Advertisement

When Practice Dictates Change: A New Framework for Architectural Education

  • Yasser ZareiEmail author
Chapter
  • 368 Downloads
Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)

Abstract

Caught in the crossfire of different approaches arising from the digital paradigm , architectural education desperately requires the introduction of a new framework to guide students to legitimate interdisciplinary knowledge, to encourage them to go beyond the borders of conventional design and to act as a meta-designer who is able to bridge the gap between artistic sense and computational techniques. Traditionally, the majority of architectural practitioners have been mere users of computer packages, restrained by the limitations of the software. As a result, apart from concerns such as the Whorfian Effect (Whorf 1956), creation—the kernel of design—has been drastically threatened. On the other hand, software developers are still striving to present up-to-date platforms that are aware of design requirements. This chapter argues firstly that attaining such platforms is nearly impossible. Secondly, it seeks to look at the dilemma of praxis critically by offering a deeper inquiry into stances of programming in architecture. It argues that if practitioners are taught the appropriate tactics of manoeuvring between knowledge frontiers, the scene of design will witness a new collaboration in which not only a more thorough understanding of the design problems will be achieved, but also the process of design will be defined and executed more efficiently.

Keywords

Architectural education Digital paradigm Computation Tool-making 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Manchester School of Architecture (MSA) and those who contributed to this research as the interviewees. Special thanks to Manchester architecture firms for their help, especially, Sheppard Robson Office, Fairhurst Design Group (FDG), Chapman Taylor Architects , AFL Office and finally, Ian Simpson Architects in Manchester. I would also like to thank Dr. Roland Hudson for his help via email.

References

  1. Aish, R. (2011). Designing at t + n. Architectural Design, 81(6), 20–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Archer, L. B. (1984). Systematic method for designers. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Buchanan, R. (1996). Wicked problems in design thinking. In V. Margolin & R. Buchanan (Eds.), The idea of design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Carpo, M. (2001). Architecture in the age of printing: Orality, writing, typography, and printed images in the history of architectural theory. Cambridge: The M.I.T Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carpo, M. (2011). The alphabet and the algorithm. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Carpo, M., & Lemerle, F. D. R. (2008). Perspective, projections and design: Technologies of architectural representation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Chu, K. (2006). Metaphysics of genetic architecture and computation. Architectural Design, 76(4), 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science (The 1920s and the 1960s, two important periods in the modern history of design). Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1996). Analysing design activity. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Darses, F., Mayeur, A., Elsen, E., & Leclercq, P. (2008). Is there anything to expect from 3D views in sketching support tools? In J. S. Gero & A. K. Goel (Eds.), Design computing and cognition ’08. Houten: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Derix, C. (2009). In-between architecture computation. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 7(4), 565–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dokonal, W., & Knight, M. W. (2009). State of affairs—Digital architectural design in Europe: A look into education and practice—snapshot and outlook. In Computation: The new realm of architectural design. 27th eCAADe Conference Proceedings (pp. 191–196). Istanbul: The University of Istanbul.Google Scholar
  14. Dorst, K., & Dijkhuis, J. (1995). Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies, 16(2), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fischer, G., Giaccardi, E., Ye, Y., Sutcliffe, A. G., & Mehandjiev, N. (2004). Meta-design: A manifesto for end-user development. Communications of the ACM, 47(9), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guy, S., & Karvonen, A. (2011). Using sociotechnical methods. In A. Dale & J. Manson (Eds.), Understanding social research: Thinking creatively about method. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  17. Houdart, S. (2008). Copying, cutting and pasting social spheres: Computer designers’ participation in architectural projects. Science Studies, 21(1), 47–63.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, J. C. (1984). A method of systematic design. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Knight, M., Dokonal, W., Brown, A., & Hannibal, C. (2005). Contemporary digital techniques in the early stages of design—The effect of representation differences in current systems. Computer Aided Architectural Design Futures 2005, Proceedings (pp. 165–174)Google Scholar
  20. Koutamanis, A. (2005). Sketching with digital pen and paper. In B. B. A. Martens (Ed.), Computer aided architectural design futures 2005. Houten: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  21. Latour, B., & Yaneva, A. (2008). Give me a gun and i will make all buildings move: An ANT’s view of architecture. In R. Geiser (Ed.), Explorations in architecture: Teaching, design, research. Birkhaeuser: Basel.Google Scholar
  22. Lawson, B. (2004). What designers know. Oxford: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified. Amsterdam: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  24. McCullough, M. (2006). 20 years of scripted space. Architectural Design, 76(4), 12–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Oxford English Dictionary. (2012). Oxford dictionaries. http://oxforddictionaries.com/. Accessed 01 March 2012.
  26. Picon, A. (2006). Architecture and virtuality—Towards a new material condition. Arq, 63, 10–15.Google Scholar
  27. Picon, A. (2010). Digital culture in architecture: An introduction for the design professions. Boston: Birkhaeuser.Google Scholar
  28. Rittel, H. W. J. (1984). Second-generation design methods. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1984). Planning problems are wicked problems. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  30. Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Scheurer, F., & Stehling, H. (2011). Lost in parameter space? Architectural Design, 81(4), 70–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schön, D. A. (1985). The design studio: An exploration of its traditions and potentials. London: RIBA Publications for RIBA Building Industry Trust.Google Scholar
  33. Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  34. Schumacher, P. (2011). The autopoiesis of architecture: A new framework for architecture. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, R. (2007). Technical Notes from experiences and studies in using parametric and BIM architectural software. http://www.vbtllc.com/index_rhinobim.html. Accessed 16 Apr. 2012.
  36. Suwa, M., & Tversky, B. (1997). What do architects and students perceive in their design sketches? A protocol analysis. Design Studies, 18(4), 385–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Terzidis, K. (2006). Algorithmic architecture. Amsterdam: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  38. Whorf, B. L. (1956). In B. L. Whorf, & J. B. Caroll (Eds.), Essays. Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T Press.Google Scholar
  39. Yaneva, A. (2011). From reflecting-in-action towards mapping of the real. In I. Doucet & N. Janssens (Eds.), Transdisciplinary knowledge production in architecture and urbanism: Towards hybrid modes of inquiry. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Environment and DevelopmentThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations