Ambiguity of “Design” within Architectural Studio (original) (raw)
Related papers
Investigating Design-Build as an Alternative Model for Architectural Education
The importance for the author of responsible educational architecture is unquestionable and the reasoning behind this cannot be explained much better than by the words used to introduce the Live Projects of the University of Sheffield School of Architecture: ”We see the Live Projects as important in educating architects of the future. Too often architectural education establishes a set of remote values which then go to define the profession; these centre on the myth of the architect as individual, male, hero-genius clinging to a set of ideals that are often removed from the concerns of the everyday world. In contrast, the Live Projects develop collaborative techniques and skills in com- munication and participatory practice – all approaches that are es- sential and absolutely relevant to the future practitioner” (University of Sheffield School of Architecture, 2012). Students in their second year of study at the Cape Peninsula Universi- ty of Technology recently completed an outdoor classroom at an under underprivileged multigrade school. The positive experiences and ex- citing learning opportunities presented by the project to the students, staff and school community have led to the initial establishment of a design-build unit within the department. Although each architec- tural school is situated within its own geographic, political and social context, there is the chance to learn from developing and established design-build programmes while being in the process of positioning the CPUT programme in the curriculum.
Design-Build: An Effective Approach for Architecture Studio Education
International Journal of Architectural Research: ArchNet-IJAR
Current architecture studios are missing an important phase in the education process, which is constructing the students’ conceptual ideas on a real physical scale. The design-build approach enables the students to test their ideas, theories, material selection, construction methods, environmental constraints, simulation results, level of space functionality and other important aspects when used by real target clients in an existing context. This paper aims to highlight the importance of using the design-build method through discussing a design project case study carried out by the Masters of Architecture design programme students at Beirut Arab University, who have built prototype units for refugees on a 1:1 scale.
Journal of Advance in Social Science and Humanities, 2017
The architectural design educational process is one of the most challenging and creative ones especially when dealing with sophomore students. The challenge in this case is relatively high amid the urge to deliver functional knowledge, spatial recognition as well as help the students explore what real meaning of architecture and creative spaces they are ready to embrace. The main challenge is how to deliver several issues related to creativity, form generation, design development as well as basics of structure and standards of functional use. This has to be implemented and delivered to the architecture students in a totalitarian and comprehensive method, in addition to leaving adequate space for each and every student to experiment and add his own values and backgrounds to the design process. Thus, the paper aims to explore and discuss an experimental design studio introduced in two consecutive studios tailored for sophomore architectural students based on a case study implemented by the author. The paper aims to introduce a method for introducing the design process to students through an inside out process which helps the students start their design education in a method which encourages creativity side by side with applying the basic standards. In order to explore this in a comprehensive approach, the paper will thoroughly discuss the process applied in both design studios, and analyze the process and development of six selected students work from both groups, with special analysis of the creativity of the selected material, the qualities of space and the reaction to context and function. This will be re-addressed in the shadows of a brief literature review of the introduction of architectural education to students. The paper concludes with a set of recommendations useful for designers and educators for improving the quality and process of architectural design education.
Can design processes constitute genuine forms of research? Of course they can. "Against and For Method" highlights exemplary cases of how studio architects teach architectural design, both with and without methodological and research approaches strictly in mind. This edited volume openly addresses deficiencies in studio teaching and proposes possibilities for integrating methodological approaches into teaching and practice. Contributions by leading scholars in architecture, plus interviews with five practicing architects who are studio professors at ETH Zurich, reveal the ways in which design concepts are considered, teased apart and passed along. The texts contributions and interviews intend to urge studio teachers to reflect on their methods and consider to what extent systematic and conceptually coherent approaches aid their students.
Constructing Agency: a design & build graduation studio architecture
In architectural design studio’s, we necessarily -and willingly- make abstraction of reality. During design processes and as end results students mostly produce representations of architectural intentions: drawings, models and texts. These processes serve as simulations of “real” architectural design processes. However useful this educational method has proven to be, it disadvantages and excludes topics that have become increasingly relevant in today’s everyday life and/or in contemporary architectural practice. This method inevitably reduces complexities. The environment is often trimmed down to only the physical surroundings: social, economic and cultural factors are easily neglected. Also the experiential dimension of built architecture is oversimplified by avoiding a real-life confrontation of architecture and its users in all its complexity and ambiguous, conflicting diversity. Making abstraction of reality in design processes demands problem-solving, deterministic strategies and consolidates the position of students/architects as knowing experts. It leaves little room for conflicts and contradictions, doesn’t allow for multiple truths to exist simultaneously, and doesn’t cope with changing and uncertain dynamics. Consequently, skills and competences such as negotiating, facilitating and aptly responding to uncertain, changing conditions are neglected. Representations by students do not represent a future reality but mainly communicate intentions. Everything that falls in the gap between intentions and reality -such as unexpected findings, unforeseen (dis)advantages, accidental qualities- is lost. In 2013, a master-studio architecture started at the Antwerp University that aims to explicitly deal with these topics. It confronts students with the diverse complexities and dynamics of contemporary (architectural) reality, stimulates them to rethink and experiment with design methods, and question the role of architecture -and of the architect- in contemporary society. Actually building architectural designs made by students for educational purposes would obviously be too expensive and time-consuming. So a laboratory situation had to be created, analogue to architecture but cheaper, faster and more flexible. The idea was to reduce the scale of a usual master-project in favour of heightened complexity by designing and building temporary constructions on a 1:1 scale. These architectural installations can simulate architecture in a compact, condensed fashion and as such offer freedom to experiment. Six master-students have started working last October in two groups of three students each on different projects, according to personal interests. They both aim to build a construction in public space in Antwerp in May 2014. One group is researching how bodily perception of architectural space through movement can lead to new focusses in the architectural discipline, especially concerning design-methodologies and the position/role of the designer. They have formed a design-collective with several professional dancers and a filmmaker. Through collective workshops they are experimenting with design-strategies and looking for alternative dynamic subject-oriented criteria as a basis of architectural design. The other group is researching how architecture can serve as a socio-cultural agent. They are working with a class of new -some illegal- immigrant youngsters (OKAN: Onthaal-Klas-Anderstalige-Nieuwkomers). These students are exploring the boundaries of architecture concerning social, intercultural and political impact, with a special focus on communication as an essential part of the design-process.
A First Year Architectural Design Studio Experience
abstract First year architectural design studio has a special and critical role in architectural education. Students get to face a new language which is quite different than they used to. This year generally forms their ideas about architecture. Revealing and improving creativity is one of the basic issues of overall architectural design education, but especially of the first year. Perception of three dimensional space and form should also be improved in an integrated way. So far many different techniques have been used and the question of in what way instructors can improve these skills has been posed. As a group of first year design studio instructors, we used four small design problems at the first semester, which are " Glass marble " , " Structure " , " Mount-Demount-Pack " , and " Module ". At the second semester the design problem concentrated on creating ideas about Suleymaniye both in urban and building scale. The aim of this paper is to discuss and criticize the process that has been experienced in the first year design studio in ITU Faculty of Architecture in 2005-2006 academic year. We believe that evaluation and self criticism can generate a feed back for the future of architectural education and the results can open up new ways of effective teaching. Keywords: architectural education, design studio, creativity, space, structure, materials.
This paper presents a learning, teaching and assessment instrument for undergraduate architectural studio instruction, developed in the Department of Architectural Technology of the Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT), Cape Town, South Africa. It explains a rational approach to architectural education, which is studio-, project-, process- and problem-based (Ellmers & Foley, 2007; Skinner, 2002; De la Harpe, Peterson, Frankham, Zehner, Neale, Musgrave & McDermott, 2009) and involves complex learning activities (Van Merriënboer, 1997). Students‟ dedicated and active participation is required to gain maximum learning benefit by developing a design proposal in response to a given project brief. This graphic instrument (Morkel & Voulgarelis, 2009) maps and manages the pragmatic constructivist didactic methodology by which it is underpinned by monitoring student participation and progress, facilitating assessment and enhancing student learning. It is called a “passport”, as without it there is no entry into the portfolio examination. The passport developed over time in response to a range of challenges presented in the undergraduate architectural studio. The authors aim to explain its value, application and relevance in terms of the prominent studio instructional themes identified in recent literature.
Thinking manifesto on basic design studios in architectural education
New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social Sciences, 2018
Design education delivery is reconsidered every semester from the first basic design course through to the final project class, and while there are diverse approaches to architectural theory worldwide, the problem of teaching architectural design is a continual question to educators, especially for design educators. Over different periods of time, very different approaches to design education have been pursued. These differing theories form the basis for architectural design education. Throughout this process, the history of design education has been shaped and it is important to be able to use the accumulation of knowledge from different fields within the context of 'architectural education'. When we consider the transformation of design education historically and the differing approaches today, such as the effects of changing theories, scientific-cultural sub-structures, transformed super structures and the ever-changing theories on architectural education, the design studio educators should incorporate the benefits of this diverse learned knowledge into the design studio education.