Deal dossier 2017 pdf by braddeal

BRAD DEAL Tenure & Promotion Dossier September 2017

Front Cover: The roof structure of the Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion at sunset. Photo Credit: Henry McCoy.

The numerous accomplishments described in this volume would not be possible without the love and support of my wife Lacey, my sons Oli and Finn, and the opportunities afforded to us by the support of our family and friends. Nor would they be possible without the trust, leadership and enthusiasm of my mentor Karl Puljak, my design/build partner Robert Brooks, the faculty of Louisiana Techâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School of Design and the generations of inspiring students Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve had the privilege to work alongside.

Brad Deal

Assistant Professor | Architecture Tenure & Promotion Dossier September 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GENERAL DOCUMENTS

Form A Cover Letter Curriculum Vitae Annual Planning Documents: 2016-2017 Faculty Plan, Activities, Report & Administrative Evaluation 2015-2016 Faculty Plan, Activities, Report & Administrative Evaluation 2014-2015 Faculty Plan, Activities, Report & Administrative Evaluation 2013-2014 Faculty Plan, Activities, Report & Administrative Evaluation 2012-2013 Faculty Plan, Activities, Report & Administrative Evaluation

TEACHING 45 Statement on Teaching Courses Taught Form B

Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness: Outline of Instructional Innovations Selected Course Syllabi Selected Student Work Honors and Awards Related to Teaching Student Evaluation Surveys Student Letters of Recommendation

RESEARCH 111 Statement on Research Evidence of Scholarship and Research: Awards & Credentials Related to Research and Creative Work Selected Publications Selected Conference Presentations Videography Work Faculty Letters of Recommendation

SERVICE 161 Statement on Service Evidence of Service: Grant Proposals Awarded Service to the Program and School Service to the College and University Service to the Community Community Partner Letter of Recommendation

GENERAL DOCUMENTS Brad Deal Tenure & Promotion Dossier 2017

Brad Deal

GENERAL

FORM A

TENURE AND PROMOTION REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION Thomas Bradley "Brad" Deal Name ________________________________________________________________________

Earned Degrees Bachelor of Architecture, Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana, 2003

Master of Architecture Sustainable Design, University of Texas at Austin, 2007

Certification/Licensure, if applicable LEED for Homes Accredited Professional Discipline

Licensed Architect in the State of Texas

Architecture

Department/School College

School of Design | Architecture

Liberal Arts

Years in present rank (including present year)

I am requesting consideration for: a. b.

Assistant Professor Associate Professor Promotion from ____________________________ to_______________________ Tenure

I certify that the materials presented are accurate and complete. I have review ed the enclosed dossier and consider it accurate and complete.

________________________________________ Signature of faculty member

9/2/2017 _________________________________ Date

________________________________________ Signature of Unit Head

_________________________________ Date Revised 8/95

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

COVER LETTER Dear Tenure and Promotion Committee,

As an alumnus of the Louisiana Tech Architecture program (B Arch 2003), my first five years here were a pivotal chapter in my life. As such, it is a particularly special honor to submit this dossier summarizing my teaching, scholarship and service contributions to this institution as a member of the faculty over the past five years. The quality of my undergraduate education here at Louisiana Tech led me to a wealth of successful experiences in the private sector and in graduate school prior to my return in 2012. During my time here, I had the good fortune to include among my mentors Mr. Bill Willoughby, our former Associate Dean of Liberal Arts, and Mr. Karl Puljak, who in 2000 had the courage and foresight to launch the first iterations of the design/build studio in our architecture program. In my final year as an undergraduate, this immersive and comprehensive learning format changed the course of my career. After graduation I specifically sought employment at a design/build firm in Houston where I managed the construction of over 60 homes in under two years. Critical evaluation of those building practices led me to pursue a Post-Professional Master of Architecture in Sustainable Design at the University of Texas at Austin. Another wave of deeply influential experiences and relationships, including my first teaching experiences, led me to work at one of the top design/build offices in Austin, where I became a senior project manager regularly executing projects recognized with distinction by the American Institute of Architects (AIA). It was nearly 10 years into a career of tireless effort fueled by my love of learning, challenges and the excitement of new projects when my wife and I found ourselves preparing for our second child. That situation led me to seek an adjustment that would keep me engaged in meaningful and rewarding work while allowing for a healthier work/life balance. Thanks to my relationship with Mr. Puljak I was informed in early 2012 of an opening within the department, and I soon found myself directing the future of the very design/build program that had been such a tremendous influence on my career. Since then my teaching contributions have spanned our entire architecture curriculum from comprehensive graduate studios to freshmen drawing courses. My efforts to comprehend and sharpen our curriculum at all stages have been paired with a willingness to work closely with all of my colleagues and step in to any role required of me. This has led to significant contributions in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year studios. I was part of the faculty leaders that successfully translated a 200 level studio project into a 100 level course that included a new freshmen level design/build exercise. I worked with Professor Liane Hancock, our foundations coordinator, to repackage the way our sophomore students are introduced to required software. By creating an original series of tutorial videos and adjusting the format of our introductory lectures, we saw greatly reduced learning curves allowing us to teach additional rendering software that has clearly improved our students ability create immersive visual representations of their designs. In the 3rd and 4th year professional level studios I’ve worked regularly with our program chair Dr. Pasquale DePaola and others to explore a range of projects addressing current events allowing our junior level students to travel and work directly with prestigious offices including Waggoner & Ball Architects of New Orleans and JHP Architecture and Planning in Dallas. These studios have included a master plan for The Cross Bayou Corridor for the City of Shreveport, a refugee resettlement housing proposal in the Vickery Meadow neighborhood in Dallas for the International Rescue Committee (IRC), and most recently the first iteration of a North Louisiana resiliency studio in preparation for our program’s participation in the newly formed Louisiana Universities Resilient Architecture Collaborative (LURAC). Similarly in the 4th year Sustainable Design Studio, I’ve worked consistently with our professional level coordinator, Kevin Singh, to deliver high quality engaging studio projects including a travel studio that worked directly with the City of Austin TX’s Green Building Program to propose a sustainable elementary school that integrated the first utility scale energy storage in the world’s largest LEED Gold neighborhood development in central Austin. Complimenting this Sustainable Design Studio, over the past five years I have also developed an engaging and successful building energy simulation elective course, ARCH380/550, that has recently been designated as a required course within the architecture curriculum. It has been truly rewarding to implement the teaching strategies above, but my most significant contribution to our program has surely been the new partnerships, projects, rebranding, and publications of the work of the ARCH 335 Design/Build Studio that I was so fortunate to inherit. Co-teaching the studio with Robert Brooks, we have built an invaluable partnership with Caleb Seney and MedCamps of Louisiana. Each Spring we have lead students to design and construct several of the most ambitious projects in the program’s history while also compressing the design/build studio to a single quarter. In this class I set the expectations of student performance, service, perseverance and end product delivery very high, but I also work to equip every student with the resources necessary to succeed. I strive to lead by example as we navigate unfamiliar territory and demonstrate a personal commitment to doing whatever may be required to meet our goals. One of the most significant outcomes of these large group projects are the soft skills, teamwork and life lessons gained. Brad Deal

My students learn to evaluate themselves and their peers beyond the rote execution of a task. They discover instead that the vast majority of success stems not from natural talent or luck, but rather from one’s attitude and the level of effort exerted. During my time at Louisiana Tech I’ve found numerous opportunities for overlap and synergy between my research, publications, creative work and teaching. The more these efforts share the more each seems to benefit. I’ve published papers related to my energy simulation course, several of my 300 level design studios, the 100-level design/build exercises I’ve developed, and the work of the ARCH 335 studio at several American Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) conferences, National Conference on the Beginning Design Student (NCBDS) conferences, at the 2017 South by Southwest (SXSW) Eco Conference, a variety of Architecture and Design Film Festivals (ADFF) around the country, and at the American Institute of Architects Annual Conference on Architecture (A17). In the past 5 years I’ve also invested research effort in my own professional credentials to better serve our students and improve the distinction of our program. I’ve earned and maintained my Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes Credential, my Professional Architectural License (TX 26203), my National Council of Architectural Registration Board (NCARB) Certification, and recently joined the American Institute of Architects (AIA) as a fully licensed member. Complimenting these professional and academic research efforts, I’ve found success in publishing the work of the ARCH 335 Design/Build Studio in professional venues via several State, Regional and National Awards. Our 2014 project, The Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion won an AIA Louisiana Merit Award as well as the Member’s Choice Award at the AIA Louisiana 2016 Conference. The following year both the Gibbs Pavilion and the Hero’s Launch, our 2016 project in ARCH 335, each received regional-level AIA Gulf-States Merit Awards. These awards are particularly rewarding accomplishments because they are student projects selected for their design and execution from a field of submissions of professional work. In 2016 my short documentary film, ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps, introducing the first three years of our design/build work, won the AIA’s national I Look Up Film Challenge Grand Prize and People’s Choice Award. This brought national recognition to our program and the university as the film has been screened at events across the country all year long including a showing for an audience of nearly 10,000 architects just prior to Michelle Obama’s Keynote Conversation with the National AIA President at the A17 Conference in Orlando, FL. My second filmmaking endeavor for the 2017 I Look Up Film Challenge, the story of 3 students and 3 MedCamps families connecting through our 2017 Pisces Bridge project, will also receive national distribution as the “First Runner Up” in this year’s competition. Beyond my teaching, research and creative efforts I’ve taken every opportunity to serve the School of Design, the university and our Ruston community. These efforts have included repeated guest lectures in the KINE 415 Facility Design Course and in College of Business presentation workshops for the Business Accelerator & Student Venture programs. Frequent interdisciplinary collaboration efforts with my friend and colleague Dr. Heath Tims and other faculty from Liberal Arts, Computer Science and Engineering led me to participate in a range of recruitment-oriented weeklong camps, including regular participation in the Cyber Discovery Camps and co-founding the STEM-Discovery Camps that have given hundreds of high school students an intensely positive first impression of our university. These experiences led me to work with Liane Hancock and Karl Puljak in 2014 to develop our own “Design Camp” summer recruitment program in the form of a one-week residential academic experience for high school students interested in design majors. Since arriving at Tech my service efforts have also included the departmental responsibilities of training and supervising the Graduate Assistants assigned to the Art and Architecture Workshop, chairing our program’s Physical and Information Resources Committee, and acting as the Architecture and Interior Design department’s property custodian, managing our off-campus equipment use, our internal property inventory and the state property audit each year. As a father, husband and representative of the university’s values I’ve also worked to contribute regularly to our local community. I’ve served on the board of the Montessori School of Ruston, donating professional design and consultation services, as well as constructing an elevated deck and entrance that solidified the school’s new master plan in the Fall of 2014. I also consistently volunteer as a youth soccer coach for my sons’ Ruston Parks and Recreation teams and as an assistant and guest speaker for their community service activities in Cub Scout Pack 45 of Ruston. Louisiana Tech fostered the beginning of my architecture career, and it has been a deeply gratifying place to return and invest myself. It is with great pride and gratitude that I submit for consideration this dossier to the Tenure and Promotion Committee summarizing my efforts towards teaching effectiveness, scholarship, and service. Sincerely,

GENERAL

Cover Letter

Brad Deal Assistant Professor | Architecture School of Design Louisiana Tech University Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

CURRICULUM VITAE Brad Deal 2017

TEACHING

EDUCATION

PRACTICE

PROFESSIONAL REGISTRATIONS

2012- Present Ruston LA

Louisiana Tech SOD Assistant Professor ARCH 112: Communication Skills I ARCH 135: Foundation Design III ARCH 215: Architectural Design I ARCH 225: Architectural Design II ARCH 315: Architectural Design IV ARCH 335: Architectural Design VI - Design/Build Studio ARCH 425: Architectural Design VIII - Sustainable Design Studio ARCH 380: Studio Problems: Architecture and Energy Simulation ARCH 510: Comprehensive Design I ARCH 550: Energy Simulation

2006-2007 Austin TX

University of Texas Austin, Teaching Assistant ARC 308: Architecture and Society ARC 696: Advanced Design Studio Instructor: Summer Academy in Architecture

1998-2003 Ruston LA

Bachelor of Architecture Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, LA Senior Studio Instructor: Karl Puljak

2005-2007 Austin TX

Master of Architecture in Sustainable Design University of Texas, Austin, TX Master Design Thesis: Alley Flat Initiative Thesis Advisor & Department Director: Steven Moore

2002 Culver City CA

Intern / Designer Callas Shortridge Architects

2004 - 2005 Houston TX

Intern / Designer Royse Eagleton Architects

2003 - 2005 Houston TX

Project Manager and Construction Superintendent Parra Design Group

2006 Austin TX

Project Assistant Palleroni Leite Design Partnership

2007-2011 Austin TX

Senior Project Manager KRDB

2011-2012 Austin TX

Project Architect Ryan Street & Associates

2010 Austin TX

LEED for Homes Accredited Professional

2017

Licensed Architect in the State of Texas

2017

Member: American Institute of Architects

Brad Deal

braddeal@latech.edu 907 Robert Street Ruston, LA 71270 512 466 7672

AWARDS

PUBLICATIONS

2003

Henry Adams Award for Highest GPA Louisiana Tech University

2003

AIA School Medal Louisiana Tech University

2007

Outstanding Professional Thesis University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture

2009

AIA Austin Merit Award Frick Residence, with KRDB

2011

AIA Austin Honor Award SOL Community, with KRDB

2012

AIA Austin Merit Award Heywood Hotel, with KRDB

2016

Austin Green Awards: Project of the Year SOL Community, with KRDB

2016

AIA Louisiana Merit Award ARCH 335: Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion

2016

AIA Louisiana Member’s Choice Award ARCH 335: Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion

2016

AIA I look up Film Challenge Grand Prize ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps

2016

AIA I look up Film Challenge People’s Choice Award ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps

2017

ACSA Collaborative Practice Award ARCH 335 with Robert Brooks

2017

AIA Gulf States Merit Award ARCH 335: Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion

2017

AIA Gulf States Merit Award ARCH 335: Hero’s Launch

2017

AIA I look up Film Challenge First Runner Up ARCH 335: Pisces

2013

ACSA Fall Conference, Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy.

2014

ACSA Fall Conference, Convergent Canopies: The Huckleberry Trails Entry Pavilion.

2014

ACSA Fall Conference, Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations.

2015

National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Abstracting Scale: The One Week High School Prequel, Cal-Poly San Louis Obispo. Co-authored with Liane Hancock.

2015

National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Making it theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio, Cal-Poly San Louis Obispo. Co-authored with Miguel Lasala.

2016

Architecture and Design Film Festival Premier ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps, 2016 New York, NY.

2016

ARCHITECT Magazine, The Power of Three Minutes, Dec 2016.

2017

National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Peer to Peer: Finding Inspiration From Within, Tiny TED, Salt Lake City UT. Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

GENERAL

Curriculum Vitae

SERVICE

2012-2017

Technical and Managerial Supervisor of the School of Design CNC workshop

2014-2017

Co-founder and Director of SOD Summer Design Camp Recruiting and Outreach program

2012-2017

Director: ARCH 335 Design/Build Studio

2013-2017

Property Custodian for Architecture and Interior Design

2015-2017

Guest Lecturer KINE 415 Facility Design Course and College of Business, Business Accelerator & Student Venture teams,

2014

2015

2014-2015

2015

2014-2017

2013-2017

2015-2017

2016

GRANTS

Donated design services for Master Plan Montessori School of Ruston Donated Design and Construction Services to create Montessori School of Ruston Toddler Program Donated design services for Master Plan MedCamps of Louisiana Volunteer member: Board of Directors Montessori School of Ruston Constructed Elevated walkway Montessori School of Ruston Master Plan Youth Soccer Coach Ruston Parks and Recreation Design Faculty Contributor NICERC Cyber Discovery Camp Recruiting and Outreach program Design Faculty Contributor STEM-Discovery Camp Design Assistance and Staging La Tech Gubernatorial Debate

2016

Student Technology Fee Board, Two Form 2 SLA 3D Printers

2015

Louisiana BORSF Grant 7 Axis Robotic Milling Cell (first runner up)

2014 & 2015

Lagniappe Ladies Grant Makerbot / CNC mill / Shop Workstations

2014

Student Technology Fee Grant DJI Inspire Aerial Photography Drone

Brad Deal

Arranged by year in reverse chronological order, the following pages contain my annual faculty plans prepared each Spring, faculty activity surveys prepared at the beginning of each quarter, and annual reviews from Mr Karl Puljak, Director of the School of Design, reflecting on my contributions each academic year.

GENERAL

ANNUAL PLAN, ACTIVITIES, REPORTS & REVIEWS 2016-2017 FACULTY PLAN

Period Covered: 1 March 2016 – 28 February 2017 Name: Brad Deal Rank: Assistant Professor

I. TEACHING What are your teaching and pedagogical goals for next year? • To Assist the department as our teaching loads increase and adjust. • To incorporate more intentional instruction of Grasshopper Software in the junior level studios. • To work to convert ARC 380 Energy Simulation into a complimentary co-requisite to ARCH 425 and have it serve as a more thorough introduction to Revit and its energy use and thermal analysis capabilities. • Coordinate efforts with Tom Futrell to allow creative collaboration between the ART 262 and ARCH 335 courses. • To continue to seek studio projects that create interdepartmental and professional collaboration, motivating students to hold themselves to higher standards and exposing them to design processes that can inform their own. II. RESEARCH / CREATIVE WORK What are your research and/or creative work goals for next year? • Complete my 1 remaining ARE exam to earn my Architectural License. • Submit abstract(s) and project posters for the ACSA Fall conference, NCBDS33, and Building Technology Educators Conference. • Submit the ARCH 335 Projects for publication. • Coordinate and Execute the BORSF Grant submitted in the Fall of 2015 if it is awarded III. SERVICE What are your service and outreach goals for next year within the venues of the institution (Program/School/College/University), your profession and the community? SCHOOL: Physical and Information Resources Committee: • Student worker supervision, management and assistance. • Pursue Student Technology fee grant for high quality projector for presentation of films to students. • Continued Development and Operation of Design Camp – now paired with Studio Art and Graphic Design Programs. UNIVERSITY: • Continued participation in Cyber Discovery and STEM Discovery Camps with Engineering, Theatre, History, English and Political Science Faculty COMMUNITY: • Continue to volunteer design services and labor to Med Camps of Louisiana

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2016-2017 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Fall Quarter, 2016 School of Design BRAD DEAL

I. Instruction and Advising

A. Scheduled Teaching By signing this form, I certify that sufficient course materials are posted on Moodle to continue my courses online in the event of an emergency.

Course Name Core Design IV

Signature: ______________________ Course No. & Section

ARCH 315-002

Credit Hours

Meeting Time

MWF 1-4:50a

B. Unscheduled Teaching (class prep)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below MTWR 9:30a -12p

Hrs.

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities

Hrs.

C. Other Scholarly Activities

ARE Exams

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

Chair of Physical and Information Resources Committee NAAB Preparation of School Website

Hrs.

B. To the profession

C. To the public

Brad Deal

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

GENERAL

2016-2017 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Winter 2017 School of Design Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

A. Scheduled Teaching

By signing this form, I certify that sufficient course materials are posted on Moodle to continue my courses online in the event of an emergency. Signature: _________________________

Course Name

Course No. & Section

ARCH 225-002 ARCH 425-002

Core Studio 2 Core Design 8

Credit Hours

Meeting Time

4 4

8-11:50a 1-4:50p

12 12

B. Unscheduled Teaching Hrs. C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below

Hrs.

TR 9a -12:30p & 1-2:30p

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities Beginning Design Conference Presentation ACSA Annual Meeting Presentation

Hrs.

C. Other Scholarly Activities

ARE Exams

Hrs.

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

Management of Shop GA Position Chair of Physical and Information Resources Committee

Design/Build Preparation & fundraising

B. To the profession C. To the public

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2016-2017 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Spring Quarter, 2017 School of Design BRAD DEAL

I. Instruction and Advising

A. Scheduled Teaching By signing this form, I certify that sufficient course materials are posted on Moodle to continue my courses online in the event of an emergency.

Course Name Core Design VI

Signature: ______________________ Course No. & Section

Credit Hours

ARCH 335-001 4

Meeting Time

MWF 9:30-11:50 12

B. Unscheduled Teaching (Design Build work outside of class)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below MW1-3p, TR 9a -12p

Hrs.

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects ACSA National Meeting Presentation ULS Academic Summit Presentation AIA National Convention Presentation B. Unfunded Research Activities ARCH 335 Video Documentation

C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

Hrs.

Chair of Physical and Information Resources Committee Supervise Shop operations and Graduate Assistants.

Hrs.

B. To the profession

C. To the public

Brad Deal

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

ANNUAL FACULTY REPORT Period Covered: 1 March 2016 Name: Brad Deal

– 28 February 2017 Rank:

Assistant Professor

I. TEACHING

A. Course(s) Taught Spring 2016

GENERAL

2016-2017 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

(ex. ART 225 001 / Figure Drawing / MW 2-550 / 12 students)

ARCH 335 002 / Design/Build / MWF 8-11:50a / 9 of 16 students (co-instructed with Robert Brooks) Fall 2016 ARCH 315 002 / Core Design IV / MWF 1-4:50p / 10 students Winter 2016/17 ARCH 225 002 / Core Design II / MWF 8-11:50a / 12 students ARCH 425 002 / Core Design VIII / MWF 1-4:50p / 8 students

B. Instructional Innovation(s) Implementation

ARCH 335 - Schedule shifted to create safer conditions by using daytime working hours. Use of the aerial photography drone for site analysis and project documentation. Creation of short documentary video for publication & awards submissions ARCH 315 - Arranged Trip to Dallas for students to meet with hypothetical client: International Rescue Committee Director, conduct site visit, and attend a guest lecture at SMU on Human Centered Design. ARCH 425 - Arranged Trip to Austin for students to meet with hypothetical client: Austin Energy, conduct a site visit, and attend a visits and tours of Mueller Central, Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems, UT School of Architecture & KRDB offices. Arranged Video Conference with Austin Energy Panel of experts for mid-review & inperson guest critics for final review Molly Emerick from Austin Energy and William McElroy from M3A Architects.

II. RESEARCH / CREATIVE WORK C. Publications Tech Alumni Magazine –ARCH 335 Design Build Project, Winter 2016 Ruston Daily Leader – ARCH 335 Design Build, multiple publication dates AIA Blog - I Look Up Film Challenge Winner: Arch 335 – Rebuilding MedCamps, 30 Sept 2016 ARCHITECT Magazine, The Power of Three Minutes, Dec 2016.

D. Exhibition(s)/Show(s)

E. Other (Awards)

Architecture & Design Film Festival, New York, NY - ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps, 28 Sept 2016 SXSW Eco, Austin TX - ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps Screening & Panel Discussion 10 Oct 2016 AIA Louisiana Merit Award: Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion Sept 2016 AIA Louisiana Member’s Choice Award: Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion Sept 2016 AIA I look up film challenge Grand Prize – ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps, Fall 2016 AIA I look up film challenge Peoples choice – ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps, Fall 2016 ACSA Collaborative Practice Award, Winter 2016

III. SERVICE A. School

Physical and Information Resources Committee Chair CNC equipment troubleshooting, repair & maintenance, South Campus Architecture Shop Coordinator: GA supervision, management and assistance. Planning, Coordination and Execution of Design Camp Summer program Thorough cleaning of CNC shop Creation of ARCH 335 Design Build Video for 2016 Project Trained other faculty to Fly Aerial Photography Drone Participated as a Guest reviewer for colleagues studio courses on multiple occasions Coordinated Fundraising for ARCH335 Tool Fund.

B. University

Instructor for Cyber Discovery Camp (2 weeks in June) and STEM Discovery Camp (1 week in June) Representing Architecture and the School of Design to High school students.

