ARCHITECTURAL COMPETENCE & DESIGN IMAGINATION
It is my view that the main objective of a professionally accredited program is to find a critical interplay between two spheres of knowledge production and dissemination: “Architectural competence” on the one hand and “Design imagination” on the other. Simply put, the first is to offer the students an opportunity to acquire an understanding of the rules of architecture: the laws of nature, the known constraints, and the existing knowledge that we are practicing with. The second is to engage the students with a much-needed chance to experiment and to exercise their imagination. Enabling them to discover the knowledge we don’t yet know. I believe in order for architects to remain relevant in the future, it is critical that we offer a platform that not only trains but stimulates their capabilities to address these two fields. So in many ways, this is the challenge that the revamp is attempting to address: fulfilling the demand for competence while providing an encouraging ground for the imagination. This is not an either-or proposition, but both-and. It is a productive tension we hope to create in the curriculum.
REFLECTION
Our internal reflection suggests that over the years we have created a wonderful framework to achieve a high degree of competency but perhaps less so in cultivating an ethos for design imagination. So moving forward, this will be the primary focus for us, in both the courses and studios. The way to achieve this goal is to provide more opportunities to ask questions; to explore the uncharted territories; to doubt one’s preconceived understanding; and to discover the unknown. We plan to offer design problems that are prone to a multiplicity of interpretations, those that are less conducive to model solutions. The journey will not only focus on the strategies of problem-solving but problem-framing during their formative education. In the past 10 years or so, our pedagogical model has been primarily tackled through the problem of “the type” and “degree of comprehensiveness”. I.e. From less public to more public; smaller to larger; simpler to more complex. Design problems are designed to address a broad range of objectives such as concept, site, program, form, structure, material, context, detail etc., starting from the first studio onward. This model of the distributed and comprehensive approach was able to produce student projects that are quasi-buildings, resulting in a broad scope of learning.
STUDIO
Based on the reflections, we aim to transform the current comprehensive pedagogic model — of simple to complex; small to big; less public to more public— to a new paradigm based on the notion of the part-to-whole relationship, a focused way of learning the subject at hand. This notion is applied to the overall curriculum. In year one, students will receive their general education and Arch 1001 as an introduction to architecture. This course exposes the students to a wide range of architectural thinking, practices, and methods. Giving them an intellectual foundation through which to begin their studies. In year 2, Studio Explore I & II. They are challenged with a series of modules where they can learn through different ‘modes of doing’. Each mode is linked to an architectural idea. For example, modes of drawing as ways to see; modes of measuring to understand scale; modes of casting as ways to discover shadow etc. With 8 modules in total, it is imagined to be a year of intensive assimilation to architecture. After the foundation years, students will enroll in Studio A, B, C, D during years 3 and 4.
Studio A, for ANALYSIS is premised on the notion that: To design is to be able to see; To see is not only to look but to analyse what one sees; To analyse is to discover and understand the essence of the problem/ thing/ condition being probed; In other words, a more critical analysis will lead to a more critical synthesis. The studio will study renowned buildings of architecture through analysis and dissection, emphasizing the connection between form, structure and tectonics. Studio B for BUILD. The objective of the studio explores the poetics of material, tectonic, technic, and the craft of detail. The studio interrogates the relationship between space, structure, and technology by exploring the syntax of architecture through models and orthographic drawings across different scales. Studio C, for COMMUNITY. The goal of the studio is premised on the interdependence between people, architecture, city and the environment. The studio addresses complex urban issues and concerns by investigating programs and sites that require the consideration of public and private. Emphasis is focused on medium-scale building design of integrations and transformations to the existing urban fabric. Studio D, for DEVELOP. The graduation studio integrates the skills and knowledge obtained in the prior 5 semesters and culminates in a comprehensive architectural design. The studio invites alumni practitioners, engineers and artisans to contribute to the integration of the project.
COURSES
Another change occurs with the required courses. First, we are front-loading the courses in year 2 and year 3, as opposed to spreading it across 4 years. This change applies mainly to the humanities stream. The early access to knowledge in history will allow the students to learn in a synthetic way between the various subjects. Secondly, we are bringing together an interconnecting relationship between design studio, history, technology, and representation by using the case study method as a way to gain a deeper understanding of architecture. In other words, a selected set of buildings will be studied and analyzed for their design intention and effects; their historic position and influences; and their technological innovation and integration. A well rounded and in-depth study of architecture.