SITE

Studio Outcomes and Assessment

Objectives

The pedagogical intent of this studio is twofold. The goal is to foster and develop the type of analytical skills essential to deciphering the complex relationship between architecture and the culture industry it perpetually serves, i.e., the skills essential to the formation and evaluation of design ideas and programs. It is also the goal to promote a conscious reevaluation of all the subconscious assumptions regarding spatial organization, the relationship of parts to whole, the inside to the outside, the particulars of volume and mass, solid and void, path and place, structure and material, ornamentation, proportion, scale, and others. This is with the intention of designing a building that silently speaks of the designer's ability to willfully manipulate the language of architecture by way of expressing a well researched, informed and analytically rigorous stance.

Outcomes

Given that architecture is necessarily and always a theoretical construct, a form of speech, or a cultural “myth” in the making, that every edifice inevitably speaks of a thesis regarding itself specifically (including the cultural conditions of its conception and production) and architecture broadly (including the cultural conditions of architecture’s conception and definition), students are required at outset of the studio to ask, research, and analyze not what patent ‘theory’ or idea should the assigned building speak of, but what arcane theory does its type historically hide under the rubrics of “function” or “practical” requirements? What myth, in other words, does the type refuse to acknowledge as theory in the name of practicality? To find an answer students are required to do extensive guided research in order to reconstruct the genealogy of the building type under investigation - the genealogy of forms inseparable from the genealogy of the institution served. They are required to critically analyze and decipher the formal/architectural framing process by which the given institution turns its theory/ideology into myths and passes them on as functional and practical givens. They are required to analyze and critically evaluate the historic role the type plays in establishing and effecting a given institutional/social order as the natural, and practical order of things.

The pedagogical aim of this investigation is neither to simply accept and promote a given theorem/myth nor to assume the luxury of rejecting it in favor of a different theorem/myth. Though one may choose to follow either route, it is essential to first understand what it is that one is opting to defend or supplant. From a pedagogical standpoint, the defense in either case cannot be or rather should not be blind, i.e., conducted expeditiously and unknowingly under the guise of functionality and/or practicality.

Before any question of choice, it is essential to decipher and understand the mechanics of the

particular and complex dialogue between form, function and ideology in the subject of study. To prevent the students from mere repetition - a strategy that is pedagogically unsound, in as much as it is not readily assessed whether or not the students have actually understood the theoretical complexities of the assigned building problem and are capable of willful manipulation of the language of architecture as opposed to repetition of its individual speech acts - students are asked not to promote the given institutional myth, i.e., cease to frame and present the myth as a natural given, or what is not fundamentally different, supplant the myth with another presented in the same guise. They are asked not to affirm but question, not to engage but to disarm. They are asked not to pose but to expose. In sum, they are asked to design a building that exposes the arcane theory of the type as myth (history), in place of disguising it as nature. They are asked to design a building that is at once familiar and alien, old and new. To this end, students are required to develop a distinct building program that encompasses their research and critical analysis of the building-type under investigation.

In turn, student are required to start their design process by analyzing and understanding the dual nature of each architectural element as both a function and an expression, i.e., in terms of what each does and what each says or is capable of expressing. They are given design exercises that require them to distinguish and explore how architecture communicates both statically and dynamically, in space and in time, i.e., passive and active reception. They are asked to distinguish between experiencing architecture, which is accumulative, and viewing it, which is totalizing as a mode of reception. They are asked to recognize and shape space as the fundamental experiential element of architecture as well as how to use form as a means to shaping space as opposed to an end in itself.

The above exercises are meant to prepare students for the translation and transformation of their thesis into a formal architectural strategy with a clear understanding of reading being context dependent and architectural expression being a question of relational composition at every scale, that no element, in itself, communicates anything. Also, architectural expressions are fundamentally experiential and evanescent and not concrete or verbal.