C. Professional Completed ARE Licensing Exams Jan 2017 – Licensed Architect, State of TX

D. Community

RPAR Soccer Coach, Fall 2016 season, Under 8 team.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2016-2017 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

Brad Deal

GENERAL

2016-2017 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2015-2016 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

2015-2016 FACULTY PLAN

Period Covered: 1 March 2015 – 29 February 2016 Name: Brad Deal Rank: Assistant Professor

I. TEACHING What are your teaching and pedagogical goals for next year? • • •

To Assist Liane Hancock in improving the way CAD, Rhino and software in general is introduced in the sophomore level studios. Continue to seek studio projects that create interdepartmental and professional collaboration, motivating students to hold themselves to higher standards and exposing them to design processes that can inform their own. Continue to develop architecture student’s familiarity with digital fabrication, sustainable design principles and motivations.

II. RESEARCH / CREATIVE WORK What are your research and/or creative work goals for next year? • Complete ARE exams (2 remaining) and Licensing process • Submit abstract(s) and pursue presentation for the ACSA Fall conference “Between the Autonomous & Contingent Object” Discussing ARCH 315 Cross Bayou Studio and possibly the Larkin Gibbs Pavilion at Med Camps. • Submit an Abstract to the Beginning Design Conference regarding full scale building with First year students. • Coordinate and Execute the BORSF Grant submitted in the Fall of 2014 if it is awarded • Coordinate the purchase and interior customization of the SOD Cargo trailer requested in the Lagniappe Ladies grant application if awarded. III. SERVICE What are your service and outreach goals for next year within the venues of the institution (Program/School/College/University), your profession and the community? SCHOOL: • Physical and Information Resources Committee: • CNC equipment: set up new small router, repair & maintenance, • Student worker supervision, management and assistance. • Pursue Student Technology fee grant for high quality projector for presentation of films to students. • Continued Development and Operation of Design Camp – now paired with Studio Art and Graphic Design Programs. UNIVERSITY: • Continued participation in Cyber Discovery Camp with Engineering, Theatre, History, English and Political Science Faculty • Development of STEM Discovery Camp with Engineering Business and Design Programs. COMMUNITY: • Assist Montessori School of Ruston as a Board member and Chair of the Buildings and grounds Committee • Continue to volunteer design services and labor to Med Camps of Louisiana

Brad Deal

GENERAL

2015-2016 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Fall 2015 School of Design Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

A. Scheduled Teaching By signing this form, I certify that sufficient course materials are posted on Moodle to continue my courses online in the event of an emergency. Signature: _________________________ Course Name

Course No. & Section

ARCH 510-002 ARCH 215-003

Comprehensive Design 1 Core Design 1

Credit Hours

Meeting Time

5 3

1-5:50p 8-11:50a

15 12

B. Unscheduled Teaching Hrs. C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below

Hrs.

TR 9:30a-2:30p

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities Beginning Design Conference Paper ACSA Annual Meeting Paper

Hrs.

C. Other Scholarly Activities

ARE Exams

A. To the Unit / College / University

Hrs.

Architectural R&D with Alchemy Geopolymer

III. Service (Professional Role)

Hrs.

Management of Shop GA Position Chair of Physical and Information Resources Committee

B. To the profession C. To the public Volunteer Projects: Montessori School of Ruston Soccer Coach Ruston Parks and Recreation

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2015-2016 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Winter 2016 School of Design | Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

A. Scheduled Teaching By signing this form, I certify that sufficient course materials are posted on Moodle to continue my courses online in the event of an emergency.

Signature: _________________________

Course Name

Course No. & Section

ARCH 225-002 ARCH 380-001 ARCH 550C-001

Core Design II Applied Studio Practices Applied Studio Practices

Credit Hours

4 2 3

Meeting Time

MWF 8-11:50a 12 TR 2-3:15p TR 2-3:50p 4

B. Unscheduled Teaching Hrs. 8 Discussion sessions/ Movie Screenings for ARCH 380/550 General Class preparation Design Build Planning and Preparation C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below MW 1-2p

Hrs.

TR 10a-2p

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities Beginning Design Conference Paper

C. Other Scholarly Activities

ARE Exams

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

Management of Shop GA Position Chair of Physical and Information Resources Committee

Hrs. Hrs.

Hrs.

B. To the profession C. To the public

Brad Deal

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

GENERAL

2015-2016 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Spring Quarter, 2016 School of Design BRAD DEAL

I. Instruction and Advising

A. Scheduled Teaching

Course Name Core Design VI

By signing this form, I certify that sufficient course materials are posted on Moodle to continue my courses online in the event of an emergency.

Signature: ______________________ Course No. & Section

ARCH 335-001

Credit Hours

Meeting Time

MWF 8-11:50a 12

B. Unscheduled Teaching (Design/Build work outside of class)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below MW1-3p, TR 9a -12p

Hrs.

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities

Hrs.

C. Other Scholarly Activities

ARE Exams

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

Chair of Physical and Information Resources Committee

Hrs.

B. To the profession

C. To the public

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2015-2016 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

ANNUAL FACULTY REPORT Period Covered: 1 March 2015 Name: Brad Deal

– 29 February 2016 Rank:

Assistant Professor

I. TEACHING A. Course(s) Taught Spring 2015

ARCH 335 001 / Design Build / MWF 1-450 / 14 students (co-instructor with Robert Brooks) ARCH 135 002 / Found. Design III / MWF 8-1150 / 10 students Fall 2015 ARCH 510 002 / Comp. Design I / MWF 1-550 / 7 students ARCH 215 003 / Core Design I / MWF 8-1150 / 11 students Winter 2015/16 ARCH 225 002 / Core Design II / MWF 8-1150 / 13 Students ARCH 380 001 / Energy Sim. / TR 2-315 / 9 students ARCH 550C 001/ Energy Sim. / TR 2-3:50 / 1 student

B. Instructional Innovation(s) Implementation

ARCH 135 - Second execution of the “rib project” design build with freshmen. 1st time this project has been approached collaboratively rather than a competition and 1st time to experiment at full scale via 1:1 detail mock ups and learning tectonics via disassembly of previous year’s project. ARCH 335 – Use of the aerial photography drone for site analysis and project documentation. Use of GroupMe text messaging for constant large group coordination. Another successful project strengthened the relationship with MedCamps of Louisiana. ARCH 510 – Use of the aerial photography drone for site analysis. Use of GroupMe text messaging for safety while traveling and more frequent communication with students throughout the quarter. Use of Google Drive for class file coordination. ARCH 215 - Use of the aerial photography drone for site analysis. Use of GroupMe text messaging for safety while traveling and more frequent communication and instruction throughout the quarter. Use of Google Drive for class file coordination. Created template files for assistance in teaching AutoCAD software. ARCH 225 Use of GroupMe text messaging for more frequent communication with students. Use of Google Drive for class file coordination. Created 16 software tutorial videos teaching students Rhino Software. Secured educational licenses and introduced Maxwell Rendering software for the first time in 225. ARCH 380/550 – Introduced students to Co:Lab by holding media discussions there.

II. RESEARCH / CREATIVE WORK A. Grant(s) awarded Student Technology Fee Board, TWO Form 2 SLA 3D Printers (w/ DePaloa) B. Paper(s) presented Making it Theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio.

Presented at NCBDS32, Cal-Poly San Louis Obispo, 2/27/2016. Abstracting Scale: The One Week High School Prequel. Presented at NCBDS32, Cal-Poly San Louis Obispo, 2/26/2016. C. Publications Tech Alumni Magazine –ARCH 335 Design Build Project Ruston Daily Leader – ARCH 335 Design Build Project D. Exhibition(s)/Show(s) Chiasmus Archery Range Dedication, MedCamps of Louisiana, May 22nd 2015. E. Other Continued Progress toward NCARB Licensure: Building Design and Construction Systems ARE.

III. SERVICE A. School: Physical and Information Resources Committee Chair

CNC equipment troubleshooting, repair & maintenance, Reviving smaller techno router and relocating it to the south campus shop South Campus Architecture Shop Coordinator: GA supervision, management and assistance. Planning, Coordination and Execution of Design Camp Summer program Thorough clean out of CNC shop, Relocation of Metal shop to CNC area Creation of ARCH 335 Design Build Video for 2015 Project Trained to Fly Aerial Photography Drone Participated as a Guest reviewer for colleagues studio courses on multiple occasions B. University: Instructor for Cyber Discovery Camp (2 weeks in June) and STEM Discovery Camp (1 week in June) Representing Architecture and the School of Design to High school students. Assisted in planning and set up for the 2016 Gubernatorial Debate set in the Davison Athletics Center. C. Community: RPAR Soccer Coach, Fall 2015 season, Under 7 team Brad Deal

GENERAL

2015-2016 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2014-2015 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

2014-2015 FACULTY PLAN

Period Covered: 28 February 2014 – March 17, 2015 Name: Brad Deal Rank: Assistant Professor I.TEACHING : What are your teaching and instructional goals for next year? • Having learned a great deal in my first two years of full time teaching, I hope to continue to increase the quality and effectiveness of my assignments, lectures and general methods. Including the following: • The majority of the criticism I’ve received has been related to attempting to have students do more than they feel is possible in a given course. I intend to address this through reduce workloads for any elective courses, and clarifying if topics will be covered in depth or briefly for variety. • I would like find opportunities where possible to collaborate with faculty from other departments to arrange guest lectures or project critiques from disciplines tangent to and completely separated from Architecture. • As well, I would still like to pursue collaborative relationships with service learning leaders from other Schools of architecture in search of global design/build & public interest design opportunities for our students. II. RESEARCH / CREATIVE WORK : What are your research and/or creative work goals for next year? • Sit for final ARE exams to complete my Architectural Licensing process (3 remaining) • Submit abstract(s) and pursue presentation for the ACSA Fall Conference on topics related to Design Build Projects & Programs • Pursue BORSF Grant for Kuka robot arm and a significant expansion of our digital fabrication technologies. • Continue to Develop relationships with The Bridge and Grace Community Churches in search of service learning opportunities for design/build and public interest design III. SERVICE What are your service and outreach goals for next year (within the venues of the School, College, University, profession, community)? • School: Physical and Information Resources Committee: • - CNC equipment troubleshooting, repair & maintenance, • - Student worker supervision, management and assistance. • - Pursue training on the Haas Mill • Pursue collaboration with service learning leaders from other Schools of architecture in search of global design/ build & public interest design opportunities. • Pursue BORSF or Technology Fee grant for a 4th and possibly 5th axis for Techno CNC and/or Haas Mill. • College: I hope to work with Art Faculty to develop policies for the sharing of our physical output resources. • Community: Continue to participate in volunteer opportunities to serve the Montessori School of Ruston and Ruston Parks and Recreation.

Brad Deal

GENERAL

2014-2015 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Fall Quarter, 2014 School of Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

A. Scheduled Teaching (Please verify the following teaching activities and make any necessary changes on the copy) By signing this form, I certify that sufficient courses materials are posted on Moodle to continue my course online in the event of an emergency.

Signature: ____________________________

Course Name

Course No. & Section

ARCH 112 ARCH 315

COM SKILLS I CORE DESIGN IV

Credit Hours

2 4

Meeting Time

TR 8:00 -10:55a (9hrs) MWF 1:00 – 4:50p (12hrs)

Hrs.

B. Unscheduled Teaching (Course Preparation)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below Office Hours: MWF 9:00a - 12:30p

Hrs.

Current quarter coursework and design build prep for spring quarter.

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities - ACSA Conference (Paper & Poster)

Hrs.

C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

SOA Physical and Information Resources Committee: Digital fabrication equipment maintenance / student worker supervision BORSF Grant Application – Robot Arms

Hrs.

B. To the profession C. To the public Montessori School of Ruston Board Member & Renovation Coordinator

Hrs.

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2014-2015 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Winter Quarter, 2015-152 School of Design/Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

A. Scheduled Teaching

Course Name Core Studio IV Energy Simulation

By signing this form, I certify that sufficient course materials are posted on Moodle to continue my courses online in the event of an emergency. Signature: ______________________ Course No. & Section

Credit Hours

Meeting Time

ARCH 225 – 001 ARCH 380 – 001

4 2

MWF 8-11:50AM TR 2-3:15PM

B. Unscheduled Teaching Hrs. 12 Class Preparation

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below

Hrs.

MW: 12p-1p & TR: 9a-1p

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects Student Technology Fee Grant Coordination B. Unfunded Research Activities Design Build Exchange Research

C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

Shop Faculty Supervisor

Hrs.

B. To the profession C. To the public Montessori School Board Member

Brad Deal

Hrs.

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

GENERAL

2014-2015 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Spring Quarter- 2015 153 School of Design/Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

A. Scheduled Teaching By signing this form, I certify that sufficient course materials are posted on Moodle to continue my courses online in the event of an emergency.

Course Name Design Build Foundation Studio III

Signature: ______________________ Course No. & Section

Credit Hours

Meeting Time

ARCH 335 – 001 ARCH 135 – 001

4 2

MWF 1-4:50PM MWF 8-11AM

B. Unscheduled Teaching Hrs. 20 Class Preparation

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below

Hrs.

MW11a-12p, TR 11a-2p

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects Student Technology Fee Grant Coordination B. Unfunded Research Activities Lagniappe Ladies Grant Coordination C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

Shop Faculty Supervisor

B. To the profession C. To the public Montessori School Board Member

Hrs.

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

1 55

2014-2015 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

ANNUAL FACULTY REPORT

Period Covered: 1 March 2014 – 28 February 2015 Name: Brad Deal Rank: Assistant Professor I. TEACHING A. Course(s) Taught (ex. ART 225 001 / Figure Drawing / MW 2-550 / 12 students) Spring 2014 ARCH 135 / Foundation Studio / MWF 8-10:50 / 10 Students ARCH 335 / Design Build Studio / MWF 1-4:50 / 12 Students Fall 2014 ARCH 112 / Freehand Drawing / TR 8-10:50 / 11 Students ARCH 315 / Programming Studio/ MWF 8-10:50 / 8 Students Winter 2014/15 ARCH ARCH 380 / Energy Simulation / TR 2-3:15 / 11 Students ARCH 225 /Core Studio IV / MWF 8-11:50 / 9 Students B. Instructional Innovation(s) Implementation ARCH 135 - First attempt of the “rib project” studio with Freshmen rather than sophomores. And first attempt at a full scale mockup / construction of the finished Rib design in order to study details, scale and space. ARCH 335 – Acquisition of Med Camps as new Design Build Partner and successful execution of large project that coordinated 25 students in a single quarter. ARCH 315 – Collaboration with Wagoner & Ball (WB) Architects and City of Shreveport in Urban planning and programming studio. Including Site visits, participation in two workshops that put students working side by side with WB associates and partners, and inclusion of WB team members in remote and in person studio reviews. ARCH 380 – First attempt at teaching energy simulation via Revit. First pairing of Quantitative Energy Simulation software with Qualitative Media discussion to tie Sustainable design research and design methods to challenge students to develop personal convictions regarding why these tools are useful. II. RESEARCH / CREATIVE WORK Grant(s) awarded Lagniappe Ladies Grant, Makerbot / CNC mill / Shop Workstations, Spring 2014 A. Paper(s) presented ACSA 2014 Fall Conference, Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations, October, 4 2014 B. Publications Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion & Gardens, Tech Report, Fall 2014. C. Exhibition(s)/Show(s) ACSA 2014 Fall Conference, Convergent Canopies: The Huckleberry Trails Pavilion, October, 4 2014 III. SERVICE A. School: Physical and Information Resources Committee Chair CNC equipment troubleshooting, repair & maintenance South Campus Architecture Shop Coordinator: Student worker supervision, management and assistance. Planning & Marketing of Architecture Camp Summer program B. University Cyber Discovery Camp Leader Representing Architecture and the School of Design to High school students. Two Camps in Ruston and one at University of Central Arkansas in the summer of 2014. Presentation of Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion at The Happening Fall 2014 C. Community: Pro Bono Design and Construction Management services with Robert Brooks and Marla Emory donated for their Summer 2014 Renovation of Montessori School of Ruston (MSR) to allow for the creation of Toddler program. Construction of an Elevated walkway for MSR Service as MSR Board Member for the 2014-2015 School year RPAR Soccer Coach, Fall 2014 season, Under 6 team.

Brad Deal

GENERAL

2014-2015 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2013-2014 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

2013-2014 FACULTY PLAN

Period Covered: 1 March 2013 – 28 February 2014 Name: Brad Deal Rank: Assistant Professor I.TEACHING : What are your teaching and instructional goals for next year? • Having learned a great deal in my first year of full time teaching, I hope to apply this new knowledge in evaluating the effectiveness of my assignments, lectures and general methods. • Greater proficiency with parametric modeling and digital fabrication tools and their maintenance will allow me to more effectively train students to make use of these tools, and allow me to write assignments that take advantage of their potential. • Having prepared a body of presentations and assignments for my lecture courses, I intend to spend more time refining these resources rather than creating them in a general effort to improve my time management, research effectiveness and overall course quality. • I also intend to further employ extensive group documentation of studio work, search for further interdisciplinary collaboration opportunities outside of the school of architecture, and continue to find ways to integrate issues of sustainable design in upper level courses across the curriculum. • As well, I would like to pursue collaborative relationships with service learning leaders from other Schools of architecture in search of global design/build & public interest design opportunities for our students. II. RESEARCH / CREATIVE WORK : What are your research and/or creative work goals for next year? • Sit for final ARE exams to complete my Architectural Licensing process (3 remaining) • Submit abstract(s) and pursue presentation for the ACSA Subtropical Cities Convention on the topics of energy literacy in design education within the context of global warming. • Submit Short Paper and Poster to Acadia 2013 Adaptive Architecture Conference on the topic of ‘on site’ digital fabrication in carbon neutral construction. • Pursue submission to Reclaim + Remake Symposium on the topic of reuse of waste material from CNC and other subtractive digital fabrication methods. III. SERVICE What are your service and outreach goals for next year (within the venues of the School, College, University, profession, community)? • School: Physical and Information Resources Committee: • - CNC equipment troubleshooting, repair & maintenance, • - Student worker supervision, management and assistance. • - Pursue training on the Haas Mill • - Research Kuka robot pricing applications and grant opportunities • Pursue collaboration with service learning leaders from other Schools of architecture in search of global design/build & public interest design opportunities. • Pursue Technology Fee, Lagniappe Ladies grant opportunities for a resin 3D printer, 4th and possibly 5th axis for Techno CNC and/or Haas Mill. • Community: Assist Montessori School of Ruston in their exploration to expand to provide early childhood education program

Brad Deal

GENERAL

2013-2014 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Fall Quarter, 2013 School of Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

Course No. & Section

CORE DESIGN IV ARCH 315 -001 INDIV STUDIO PROBL ARCH 559 -001

Credit Hours

4 3

Meeting Time

1:00-4:50pm 12:30-4:55pm

B. Unscheduled Teaching (Course Preparation)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below

Hrs.

M,T,W,R 9:30a-12:00p

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities ARE licensure prep and testing Presentation at ACSA Fall conference

Hrs.

C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

SoA Physical and Information Resources Committee Chair Supervise operations of CNC Shop & Graduate Assistant workers

Hrs.

B. To the profession C. To the public Soccer Coach RPAR

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2013-2014 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Winter Quarter, 2014 School of Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

Course Name

Course No. & Section

ARCH 425 -001

CORE DESIGN VIII

Credit Hours

Meeting Time

1:00-4:50pm

Hrs.

B. Unscheduled Teaching (Course Preparation)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below

Hrs.

M,T,W,R 9:30a-12:00p

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term)

A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities ARE licensure testing Research & project development oriented toward the following venues: Community based, design build, service learning program for Ruston Design Corps SEED Awards submission SXSW Eco Conference 2014 submission

C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

SoA Physical and Information Resources Committee Chair

Hrs. Hrs.

Hrs.

B. To the profession

C. To the public

Brad Deal

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

GENERAL

2013-2014 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Spring Quarter, 2014 School of Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

Signature: ____________________________

Course Name

Course No. & Section

ARCH 135 ARCH 335

FND STUDIO III DESIGN BUILD

Credit Hours

2 4

Meeting Time

MWF 8:00 -10:50a (9hrs) MWF 1:00 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4:50p (12hrs)

Hrs.

B. Unscheduled Teaching (Course Preparation)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below Office Hours: MW11a-12p, TR 10a-2p

Hrs.

Current quarter coursework and design build prep for spring quarter.

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities - ARE testing - ACSA Paper & Abstracts

Hrs.

C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

SOA Physical and Information Resources Committee: Digital fabrication equipment maintenance / student worker supervision

Hrs.

B. To the profession

C. To the public

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2013-2014 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

ANNUAL FACULTY REPORT Period Covered: 28 February 2013 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 17 March 2014 Name: Brad Deal Rank:

Assistant Professor

I. TEACHING A. Course(s) Taught Spring 2012: ARCH 335, IDES 254 Fall 2012: ARCH 315, ARCH 559 Winter 2012/13: ARCH 425 B. Instructional Innovation(s) Implementation ARCH 335: Core Studio VI: Design Build: Instructional Innovations included: 3rd year students, Single Quarter Design Build. Intense group design effort, focus on student communication, teamwork, accountability, and project management experience. Taught students CNC plasma, welding & concrete pouring processes. Taught students to document projects through time lapse video and summarizing video edit. IDES 254: Foundation Interior Design III: Instructional Innovations included: Full scale mock up of conceptual models as warm up project. Studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s constructed Architectural model from CD set of drawings, Designed interiors for Boutique Hotel in Austin, TX - a project from my professional experience. ARCH 315: Core Studio IV: Analysis and Programing: Instructional Innovations included: introduction to data collection and diagramming rather than concept as generator of form and logic in design process. Introduction of Students to CNC router & plasma for model production. ARCH 559: Indiv. Studio Problems (Craft Elective): Digital Fabrication: Instructional Innovations included: Thorough experimentation with Students on CNC router & plasma. Implemented small scale design build projects (benches, wall installations etc). Difficult to manage when competing with 510 Studio. ARCH 425: Core Studio V: Sustainable Design: Instructional Innovations included: Three 3-week assignments used to get students used to getting projects developed quickly, Readings, books and design problems focused on social, economic and environmental sustainability. Introduced Revit BIM software, Green Building Studio & 360 Cloud Rendering. Helped coordinate alumni-led Revit workshop. II. RESEARCH / CREATIVE WORK B. Paper(s) presented (please include Venue, Title, and Date of Presentation) ACSA Fall Conference, Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy, October 19, 2013. C. Publications (please include Venue, Title, and Date of Presentation) ACSA Fall Conference Proceedings, Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy, Forthcoming. Delta Style Magazine, Huckleberry Trails Entry Pavilion, June 2013 D. Exhibition(s)/Show(s) (please include Venue, Date, and Work shown) LA Tech Student Research Symposium, Feb 14th , 2014 E. Other Ongoing Experimentation / Familiarization with Revit, Green Building Studio III. SERVICE A. School SOA Physical and Information Resources Committee: CNC equipment troubleshooting, repair & maintenance Student worker supervision, management and assistance. Planning & Marketing of Architecture Camp Summer program

B. Community Coached RPAR Youth Soccer Team Spring 2014 Repaired Montessori School Swing set Fall 2013

Brad Deal

GENERAL

2013-2014 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2012-2013 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Fall Quarter, 2012 School of Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

Course No. & Section

ARCH 315 -001

CORE DESIGN IV

Credit Hours

Meeting Time

1:00-4:50pm

B. Unscheduled Teaching (Course Preparation)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below

Hrs.

M,T,W,H 10a-12:30p

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term)

A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities Learning/ Experimenting / Working with Digital Fabrication Tools

C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

SOA Physical and Information Resources Committee

Hrs. 0 Hrs.