Students should come away from the initial design exercises with a clear understanding of the crucial interplay between analysis and design as two complementary processes. They should understand analysis as a process of moving from realization to abstraction (e.g., from form to principle, to intent) and design as a process of going from abstraction to realization (e.g., from intent to form). To this end, students are required to begin their design with site/context analysis understood as a process of moving from realization to abstraction, develop an abstract diagram that encapsulates their intent in response to the specifics of the site/context, and proceed from the abstract diagram to the full realization of their intent in programmatic form and space.

This process is intended to develop greater appreciation for compositional hierarchies leading to detail, i.e., understanding the role of primary, secondary and tertiary elements of the composition and clarification of intent in each subsequent layer of the hierarchy, i.e., how what is intended in one layer is clarified by the secondary layer of articulation, and so on down the line. It is also intended to develop greater appreciation for experiential progression and the significance of relationships.

Culture, it is important for the students to realize, primarily communicates through architecture experientially and not merely statically. Hence, the primary focus of the studio is on shaping space and as such human experience.

Student progress during the design phase is individually assessed and evaluated through critical dialogue and analytical evaluation of their work based on the above criteria during studio sessions.

The final presentation for the studio is treated as a design problem in its own right. Students are encouraged to explore the limits of the conventions that pertain to architectural presentation and thereby design a presentation that effectively communicates the issues grappled with throughout the term. The final presentation has to include, as a point of departure, the conventional plan and sectional drawings as well as a detailed Model. External jurors are asked to critically appraise and analytically evaluate the students’ progress and success in translating their thesis into a willful and detailed architectural composition that incorporates structure, light, and material as expressive elements of an experiential composition.

As an extension of the final presentation, students are required to submit a portfolio of their work. The portfolio is required to document their thesis/ideas, their design process/progress through the term, and the final project.

Performance Evaluation

Students’ performance in class is evaluated based on active participation in group discussions and reviews, vigorous exploration of the issues at hand, as well as analytical rigor and willful manipulation of the language of architecture as opposed to formal reiteration in the absence of a thorough comprehension of all the incumbent issues. The ultimate criterion is the successful completion and presentation of a project that realizes a coherent and rigorous thesis based on a comprehensive analysis of the nature of the assigned problem, as evidenced by the submitted portfolio. The evaluation of the latter is based on the criteria the invited critics are asked to use to evaluate individual projects.

The invited critics at the final review are asked to evaluate and comment on individual projects with deference to the following criteria:

Does the student have a clear objective/thesis?

Is the objective/thesis based on extensive research and a clear, critical understanding of the genealogy of the building-type?

Has the thesis been successfully translated into an experiential composition of form and space?

Were the spatial and experiential qualities the building ought to possess in order to address and embody the objective understood and effectively explained?

Is there evidence of an analytical and systematic approach to solving the assigned architectural problem?

Is there evidence of systematic and incremental progress from a 2D diagram, to 3D interpretation, to volumetric rendition, to multiple progressive experimentations, leading to the realization of the experiential qualities the building ought to have?

Does the building effectively address the wider context and the intermediate space from the outside?

Is there a clear and willful progression from the outside to the inside in keeping with the project’s objectives?

Has the interior space been designed to effectively address the project’s objectives? Does the project effectively address habitation and dwelling in both senses of the term?

Does the project evidence analytical rigor and willful manipulation of the language of architecture?

Does the final project realize a coherent and rigorous thesis based on a comprehensive analysis of the nature of the assigned problem?

Does the model effectively address materiality?

Does the presentation effectively communicate the various facets of the project?

In sum, the successful completion of the studio as outlined above requires effective speaking and writing skills, critical thinking skills, research skills, graphics skills, fundamental design skills, understanding of formal ordering systems, program preparation skills, and the critical use of precedents, among other skills.

UNIVERSITY-WIDE POLICIES 

Please review the following university-wide policies:

Student Code of Conduct

Accommodations

Academic Freedom

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

Attendance

Discrimination and Harassment Policy and Procedures

Grade Appeal Policy