Hrs.

B. To the profession

C. To the public

Brad Deal

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

GENERAL

2012-2013 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Winter Quarter, 2013 School of Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

Signature: _________________________

Course Name

Course No. & Section

ARCH 325 -002 ARCH 380 ARCH 511 IDES 343

CORE DESIGN V ENERGY SIM. ENERGY SIM. SUST. FOR I.D.

Credit Hours

4 2 2 1

Meeting Time

MWF 1:00-4:50p (12hrs) TR 2:00 – 3:15p (2hrs) TR 2:00 – 3:15p T 11:00 – 12:15p (1hr)

Hrs.

B. Unscheduled Teaching (Course Preparation)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below MWRF 10a-12:30p

Hrs.

Current quarter coursework and design/build prep for Spring quarter.

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities - ARE preparation - Building Energy Simulation Processes & Implications

Hrs.

C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

SOA Physical and Information Resources Committee: Digital fabrication equipment maintenance / student worker supervision

Hrs.

B. To the profession

C. To the public

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2012-2013 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

FACULTY ACTIVITY SURVEY Quarter: Department: Name:

Spring Quarter, 2013 School of Architecture Brad Deal

I. Instruction and Advising

Signature: ____________________________

Course Name

Course No. & Section

IDES 254 ARCH 335

ID FND STUDIO III CORE DES IV D/B

Credit Hours

2 4

Meeting Time

MW 8:00 -10:50a (6hrs) MWF 1:00 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 4:50p (12hrs)

Hrs.

B. Unscheduled Teaching (Course Preparation)

Hrs.

C. Please indicate scheduled conference hours below MWRF 10a-12: 30p

Hrs.

Current quarter coursework and design/build prep for spring quarter.

II. Research and Scholarly Activities (during this term) A. Funded Research Projects B. Unfunded Research Activities - ARE testing - Research: Autonomous Building Fabrication & Carbon Neutral Construction

C. Other Scholarly Activities

III. Service (Professional Role)

A. To the Unit / College / University

SOA Physical and Information Resources Committee: Digital fabrication equipment maintenance / student worker supervision

Hrs. Hrs.

Hrs.

B. To the profession

C. To the public

Brad Deal

TOTAL HRS / WEEK Excluding Teaching

ANNUAL FACULTY REPORT

Period Covered: 1 March 2012 – 28 February 2013 Name: Brad Deal Rank: Assistant Professor I.TEACHING A. Course(s) Taught Spring 2012: N/A Fall 2012: ARCH 315 Winter 2012/13: ARCH 380/511, ARCH 325, IDES 343 B. Instructional Innovation(s) Implementation ARCH 315: Core Studio IV: Analysis and Programing Instructional Innovations included: introduction to data collection and diagramming rather than concept as generator of form and logic in design process. Introduction of Students to CNC router for model production. ARCH 325: Core Studio V: Iterative Processes Instructional Innovations included: Encouraging student projects respond to recent events (Hurricane Sandy), training students to use InDesign and the process of bookmaking and layout to create a comprehensive publication summarizing the research and design efforts of the studio, challenging students to balance issues of ecology, urban context, pollution and failing infrastructures. ARCH 380/511: Energy Simulation in Design Instructional Innovations included: Introduction of students to building energy and day lighting simulations via new software in development at MIT and NREL. IDES 343: Sustainable Design for Interiors Introduction of online Life Cycle Assessment tools, as well as Daylight simulation software

GENERAL

2012-2013 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

II. RESEARCH / CREATIVE WORK C. Publications (please include Venue, Title, and Date of Presentation) Texas Architect, “Bungalow Modern” May/June Issue. Article Showcasing the Heywood Hotel D. Exhibition(s)/Show(s) (please include Venue, Date, and Work shown) LA Tech Student Research Symposium, Feb 21st, 2013 E. Other (please describe) Heywood Hotel, AIA Austin Merit Award Winner 2012 - Ongoing Experimentation / Familiarization with Digital Fabrication Hardware & Software: Rhino, Grasshopper, RhinoCAM, TechnoIsel CNC, PlasmaCam CNC, Haas F2 Mill - Ongoing / Familiarization with Building Energy Simulation and daylighting software: DIVA for Rhino, Open Studio, Equest, Revit III. SERVICE A. School SOA Physical and Information Resources Committee: CNC equipment troubleshooting, repair & maintenance Student worker supervision, management and assistance.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

2012-2013 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

Brad Deal

GENERAL

2012-2013 Annual Plan, Activities, Report & Evaluation

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

TEACHING Brad Deal Tenure & Promotion Dossier 2017

Statement on Teaching Courses Taught Form B Evidence of Teaching Effectiveness: Outline of Instructional Innovations Selected Course Syllabi Selected Student Work Honors and Awards Related to Teaching Student Evaluation Surveys Student Letters of Recommendation

STATEMENT ON TEACHING My teaching contributions have spanned our entire architecture curriculum from comprehensive graduate studios to freshmen drawing courses. My efforts to comprehend and sharpen our curriculum at all stages have been paired with a willingness to work closely with all of my colleagues and step in to any role required of me. This has led to significant contributions in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th year studios. I was part of the faculty leaders that successfully translated a 200 level studio project into a 100 level course that included a new freshmen level design/build exercise. I worked with Professor Liane Hancock, our foundations coordinator, to repackage the way our sophomore students are introduced to required software. By creating an original series of tutorial videos and adjusting the format of our introductory lectures, we saw greatly reduced learning curves allowing us to teach additional rendering software that has clearly improved our students ability create immersive visual representations of their designs. In the 3rd and 4th year professional level studios I’ve worked regularly with our program chair Dr. Pasquale DePaola and others to explore a range of projects addressing current events allowing our junior level students to travel and work directly with prestigious offices including Waggoner & Ball Architects of New Orleans and JHP Architecture and Planning in Dallas. These studios have included a master plan for The Cross Bayou Corridor for the City of Shreveport, a refugee resettlement housing proposal in the Vickery Meadow neighborhood in Dallas for the International Rescue Committee (IRC), and most recently the first iteration of a North Louisiana resiliency studio in preparation for our program’s participation in the newly formed Louisiana Universities Resilient Architecture Collaborative (LURAC). Similarly in the 4th year Sustainable Design Studio, I’ve worked consistently with our professional level coordinator, Kevin Singh, to deliver high quality engaging studio projects including a travel studio that worked directly with the City of Austin TX’s Green Building Program to propose a sustainable elementary school that integrated the first utility scale energy storage in the world’s largest LEED Gold neighborhood development in central Austin. Complimenting this Sustainable Design Studio, over the past five years I have also developed an engaging and successful building energy simulation elective course, ARCH380/550, that has recently been designated as a required course within the architecture curriculum. It has been truly rewarding to implement the teaching strategies above, but my most significant contribution to our program has surely been the new partnerships, projects, rebranding, and publications of the work of the ARCH 335 Design/Build Studio that I was so fortunate to inherit. Co-teaching the studio with Robert Brooks, we have built an invaluable partnership with Caleb Seney and MedCamps of Louisiana. Each Spring we have lead students to design and construct several of the most ambitious projects in the program’s history while also compressing the design/build studio to a single quarter. In this class I set the expectations of student performance, service, perseverance and end product delivery very high, but I also work to equip every student with the resources necessary to succeed. I strive to lead by example as we navigate unfamiliar territory and demonstrate a personal commitment to doing whatever may be required to meet our goals. One of the most significant outcomes of these large group projects are the soft skills, teamwork and life lessons gained. My students learn to evaluate themselves and their peers beyond the rote execution of a task. They discover instead that the vast majority of success stems not from natural talent or luck, but rather from one’s attitude and the level of effort exerted.

Brad Deal Assistant Professor | Architecture School of Design Louisiana Tech University 48

Brad Deal

2012-2017

ARCH 112: Communication Skills I An introduction to the principles and techniques of visualization and freehand representational drawing. This class primarily consists of drawing sessions, brief lectures, critiques and field trips.

TEACHING

COURSES TAUGHT ARCH 135: Foundation Design III Introduction to three-dimensional massing and spatial design issues; introduction to related compositional, analytical, and representational strategies; and development of a material and tectonic vocabulary. ARCH 215: Core Design I Examination of modes of architectural investigation and production, emphasizing schematic design principles as related to spatial experience, building envelope, site principles, and digital imagery. ARCH 225: Core Design II An in-depth inquiry into the creation of iterative expressions of spatial and tectonic complexity through two & three-dimensional explorations of materials, structure, form, organization, and idea as they relate to physical and conceptual experience. ARCH 315: Core Design IV A Design Studio emphasizing Architectural Programing, pre-design research and building code familiarity. The course is an Examination of design processes emphasizing appropriate selection of construction materials, structural systems, and building envelopes through an integrated approach to aesthetic and environmental issues. ARCH 335: Core Design VI This Design/Build Studio introduces students to fast-paced, highly collaborative processes of design and construction of projects in the real world. Students work closely with their professors to engage issues related to site, codes, technical documentation, financial consideration, building systems, and schematic design development through a collaborative and community-based design-build project. ARCH 425: Core Design VIII This sustainable design studio examines issues of site and climate specificity, building codes/systems, and schematic design development relative to projects that reduce environmental impact and provide energy and bioclimatic efficiency. ARCH 380/550: Applied Studio Practice This elective course introduces upper level students to the concepts and software involved in energy simulation as it relates to sustainable building design and construction. ARCH 510: Comprehensive Design I This Gradate Design Studio serves as the initiation of a comprehensive project with emphasis on applied research, precedent analyses, organizational strategies, and holistic design thinking.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

My ARCH 315 Studio in the Fall of 2016 on our Field trip to Dallas visiting JHP Architecture and Planning to learn more about the neighborhood for which theyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ll be designing a refugee resettlement center.

Brad Deal

FORM B 2012-2017

FACULTY MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES

2016-2017

YEAR QUARTER

Calendar Year Summer

Fall

COURSE NUMBER S 2016

BRIEF COURSE TITLES

BEGINNING OFFICIAL 9TH CLASS DAY ENROLLMENTS

* ENDING ENROLLMENT

TEACHING

FORM B This form should be duplicated, completed for the past five years, and submitted with most recent year presented first.

2017 - ______

Cyber Discovery Camp: Interdiciplinary Recruitment Program Design Camp Recruitment Program

ARCH-225 -002 CORE DESIGN II

ARCH-425 -001 CORE DESIGN VIII

ARCH-315 -002 CORE DESIGN IV Website Refresh

Winter

Spring

ARCH-335 -001 DESIGN/BUILD STUDIO 9 9 FORM B This form should be duplicated, completed for the past five years, and submitted with most recent year presented first.

2015-2016

FACULTY MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES * Ending enrollment is defined as the number of students receiving grades of A, B, C, D, F, and P. Do not include students having W, W+ , and I. YEAR COURSE BRIEF BEGINNING * ENDING QUARTER NUMBER COURSE OFFICIAL 9TH ENROLLMENT S TITLES CLASS DAY ENROLLMENTS Calendar Year Summer

Fall

Winter

Spring

2015

2016 - ______

Cyber Discovery Camp: Interdiciplinary Recruitment Program Design Camp Recruitment Program ARCH-215 -003 CORE DESIGN I

ARCH-510-002

ARCH-225 -001 CORE DESIGN II

ARCH-380 -001 ENERGY SIMULATION AND DESIGN ARCH-550C -001 ENERGY SIMULATION AND DESIGN

ARCH-335 -001 DESIGN/BUILD STUDIO

COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN I

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

* Ending enrollment is defined as the number of students receiving grades of A, B, C, D, F, and P. Do not include students having W, W+ , and I.

Form B

FORM B This form should be duplicated, completed for the past five years, and submitted with most recent year presented first. FACULTY MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES

2014-2015

YEAR QUARTER

Calendar Year Summer

Fall

Winter

Spring

COURSE NUMBER S 2014

BRIEF COURSE TITLES

BEGINNING OFFICIAL 9TH CLASS DAY ENROLLMENTS

* ENDING ENROLLMENT

2015 - ______

Cyber Discovery Camp: Interdiciplinary Recruitment Program Design Camp Recruitment Program ARCH-315 -001 CORE DESIGN IV: ANALYSIS & PROG

ARCH-112-001

ARCH-225 -001 CORE DESIGN II

ARCH-425 -001 CORE DESIGN VIII

ARCH-380 -001 ENERGY SIMULATION AND DESIGN

ARCH-335 -001 DESIGN/BUILD STUDIO

ARCH-135 -002 FOUNDATION DESIGN III

COMMUNICATION SKILLS I

FORM B This form should be duplicated, completed for the past five years, and submitted with most recent year presented first.

2013-2014

FACULTY MEMBER * Ending enrollment is defined as the numberRESPONSIBILITIES of students receiving grades of A, B, C, D, F, and P. Do not include students having W, W+ , and I. YEAR QUARTER

Calendar Year Summer

2013

BRIEF COURSE TITLES

BEGINNING OFFICIAL 9TH CLASS DAY ENROLLMENTS

* ENDING ENROLLMENT

2014 - ______

Cyber Discovery Camp: Interdiciplinary Recruitment Program

ARCH-315 -001 CORE DESIGN IV: ANALYSIS & PROG

ARCH-559 -001 SPECIALIZED INDIV STUDIO PROBLEMS

Winter

ARCH-425 -001 CORE DESIGN VIII

Spring

ARCH-335 -001 DESIGN/BUILD STUDIO

ARCH-135 -002 FOUNDATION DESIGN III

Fall

COURSE NUMBER S

Brad Deal

* Ending enrollment is defined as the number of students receiving grades of A, B, C, D, F, and P. Do not include students having W, W+ , and I.

FACULTY MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES

2012-2013

YEAR QUARTER

Calendar Year Summer

Fall

Winter

Spring

COURSE NUMBER S 2012

BRIEF COURSE TITLES

BEGINNING OFFICIAL 9TH CLASS DAY ENROLLMENTS

* ENDING ENROLLMENT

Form B

TEACHING

FORM B This form should be duplicated, completed for the past five years, and submitted with most recent year presented first.

2013 - ______

N/A

ARCH-315 -001 CORE DESIGN IV: ANALYSIS & PROG

ARCH-325 -002 CORE DESIGN V: VIII ITERATIVE STUDIO ARCH-380 -001 ENERGY SIMULATION AND DESIGN ARCH-511 -001 ENERGY SIMULATION AND DESIGN IDES-343 -001 SUSTAINABLE DESIGN FOR INTERIORS

ARCH-335 -001 CORE DESIGN VI: SPEC TOPIC STUDIO IDES-254 -001 FOUNDATION INTERIOR DESIGN III

* Ending enrollment is defined as the number of students receiving grades of A, B, C, D, F, and P. Do not include students having W, W+ , and I.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

INSTRUCTIONAL INNOVATIONS ARCH 335 Peer Evaluation

Due via email every Monday by 1pm Please rate your peers on thier work this week. Be honest and accurate. Leave your own blank. If you didn't work with someone leave their row blank. All Rating scale: information provided will be kept confidential. 5 = superior | 4 = above average | 3 = average | 2 = below average | 1 = weak

Your Name: Best. Student. Ever. 3/13/16 Date:

Time Report

Peer Review Names Ian Mac Sydney Iana Lacey Mackenzie Josh John

Group Kept the group Relative Number QUANTITY of Participation / focused & on of Hours work done Leadership task Contributed

QUALITY of work done

Day

Date

Monday

3/6/16

Tuesday

3/7/16

Wednesday

3/8/16

Task

Hours 0.00

Survey, Research, Model

0.00 7.00

Thursday

3/9/16

0.00

Friday

3/10/16

0.00

Saturday

3/11/16

0.00

Sunday

3/12/16

Week 1 Total

0.00 7.00

Nasser Karlie

I’ve developed in-depth quantitative weekly peer evaluations in which students compete to earn the title of “boss” for the week in the design/build studio.

Use the space below for any additional thoughts you'd like to share about this week.

Eddie Madeline Cody Ernesto Terry Andy Bri

This week's BOSS:

In the design/build studio, I organize frequent after hours and between-class meetings to push projects forward.

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Instructional Innovations

Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve organized charettes (24 hour design sessions) to build early project momentum.

Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve developed a branding identity and logo for the ARCH 335 studio, and I make T-shirts every Spring for the students as a sort of trophy or right of passage into the studio.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Instructional Innovations

To build and sustain student moral Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve prepared and arranged many meals for the students and shared those meals over inspirational film screenings. This has led to a pattern in the design/ build studio; the class eats lunch together every Friday.

In the design/build studio, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve arranged multiple public events and client interactions that motivate and train students to interact with their community and get to know their clients

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Instructional Innovations

I’ve organized both formal and informal interaction and mentorship opportunities in which upperclassmen offer advice and anecdotal evidence to younger students entering a new challenges in their education.

I’ve organized and traveled on numerous studio field trips fostering a culture of professional networking and outreach for my students. We’ve visited architecture firms, notable buildings, construction sites and cultural landmarks in New Orleans, Shreveport, Monroe, Dallas, Austin, and Houston.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Instructional Innovations

Every Spring I work with MedCamps of Louisiana to organize public groundbreaking and dedication ceremonies for the ARCH 335 Design/Build Studio.

I have worked with our director and other faculty to adjust the official class meeting times for the design/build studio to create safer working conditions.

AFTER: Class MWF 8a-12p (afternoon work sessions)

BEFORE: Class MWF 1-5p (evening work sessions)

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Instructional Innovations

Each Spring I thoroughly documenting the process of the ARCH 335 Design/Build Studio and during the summer months creating short films about the projects as video diaries that inspire future students.

Screenings of these films for professionals around the country as well as in my classes has proven highly motivational to students.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Instructional Innovations

In 2014, I worked with Kevin Singh in the ARCH 425 studio toward the first integration of Autodeskâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Revit BIM Software into the studio. This software remains a central part of that course as it is quickly becoming the industry standard for building production and our students are benefiting tremendously from the exposure.

In the design/build studio coordination and communication are essential. For this reason I introduced GroupMe, a universal text messaging app that facilitates fluid communications across large groups and subgroups within classes while maintaining a level of professional distance sacrificed by the broad distribution of phone numbers. Since implementing this application it has provided numerous opportunities for out of class instruction and saturated the student body to foster closer relationships, a stronger studio culture and even a more robust professional network for our alumni who stay connected through this format

Brad Deal

ARCH 335 DESIGN/BUILD

TEACHING

SELECTED COURSE SYLLABI Core Studio IV:(4CR) Spring 2017 Syllabus

Section 002

Section 001

Robert Brooks

Associate Professor School of Design, Hale Hall 213 Email: mbrooks@latech.edu Office: 318.257.5256 Cell 318.245.8698 Office Hours: MWF 1-4:30 @ Co:Lab / Camp Alabama Hale 213 by appointment & during advising

01_INTRODUCTION

Brad Deal

Assistant Professor School of Design, Hale Hall 136 Email: braddeal@latech.edu Office: 318.257.5268 Cell: 512.466.7672 Office Hours| Hale 136 MWF 1-4:30 @ Co:Lab / Camp Alabama` Hale 136 by appointment & during advising advising

In your architectural education thus far, your studio and seminar courses have focused on developing a very specific knowledge base and challenging you to create projects that transform that knowledge into applicable and appropriate skills. As the matriculation becomes increasingly comprehensive, you are required to navigate ever-larger bodies of knowledge and expertise, and apply that knowledge to your work. ARCH 335 and the design build process is no exception along this trajectory; rather, over the course of ten short weeks you will be challenged to leverage and further add to your entire knowledge base of design and construction to complete a real-world comprehensive design project and then execute its construction.

The Design/Build experience at Louisiana Tech is one of the most challenging, educational and rewarding of any offered within the university. It will push you intellectually, physically, emotionally and personally to accomplish more in a single course than ever before. Not only does it offer you an opportunity to add a significant and meaningful accomplishment to your portfolio, it also allows you to experience the effort exerted in the studio coming to fruition as a constructed, tangible, permanent artifact. A Design/Build studio, by its nature, has unique conditions that you will be reminded of regularly through the course of the project and duration of the quarter: TRUST, RESPONSIBILITY & ACCOUTABILITY: Traditional architectural education, by in large, is ouroborostic in nature: Failure only affects you. However, this studio is anything but traditional: you do not have the option of failure or mediocrity. The inability to deliver high quality work in a timely manner will affect you, but it also directly affects your classmates, your professors and perhaps most importantly, if affects your client. Reflecting this reality, part of the evaluation criteria for the course will include weekly time sheets and anonymous peer reviews. COMMUNICATION & TEAMWORK: For the next 10 weeks we will be the largest design and construction operation in North Louisiana, working on a very short deadline; we will have to act as a single well-organized team. This is particularly important as we transition out of design into sustained parallel construction activities. We will be separated into different teams, working in different places with different schedules that must all sync at the end. Again, neither failure nor mediocrity is an Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Ourobrose from greek mythology symbolizing self-reflexivity or cyclicality

Selected Course Syllabi

option, as we are absolutely dependent on each other. Add to this a compounding schedule, expensive building materials and weeks of sweat equity on everyone’s part, and it becomes apparent that teamwork is paramount. To work effectively you must do these two things simultaneously A) work carefully, precisely and passionately at the task before you, while B) always searching and anticipating the details of the next step in the process. It is also important that you keep others informed of what you are doing, and actively seek advice and criticism so that you can confirm that you are doing your task correctly. The ultimate success of this studio depends largely on the ability of you and your classmates to contribute meaningfully and rigorously to the design process and be effective in your coordination and organization of the construction effort. However, at no point should you ever lose sight that this project is ultimately about managing your client’s expectations by providing your intellectual, physical and emotional skills to the greater good: The experience of children that attend MedCamps.

02_OUR STUDIO

This year our studio will be meet at Co:Lab (800 W. Alabama). You will be issued a key to the studio at the beginning of the quarter. It must be returned at the end of the quarter. A fee of $75.00 will be assessed for any lost keys. All students will be responsible for cleaning the studio space at the end of the quarter. Each student is responsible for his/her individual space, while all students are collectively responsible for the overall studio area. The studio should be in the same condition that it was at the beginning of the quarter. This studio is not for social activities - guests are discouraged. You are responsible for any damages or problems that occur in the space. Trash that is too large to fit in the waste paper cans or trash bin shall be removed from the building and taken to an outside dumpster. Any student who fails to comply with this policy will have his/her studio grade lowered by one full letter or 10% We encourage you to use the studio as you would Hale. There are no set hours of operation. Students may utilize the studio space, the connector space and the garage areas. Access to the remaining portion(s) of Co:Lab is strictly prohibited unless there is a faculty member present. Doors and windows shall remain locked at all times, without exception. We strongly recommend that no student be at Co:Lab alone, and highly encourage the “buddy system”. It should be noted that Co:Lab is not located on the Louisiana Tech Campus. In the event of any emergency dial 911.

ARCH 335: DESIGN BUILD

Brad Deal

03_OUR CLIENT

Founded by Dr. Michael Zambie in 1987, Louisiana Med Camps operates under the belief that all people, regardless of medical or special needs, deserve to experience life to the fullest and that camping is an American tradition which epitomizes normalcy and provides a vital a sense of well-being, belonging, accomplishment and self-worth. Translating these beliefs into action MedCamps hosts a series of oneweek camps each summer free of charge for children in Louisiana facing the challenges of a variety of physical and mental disabilities including spina bifida, cerebral palsy, asthma, sickle cell anemia, autism, epilepsy, visual impairment, hearing impairment, speech impairment and those developmentally disabled. Children battling these disorders are often unable to participate in normal childhood activities. Consequently, they are often “left out” because they have special needs. MedCamps exists to make sure this is no longer the case. Since its inception MedCamps has grown from 13 kids for 1 week in the beginning to 350 children over a 10-week period in recent years; from serving one chronic illness in 1987 to now serving more than 16.

TEACHING

Selected Course Syllabi

In 2014 year MedCamps of Louisiana signed a 20 year lease of the property and facilities on which they currently operate, known as Camp Alabama located in Choudrant, Louisiana. The renewed lease prompted Caleb Seney, MedCamps executive director, to invest in much needed infrastructure and building improvements including starting a formal relationship with the School of Design’s 335 Design Build program. Thus far this relationship has been a highly beneficial endeavor for both organizations. Each has given new life and abundant resources to the other through their collaboration. It’s is our obligation this quarter to continue to further this relationship and add to the benefits experienced by all through the execution of our project.

03_DOCUMENTATION and COMMUNICATION

In addition to typical project documentation, we will work to thoroughly document our process through photos and time-lapse videos with the goal of making a summarizing project video similar to past 335 studios. Each of you should consider yourselves documentary filmmakers for the rest of the quarter; work to capture every model, task, success, failure, emotion etc. digitally.

We will be using the official “ARCH 335 Design Build” Facebook page. About 350 alumni, friends of the school and general fans of design build from around the world are already following this page. You’re welcome to invite your friends and parents to “Like” the page to see our updates. Every year our audience is eager to see our progress and proud of what they see there. It will be our collective duty to document the project’s process and to keep friends, alumni, family and one another informed and excited about our work. In order for you to become a content contributor for this we’ll send you an

ARCH 335: DESIGN BUILD

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Course Syllabi

invitation via the email address associated with your facebook account that you provided via the syllabus signature sheet. Please make every effort to keep this content fun and true to reality, but professional and in keeping with what should appropriately represent the University and the School of Design. While everyone will be able to contribute at any point, two volunteers are asked serve the studio’s “media startup team”. For the first two weeks they will be responsible for getting everyone logged in, signed up and able to post as well as posting updates and collecting and organizing the photos and videos generated. Contributing content on social media not only shares what we’re doing, but also generally reflects positively in your grades by showing that you are engaged and contributing to the studio efforts. To facilitate more seamless communication and file sharing we will use a Google Drive account for files and GroupMe for group texting. Google Drive Account: user: arch335.2017@gmail.com pswd: schoolofdesign FB, Instagram, Twitter (etc.) hashtag: #335db

04_OBJECTIVES AND GOALS

In some respects the goals of a Design Build studio are obvious: we will conceive and construct an architectural project which meets our clients needs through a practical, meaningful, appropriate, built design solution. Less obvious are the lessons learned through the process of completing those tasks. The process is an experience should teach each of you the ability to manage a complex, fast-paced process anticipating needs before they arise and coordinating a variety of resources and operations in service of a specific architectural solution. At the beginning of the quarter your instructors will lead this coordination by example, but as we transition into construction and fabrication, you will transition into the role of project managers. In the final weeks of the project when our deadline is approaching, you will be collectively expected to have assumed leadership positions and finish the project through internal coordination and direction. In terms of your academic curriculum, the primary objectives of ARCH 335 are to enable the students to: • Develop an understanding and working practice of the design and construction processes. • Develop the ability to implement 2-D & 3-D design elements and principles in a full scale building environment • Develop good communication and organization skills resulting in project and resource management abilities necessary for construction execution and project management.

05_ EVALUATION

100% of every student’s grade will be based entirely on INDIVIDUAL contributions to the general success of the group. If your contributions come at the expense or of others or the project as a whole, they will not reflect well on your grade. Each student must contribute high quality work in quantities equal to your peers while also contributing to the leadership and organization of small team and whole group efforts. Your professors will evaluate your individual contributions 4 times over the course of the quarter (approximately every two weeks), discuss it with you if warranted, and post your individual grade for that time period. Each of these 4 evaluations will be worth 15 points each. The final 40 points will be assessed based on each individual’s overall performance, contributions, attitude and teamwork over the course of the entire quarter.

ARCH 335: DESIGN BUILD

Brad Deal

This studio will operate much like a design/build office. There will be teams within the larger group, leaders within those teams, deadlines, coordination, etc. therefore effective and frequent communication will be essential. As teams and individuals you will have to operate autonomously at times. You will have to motivate and encourage one another as well as hold one another accountable for project deliverables and for the amount of individual time & effort contributed. Your professor(s) cannot be present during all of the work, and therefore it will be required that each member of the studio serve as our eyes and ears. Each student is required to complete the time sheet and peer evaluation form saved as your name on the Google drive and email it to both Professors Deal and Brooks. This will allow us all to gauge your input relative to your peers and help to keep us all honest and informed about the efforts of the group. Evaluation Breakdown 3 Individual grades: 1 Grade for Drawing Set 1 Overall Final Evaluation:

TEACHING

Selected Course Syllabi

10 points each 30 points 40 points

06_REQUIRED RESORUCES AND SUPPLIES

As with all studios the school’s standard computer and software requirements apply: you will need a laptop/desktop with an updated version of Rhino 5.0, and the latest AutoCAD (for Mac or PC). Specific to the Design Build studio, there are some unique expectations in terms of tools and supplies. Each student expected to obtain and bring to all work sessions the following items: • • • • •

tape measure (25’ or more) safety glasses earplugs Leather work gloves Sturdy boots (steel toe)

Other items such as tool belts, or simple hand tools such as hammers, screwdrivers or wrenches may need to be purchased or provided as well depending on the specific demands of our design and construction process. We will have access to the School’s library of construction tools used in previous design build projects as well as on site tool storage at Camp Alabama. We will make use of all resources available to us through the University, the School of Design and Med Camps of Louisiana, but be aware that the items listed above will need to be provided by you as supplies necessary for the studio. In addition to these supplies a $75 studio fee will be collected by your instructors (cash is preferred) and used to provide resources for the class through the quarter related to construction, safety and comfort.

ARCH 335: DESIGN BUILD

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Course Syllabi

07_NAAB STUDENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

A. 2. Design Thinking Skills: Ability to raise clear and precise questions, use abstract ideas to interpret information, consider diverse points of view, reach well-reasoned conclusions, and test alternative outcomes against relevant criteria and standards. A. 3. Visual Communication Skills: Ability to use appropriate representational media, such as traditional graphic and digital technology skills, to convey essential formal elements at each stage of the programming and design process. A. 4. Technical Documentation: Ability to make technically clear drawings, write outline specifications, and prepare models illustrating and identifying the assembly of materials, systems, and components appropriate for a building design. A. 6. Fundamental Design Skills: Ability to effectively use basic architectural and environmental principles in design. B.2 Accessibility: Ability to design sites, facilities, and systems to provide independent and integrated use by individuals with physical (including mobility), sensory, and cognitive disabilities. B.7 Financial Considerations: Understanding of the fundamentals of building costs, such as acquisition costs, project financing and funding, financial feasibility, operational costs, and construction estimating with an emphasis on life-cycle cost accounting. B. 12. Building Materials and Assemblies: Understanding of the basic principles utilized in the appropriate selection of construction materials, products, components, and assemblies, based on their inherent characteristics and performance, including their environmental impact and reuse. C. 1. Collaboration: Ability to work in collaboration with others and in multi-disciplinary teams to successfully complete design projects. C.3 Client Role in Architecture: Understanding of the responsibility of the architect to elicit, understand, and reconcile the needs of the client, owner, user groups, and the public and community domains. C.4 Leadership: Understanding of the techniques and skills architects use to work collaboratively in the building design and construction process and on environmental, social, and aesthetic issues in their communities. C.6 Leadership: Understanding of the techniques and skills architects use to work collaboratively in the building design and construction process and on environmental, social, and aesthetic issues in their communities. C.9 Community and Social Responsibility: Understanding of the architect’s responsibility to work in the public interest, to respect historic resources, and to improve the quality of life for local and global neighbors

08_GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES University Policies •

•

In accordance with the Academic Honor Code, students pledge the following: “Being a student of a higher standard, I pledge to embody the principles of academic integrity.” The Honor Code is available for review at http://www.latech.edu/documents/honor-code.pdf. Students needing testing or classroom accommodations based on a disability must register with the Office of Disability Services, and discuss those needs with the instructor during the first full week of the quarter. All Louisiana Tech students are strongly encouraged to enroll and update their contact information in the Emergency Notification System (ENS), to receive information in event of a campus emergency. For more information, please visit http://latech.edu/administration/ens.shtml.

ARCH 335: DESIGN BUILD

Brad Deal

STUDIO CULTURE •

• •

•

1:3 WORK RATIO: The average student is expected to work during the twelve hours per week of scheduled class meetings. A minimal 1:3 work ratio therefore implies a minimum of 36 hours per week, outside of class meetings, on assigned coursework. BE PREPARED: Students must arrive to class with materials necessary for study and assignments. Time should not be taken out of class to purchase supplies. CHECK MOODLE/GROUPME: Course syllabus and handouts, as well as occasional other materials, will be located on Moodle online course site. All students are expected to have regular access to the site, and to regularly check for course announcements, materials, etc. Students are responsible for information posted, regardless of its mention in class meetings. SCHEDULE YOUR TIME: The student is expected to learn about and take advantage of all relevant School/University resources, and to plan his/her work to coincide with the normal staffing and availability of these resources. Each student is expected to coordinate their scholastic and personal schedules to allow for the time requirements of the course. Missing other classes to make progress on design build work will not be permitted.

TEACHING

Selected Course Syllabi

BE RESPECTFUL: Each student must maintain appropriate decorum/respect for others and their belongings. Actions or attitudes, which evidence disrespect for the instructors or fellow students (verbal or physical abuse, talking/disruption during instruction, violation of other’s property or assigned space, etc.) may result in temporary or permanent dismissal, at the instructor’s discretion.

ATTENDANCE POLICIES • • •

• • •

Class attendance is regarded as an obligation as well as a privilege, and all students are expected to attend regularly and punctually, as stated in the Louisiana Tech University Catalog. You are expected to arrive on time and alert, and stay for the duration of the class. Attendance may be taken at any time / times during the class. Mental attendance is expected during class. You are to diligently create, design, research, etc. towards fulfilling the current assignment; not to chatter mindlessly, eat, sleep, or otherwise waste time. Opting out of a desk-crit due to lack of preparation or disinterest will be counted as an absence. Desk crits are mandatory unless stated otherwise by the instructor. Absence does not absolve the student of the responsibility of knowledge or work assigned/material covered while absent. Each student is allowed one free absence and one free late/leave early without penalty (15 minutes max.). After such time, 3 points will be deducted from his/her final total for each absence, and 1 point for each late arrival / early departure / excessive break. If an instructor sends you home from any class or group work session due to laziness, safety concerns or any other reason it will count as an absence. All studios will have 15-minute breaks, to be announced. The instructor will only consider excuses submitted in writing, within 3 days of return, for absences, late arrivals, and early departures. An excused absence is still an absence, and counts as such. An excused absence may allow for an extension of time for completion of assigned work, at the discretion of the instructor. For excessive absence or hardship, it is the responsibility of the student to initiate a request with the instructor that a grade of “I” (incomplete) be issued. Refer to the Louisiana Tech University Catalog for more information. Instructors will only consider a grade of “I” if the student has a reasonable chance to make up required work.

•

ARCH 335: DESIGN BUILD

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Course Syllabi

GENERAL EVALUATION POLICIES •

•

• • •

•

Evaluation of work will be made by the instructor relative to the course objectives, generally accepted conventions, and the stated or implied criteria of individual assignments. Remember that this is a design research studio, meaning that you will have to propose a speculative and original design agenda substantiated by a clear and coherent rationale. This component should also be quantified by quality work. Like always, quantity leads to quality. Drawn work (digital and hand) must be crafted with appropriate sense of orthographic construction, line weights, and architectural drawing conventions. Drawings, which display a lack of understanding of this core aspect of architectural communication, will not be evaluated with a passing grade. Mere compliance with the assignment parameters without additional growth, development, and thought beyond the minimum will be considered average at best (see below). Work submitted late or which does not meet format/quantity/completion requirements will not be accepted for evaluation and 0 points will be awarded. Any assignment or presentation, which has text as a component MUST have proper spelling and grammar usage commensurate with college-level student knowledge. This means students must take time to proofread, spell-check, and otherwise review their textual materials for correct spelling and coherent grammatical structure. One point per error will be deducted from these assignments, up to the maximum available points for the assignment. All graded coursework and supporting process materials may be kept by the instructor for a minimum of 30 days into the next quarter. The instructor reserves the right to retain coursework for longer as needed for departmental or instructional use. In the event of a question regarding an exam or final grade, it is the responsibility of the student to retain and present graded materials, which have been returned for student possession during the quarter. At the end of the quarter, all students must participate in clean-up and removal of all property from the studio. Failure to participate in this clean up will result in the loss of one letter grade from your final total. Final grade is by total points relative to the grade scale. A = 100—90 points B = 89.9—80 points C = 79.9—70 points D = 69.9—60 points F = 59.9—0 points For this class, you will be required to design with intensity, perseverance, and consistency. To this end, you will have to think actively - and act thoughtfully. Choosing only one of these at the expense of the other will, in the end, bring forth average results at best. The above criteria supports a policy by which any student who exerts an average amount of effort, thoroughly completes assignment, and shows an amount of perception and originality no greater than that presented or discussed by the instructor or by the class as a whole will receive a grade of "C." If a student displays no growth or improvement in their work, and if effort is minimal, but exercises are submitted complete, that student will receive a grade of "D." Gross negligence of this course, no effort, and incomplete assignments will result in failure, a grade of "F." Grades of "A" and "B" are reserved for only those students whose attitude and work reflects a noticeable or marked amount of effort, improvement, growth, excitement, rigor, perception, and originality in the pursuit of knowledge of architecture and the completion of studio assignments. Your work in studio is meant to be open to criticism and evaluation; you can expect to be adequately informed of your performance in studio throughout the course of the quarter. If you have concerns as to your performance, discuss with instructor.

ARCH 335: DESIGN BUILD

Brad Deal

09_STUDIO ETIQUETTE, SECURITY AND SAFETY

The studio is an extraordinary learning environment. Since it is a place shared by fellow students and colleagues, it necessitates the careful attention to the needs of everyone. Design studios can be incredibly messy and chaotic; however, you should always keep your space clean, organized, and professional looking. Please keep food and drinks out of studio areas during class hours, and be particularly vigilant at all times to keep liquids away from electronic equipment and power sources. This includes something as simple as a soft drink next to your laptop.

Security is a necessary component for a studio that is accessible to you and your colleagues 24/7. Please be mindful not to admit any uninvited individual and keep all exterior doors locked. Please, let us know as soon as possible if there are any problems that you are unable to resolve your own.

TEACHING

Selected Course Syllabi

Studio and Job Site Safety is, by far, the most important and most critical of all of the components in this class, during this quarter and of this project. Basic safety training videos can be found on the course Moodle site, and it is your duty and obligation to watch them and understand their content PRIOR to doing any work on site and/or with any tool or equipment. This is non-negotiable. It cannot be stated enough: DO NOT USE ANY TOOL OR EQUIPMENT UNLESS YOU KNOW HOW TO USE IT AND KNOW HOW TO USE IT SAFELY. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW HOW, IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILY TO ASK!

ARCH 335: DESIGN BUILD

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Course Syllabi

11_STUDIO SCHEDULE (subject to adjustments) ARCH 335 | Spring 2017 Week

Date

Day

3/8

3/9 3/10

R F

3/11

Task/Assignment

Intro, rules, contact info, site visit, measure and survey etc. For Thur: Site Model, Site plan Drawing, Precedents, site analysis, Barrier Free research. 8pm 335 Alumni Hand-off “War Stories” Review Precedents, Site Model & Sketch Models Hmwk: Make more! DB Precedent tour: Huck Trails, Dubach & Camp: Set up for Dinner. 4pm Med Camp Weekend Campout (Fri 4pm – Sat 2pm) BRING: overnight gear, completed site model, printed site plans, trace, flash lights, snacks, precedents (printed) & concept ideas 11a-1p Fishing with Campers + Discussion.

3/13-14 M-T 3/15 W 3/16-17 R-F

Group Crit – select schemes & teams for presentation & production PRESENTATION#1: PROJECT OPTIONS to Client @10am Review unified project direction & Iterate Fri 7pm Dinner + Teambuilding @ Co:lab

3/20 3/22

Design Iteration & Production PRESENTATION#2: PROPOSED PROJECT to Client @10am Brooks & Deal Depart for Detroit: ACSA CP Award Review unified project direction & Iterate

M-T W

3/23-24 R-F 4

3/27-28 M-T 3/29 W 3/30-31 R-F

Review of new iterations & production work FINAL DESIGN PRESENTATION to Client on site @10am + INDIVIDUAL GRADE #1 Deal & Seney Depart for Hammond: ULS Summit Keynote CD Drawing Production (Daily Redlines)

4/3-4 4/5 4/7

M-T W F

CD Drawing Production (Daily Redlines) FINAL DRAWING SET DUE (DRAWING GRADE ASSESSED) Foundation Work & Shop fabrication

4/10 4/12

M W

Foundation Work & Shop fabrication Foundation Work & Shop fabrication

---- EASTER BREAK ---7

4/17 4/19 4/21

M W F

Foundation Work & Shop fabrication Foundation Complete & Delivery of framing / shop components Framing and Assembly

4/24 4/26

M W

4/28

INDIVIDUAL GRADE #2 Framing and Assembly Framing and Assembly Brooks & Deal Depart for Orlando: AIA Nat’l Conference Framing and Assembly

----4/28 Last day to drop with W grade---9

5/1 5/3 5/5

M W F

Framing and Assembly Framing and Assembly Finishing and Landscape Elements

5/8 5/10 5/12

M W F

INDIVIDUAL GRADE #3Finishing and Landscape Elements Finishing and Landscape Elements Finishing and Landscape Elements

5/14 5/16 5/18

M W F

PROJECT DUE, Grade of “Incomplete” issued if project is incomplete. Project Documentation Site, Shop & Studio Cleanup Last Day of class: Project Dedication & Dinner

5/24

Grades Live on BOSS

ARCH 335: DESIGN BUILD

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Selected Course Syllabi

ARCH 380/550C: Energy Simulation and Design Winter 2016 : Hale 318: TR 2:00-3:15pm Instructor: Brad Deal: braddeal@ latech.edu Hale Hall 136: TR 10a-2p, MW 1-2p

â&#x20AC;&#x153;If you want to teach people a new way of thinking, don't bother trying to teach them. Instead, give them a tool, the use of which will lead to new ways of thinking.â&#x20AC;? - Buckminster Fuller

COURSE DESCRIPTION: st

In the context of the 21 century, design processes that do not address issues of sustainability and resource consumption are considered incomplete and irresponsible by most standards. Long term, big picture thinking is no longer a specialization within the architectural community; it is now implicit in the definition of a comprehensive design process. Within the economic, environmental and social responsibilities of holistic sustainable design, the topic of energy simulation covered in ARCH 380/550C will equip students with a set of tools and knowledge to quantify and effectively leverage their understanding of a buildingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy consumption characteristics, allowing them to act intentionally at the critical intersection of environmental stewardship and economic viability. Demand for the design profession to employ energy simulation is steadily increasing, however simulation, as with any sophisticated tool, must be employed by an experienced user and with a patient, critical approach to the many variables at work. For the process to be useful, the designer must cross reference design intentions against the science of energy modeling to guide decisions when they matter most: early in the design process. This requires knowledge of specific simulation tools, as well as knowledge of building physics, energy consumption factors and the ability to make informed assumptions, interpret results, and optimize designs through iterative processes. Without these skills, energy modeling is at best a waste of time and at its worst, misleading. The potential for energy and other simulations to influence the built environment, however, is much greater than simply validating energy efficiency strategies. These tools have the potential to help the architect design the sensory experience of a project. In the same way that renderings help us visualize the appearance of a design, thermal, light, fluid dynamic and acoustic simulations allow us to understand and manipulate the experience of other senses in space and time. While the data is relatively easy to produce, moving from volumes of quantitative data to a qualitative understanding of experience over time is a significant challenge. This course will explore the ways energy simulation can be applied in the design process to develop buildings that are energy and resource efficient. Students will investigate how these tools might be used to generate design at a deeper experiential level and should leave the course familiar with several specific software programs but also with a knowledge base that will be applicable regardless of the specific simulation tool being used.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES:

1. Develop familiarity with principles and metrics of energy simulation. 2. Learn and Use DIVA for Grasshopper and Revit Energy Analysis Tools 3. Earn the Autodesk Building Performance Analysis Certificate 4. Define a personal attitude towards the energy and sustainability issues or our times

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Course Syllabi

FORMAT:

This will be an open seminar class with a considerable portion of time devoted to software tutorials, discussion and presentation by students. Because of the nature of the course, there is a significant opportunity for learning from the findings of other students. A high degree of class participation will be expected. In this setting, you are expected to bring your laptop and all working files to each class period and be prepared to discuss your progress on a given assignment at any time. The course will consist of 5 equally weighted components: 3 energy analysis software assignments, the completion of the Autodesk Building Performance Analysis Certificate and the students contribution to the Media discussion blog found on moodle.latech.edu. Due to the few hours of formal class time, students will be expected to do a reasonable amount of selfexploration and problem solving when learning new software. Students will need to regularly reference the linked resources found on Moodle as well as actively discuss their work the instructor and other students. Course syllabus and handouts, other materials, will be located on Moodle online course site. All students are expected to have regular access to the site, and to regularly check for course announcements, materials, etc. Students are responsible for information posted, regardless of its mention in class meetings.

SOFTWARE AND COMPUTER REQUIREMENTS:

With the exception of Rhino (which all students should already own) all software and plugins utilized in this course are available for free at the links posted on Moodle. Each Program and Plug in should be downloaded and installed as specified in each assignment. Rhino 5.0: http://www.rhino3d.com/ Grasshopper 1.0: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/download-1 DIVA 2.0 http://www.solemma.net/DIVA-for-Rhino/download.html Revit 2015: http://www.autodesk.com/# Computer System Requirements You will need access to a laptop running Microsoft Windows, to properly run these simulations. Using a Mac in Bootcamp mode or with an emulator such as Parallels or VMware should work as well. However some emulators can be finicky, in such cases Bootcamp is generally less problematic. Web Resources: The course will also make use of moodle.latech.edu as a repository for files for download and for students to upload assignments to. Check the site regularly for homework, grades and various other information.

PRESENTATIONS:

Students will present and discuss their work to the class on several occasions during the quarter. Presentations serve two main functions in the course. First, there is significant opportunity for learning from the findings and experience of other students. Second, it is essential to develop the skill to communicate what you have found to others. The best analysis in the world is useless if you cannot convey the findings effectively to others involved in the project. Collaboration is the future of (sustainable) design, which means that effective communication skills are more essential than ever.

ATTENDANCE:

Brad Deal

Mental attendance is expected during class. You are to diligently create, study, ponder, etc. on the current assignment; not to chatter mindlessly, eat, sleep, or otherwise waste time. Each student is allowed one free absence and one free late/leave early without penalty (15 minutes max.). After such time, 3 points will be deducted from his/her final total for each absence, and 1 point for each late arrival / early departure / excessive break. The instructor will only consider excuses submitted in writing, within 3 days of return, for absences, late arrivals, and early departures. An excused absence is still an absence, and counts as such. An excused absence may allow for an extension of time for completion of assigned work, at the discretion of the instructor. For excessive absence or hardship, it is the responsibility of the student to initiate a request with the instructor that a grade of “I” (incomplete) be issued. Refer to the Louisiana Tech University Catalog for more information. Instructors will only consider a grade of “I” if the student has a reasonable chance to make up required work.

TEACHING

Selected Course Syllabi

UNIVERSITY POLICIES:

GRADING:

A Exceptional work Exceeding expectations A- Work goes well beyond minimum in effort and insight B+ Work demonstrates solid reasoning and good effort B- Assignment completed with minor problems C Assignment completed, but with problems D Assignment incomplete and/or has significant problems F Unacceptable work

Weighting Review #1 Review #2 BPAC Completion (#3) Review #4 Media Discussion

20 pts 20 pts 20 pts 20 pts 20 pts Total

100 pts

EVALUATION POLICIES:

Evaluation of work will be made by the instructor relative to the course objectives, generally accepted conventions, and the stated or implied criteria of individual assignments. Remember that this is an exploratory seminar course in which we are experimenting with new software. Diligence and sustained effort toward problem solving, research and troubleshooting are required Mere compliance with the assignment parameters without additional growth, development, and critical thinking beyond the minimum will be considered average at best (see below). Work submitted late or which does not meet format/quantity/completion requirements will not be accepted for evaluation and 0 points will be awarded. Any assignment or presentation, which has text as a component MUST have proper spelling and grammar usage commensurate with college-level student knowledge. This means students must take time to proofread, spellcheck, and otherwise review their textual materials for correct spelling and coherent grammatical structure. One point per error will be deducted from these assignments, up to the maximum available points for the assignment. All graded coursework and supporting process materials may be kept by the instructor for a minimum of 30 days into the next quarter. The instructor reserves the right to retain coursework for longer as needed for departmental or instructional use. In the event of a question regarding an exam or final grade, it is the responsibility of the student to retain and present graded materials, which have been returned for student possession during the quarter.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Course Syllabi

Final grade is by total points relative to the grade scale: A = 100—90 points, B = 89.9—80 points, C = 79.9—70 points, D = 69.9—60 points, F = 59.9—0 points For this class, you will be required to design with intensity, perseverance, and consistency. To this end, you will have to think actively - and act thoughtfully. Choosing only one of these at the expense of the other will, in the end, bring forth average results at best. The above criteria supports a policy by which any student who exerts an average amount of effort, thoroughly completes assignment, and shows an amount of perception and originality no greater than that presented or discussed by the instructor or by the class as a whole will receive a grade of "C." If a student displays no growth or improvement in their work, and if effort is minimal, but exercises are submitted complete, that student will receive a grade of "D." Gross negligence of this course, no effort, and incomplete assignments will result in failure, a grade of "F." Grades of "A" and "B" are reserved for only those students whose attitude and work reflects a noticeable or marked amount of effort, improvement, growth, excitement, rigor, perception, and originality in the pursuit of knowledge of architecture and the completion of studio assignments. Your work in studio is meant to be open to criticism and evaluation; you can expect to be adequately informed of your performance in studio throughout the course of the semester. If you have concerns as to your performance, discuss with instructor.

COURSE SCHEDULE (subject to adjustments) ARCH 380/550C | Winter 2015 Week

Date

Day

Task/Assignment

12/3

Intro to ARCH 380

12/8 12/10

T R

DIVA /GH Tutorial / Assignment #1 Issued Galapagos Tutorial / Discussion / Working Session

12/15 12/17

T R

Presentation Methods & Working Session: Definition Step 2 Assignment #1 Reviews

---- CHRISTMAS BREAK: DEC 18 - JAN 3 ---4

1/5 1/7

T R

Lecture: Green Building Standards / Assignment #2 Issued Working Session: Assignment #2

1/12 1/14

T R

Working Session: Assignment #2 Assignment #2 Reviews

1/19 1/21

T R

Assignment # 3 Issue / Into to BPAC & Revit Analysis Tools Review Climate Weather & Daylight

1/26 1/28

T R

Review Energy Lighting & Loads Solar Measurements & Strategies

2/2 2/4

T R

Whole Building Energy Analysis Wind and Air Flow Strategies

---- MARDI GRAS BREAK: FEB 5-11 ----

2/11

Discussion of BPAC / Intro Assignment #4

2/16 2/18

T R

Green Building Studio Tutorial Revit & Green Building Studio Working session

2/23 2/25

T R

Revit & Green Building Studio Working session No Class

3/3

Assignment #4 Due via upload.

Brad Deal

TEACHING Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

SELECTED STUDENT WORK

LARKIN GIBBS MEMORIAL PAVILION & GARDENS

The value of this humble pavilion is far larger than its physical size or budget. It was designed as a barrier free space large enough to accommodate the multiple daily gatherings at a summer camp facility for children with chronic illnesses and disabilities. The goal was not only to accommodate gathering of 100+ people with up to half of them in wheelchairs, but also to capture the transformative nature of the summer camp experience for children who rarely find such opportunities for adventure and self discovery.

The project serves its client as a catalyst that began an ongoing series of updates to this 1940s camp facility. In playing this role, the project was designed with the dual intent of providing the function of a new facility while also instantly merging with its surroundings to become inseparable from its site. The traditional summer camp experience is exceptionally transformative for this user group, and the design attempts to embody that experience both practically and poetically. It frames the view of the camp’s lake and the gabion wall blocks road noise from the adjacent highway while the embedded water feature circulates water from what was once a stagnant pond. Closed and typical from the outside, as you approach, the pavilion acts as a threshold into the camp. Once inside, campers experience the openness, energy and excitement of this place. Inspiration was drawn from the idea of the Wizard of Oz with the pavilion evoking the role of the tornado transporting the arriving campers from “Kansas” to “Oz”.

1700 SF building area $17.65 cost per square foot $30,000 construction cost 5/23/14 date of completion

ARCH 335 Junior Design Build Studio Spring 2014 76

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Selected Student Work

CHIASMUS ARCHERY AND PAINTBALL RANGE

archery targets

This project was designed for a summer camp for children with special needs to enable them to experience the challenge and exhilaration of archery and paintball marksmanship.

The design embraces the realization that paintball is fast paced, loud and exciting while archery is slower paced, quieter and more contemplative. An organizational strategy for these elements was drawn from an ancient Hebrew poetry structure derived from the Greek letter â&#x20AC;&#x153;Xâ&#x20AC;?. The opposing vectors of this poetry structure serve to crisscross and overlap ideas rather than syllables. At the center of the X exists a unifying, higher order element between the unique vectors. Inspired by this arrangement, the plan took on the general shape of an X, creating two lines of shooting stations and targets with each side arranged to reflect the nature of their sport. At the center a space was created for campers to gather and share their excitement before and to tell their stories after. The project features custom designed and fabricated shooting stations that hold and counterweight youth sized compound bows, making the sport of archery accessible to those who cannot hold and draw the bow in the traditional manner. Significant effort was given to utilizing reclaimed materials. The soffit cladding consists of over 5000 linear feet of 1x2s from repurposed shipping pallets, and the majority of the steel in the project was donated as scrap material from various nearby oil and natural gas well sites.

paintball target wall archery stations

gathering deck

SOUTH ELEVATION NTS

ARCHERY TARGET ST

paintball stations

SITE PLAN NTS

WEST ELEVATION NTS

ARCH 335 Junior Design Build Studio Spring 2015 Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Student Work

This project was designed to replace an existing floating dock structure at a summer camp for children that suffer from chronic illnesses and disabilities. The existing facility was not suited for the loading and unloading of campers from their wheelchairs and lacked any storage space or protection from the sun and rain. The design draws inspiration from the epic novel structure of the hero’s journey. The camper’s journey begins on the “known” side of the camp where all other activities occur. But the act of crossing the bright red threshold, leaving the land and exploring the lake brings them into the “unknown” or wilderness side of the camp where they can explore the unfamiliar, and begin to understand it. After their adventure, they return to the “known” side having gained new knowledge and confidence, a central goal of the camp experience for this population that is often withdrawn and isolated. This facility features a CNC fabricated louver wall that reveals the gateway to the “unknown” through concentric ripples like those made by a drop falling on the water’s surface. It also includes a custom paddleboat lift and swiveling transfer bench for simple and safe loading of the campers. It also accommodates the storage of four canoes, two kayaks, two paddleboats as well as life jackets, paddles and other safety gear. With its prominent position on the water, this project is the beacon that calls the campers to begin their adventure, and the threshold they cross when they return as fearless heroes.

building area 982 SF cost per square foot $25.46

storage

construction cost $25,000 N

FLOOR PLAN NTS

date of completion 5/21/16

SECTION NTS

ARCH 335 Junior Design Build Studio Spring 2016 78

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Selected Student Work

This 340â&#x20AC;&#x2122;Bridge across the center of the lake at Camp Alabama was the centerpiece of a 2015 Masterplan that focused on future growth for the camp creating a continuous circuit of activities around and across the lake. The design and research process for this project led the team towards a conceptual framework centered around Pisces, the two fish connected by a chord from mythology. The fish use their chord to solve problems, help others and to ensure they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t lose one another. Similarly this bridge serves to connect the two sides of the camp as well as forever link the student designers to the campers they served through their first built project. The Bridge shortens the journey between camp activities, creates opportunities for fishing and even allows canoes to pass through the bridge via a pivoting passage module. The fishing experience is also improved by detail elements designed and fabricated by students including rod holders, lowered guard rail areas, fishing jetties with gates as well as two large shade structures that mimic the form of two fish leaping out of the water over the bridge.

2720 SF building area $9.19 cost per square foot $25,000 construction cost 5/26/17 date of completion

ARCH 335 Junior Design Build Studio Spring 2017 Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Student Work

SUSTAINABLE STRATEGIES DAYLIGHTING

PV PANELS

LIVING MACHINE

RAINWATER CATCHMENT

ROOF GARDENS

EDUCATION STRATEGIES LIVING CLASSROOM

CLEAR RAIN PIPE

TRANSPARENT WALLS

GREEN ROOF CLASSROOM

PHASE 4STATISTICS -DISCONNECTED -OPEN AIR 55,500sqft

INTERNAL GARDEN

SITE PLAN

55EUI3,052,445 ANNUAL CARBON EMISSIONS -MULTIPLE WINDOWS

ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION

387tons/yr

kWh/yr

NET CO2

53tons/yr -162 FUEL

ROOF

CONSUMPTION

POTENTIAL

-602tons/yr

DAYLIGHT AUTONOMY

JAN. 1 - DEC. 31 8:00AM - 6:00PM

MEETS sDA 81% sDA>55% 57% FAILS sDA 68% sDA>75% 23% MEETS ASE & sDA

EDUCATION

21%>ASE HOURS 80%

ARCH 425 Senior Sustainability Studio Winter 2017

275 110 82 50 51 59 55 AVERAGE EUI 2030 60% TARGET 2030 70% TARGET PHASE 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Selected Student Work

Mueller Insitute of Technology

The Mueller Institute of Technology focuses on synchronizing high and low technology in a way that both manifests and teaches the values of sustainability. Through different forms of this synchronization, MIT displays sustainability as not only the most sensible solution, but also the most exciting solution. This relationship between high and low technology also reaches into the schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s program. The children will be taught gardening and composting at the same time that they will be taught mathematics, science, and eventually, rudamentary robotics. The resulting design is appropriate for the site, the community, the Ecorise program, and the contemporary world.

PV Panels on Roof Rounded Ceiling for Diffused Light Veneered SIP Panels Developmental Skin Systems

Autonomy + Light Diffusion Robotically Daylight Fabricated Skin System Lighting Analysis

Lighting Analysis

System 1

System 2

Energy Usage

Heating + Lighting Load

50-150 fc

30-75 fc

Lighting Analysis

System 3

System 4

50-200 fc

30-175 fc

ARCH 425 Senior Sustainability Studio Winter 2017 Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Student Work

ARCH 225 Sophomore Foundation Studio Winter 2017 82

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Selected Student Work

ARCH 225 Sophomore Foundation Studio Winter 2017 Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Student Work

ARCH 225 Sophomore Foundation Studio Winter 2017 84

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Selected Student Work

ARCH 225 Sophomore Foundation Studio Winter 2017 Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Student Work

ARCH 315 Junior Programming Studio Fall 2016

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Selected Student Work

VICKERY MEADOW COMMUNITY CENTER Total 66,730 SF

Iana Dingle ARCH 315 The Vickery Meadow neighborhood currently lacks in a common space for refugees to gather and build a unified community. This proposal facilitates the blending of cultures and the embrace of diversity by utilizing a strategic program arrangement that accommodates existing pedestrian paths. A Childcare Center, Healthcare Center, and Market are all located on the ground floor, providing easy access for visitors, while the Education Center and Residential zones exist on the higher levels for more regular users. Exterior balconies are carved out and purposed for community space, encouraging the sharing of resources among refugees, immigrants and locals. The formal dichotomy of private versus public is expressed through the use of transparent and opaque materials, curvy and rectilinear geometry, and levels of access to exterior views. First Floor Program

Health Center Pharmacy Retail Offices Storage Total

O.L. Factor O.L.

3,000 SF 2300 SF 600 SF 300 SF

30 30 300

100 77 2

6200 SF

Market Retail Office Storage

1800 SF 70 SF 150 SF

Total

2020 SF

Childcare Center Daycare Nursery Playground

1000 SF 500 SF 3000 SF

Total

4500 SF

Lounge Total

4000 SF

Total

179 30 70

60 1 61

20 35

50 14 64 267

16720 SF

571

Health Center 6200 SF 179 ol. X .2” = 35.8” 179 ol. X .3” = 53.7” 179 ol. > 51 ol. 179 ol. > 1 per 100 ol. 179ol. < 1 per 400 ol. Market 2020 SF 83 ol. X .2” = 16.6” 83 ol. X .3” = 24.9” 83 ol. > 51 ol. 83 ol. < 1 per 100 ol. 83 ol. < 1 per 400 ol. Childcare Center 4500 SF 64 ol. X .2” = 12.8” 64 ol. X .3” = 19.2” 64 ol. > 51 ol. 64 ol. > 1 per 100 ol. 64 ol. < 1 per 400 ol. Lounge 4000 SF 267 ol. < 1 per 100 ol. 267 ol. < 1 per 400 ol.

Second Floor Program

O.L. Factor O.L.

Residential 9 Units (6 3-Bedroom, 3 2-Bedroom) Total Education Center Classroom Studio Space Storage Total

11000 SF

200

2,000 SF 5,000 SF 480 SF

20 50

90 100

15 15 15

80 87 367

7480 SF

Community Space Event Room Interior Balconies Balconies Total

1200 SF 1300 SF 5500 SF

190

8000 SF

Total

534

26480 SF

816

Residential 11000 SF 55 ol. X .2” = 11” 55 ol. X .3” = 16.5” 55 ol. > 51 ol. 55 ol. < 1 per 100 ol. 55 ol. < 1 per 400 ol. Education Center 7480 SF 190 ol. X .2” = 38” 190 ol. X .3” = 57” 190 ol. > 51 ol. 190 ol. > 1 per 100 ol. 190 ol. < 1 per 400 ol. Community Space 8000 SF 534 ol. X .2” = 106.8” 534 ol. X .3” = 160.2” 534 ol. > 51 ol. 534 ol. > 1 per 100 ol. 534 ol. > 1 per 400 ol.

Third Floor Program

O.L. Factor O.L.

Residential 9 Units (6 3-Bedroom, 3 2-Bedroom) Total Education Center Classroom Studio Space Storage Total

11000 SF

200

2200 SF 4250 SF 480 SF

20 50

48 85

6930 SF

Community Space Event Room Interior Balconies Balconies

800 SF 1150 SF 3650 SF

133 15 15 15

53 77 243

Total

5600 SF

373

Total

23530 SF

561

Residential 11000 SF 55 ol. X .2” = 11” 55 ol. X .3” = 16.5” 55 ol. > 51 ol. 55 ol. < 1 per 100 ol. 55 ol. < 1 per 400 ol. Education Center 6930 SF 133 ol. X .2” = 26.6” 133 ol. X .3” = 39.9” 133 ol. > 51 ol. 133 ol. > 1 per 100 ol. 133 ol. < 1 per 400 ol. Community Space 5600 SF 373 ol. X .2” = 106.8” 373 ol. X .3” = 160.2” 373 ol. > 51 ol. 373 ol. > 1 per 100 ol. 373 ol. < 1 per 400 ol.

Market

2020 SF

Childcare

4500 SF

Healthcare

6200 SF

Education

14410 SF

Community Space

17600 SF

Residential

22000 SF

Longitudinal Section

179 O.L. 36” Exit width 54” Stair width 2 Exits required 2 ADA restrooms 2 Lavatory 1 Drinking fountain 1 Service sink 61 O.L. 36” Exit width 44” Stair width 2 Exits required 1 ADA restroom 1 Lavatory 1 Drinking fountain 1 Service sink

School s

Vickery Meadow, TX

Transit

art

Apart

ments

Refugees Immigrants Locals

55 O.L. 36” Exit width 44” Stair width 2 Exits required 1 ADA restroom 1 Lavatory 1 Drinking fountain 1 Service sink

Fostering Diverse Community

190 O.L. 38” Exit width 57” Stair width 2 Exits required 2 ADA restroom 2 Lavatory 1 Drinking fountain 1 Service sink

1 Hour Fire Rated Housing Units

534 O.L. 106.8” Exit width 160.2” Stair width 2 Exits required 5 ADA restrooms 5 Lavatory 2 Drinking fountain 2 Service sink

nsi

t Ap

art

Facilitating Internal Circulation

Scho Tra

nsi

ols

Scho Tra

267 O.L. 3 ADA restroom 3 Lavatory 1 Drinking fountain 1 Service sink

ols

Scho Tra

64 O.L. 36” Exit width 44” Stair width 2 Exits required 2 ADA restrooms 2 Lavatory 1 Drinking fountain 1 Service sink

t Ap

art

Programming Space

Locating High Activity Spots

Fire Stairwell Area of Refuge

ADA 180 Turns

2 Hour Fire Rated Fire Stairwell

55 O.L. 36” Exit width 44” Stair width 2 Exits required 1 ADA restroom 1 Lavatory 1 Drinking fountain 1 Service sink 133 O.L. 36” Exit width 44” Stair width 3 Exits required 2 ADA restroom 2 Lavatory 1 Drinking fountain 1 Service sink 373 O.L. 106.8” Exit width 160.2” Stair width 7 Exits required 4 ADA restrooms 4 Lavatory 1 Drinking fountain 1 Service sink

1:12 Ramps

ADA Restroom Grab Bars

Third Floor Paths Second Floor Paths First Floor Paths

Program Diagram

Egress and Code Diagram Wall Section 1/4” = 1’ 0”

Upper Balcony Level

Third Floor

Upper Balcony Level

Second Floor

Transverse Section

Lobby View

Aluminum

Wood

Glass

ge cre st

Ro a

Travertine

Site Plan 1/32” = 1’-0”

Rid

Park Avenue

Exterior View

Green Climate Climate Fund Fund Headquarters Headquarters Green

Lobby View Reindeer Pavilion Pavilion Reindeer

Broadway Housing Housing Broadway

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

ARCH 315 Junior Programming Studio Fall 2016

Selected Student Work

HCC CENTER FOR FASHION DESIGN & MERCHANDISING

11 10

1 5’

20’

LEVEL 6------------------------scale 1/20” = 1’-0” 1’ 10’

40’

5’

20’

LEVEL 5------------------------scale 1/20” = 1’-0” 1’ 10’

40’

SITE PLAN ----------------------------------Scale 1/60” = 1’-0”

11 10

5’ 20’ 1’10’

40’

Atrium

Education

The color red? - Demanding Presence - Notion of intrigue/leading the eye and person towards the void - Brings clarity towards the idea of the scarf

Exterior Space

5’

Concept: A Scarf...The path or journey that a scarf takes around the neck and either down the back or across the shoulders creates an opportunity for circulation, a void, and formal gesture.

20’

AROUND THE NECK

LEVEL 4------------------------scale 1/20” = 1’-0” 1’ 10’

40’

Circulation

Hierarchy Education Faculty

8 Public/Exhibition

Structure

TASSEL

Program

THE KNOT

5’

20’

LEVEL 3------------------------scale 1/20” = 1’-0” 1’ 10’

40’

6 5

5’ 20’ 1’ 10’ 5’

40’

Section 1------------------------scale 1/20” = 1’-0”

20’

LEVEL 2------------------------scale 1/20” = 1’-0” 1’ 10’

40’

2 1

5’

20’

LEVEL 1------------------------scale 1/20” = 1’-0” 1’ 10’

40’

1 - Atrium 2 - Runway 3 - Galleries -Permanent -Exhibition -Student 4 - Student Supply Shop 5 - Library 6 - Faculty Office 7 - Small Classroom 8 - Drawing Space 9 - Large Classroom 10 - Studio 11 - Sewing Space

ARCH 510 Graduate Comprehensive Studio Fall 2016 Brad Deal

Section 2------------------------scale 1/20” = 1’-0”

TEACHING

Selected Student Work

ARCH 510 Graduate Comprehensive Studio Fall 2016 Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Selected Student Work

ARCH 325 Junior Level Iterative Studio - Winter 2012

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Selected Student Work

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

A scene from our class meeting in the early morning hours as work comes to a close just before the dedication of Pisces Bridge in the Spring of 2017

Robert Brooks I at the ACSA National Meeting in Detroit immediately after receiving the Collaborative Practice Award in the Spring of 2017

Brad Deal

AWARDS

2016

TEACHING

HONORS & AWARDS RELATED TO TEACHING AIAS Professor of the Year

Award given by anonymous student votes majoring in architecture majors to their favorite professor of the past academic year. 2017

ACSA Collaborative Practice Award

This National award from the American Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) honors the best practices in school-based community outreach programs. It recognizes programs that demonstrate how faculty, students, and community/civic clients work to realize common objectives. Participation by professional practitioners and colleagues from other academic disciplines is encouraged.

2017

Deanâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Teaching Award

2017

Virgil Orr Junior Faculty Award (Nomination)

This college-wide nomination is meant to recognize and reward outstanding instruction in Liberal Arts through the creation and incorporation of innovative teaching methods and course content.

A University-wide award is intended to recognize non-tenured faculty who have made significant contributions to the mission and purpose of Louisiana Tech University.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Students brainstorming design ideas at the 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x153;Design Campâ&#x20AC;?, a week-long residential academic camp for high school students interested in design majors.

Brad Deal

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

TEACHING

STUDENT EVALUATION SURVEYS

Student Evaluation Surveys

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Student Evaluation Surveys

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Student Evaluation Surveys

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Student Evaluation Surveys

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Student Evaluation Surveys

100

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Student Evaluation Surveys

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

101

Student Evaluation Surveys

102

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Student Evaluation Surveys

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

103

Student Evaluation Surveys

104

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Student Evaluation Surveys

Austin City Planners explain to Senior Architecture Students the story of the Mueller Neighborhood redevelopment, the largest LEED Gold Neighborhood in the world. November 2016 Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

105

STUDENT LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION To Whom It May Concern: I am writing this letter to offer evidence of Mr. Deal’s commitment to quality teaching in the hope that it will aid him in achieving tenure and promotion. I met Mr. Deal three years ago in the fall of 2014 in my third year of architecture school at Louisiana Tech University. In the time since then, he has been my studio teacher, my boss, and my mentor. When I first came to know Mr. Deal, he was one of my ARCH 315 fall studio professors. I went on to have him as my teacher in Energy Simulation as well as for the ARCH 335 Design-Build studio. Those three classes, more than any others, challenged and molded me in the five years I spent in the School of Design. I can only credit and thank Mr. Deal for that. In my personal experience as one of his students, his passion and commitment to instilling in his students his love for and knowledge of design greatly motivated me to step out of my comfort zone and think in a different way than I had before in order to expand my problem solving and design skills. Not only did Mr. Deal challenge me, enabling me to grow as a designer, he also expected more from me. On more than one occasion during the Design-Build studio, I came to him asking, “How do I do this/that/the other?” And on every occasion, he responded with, “Try it first; if you can’t figure it out, then you can ask for my help.” I realize that may sound a little harsh, but to me it showed that he had confidence in my ability to come to a solution on my own. And on the flip-side of that, I knew that if my own abilities failed me, he as my teacher would not. Not only did he never fail me, but he consistently went beyond his professional duties to make himself readily available with assistance or advice for any design or personal topic that was brought to him. For that reason, I consider him to be not only one of the most influential teachers I have ever had the privilege to learn from, but my mentor as well. Mr. Deal’s mentoring extended past the classroom in the week during the summer of 2015 when I worked under him as a Design Camp Counselor. In that short week, I had the unique privilege of learning from him, not about design, but about how to teach and instill design techniques in others. It was an enlightening experience where I found out just how much passion and compassion it takes to teach others. The remarkable thing is that Mr. Deal was able to facilitate a change in my own future by helping me realize my love for teaching. If that isn’t the mark of a great educator and guide, then I don’t know what is. I can only attest to my own experiences as his student and mentee, but based on that as well as the impression he has had on my growth as a person and the abilities I now have as a professional, I have no doubt that Mr. Deal will continue to impact other burgeoning students with his effective and passionate approach to teaching. I also have full confidence that any challenge or hurtle thrown at him, he will tackle with determination and ease. For these reasons, I recommend Mr. Deal for tenure and promotion without any reservation. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (731)501-9304, or email me at kendell.k.webb@gmail.com. Sincerely,

Kendell Webb

106

Brad Deal

TEACHING

August August 30, 30, 2017 2017

ToTo Whom Whom it it May May Concern: Concern:

I am I am writing writing this this recommendation recommendation toto offer offer evidence evidence ofof Mr. Mr. Deal’s Deal’s commitment commitment toto quality quality teaching. teaching. I have I have known known Mr. Mr. Deal Deal since since my my freshman freshman year year atat Louisiana Louisiana Tech Tech University. University. I am I am now now aa graduate graduatestudent studentand andhave havehad hadhim himasasmy myteacher teacherfor forfour fourarchitecture architecturestudio studioclasses classes and and one one architectural architectural elective. elective. He He is is one one ofof my my favorite favorite professors professors and and I take I take his his classes classes any anychance chanceI get. I get.InInmy myjunior junioryear, year,Mr. Mr.Deal Dealtaught taughtmy myfavorite favoriteand andmost mostimpactful impactful quarter quarter ofof schooling, schooling, the the design-build design-build studio. studio. During During that that quarter, quarter, I learned I learned more more about about August 30, 2017 architecture architectureand andjust justlife lifeiningeneral, general,than thanany anyother otherquarter. quarter.That Thatquarter quartercreated createdanan amazing amazing relationship relationship between between myself myself and and Mr. Mr. Deal, Deal, and and created created more more opportunities opportunities for for usus toto work work together together outside outside ofof aa studio studio class. class. The The summer summer after after my my junior junior year year I got I got the the To Whom itteach MayaConcern: opportunity opportunity toto teach a design design camp camp alongside alongside him. him. Working Working next next toto him him allowed allowed me me toto see see just just how how much much hard hardwork work and and time time hehe puts puts into into his his teaching teaching and and his his students. students. Mr. Mr. Deal goes above above and beyond beyond for for his his students students onon aa regular regular basis. He He genuinely genuinely cares cares IDeal amgoes writing thisand recommendation to offer evidence of Mr.basis. Deal’s commitment to quality about about his his students students and and pushes pushes them them to to be be the the best best they they can can possibly possibly be. be. He He is is dedicated dedicated teaching. totohis hisstudents studentsand andworks worksextremely extremelyhard hardtotohelp helphis hisstudents studentsininany anyway waythat thathehecan. can. There There has been been several several occasions occasions when when hehe knows knows that that his his students students are are upup late late working working I has have known Mr. Deal since my freshman year at Louisiana Tech University. I am now a onona agraduate deadline deadlineand andhehewill willshow showup upbringing bringing coffee coffee and and snacks snacks and andready readytostudio toanswer answer student and have had him as my teacher for four architecture classes questions questions oror help help out out inin any any way way that that hehe can. Mr. Deal Deal doesn’t doesn’t stop stop working, working, even when when and one architectural elective. He iscan. one ofMr. my favorite professors and Ieven take his classes the thework work day dayis isover. over.He has has a apassion passion forteaching teaching and and a apassion passionfor forhelping helping his his any chance I get. InHe my junior year, for Mr. Deal taught my favorite and most impactful students students succeed. succeed. His Hispassion passion for forarchitecture architecture and and teaching teaching isinspiring. inspiring. Mr. Mr.Deal Deal has has quarter of schooling, the design-build studio. During thatisquarter, I learned more about made made aa huge huge impact impact my my life, life, and without without him him I wouldn’t I wouldn’t bebe the the student, student, oror person, person, I I an architecture andonon just life inand general, than any other quarter. That quarter created am am today. today. relationship between myself and Mr. Deal, and created more opportunities for amazing us to work together outside of a studio class. The summer after my junior year I got the I have I have nono doubt doubt that that Mr. Mr. Deal Deal will will continue continue toto exceed exceed expectations expectations and and succeed succeed atat any any opportunity to teach a design camp alongside him. Working next to him allowed me to task task he he sets sets about about doing. doing. He He is is one one of of the the hardest hardest workers workers I know, I know, and and I am I am certain certain that that see just how much hard work and time he puts into his teaching and his students. hehe will will continue continue making making significant significant contributions contributions toto everything everything hehe does. does. Mr. Deal goes above and beyond for his students on a regular basis. He genuinely cares If If you you have have any any further further questions questions about about Mr. Mr. Deal’s qualifications, feel free free to to contact contact me me about his students and pushes them toDeal’s be thequalifications, best they canfeel possibly be. He is dedicated byby email email at at scr030@latech.edu, scr030@latech.edu, or or by by phone phone at at 903-738-6074. 903-738-6074. to his students and works extremely hard to help his students in any way that he can. There has been several occasions when he knows that his students are up late working on a deadline and he will show up bringing coffee and snacks and ready to answer Sincerely, Sincerely, questions or help out in any way that he can. Mr. Deal doesn’t stop working, even when the work day is over. He has a passion for teaching and a passion for helping his students succeed. His passion for architecture and teaching is inspiring. Mr. Deal has made a huge impact on my life, and without him I wouldn’t be the student, or person, I am today. Samantha Samantha Crossland Crossland I have no doubt that Mr. Deal will continue to exceed expectations and succeed at any task he sets about doing. He is one of the hardest workers I know, and I am certain that he will continue making significant contributions to everything he does. If you have any further questions about Mr. Deal’s qualifications, feel free to contact me by email at scr030@latech.edu, or by phone at 903-738-6074. Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

107

Student Letters of Recommendation

Alaina K. Spiers 5718 N Winthrop Ave #504 Chicago, IL 60660 318.573.6464 aspiers@holabird.com

September 13, 2017 To Whom It May Concern: It is with great pleasure that I write this letter to provide an evaluation of Mr. Brad Deal’s performance as an educator and recommend him for promotion to associate professor with tenure at Louisiana Tech University. I have known Mr. Deal for three years now, since he was my professor while I was an undergraduate in the architecture program at LA Tech’s School of Design. He was my professor for Core Design IV, Energy Simulation & Design, and Design-Build Studio. In these courses I learned a great amount of indispensable knowledge that really set the foundation for the beginning of my career in architecture including design fundamentals, building energy analysis, and light construction techniques. Because of Mr. Deal’s commitment to educating, the courses were some of the most challenging during my time at LA Tech. Consequently, those were also some of the most impactful courses, learning what felt like a year’s worth of knowledge in just one quarter. Mr. Deal’s enthusiasm and commitment to educating is extremely evident in his willingness to teach and advise students, who may or may not even be in one of his courses, at any given time. Unlike many professors, he does not stop educating once class or office hours end. He can almost always be found in the studio or at the South Campus Shop teaching students. He also encourages students to participate in valuable extracurricular educational experiences such as competitions, professional certification (Building Performance Analysis Certification, etc.), and the LA Tech Research Symposium. Additionally, Mr. Deal has made significant contributions and been the recipient of a number of awards related to the accomplishments of the courses he teaches. His involvement with the Design-Build Studio has garnered great recognition for LA Tech. The Design-Build Studio was by far my favorite and most difficult quarter. His ambitious, positive attitude and devotion to educating created an exciting and unique experience that proved that quality design matters. Most importantly, though, Mr. Deal teaches the importance and impact that design has on its environment and occupants. Some of my professors were either entirely pragmatic or predominantly aesthetically-minded. Mr. Deal does a wonderful job at teaching the students to consider ambitious, occupant-minded architecture that has a purpose beyond being a beautiful object. His enthusiasm for design and teaching influenced the direction of my career in very positive ways. In short, it is clear to me that Mr. Deal is and will continue to be devoted to educating the students at Louisiana Tech University. I have no doubt that he will continue to make significant contributions and continually exceed expectations in any opportunity offered. Sincerely,

Alaina Spiers Project Coordinator 108

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Student Letters of Recommendation

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

109

Student Letters of Recommendation

ARCH 225 Class Fall 2015 on our Dallas Field Trip

Catching up with my former design-build students Ashton Russell, Kierilyn Smith, Sam Crossland and Jed Walpole at the 2017 ARCH 335 Groundbreaking Ceremony.

110

Brad Deal

TEACHING

Student Letters of Recommendation

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

111

RESEARCH Brad Deal Tenure & Promotion Dossier 2017

Statement on Research Evidence of Scholarship and Research: Awards & Credentials Related to Research and Creative Work Selected Publications Selected Conference Presentations Videography Work

113

STATEMENT ON RESEARCH During my time at Louisiana Tech I’ve found numerous opportunities for overlap and synergy between my research, publications, creative work and teaching. The more these efforts share the more each seems to benefit. I’ve published papers related to my energy simulation course, several of my 300 level design studios, the 100-level design/ build exercises I’ve developed, and the work of the ARCH 335 studio at several American Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) conferences, National Conference on the Beginning Design Student (NCBDS) conferences, at the 2017 South by Southwest (SXSW) Eco Conference, a variety of Architecture and Design Film Festivals (ADFF) around the country, and at the American Institute of Architects Annual Conference on Architecture (A17). In the past 5 years I’ve also invested research effort in my own professional credentials to better serve our students and improve the distinction of our program. I’ve earned and maintained my Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes Credential, my Professional Architectural License (TX 26203), my National Council of Architectural Registration Board (NCARB) Certification, and recently joined the American Institute of Architects (AIA) as a fully licensed member. Complimenting these professional and academic research efforts, I’ve found success in publishing the work of the ARCH 335 Design/Build Studio in professional venues via several State, Regional and National Awards. Our 2014 project, The Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion won an AIA Louisiana Merit Award as well as the Member’s Choice Award at the AIA Louisiana 2016 Conference. The following year both the Gibbs Pavilion and the Hero’s Launch, our 2016 project in ARCH 335, each received regional-level AIA Gulf-States Merit Awards. These awards are particularly rewarding accomplishments because they are student projects selected for their design and execution from a field of submissions of professional work. In 2016 my short documentary film, ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps, introducing the first three years of our design/build work, won the AIA’s national I Look Up Film Challenge Grand Prize and People’s Choice Award. This brought national recognition to our program and the university as the film has been screened at events across the country all year long including a showing for an audience of nearly 10,000 architects just prior to Michelle Obama’s Keynote Conversation with the National AIA President at the A17 Conference in Orlando, FL. My second filmmaking endeavor for the 2017 I Look Up Film Challenge, the story of 3 students and 3 MedCamps families connecting through our 2017 Pisces Bridge project, will also receive national distribution as the “First Runner Up” in this year’s competition. I look forward to continuing these research and creative publication endeavors. They function as a deeply motivating milestones that continue to make my work with the School of Design meaningful and rewarding.

Brad Deal Assistant Professor | Architecture School of Design Louisiana Tech University

114

Brad Deal

PUBLICATIONS

AFFILIATIONS & MEMBERSHIPS

2012

AIA Austin Honor Award Heywood Hotel, with KRDB

2016

Austin Green Awards: Project of the Year SOL Community, with KRDB

2016

AIA Louisiana Merit & Member’s Choice Awards ARCH 335: Gibbs Pavilion

2016

AIA I look up Film Challenge Grand Prize & People’s Choice Award ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps

2017

ACSA Collaborative Practice Award ARCH 335 with Robert Brooks

2017

AIA Gulf States Honor Award ARCH 335: Hero’s Launch & Gibb’s Pavilion

2013

ACSA Fall Conference, Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy.

2014

ACSA Fall Conference, Convergent Canopies: The Huckleberry Trails Entry Pavilion.

2014

ACSA Fall Conference, Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations.

2015

National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Abstracting Scale: The One Week High School Prequel, Cal-Poly San Louis Obispo. Co-authored with Liane Hancock.

2015

National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Making it theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio, Cal-Poly San Louis Obispo. Co-authored with Miguel Lasala.

2016

Architecture and Design Film Festival Premier ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps, 2016 New York, NY.

2016

ARCHITECT Magazine, The Power of Three Minutes, Dec 2016.

2017

National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Peer to Peer: Finding Inspiration From Within, Tiny TED, Salt Lake City UT.

2010

LEED for Homes Accredited Professional

2017

Licensed Architect in the State of Texas

2017

Member: American Institute of Architects

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

RESEARCH

AWARDS

115

AWARDS RELATED TO RESEARCH & CREATIVE WORK This Adaptive Reuse of a 1925 Bungalow in Austin TX as a 7 room bed and Breakfast was completed in 2012 just before I joined the faculty of Louisiana Tech. Soon after I began my teaching career I was informed that the project received a Design Award from the AIA Austin Chapter.

116

After Earning Licensure as Architect in the Sate of Texas, Deal was granted his NCARB certification which allows for reciprocity of his license across the United States Brad Deal

RESEARCH

Awards Related to Research and Creative Work

In 2007 after being hired at KRDB, I was named lead designer, building systems analyst and overall project manager for SOL (Solutions Oriented Living) 40-home Net Zero Energy Development in Austin, TX. In 2016, the inaugural year of the Austin Green Awards, a program specifically aimed at recognizing leadership in sustainable building practices, this project was awarded the top honor of Project of the year.

In 2017 I completed my final Architectural Registration Exam to become the third licensed architect on our faculty. Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

117

Awards Related to Research and Creative Work

At the AIA Louisiana State Conference in 2016 the 2014 ARCH 335 Project, The Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion earned the Memberâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Choice Award as the favorite project featured at the state conference that year.

118

At the AIA Louisiana State Conference in 2016 the 2014 ARCH 335 Project, The Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion earned a Merit Award as one of the top projects submitted in the State. Brad Deal

RESEARCH

Awards Related to Research and Creative Work

At the AIA’s Annual National Conference on Architecture, A17, the 2014 ARCH 335 Project, The Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion was awarded Merit Award as one of the top projects submitted in the Gulf States Region.

Also at A17, the 2016 ARCH 335 Project, The Hero’s Launch was awarded AIA Merit Award for the Gulf States Region as well. Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

119

Awards Related to Research and Creative Work

In 2017, after completing my licensing exams, I joined the American Institute of Architects, the industry standard professional organization for architects in the United States.

Prior to applying for a teaching position at Louisiana Tech I earned my Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Homes Credential uniquely qualifying me to teach the now ubiquitous topic of sustainable design in our courses. 120

Brad Deal

RESEARCH

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS

ACSA Fall Conference 2013, Subtropical Cities: Design Intervention for Changing Climates. Florida Atlantic University, Ft Lauderdale FL. Paper Presentation: Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy. Conference Paper Acceptance Rate: 66%

ACSA Fall Conference, Working Out: Thinking While Building Poster Presentation: Convergent Canopies: The Huckleberry Trails Entry Pavilion. ACSA Fall Conference, Working Out: Thinking While Building Paper Presentation: Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations. Conference Paper Acceptance Rate: 57%

National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, 1:1 Paper Presentation: Abstracting Scale: The One Week High School Prequel, Cal-Poly San Louis Obispo. Co-authored with Liane Hancock. National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, 1:1 Paper Presentation: Making it theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio, Cal-Poly San Louis Obispo. Co-authored with Miguel Lasala.

2016 Architecture and Design Film Festival NYC Film screening as Grand Prize winner of the I Look Up Film Challenge. Film Screened: ARCH 335: Rebuilding MedCamps, 2016 Cineopolis Theatre, Chelsea, New York, NY.

December 2016 ARCHITECT Magazine Printed Article. Interview Conducted as part the I Look Up Film Challenge. Article Printed â&#x20AC;&#x153;The Power of Three Minutesâ&#x20AC;? National Publication

National Conference on the Beginning Design Student: Begin with Why Presentation: Peer to Peer: Finding Inspiration From Within, Tiny TED, Salt Lake City UT.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

121

Selected Publications

This poster featuring the 2013 ARCH 335 Project at Huckleberry Trails in Ruston, LA was selected to be featured at the ACSAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Fall Conference in Halifax Nova Scotia in 2014. The Conference featured design/build work from across North America. 122

Brad Deal

This peer reviewed paper was presented at the 2013 ACSA Fall Conference in Ft. Lauderdale FL.

Engaging a Critical Metric:

RESEARCH

Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy

New Strategies in Energy Literacy

“If you want to teach people a new way of thinking, don't bother trying to teach them. Instead, give them a tool, the use of which will lead to new ways of thinking.” ‐ Buckminster Fuller

Introduction Sustainable design has for many years been high on the list of critical issues that schools of architecture across the globe have sought to emphasize and integrate into their curricula. Once treated as a specialized topic within the field, it is becoming more difficult to find a classes and projects that are not addressing energy efficiency, resource conservation, air quality and the like. Unfortunately many undergraduate students equate sustainable design with one checklist or another because those are the tools they encounter first when reading about projects lauded for their environmental achievements. Checklists offer an array of strategies, but often the logic behind them is buried deeper than students are willing to look. For most designers espousing sustainability, global warming and its threats to future generations are a universally shared motivation. The concerns of climate change however are typically not expressed in the vague moral sensibility of students with a fleeting interest, they are assumed as common knowledge among like‐minded individuals, considered beyond the scope of a given situation, or similarly marginalized for various reasons. These conditions highlight a need among students for an earlier introduction to both the larger issues that give weight to sustainable design practices as well as more versatile and informative metrics to inform design decisions. Responding to this observation, an elective seminar course offered to third year architecture students in the winter of 2012/2013 at Louisiana Tech University introduced building energy modeling as both a gateway to understanding the larger issues of climate change and simultaneously as a tangible resource for evaluating the energy implications of design decisions. Framed in a context of political gridlock, disappointing international efforts, alarming climate models and ironically, abundant distractions from these issues, it has never been more critical for educators to foster a culture of energy literacy and global consciousness among future designers. Reflecting on the pedagogy, methods and student work of this seminar, it is the intent of this paper to identify the challenges and opportunities presented by the early introduction of these specialized topics often reserved for graduate level courses. The successes and critiques discussed here would ideally be used to refine future iterations of similar course offerings that would provide an informed introductory perspective on climate change and introduce design tools with which students can respond. Raising Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

123

Selected Publications

these topics among mid level design students should create opportunities for deeper, more effective integration of sustainable design and research efforts in the remainder of their academic careers.

Introducing climate change Increasingly violent weather, habitat and species loss causing interruptions in the global food chain, resource scarcity, sea level rise, massive population displacement, humanitarian crises and eminent warfare are frequently found in the sequence of predictions for the next 90 years if current trends continue. Most undergraduate design students are not familiar enough with the threats of climate change to cause the array of often apocalyptic predictions for end of this century to appear cliché or overstated. So when introducing students to climate change, it is important that they are informed of these concerning predictions. The shocking nature and the abundant political controversy surrounding them provides an obvious opportunity to motivate and engage otherwise reluctant students. As with any complex issue, it is only appropriate to include some discussion on the various relevant perspectives on the topic. In addition to political views, it’s also vital that students are informed of the range of active responses. Top‐down government efforts, modest projects from grassroots movements, green washed marketing campaigns, the dizzying array of product and project certifications should all be presented at some level and discussed. A key concept to be covered here is the inherent danger of the pursuit of incremental efficiency. At present, practitioners with conservative clients may be left with few alternatives, but there is clear danger in equipping the architects of the 21st century with strategies for modest incremental improvements that will be out paced by increased net consumption and population growth over the course of the century. The checklists that many undergraduates equate with exemplary sustainable design often fall into this trap by setting the performance bar to low. Efforts toward efficiency found in current practice should be framed for today’s students as the early steps in an approach that must steadily accelerate its expectations seeking a transition from being less bad to fundamentally new approaches toward resource management. Along side the pessimistic predictions and timid incremental improvements we must also highlight the perspective of visionary optimism, as seen in the enthusiasm of Saul Griffith’s work or the idealism espoused by programs like Cradle to Cradle or the Living Building Challenge. While no program is perfect, setting the bar high, highlighting human ingenuity, our capacity to transform technology and overcome adversity are essential if we expect future designers to shirk any lingering sense of futility in their efforts. Ideally we need to assist students in creating an identity for themselves as contributors to a positive collective future rather than simply hoping to survive in a rapidly changing world.

Energy simulation in sustainable design pedagogy Building energy consumption is one of the primary means by which architects engage and effect issues related to climate change. Schools of architecture broach energy issues often within their efforts to teach sustainable design principles, but the depth and rigor with which the topic is explored can vary

124

Brad Deal

depending on student and faculty interests. Energy conscious explorations of passive design strategies, on‐site energy production and high efficiency building systems, etc. are often presented in the context of specific projects or a building systems course rather than framed by a discussion of climate change. Building Energy Modeling can be used as a platform for investigating the intersection of these topics while addressing climate change and the ways designers are challenged to respond. As a design tool it clearly can aid the process of integrating low and high tech approaches to sustainable design. Students can quantitatively test the effectiveness of shading devices, passive ventilation, natural lighting etc. along with various HVAC configurations, lighting, and equipment and energy production strategies.

RESEARCH

Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy

This kind of quantitative analysis has historically been the task of mechanical engineers, and even the most advanced software offerings to date still reflect this in their interface. They challenge design students to take ownership of essential building science metrics like HSPF, SHGC and EER ratings. By borrowing engineer’s tools and language, the interdisciplinary nature of energy and the value of working across industries are easily evidenced. Discussions on this topic can prompt students to explore how they can continue to reach out to other fields of study such as biology, economics and engineering in search of ways we can change the practice of design at a scale large enough and fast enough to combat the effects of climate change.

The current state of energy simulation tools As more architects prioritize energy issues and experiment with simulation tools they are currently met with a daunting array of software options from which to choose. The Department of energy currently lists over 130 programs on their Building Energy Simulation Software Tools Directory page.1 The blossoming of these offerings in recent years from both private and public developers is a clear indication of the inertia behind energy consciousness in the future of the building industry. Unfortunately, at present these tools are complex and opaque with significant learning curves. Despite extensive development most of these programs require significant training or trial and error paired with comprehensive building science and systems knowledge in order to yield dependable results. Software developers are working to overcome these barriers to entry. Many of the more refined tools have streamlined and clarified the input process by utilizing 3D models rather than numeric inputs. Some have also begun to utilize graphic interfaces to illustrate systems, occupancy and other settings. In addition to graphic interfaces, new stratifications are emerging within the field in recent years. Energy Modeling has been expanding and developing more specialized tools to cater to specific needs. Tools focused on the ability to study energy implications early and often in the design process have become known as Design Performance Models (DPM). Simplified graphic interfaces, streamlined 3D modeling inputs and less complex systems specifications allow architects to balance issues of cost, aesthetics and energy performance simultaneously. The typical Building Energy Models (BEMs) still predict energy consumption as compared to a baseline models utilizing very specific and lengthy inputs while Building Operations Models get even more specific utilizing empirical information of existing buildings to aid in streamlining operations. And going even further, Project Resource Models (PRMs) are the most exhaustive, addressing the relationships between many resources of which energy is only one, analyzing entire projects for consumption, efficiency, and conservation data.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

125

Selected Publications

These trends are illustrated in a document published last year the AIA entitled “An Architect’s Guide to Integrating Energy Modeling in the Design Process”.2 A valuable resource for introducing any architect to energy simulation, it summarizes the current thinking, issues and uses for energy simulation among architects today as well as discussing the future of the energy modeling industry. Considering this clear emergence of energy modeling in architectural practice paired the current climate change trends, a clear case can be made to students for exploring energy simulation and integrating it into their own design processes.

Attempting energy literacy among undergraduates In the winter of 2012/2013 an elective seminar offered for the first time in the Louisiana Tech School of Architecture began with precisely these elements, presenting the daunting realities of eminent climate change and challenging students to equip themselves with the tools necessary to address this issue that will be one of the defining elements of their careers.

Methodology The obvious question of software selection was not a simple one given the scattered state of the offerings mentioned earlier. Prioritizing a design performance modeling tool, flexibility and a short learning curve, the course offered students a choice of utilizing either NREL’s Open Studio, a well developed platform utilizing Sketchup and the new Energy Plus simulation engine, or Solemma’s DIVA for Grasshopper, a relatively new offering that includes energy and daylighting analysis developed as a plug in for Rhino NURBS modeling ‐ the most familiar 3D software among these particular students. The course was structured around 3 assignments: a case study designed to introduce students to energy issues, a comparison of energy modeling data to student’s own empirical consumption and ultimately an exploration of energy reduction strategies in student’s various current studio projects.

Case Studies The initial case study assignment was paired with introductory lectures addressing the state of climate change and Building Energy Modeling’s emergence as a design tool. Students were challenged to identify and present projects with documented energy simulation in their design process. They were to evaluate how the simulation tools were used and discuss the associated, goals, assumptions and achievements. The results of this exercise revealed numerous misunderstandings of various green building concepts and vocabulary each of which offered an opportunity to properly explain the given misunderstood concept to the class. One particular assumption repeated in many of the case study presentations revealed student’s fundamental misunderstanding of green building certifications. These students, many of them in their third year, blindly associated exemplary energy performance with green building certifications, most frequently LEED, without understanding the requirements of those certifications. In response, a lecture was delivered comparing an array of green building certifications

126

Brad Deal

including LEED, Passivhaus, Building America and the Living Building Challenge to the code minimum standards set by ASHRAE. The presentation of the certification programs’ merits, shortfalls, and actual energy implications was well received among the students and led to a candid discussion of common misconceptions about these programs held by students.

RESEARCH

Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy

Personal Residence The second assignment required students to create a building energy model of their current residence, troubleshoot the simulation results by comparing them to their personal energy bills, then experiment with orientation, fenestration, insulation, occupancy and HVAC efficiency parameters in an attempt to identify the most valuable energy reduction strategies. This exercise presented a challenge due to the sheer quantity of models generated, the two software platforms, the various building configurations, fuel types and variables being tested. The variety of projects, approximately twenty, did however provided a number of opportunities to highlight the strengths and shortcomings of the software in a way that would have been difficult to replicate had a single building been assigned to all students. Similarly, by having students present their findings to one another, as was the case in the first assignment, opportunities were created for the discussion of common questions, challenges, and solutions. As well, valuable specific building science information that likely would not have otherwise been covered in the course could be discussed in the context of the presentations. While the discussion surrounding the assignment was positive, the results of the experiments revealed that the students struggled to grasp the acceptable range or deviation for many of the numeric input variables. About half of projects presented suspicious findings with no chance to troubleshoot the inputs on the spot. This condition of false high and low #s undermined a planned discussion of how the student’s various housing performances compared to the previously discussed green building certifications’ energy benchmarks. A lack of familiarity with some of the typical input values is common for students attempting energy models for the first time, but not realizing or correcting the mistakes highlights a clear lack of retention of building systems information covered in other courses. In fact, building systems classes may consider the benefits of utilizing energy modeling as a platform for introducing and comparing various building systems. Retention of the engineering oriented information would likely improve if students were utilizing it more frequently throughout their education as with CAD, modeling and graphics software. Another clearly lacking element in the 2nd assignment presentations was a consistent format for illustrating reference results as they compared to a test case, what variable was being tested and where the effects occurred. Often only one or two of these elements were presented at a time, which made it difficult for the audience to grasp the amount of influence a given variable had on a project. In this way, creative and effective information diagraming becomes critical to effective communication of the data. At the beginning of the second assignment, the students were almost evenly divided with half working in the Sketchup/Open Studio platform and the other half using the DIVA for Grasshopper plugin. Many were attracted by the simplicity of the Sketchup modeling tool, but the complexity of the Open Studio

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

127

Selected Publications

systems interface compared to the visual parametric interface of DIVA for Grasshopper ultimately persuaded the majority of the students to opt for working in DIVA for the final assignment.

Studio Integration

In the third and final assignment each student was asked to apply his or her new energy simulation abilities to their current studio design problems. The students had projects at various stages of completion across a range of different studios, and as with the previous assignment the fact that the projects varied to such a great degree in scale and completeness gave way to a valuable discussion at the beginning of the assignment regarding the ideal time to employ energy modeling in the design process. Similar to the 2nd assignment, students were asked to experiment with the same passive design and systems variables, but in addition this time there were also challenged to specifically investigate the energy saving value of shading devices and/or building skins. The assignment asked that they document their experiments, present the findings and discuss weather they would actually incorporate any of the variables tested. Due to the lack of faith in many of the results presented in the second assignment and the fact that the majority of the class was working in DIVA, it was decided that a comprehensive master energy model would be developed and distributed in the form of a grasshopper definition. The intent was to streamline and add confidence to the findings of the 3rd assignment by removing many of the novice errors and inconsistencies that plagued the 2nd assignment results. Similarly, a master output spreadsheet and graphs were developed and distributed for this assignment to assist the students in legibly presenting the results of their experiments. These efforts paid off in significant quality improvements in the 3rd assignment deliverables. The shared energy model and results spreadsheet paired with the fact that all students were working in the same software made the comparison of results to one another a much more manageable and informative. While some students continued to struggle with inputs and terminology in their presentations, several students were able to test and optimize fenestration and shading schemes that became primary features of their projects.

Many Challenges The challenges presented by a course such as this are numerous. Sensitive geopolitical issues, complex software in its infancy, and the inclusion of engineering level building science each present their own set of obstacles. But leveraging the global significance of climate change to inspire student engagement, maintaining patience for software learning curves and sharing example energy models and output formats can create influential learning opportunities for young architects. When engaging the world of energy analysis, Instructors must explain that the industry is still young and that the tools for architects are still emerging and steadily reinventing themselves. The findings of the RMI Building Energy Modeling summit and the AIA’s Energy modeling guide provide clear indications of the trajectory of this field, the array of software offerings and the major categories of each.

128

Brad Deal

Instructors preparing courses such as this are challenged to design a series of assignments that are meaningful yet simple enough to be executed by novice energy modelers. Students must be trained through repetition to recognize the established energy consumption benchmarks, building systems input standards and be able to identify mistakes and inconsistencies in their models and results. As well, Instructors should demonstrate how to present energy model output in formats that clearly show all pertinent data.

RESEARCH

Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy

Through these processes instructors must also help students to construct arguments and extrapolate trends that relate a set of energy modeling results to the bigger picture of climate change. After all, students are much more likely to find value in these tools and remember the bigger picture if we train them to frame the data in a way that engages the gravity and urgency of climate change.

Opportunities Offering a course of this nature to relatively young students presents a unique opportunity to nurture the necessary culture of global consciousness and energy literacy in students who are able to continue to explore the issues that inspire them in the remainder of their academic careers. If we expect the students of today to meet the demands of climate change in the next century, their education will have to challenge them to identify clear personal motivations and take ownership of their commitments to sustainable design principles. Entire courses could be devoted to the goal of inspiration alone however by also offering the tool of energy simulation we can give students the means to quantitatively legitimize and refine their design decisions. In the end, a class such as this give us the opportunity to create a new generation of architects that are injecting the practice with a fresh awareness of the threats of climate change and a set of tools that allows them to take effective action.

Conclusion Teaching that engages pervasive global issues and complex software is fraught with challenges that require significant preparation and careful composition of assignments and lectures. It is debatable as to weather or not such specialized content belongs in an undergraduate setting. Certainly higher quality work would be produced by students at the graduate level, but the prospect of these experiences for younger designers leading to a deeper, more effective integration of sustainable design and research efforts as they complete their degree programs seems worth the risk in the face of imminent climate change. At this point schools of architecture must continue to innovate and experiment with courses of this kind, as they foster an awareness of the issues of climate change, cultivate interdisciplinary collaboration in search of solutions and provide their students with knowledge and tools that will prepare them for the coming challenges.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

129

Selected Publications

130

Brad Deal

This peer reviewed paper was presented at the 2014 ACSA Fall Conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations

RESEARCH

Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations

A s schools grow and the market demands more qualif ied gr adu ates, schools will attempt to compress more knowledge and experience into the undergraduate curriculum. This trend seems unlikely to shift in the near future and it only further obligates educators to deliver high quality, efficient and effective learning experiences such as the immersive, motivating environment of the design/build studio. INTRODUCTION

BRAD DEAL

The proposition of honoring and refining student design work through construction while leveraging that effort towards altruistic goals has been widely adopted by schools of architecture over the past several decades. The resources required to undertake these efforts are significant and while positive outcomes in terms of practical pedagogy, community service, and collegiality dominate the experience, those who operate these programs are aware that, as with all projects that leave the design phase and enter construction, negotiations and compromises are involved. In the case of Louisiana Tech’s design/build program the navigation of these compromises has prompted the program to employ the design/build process in a variety of formats, scales and participation levels. This paper tells the story of the evolution of this program’s effort to define the role of the design/ build format within its curriculum and analyzes the four distinct modes it has assumed over the past 13 years. These modes have covered a significant range of project scales, class sizes, and time constraints yielding a valuable set of case studies in which only a few specific variables differ from one iteration to the next. At each of the temporal, physical and participatory scales discussed there are critical alignments and capacities to be reconciled with client and studio objectives as well as challenges that can inhibit achieving certain goals. It is the goal of this paper to illustrate how these qualities of scale have come to shape the evolution of the design/build studio format at Louisiana Tech in order to illustrate how similar programs might tailor their objectives to the resources available and/or justify resources based on their pedagogical and service learning goals.

Louisiana Tech University

GENESIS OF THE PROGRAM (2000-2004) PAVILION SCALE / SMALL GROUPS / 9 MONTHS

In 2000, in an effort to create a “capstone studio” 1 experience for students completing their five-year Bachelor of Architecture degree, the Louisiana Tech School of Architecture adopted the design/build format for their terminal

Chapter Title (ACSA will complete)

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

Size Matters

131

Selected Publications

undergraduate studios. Seeking a comprehensive project experience at the intersection of “community, collaboration and craft”,1 the curriculum was set up around a full academic year of studio courses and complimentary seminars which sought to evaluate and inform it’s students of their ability to deliver competent and valuable design projects vetted by the constraints awaiting them following graduation. Because Louisiana Tech operates on the quarterly academic calendar, the three studio courses occurring in student’s fifth year were aligned to follow the logical project sequence of predesign, design and construction. Each fall students would work to identify potential project opportunities from the municipal parks department, the parish school board and university or related organizations. Students would also, with the assistance of faculty coordinators, contact potential funding and material donation resources. They would then divide into groups of three to four, select from a variety of identified community projects and begin the processes of pre-design and site analysis for their given projects. This system was conceived to accommodate a relatively small class size of ten to fifteen students forming three to four project teams. The design and drawing processes took place in the winter quarter and in early spring quarter of each year construction would begin and continue through the remainder of the academic year yielding several completed projects ranging from 200-600sf with budgets of $5-10K.

Figure 1: I.A. Lewis Outdoor Classroom, 2003

132

A range of positive, though fundamental, developments were realized in the first four years of this process. Sustainable, mutually beneficial relationships with community partners were developed. The students involved enjoyed the obligation and privilege of constructing multiple original designs each year. Friendly competition among the teams motivated individual students and multiplied learning opportunities though project comparison and peer instruction. As a result, students in these first years of the program completed their degrees with new levels of confidence and experience regarding design development, building production, teamwork and a range of practical design knowledge.

WORKING OUT |Brad thinking Deal while building

RESEARCH

Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations

In spite of the positive momentum, clear weaknesses accompanied the critical accomplishment of establishing the program. In the format of multiple simultaneous projects, even at smaller scales, the material and monetary donation resources available were drawn upon all at once and spread thin across projects. The single faculty instructor’s time and project management abilities were similarly divided across each team creating the variable condition of greater accountability and leadership required from the students. This ultimately led to a wider range of quality and completion in the projects from weaker, less committed student teams, while simultaneously further enriching the experience for stronger students who successfully met the challenges of project management and more autonomous operation. As this format evolved, growing class sizes led to larger teams, larger projects and increased complexity as a string of enclosed, semi-conditioned projects began to set a new standard for the project scale in 2004.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY (2005-2010) RESIDENTIAL SCALE / LARGE GROUP / 9 MONTHS

In 2004-05 the design/build program began its formal relationship with the local Habitat for Humanity Chapter. In order to embrace the trend of increasing project scales and consolidate previously sparse donation resources and faculty oversight, the entire fifth year class formed one large team to design and construct a single-family home alongside a deserving family in the standard Habitat for Humanity fashion. Research agendas for the initial house included a design challenge from Judith Hefland to construct the home PVC free in order to promote occupant and student awareness of the unintended consequences of toxic material use. A wide range of Architecture schools, from Auburn’s DESIGNhabitat 2 program to SCI-Arc’s recent LA Housing initiative3, have partnered with local Habitat for Humanity chapters to leverage the strengths of each organization in service of affordable housing and education. As Louisiana Tech began their relationship in the 2004-2005 academic year, many of the unintended consequences and missed opportunities of the previous mode of operation were addressed through the partnership. By concentrating efforts on one large project, the fundraising, material donations and faculty guidance resources were far more focused and therefore valuable. Design efforts were similarly concentrated resulting in higher quality design decisions, as they were the synthesis of the best ideas from a larger group. A clear qualitative improvement in the experience was also realized in the social justice agenda generated by the client. By engaging a specific charity and family, the students and the design/build program as a whole benefited from the identity and clarity of the project narrative provided by Habitat for Humanity and their clients. In terms of additional learning opportunities for students, the construction of an entire house with a true thermal envelope, MEP systems, extensive waterproofing details, and structural considerations was a far richer and more complex set of practical experiences than the construction of unconditioned pavilions in previous years. Despite their normative qualities, the framing of typical stud walls the installation of roofing, lighting and plumbing fixtures etc. allowed students to

Chapter Title (ACSA will complete)

Size Matters Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

133

Selected Publications

internalize a far clearer understanding of a variety of building systems that were not a part of previous build efforts. While these activities and assemblies are not a product of an academic research agenda, it is critical that these systems and their inherent tendencies and limitations are understood by students in order to facilitate exploration of projects that involve them.

Along with these improvements to the Design/build program, came some standard Habitat project considerations that were at first innocuous design parameters, but were proven over the course of multiple projects to be genuinely problematic. The most obvious of these was the classic struggle between the competing aesthetic and formal desires of student designers and the necessary desires of affordable housing clients. The Habitat for Humanity client base was interested in a vernacular and unobtrusive aesthetic – something comfortable and familiar that embodied the normative idea of “home” for them. Students on the other hand, having been trained to think critically and creatively, sought forms that were site, climate and function specific. Examples of such formal expressions include asymmetrical roofs that offered water catchment and fenestration arrangements that create natural light and views that corresponded to activity patterns. Additionally students sought to employ the digital fabrication tools available to them through the university for elements such as railings, screened porches, doors and cabinetry. Their inexperience with these tools and often rushed execution did little to convince clients to trust student aesthetic inclination. In general the student’s desire to highlighting the unique features of the projects ran contrary to the client’s desire for familiar, traditional residential design.

Figure 2: HabiTECH House, 2008

134

In addition to formal and aesthetic struggles, the rigid budgetary and programmatic constraints of the Habitat for Humanity’s ~$47,000, 1050sf, 3 bedroom home led to negotiated degrees of repetition from one year to the next. And the unoriginal design elements came to be justified by the accelerated schedules and client’s interest in uniformity, low maintenance and predictability.

WORKING OUT |Brad thinking Deal while building

RESEARCH

Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations

COMPETITION VS. BUILD AND THE 4+1 CURRICULUM (2010-2013) RESIDENTIAL SCALE / MEDIUM GROUP / 6 MONTHS

The relative success of the program’s relationship with Habitat for Humanity led to the design and construction of 8 consecutive homes from 2005 to 2013. During this sequence, the school’s 5-year Bachelors of Architecture curriculum was restructured to become a 4+1 Master of Architecture program. Because the design/build studio had been seen as the culmination or “capstone” to the undergraduate degree program the Habitat for Humanity Home became the responsibility of fourth year students. This compression of the undergraduate degree program shifted the timeline for the house from three quarters to two. Predetermined clients, fundraising and donation sources allowed much of the preliminary work to be easily accomplished under the tighter schedule and at the beginning of each winter quarter (November) the students would begin the design process with construction occurring from December through May. As class sizes began to further increase an alternative terminal undergraduate experience was offered. Beginning with the fourth year class of 2008/2009 students could choose to spend their winter and spring quarters developing an entry for the annual ACSA student competition or spend that time in the design/build program on the Habitat for Humanity House.4 The development of competition and design/build tracks within the program reduced the number of students participating in design/build, but also represented an increase in the average motivation and hands on skill set of the students who actively choose the design/build track. In the three years that the program operated under this model, internal debates surfaced regarding which track was best preparing students for practice and for the graduate program. 4 This was a debate of skill set priorities as the design/build student’s knowledge of detailed assemblies, materials and construction means and methods was superior, but their software skills, graphic communication abilities and research methods were typically less developed than their peers who had spent 6 months preparing competition entries. The dual track arrangement set up a particularly interesting experiment that more clearly defined the value of construction knowledge as well as the trade offs involved in missing additional research, software and drawing experiences. Under this model the design/build program retained all of the benefits originally gained by adopting Habitat for Humanity as their client, but over time and across multiple project iterations, the less desirable conditions of this format became more prevalent. The unchanging project parameters, accelerated design processes, and continued formal aesthetic struggle between student and clients led to a high degree of repetition, effectively reducing their value as academic design problems. Operating under time and man-power constraints, paired with the inefficiencies and repetition of tasks necessary with novice builders, led to a truncated, less exploratory 2-3 week design process and a more intense building season in which students would often log an average of nearly 40 hours per week on site. This would occasionally lead to the neglect of other classes and responsibilities by the design/build students and a noticeable difference in graduate school applications and portfolios when compared to the competition track students. The argument surfaced regularly that there was too much “hammer swinging” and not enough thinking, designing and research happening among the design/build students. However the conclusion remained that both the competition track and design/build tracks were highly valuable experiences.

Chapter Title (ACSA will complete)

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

135

Selected Publications

JUNIOR SPRING EXPERIENCE (2013-PRESENT) PAVILION SCALE / LARGE GROUP / 12 WEEKS

In response to the critiques of the Habitat oriented design/build process and the acknowledgment that both the competition and design/build experiences were highly valued, in 2013 the role of the design/build studio underwent its most recent evolution. Rather than two simultaneous tracks, the competition and design/build time allowances were reduced to a single quarter and the two studios were inserted into different points in the curriculum. Design/build was no longer considered a terminal studio, but rather as a growth experience to be built upon while still in the program. It was shifted into the spring quarter of studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s third year with the competition studio occurring in the spring quarter of the fourth year. Reduction to a twelve-week (one quarter) time frame marked the intentional move away form full-scale residential construction and the suspension of the programs relationship with Habitat for Humanity. Returning to other community and public clients, the design/build program found the variety of design problems, budgets, site influences and client interests it sought in the new format. In 2013, the first iteration of this twelve-week time frame maintained the dual track studio model in which half of the third year students worked towards at competition entry and the other half, 12 students, participated in design/ build. The client was the municipal parks department who needed signage for a pedestrian entrance to a neighborhood park. While the design process was an accelerated one at 3 weeks, the program constraints and client demands were minimal allowing the flexibility to add seating and shading programs and prioritize research and design exploration of structural folding strategies and generative design tools. The result was a sculptural concrete and steel pavilion that was well received by the voices that typically espoused the competition studio track. The identified areas for improvement in this project were the lack of the standard framing, MEP and waterproofing systems experience and the lack of clear end user and social narrative.

Figure 3: Huckleberry Trails Entry, 2013

136

WORKING OUT |Brad thinking Deal while building

RESEARCH

Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations

In 2014 the design/build program moved beyond its transitional year and implemented a curriculum that required all students to experience design/build in their third year and a competition studio in their fourth year. This move yielded a design/build team of 25 students, and in identifying a project the organizers attempted to address the critiques of the previous year. To maintain the positive social narrative and clear client identity the program partnered with Med Camps of Louisiana, a non-profit organization that provides summer camp experiences for children with special needs at no cost the campers. They were particularly good fit as they pair a clear positive agenda and deserving end users with a range of small-scale project opportunities at their rural camp facilities. Their most pressing immediate need was an ADA accessible central meeting space that would be illuminated at night, circulate water from a stagnant pond and accommodate up to 65 people or 32 wheelchairs at once. By reprioritizing the client needs and narrative, significantly increasing the project size to over 1500 sf, and still operating in the 12-week time frame, the 2014 process was more client based than research based. The larger class size did not translate directly to the larger project size and the majority of the work was accomplished by 30% of the students with heavy support and many hours contributed from faculty. The intensity of building process exceeded that of previous Habitat for Humanity projects with students averaging 50 hours per week on the project. And as before, noticeable neglect of other student responsibilities resulted. Beyond these difficulties, the project resulted in an intense but rewarding experience for students in a range of fabrication, construction, project management and design translation lessons complimented by a clearer understandings of electrical, plumbing and structural systems. The project was also an exponential success for its client, not only through the practical creation of the facility, but in the generation of first time fundraising of more than double the projects cost, in renewed infrastructure investment from its community partners and in clear a appreciation from its campers for the renewal of the life of the camp. CONCLUSIONS

The evolution of the Design/build program at Louisiana Tech provides a particularly useful set of case studies for comparison and analysis. They show how a medium sized school of architecture began and continued to refine their design/build program. Their models include student teams ranging from three to twenty-five, projects ranging in size from 50sf to over 1500sf and time frame ranging from 9 months to 12 weeks. And woven into these 13 years of design/ build studios is a parallel tack of students who did not have the design/build experience. Recounting the arch of the program, there are many specific conditions that could be explored further, but when considering the string of studios as a whole, the following broad lessons can be extracted: BETTER, FASTER, YOUNGER: This account highlights a trend found in many aspects

of education in the 21st century: We are steadily striving to create equal or higher quality research and service learning in less time, with more students who have less experience. Clearly, the program began with a few fifth year students completing a project over 9 months to 25 third year students completing a project in less than 3 months. As schools grow and the market demands more qualified graduates, schools will attempt to compress more knowledge and experience into the undergraduate curriculum. This trend seems unlikely to shift in the near future and it only further obligates educators to deliver high quality, efficient and effective learning experiences such as the immersive, motivating environment of the design/build studio. Chapter Title (ACSA will complete)

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

137

Selected Publications

SIZE =TIME: As the various modes of operation of the Louisiana Tech program indicate, design/build, as a studio format, research endeavor and community service can be executed successfully at various scales. However the physical and temporal scales must be aligned and the research agenda and client needs must be compatible. Drawing upon the Habitat for Humanity experience, the construction of any project with a thermal envelope of 1000sf or lager, MEP systems, waterproofing etc. should be carefully considered if the available time is less than 7 months. Considering the successful recent 12-week pavilion studios, it is clear that smaller unconditioned projects are possible when less time is available, but more students do not directly translate to the ability to accomplish a larger project with equal effort. In an academic process with unskilled labor, larger projects simply take more time. AGENDA=CLIENT: When examining past clients and research agendas for a design/ build studios often one is prioritized over the other, or, in the case of exceptionally successful projects, the research agenda align with the client interests or needs. A residential client requires attention to their own idiosyncrasies as they will live with the design for years, however other clients can be more flexible to accommodate academic agendas or when design/build programs have the privilege of being their own clients, the research agenda can remain the top priority. But as project durations are reduced, it becomes more difficult to ensure student learning while satisfying client and/or research goals. When the parameters of size + time and agenda + client are consciously aligned the ability to satisfy all involved is far more attainable. EVOLUTION IS NOT OPTIONAL: When considering the Habitat for Humanity rela-

tionship with the design/build program, It seems clear that any rigid program, site, client or scale pursued for too many iterations is subject to loosing academic value through repetition unless the research agendas are clear and evolving form one project to the next. In the case of Louisiana Techâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Habitat for Humanity Homes it became clear that the prioritization of the client despite aesthetic disagreements led to a less thoroughly perused design and research agenda that was further diminished by the shortened project calendar and unfortunately led to the suspension of the partnership. Had the client offered a wider variety of projects over the years or the time constraints allowed for more rigorous research and exploration, the partnership may have gone farther.

ENDNOTES 1.

Karl Puljak, Director of Louisiana Tech School of Design, personal interview, 20 May 2014

Justin Miller and David Hinson, DESIGNhabitat design/research + design/build: Expanding the Design/Build Model 2009

Global News Wire, SCI-Arc and Habitat for Humanity of Greater Los Angeles Team Up to Build Innovative, Sustainable and Affordable Homes in LA County. 11 Sept 2014

Robert Brooks, Associate Professor, Louisiana Tech School of Design, personal interview 19 Sept 2014

138

Louisiana Techâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s design/build program has consistently worked over the past 13 years to define the role of the design/build studio format within its curriculum. Over the course of its evolution the program has covered a significant range of project scales, class sizes, and time constraints each of which was pursued to improve the project and educational outcomes relative to the previous. The trend of attempting to extract more research and learning over shorter and shorter projects will soon find its limit and the format will continue to evolve and be improved upon. The intent in sharing these experiences and observations is to allow others to do the same.

Brad Deal

This peer reviewed paper was presented at the 2016 NCBDS Conference at California Polytechnic University in San Luis Obispo, CA

Making it Theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio

RESEARCH

Making It Theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio

Brad Deal & Miguel Lasala, Louisiana Tech University

Introducing Freshmen to 1:1

Curriculum Context

The creation of architecture at full scale requires significant material, time, and capitol investment, and as a result, only the best design work often emerges from a select few students. However, when student design work slated for collaborative construction is selected via competition format, the majority of students who’s designs are rejected experience diminished motivations and reduced engagement in the process once they are asked to invest significant effort into a project that is no longer their own. This paper explores the role of maintaining individual authorship within the collaborative design/ build project in order to improve students’ ability to experience the epistemological and motivational value of full-scale construction in the beginning design studio.

Design build projects at Louisiana Tech have consistently been executed at various points within the curriculum over the past two decades. Beginning with student construction projects from the 1990’s through 2012, the design-build studios have served as the capstone experience for the undergraduate program.

The architecture program at Louisiana Tech University has a robust portfolio of successful design build projects executed in 3rd, 4th and 5th year studios. In 2014 and 2015, 1:1 construction of student’s studio design work was introduced for the first time at the freshman level. In the first iteration, the studio used the competition format to select a single student’s design for the entire class to build. Responding to solicited feedback, in the second iteration of this process in 2015, before dividing the construction responsibilities, an additional week was invested in merging all students’ designs into an eclectic yet cohesive form. Through the empirical comparison of these two processes and interviews with both groups of students regarding the value of their experience, this paper makes clear the pedagogical value of merging design work to create inclusive design authorship prior to commencing construction of built student projects.

During the in the 2012/2013 academic year, ongoing debates over the critical application of the lessons gained through the design/build studio in subsequent design processes spurred the creation of two distinct 1:1 building experiences at two transition points within the curriculum. First, the traditional “capstone” design build studio was compressed to a single quarter (11-week) community-based design build studio that would occur during the spring quarter of a student’s third year in the program. Additionally, a two-week campus-based design/build project would also be integrated into the final project of the st freshman spring studio at the end of their 1 year and creating an introductory design build exercise that could serve as a reference through the remainder of the curriculum.

1st Year Building Goals The first year studio curriculum at Louisiana Tech utilizes abstract design problems to teach design thinking and conceptual project development without the inhibitions, preconceptions, and assumptions that students naturally bring to traditional architectural programs. The full scale construction experience in st the final two weeks of the 1 year curriculum marks the complete transition from design abstraction to full, physical realization of design solutions that in turn prepares students for the structural, tectonic, programmatic, and code requirement challenges ahead in second year studio.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

139

Selected Publications

Deal | Lasala st

In earlier iterations of 1 year design studios, an array of full scale design experiences have been executed using bamboo stalks, cardboard, lumber, string and other materials at 1:1. However, these projects were always designed through highly intuitive processes that resulted in ephemeral installations that were only left in place for a few days. In response to these critiques of earlier 1:1 design experiences, in 2014 the Spring quarter freshman studio adopted much of what had previously been the content of the Fall sophomore design studio - the introduction of students to lofted surfaces, structure and const ceptual composition - and added to the end of it a new 1 year building experience. Rather than arbitrary and ephemeral installations the students would carry out the semi-permanent, full scale construction of a project that had been developed through an iterative sequence over the entire course via scaled drawings and models in order to provide consistency and clarity of concept and spatial intent from initial sketches through built form. The resulting construction would be required to exist outdoors, exposed to the weather for a full year, striking a reasonable balance between durability and cost while also allowing each project to serve as an example to the next year’s class. The experience of the building process at this early stage in their design education is also meant to challenge them to maintain and even amplifying the poetics and meaning in their design work while navigating the practical considerations of fabrication methods, material limitations, structure and connection.

The 135 Design Sequence In ARCH 135, the final freshman design studio offered each Spring, the 1:1 construction experience is the final step in a fastpaced sequence of assignments covering conceptual development, abstract design thinking, design via simultaneous drawing and modeling, structural design, tectonic exploration, design development and simplified construction documents. The students begin this sequence by developing three closed shapes that they derive from Richard Serra’s verb action list. Through both axonometric drawing, and model, the shapes are employed as sections, and are connected to create a solid through an analog process that approximates the lofting and surface manipulation in Rhino. Students divide the solids into 12 section cuts, which the students translate into a series of structural ribs. These ribs are further developed by using extension lines to help accomplish structural triangulation. Sizing and the duplication of members, along with the combination of various materials employed, further develop the tectonic language and

140

member connections. The application of planar materials and lateral bracing, along with all other design adjustments, are meant to reinforce the qualities of the original Sera verb in the final composition. Following this rigorous sequence of design development, the resultant designs which had been developed as 1:1 armatures are then considered at a 1/8” = 1’-0“ scale, allowing the designs to then be thought of as a pavilion structures. The final two weeks of the course are spent on the construction of a single full scale structure by the entire class in a coordinated group effort.

2014 Build: The Competition During the first iteration of this studio, approximately one week before the structural “rib” models were due, the students were informed of the competition style review that would take place on the due date. That day, a panel of visiting architecture faculty selected six of the 29 projects presented for further development. With the finalists selected, the second phase of the competition was explained and the students were informed for the first time that the entire class would be constructing the final winning design at full scale in the courtyard of the school’s shop. With this knowledge, the students divided themselves into equal teams across the 6 projects and were told to consider their models as 1/8”=1’-0” representations of a pavilion structure and that they needed to develop them as small gathering spaces with bench style seating elements at 18”above the ground. The student teams were given one week to refine their designs, add the seating and generate hand drawn plans, sections, details, material takeoffs, and a budget. These materials were then presented for each project and the students cast their vote for the design they preferred to build (Fig 1 &2).

Fig. 1. Winning project model in the 2014 Design Competition

Brad Deal

Making It Theirs

RESEARCH

Making It Theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio

Fig. 3. The completed 2014 rib pavilion Fig. 2. 2014 project site plan

The instructors tallied the student’s votes and considered them when selecting the final design for construction. Through this process of practical design and detail development many of the students revealed a general lack of familiarity with much of the practical knowledge of hardware, tools and materials necessary to construct a basic wood framed pavilion with standard, screws, bolts and steel fasteners. Many of the proposed details had to be redesigned several times over the course of the week. With the final design selected, the faculty and students worked together to divide the work assignments considering construction familiarity, personal interest and ability. This resulted in a pair of students constructing each “rib” element and a few students completing overall tasks such as pouring footings or lateral bracing installations. Unfortunately these general tasks, which effect all parts of the project and require more labor, were delegated to the students who were not excited or interested enough to volunteer for one of the initial responsibilities offered. As the construction process ran its course, the work assignments became much more fluid. Natural leaders, followers, and bystanders, emerged mainly because design authorship rested primarily with a single student and the team that developed the drawings for the project. The members of that team became de facto project managers fielding questions and making decisions that governed their peers efforts through the course of construction.

The construction process lasted approximately two weeks with official class meetings 3 days per week for 3 hours, with many informal work sessions taking place outside of class time. The end result (Fig. 3)was a unified project that reflected many of the qualities of the original design however clear personal motivation and investment in the process seemed to only be had by about one third of the class – a topic addressed further in the conclusion of this paper. The following year, during the planning stages of the course, the instructors solicited informal verbal feedback from the students that had completed the initial 2014 project. The feedback reinforced some of the pitfalls suspected of the project format and helped prompt the instructors to abandon the competition phase in favor of a collaborative design process leading into the construction portion of the studio.

2015 Build: Collaboration In the 2015 iteration of the studio, the initial design assignments ran just as they had previously, including the verbs, sections, lofting and rib models, but rather than holding a competition style review on the day the rib models were due, each student was asked to select the single rib from their project that they liked the best and provide a duplicate of that rib that was not attached to the rest of the model. Following some group discussion evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the individual rib model designs on the day they were due the announcement was made that the studio would be using the provided individual loose ribs to begin to collectively design a hybrid rib pavilion that would incorporate seating, shading, and become the final design to be constructed at full scale.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

141

Selected Publications

Deal | Lasala

Fig. 4. A class wide design meeting combining ribs elements from everyoneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s projects.

In spite of some initial confusion about how to approach the merger, the following week was spent modifying the unrelated rib designs into a somewhat cohesive form (Fig 4). Some students expressed frustration at the idea of starting over when there were perfectly successful complete designs to choose from. Others did not prefer the inherent eclecticism of combining so many rib varieties, but on the first day of this process the initial step was to arrange all 29 individual ribs into a single form in order to generally sort them out by size, search for common geometries and begin to think about what sort of space this collection of ribs could be used to create. It was this initial exercise that led the 2015 design to incorporate more of a round table gathering space within the pavilion opposed to a linear bench seating arrangement. At the end of the first large group design session the 29 rib arrangement was starting to show some promise of becoming something more interesting than the singular 2014 pavilion, the ribs were paired with the most similar neighboring rib and the two students that had created those ribs were required to work together to combine them in to a unified hybrid design. Some groups consisted of 3 students in order to compensate for the total of 13 ribs in the final design. The teams went through 2-3 iterations of refining their ribs to try to relate to the geometry of their neighbors without loosing the primary elements of their original form. This approach found the majority of students contributing significant effort outside of class time, as several natural leaders emerged within the studio. Class time also offered a chance for

the instructors and those less involved outside of class to contribute to the design direction. After a week of effort by all, and approximately 3 full iterations, a final design that struck a balance between the original unrelated ribs and a new unified form was approved for construction. With a model of the new design completed, the design of the connection details between each member were explored through an iterative 1:1 mockup assignment. To begin gathering ideas for these connections and to prepare the worksite for construction, this assignment began with the careful deconstruction of the 2014 project. By disassembling the previous years work, students were able to get a sense of when to use bolts vs screws and how concrete, lumber, and steel can be fastened to one another. For homework students were asked to sketch a variety of ideas for tectonic connections between the members of their ribs. During the next class meeting they were then tasked with assembling a mock up of their most successful sketch from full scale wood scraps (Fig 5), sometimes allowing cardboard to represent steel mending and flitch plates. Most ribs had 4-8 intersections to be resolved through this process, which doubled as a way of introducing students to some of the shop tools necessary for working at full scale. Deconstructing the previous yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s project gave the 2015 group an advantage in terms of tectonic development, and the breadth and sophistication of mock ups proved invaluable. Following the mock ups assignment, each group was responsi-

Fig. 5. 1:1 connection mock up during 2015 studio 142

Fig. 6. The completed 2015 rib pavilion Brad Deal

Making It Theirs ble for creating construction documents, material takeoffs, and budgets for their individual rib design. Each group was also responsible for pouring footings, help in creating shading panels and developing cross bracing. In this iteration (Fig 6) there was a more equitable distribution of responsibility in which students felt more comfortable making their own design decisions, leading to a clearer sense of collective ownership of the project.

Comparing the Modes By adjusting the method of selecting and developing the final designs for construction, the 2014 and 2015 freshman design build projects resulted in two unique student experiences. During the Fall of 2015, both sets of students were interviewed and asked to reflect on the experience, their motivations for completing the project and its value to their education. Overwhelmingly both studios reported that they were most clearly motivated by the novelty and excitement of the construction process and that in hindsight, the most valuable aspect of their experience was to be found in their new knowledge of construction processes and a better understanding of the realities of teamwork. “Learning to work as a group was definitely valuable, because it led to better communication skills…there’s something really valuable about moving from pencil and paper to a threedimensional space where you really understand the weight of materials and the strength of the things that hold them together” - 2015 student The two studios differed however in their overall satisfaction with the process and in the suggestions they offered for improvement. The 2014 studio expressed a general frustration with the design competition format with a full 50% of those surveyed suggesting that the larger group be allowed to provide design input rather than pushing forward with the work of a single individual. “Having a single person’s project built was not ideal because then they were in charge of everyone and it created conflict among classmates” - 2014 student

In the end, each studio had a few students who claim they would have preferred to an experience more like the other. Both groups experienced some dissatisfaction surrounding design authorship. The 2014 group had many members of the team less engaged in the project because they were not allowed to contribute to the design, while the 2015 group saw relatively few people dissatisfied with the design because the process was much more democratic in nature.

RESEARCH

Making It Theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio

Guidelines for Future Builds These findings support the general principle that all students involved in a design build project are far more likely to take an active role in the project and benefit personally from the experience if they feel they have contributed significantly (or at least had the opportunity to contribute) to a design that they are excited about constructing. Similarly, it would seem from these experiences that if students are not allowed by their peers to make decisions for themselves, alienation and dissatisfaction can occur further reducing student’s learning opportunities. For future projects of this type, the collective design merger seems far more likely to be effective at engaging more of the class in the design process, however, an improvement on this format would be to allow more time for the refinement of the collective design. This would, in theory, allow the design to develop into something that everyone is excited to build while including design influence from all that are interested in contributing. Overall the process of 1:1 creation through the design build process is a powerful and immersive educational experience to which most students respond positively. As with most group projects, when many are asked to work together, the concept of individual design ownership can be more of a liability than an asset due to its potential to alienate those who feel they’ve been excluded from the decision making process. To ensure an engaging, valuable experience for all involved a thorough merger of the best design ideas from the group would be carefully leveraged to unify the team and allow each participant to be motivated by quality teamwork and collective ownership of the design and construction processes.

Conversely, the 2015 studio, which merged all designs into a single project, generally expressed a more positive experience, with about 25% of the group expressing dissatisfaction with the collective design effort and suggesting that a single person’s design be selected to improve the consistency and homogeneity of the design.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

143

Selected Publications

In the Fall of 2016 I was invited to be the opening keynote speaker at the ULS Academic Summit at Southeastern University in Hammond, Louisiana. I invited Caleb Seney to talk about our partnership as a model for service learning projects at other Universities across our state. It was also the first time I was able to attend my students presentation of their Research Symposium work at the state level, despite mentoring students through the process every year. 144

Brad Deal

This peer reviewed paper was presented at the 2016 NCBDS Conference at California Polytechnic University in San Luis Obispo, CA

Abstracting Scale: The One Week High School Prequel

RESEARCH

Abstracting Scale: The One Week High School Prequel

Liane Hancock, Brad Deal, Louisiana Tech University

Where to Begin? What if we consider the beginning before the beginning? This paper investigates a teaching model that delivers a weeklong summer camp both as a singular one-off experience for high school students and as an analog to the architectural curriculum offered at Louisiana Tech University. In recent years, high school summer programs for architecture have proliferated. The American Institute of Architects currently catalogues over 75 high school architecture programs hosted 1 by colleges and universities. Too often these programs are seen as other. With little or no reference to their parent institution, these programs typically are not considered part of the foundation curriculum. Yet, the yield rates from these programs into first year can be high. If the summer program parallels the teaching pedagogy of the school, the “alumni” of that program quickly accept foundation level studio pedagogy when they enter first year. Based on observation, it is clear that just a few such students can influence an entire class, turning the character of the first year studio from fear and resistance, to an atmosphere of experimentation.

What Can You Teach in a Week? The structure of this camp is organized to introduce students to the major learning objectives that our professional 4+1 program instills: defining space through enclosure and the study of surface; perception of space and the scale of the body; defining the building envelope through the design of cladding over structure; investigating tectonic resolution; and incorporating digital fabrication into workflow. Over the week, students design a pavilion through a series of exercises, each presented at 1:1. The pavilion project is not presented at the outset, rather it is revealed through the series of exercises, with each presented as an experiment with specific performative requirements. As each exercise concludes, the

faculty reframes the resultant design at a specific scale, allowing the project to advance in depth of design exploration. By didactically beginning each step at a 1:1 scale, the students leave behind their traditional vision of architecture, and can achieve complex designs quickly. The pace of the project results in one fully completed exercise per 24 hour period, with each exercise broken into 1 to 2 hour projects in class with homework that typically emphasizes production. The studio course occurs each afternoon for four hours. Complementing the studio experience, the camp also presents lectures, workshops and field trips in the mornings. The camp has been taught twice, with each of the co-authors teaching it slightly differently – and the variations in method are presented in this paper.

The Exercises Exercise 1.1: Enclosing Space Students begin with an investigation of the topological character of surface and its ability to enclose space. The faculty provides students with index cards, instructing them to slice and connect the cards, using tabs, to create a continuous surface that encloses space. Students develop a series of iterations, and at the end of this hour-long exercise, students present the result of their effort in an informal round-table review, discussing the goals, merits and shortcomings of each iteration. From this discussion, each student selects a final design based upon formal character and enclosure of space. Exercise 1.2: The Module and Surface Next, the faculty instructs the students to shift from conceiving of units as individual containers of space to aggregating them as modular components to form a surface. Students can choose to use their existing module, conceiving how to tile it across a surface, or they can develop a new unit.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

145

Selected Publications

Liane Hancock, Brad Deal

Fig. 1 Summer 2014 process: unit, structure and modules, mockup of pavilion in chipboard, and final project.

Exercise 2: Introducing the Pavilion and Siting

Fig. 2 Summer 2014 project using secondary cladding unit.

To design a new unit, students engage the same fabrication methods of cutting, scoring and folding index cards. The faculty introduces this assignment without providing a scale so that the exercise occurs in the abstract scale-less environment of an experiment. In summer of 2014, to form the surface, the faculty instructed the students to first develop a tiling pattern for the units. The students considered whether the tiles touched, whether they oriented in the same direction, or whether some flipped front to back, or rotated. Students also considered the spacing between the units. Once they developed a pattern, the students designed a structural support system. Using cardstock or chipboard, students designed primary members which measured roughly eight to nine inches long, and approximately ¼ inch in depth. They then added secondary members to brace between the primary members. The students resolved how to connect the cladding units to the support system, inventing additional plates and braces. If the units touched, the students designed how the tiles connected to each other. The students conceived of the surface at 1:1, with this sequence providing an introduction to a simplified conception of building envelope. In summer of 2015, the students began by designing a surface composed of tiles, using the index cards to create modules that could be linked to similar or complimentary units on four sides to form a continuous expandable surface. In this case, the modular surface was meant to be a semi structural, selfsupporting skin rather than reliant upon the structural frame to support the panels individually. As a result, the structural frame was designed in a later exercise. As was true the previous summer, the students considered the surface as 1:1, again rendering it as an experiment evaluated solely on its own terms. 146

For the next exercise, students increase the size of the original space-enclosing unit by four times. At this point, the faculty informs the students that their goal for the remainder of the week is to design a pavilion for a single person: a contemplative, private space for reading, reflection and meditation. This conversation provides the opportunity to discuss how the user enters the space, and inhabits it. The faculty also discusses positioning towards the sun and away from winds, and how the cladding strategy can be altered through orientation and density to enhance the pavilions’ capability for providing shelter. The students now convert their original index card space into a structural frame clad with their modular surface system. The space and the modular cladding system evolve through further iterations to better coordinate with one another and to fit the desired programmatic and environmental responses. In summer of 2014, initially the shift to four times larger occurred in chipboard, allowing students to gain an understanding of the size of the enclosure. An hour into class, students were told to define the surface of the enclosure through the structural support and cladding system from the previous day. Students then rethought the geometry of the system, and its connections – so that it wrapped around the enclosed space – rather than existing solely in planar form. In order to accomplish this, students developed a structural frame that approximated the form of the original space-enclosing unit, visualizing it as a scaffold instead of surface. Simultaneously, students were introduced to the scale ruler, and told that their projects were 1/2”=1’-0”. (Figure 1 and 2) The students were told that their site was on a slope facing south. They reacted to this information by developing both their structure and their cladding system to respond to sun and wind orientation. After completing the structure, students then set to making numerous units by hand, which they affixed to the scaffolding.

Brad Deal

Abstracting Scale

RESEARCH

Abstracting Scale: The One Week High School Prequel

Fig. 3 Summer 2015 process: units making a surface, constructing the structure, cladding the structure, and final project.

in a critical, investigatory fashion in order to understand how they can convey objective information. Additionally, students learned how to translate information between multiple scales by working from a ¼”=1’-0” site plan to construct a ½”=1’-0” site model. (Figure 3 and 4)

Fig. 4 Site drawings.

The project was completed in the next 48 hours, allowing for a Friday morning critique and open house for parents. In summer of 2015, the final processes were different both in definition of site and production of the model. In lieu of a simple sloped site, the students were presented with a simplified kinked berm that created 3 distinct level surfaces and 3 sloped surfaces. The description of the site was used as an opportunity to introduce orthographic drawing. The students were asked to build a model base from a single page of drawings that included a site plan, section cuts through the site, indication of elevation height at level areas, and a perspective – allowing students to synthesize the plan and section information. Introducing the site allowed the students to engage with drawings

As the students began to translate their modular tiled surface to the correct scale for the final model, one additional limitation was placed on them: the modules were to be designed as though they were constructed from 2’x3’ materials meaning 1”x1.5” rectangles at ½” = 1’-0” scale. To assist with this translation approximately twenty 1”x1.5” paper rectangles were laser cut and provided to each student. Once they had modified their tile design to fit this module, the students had their design approved for production by the instructor and then took a single un-folded module to the teaching assistant. With oversight and assistance from the student, the teaching assistant drafted the unit in AutoCAD and laser cut a few examples to confirm that it had been accurately replicated. Once approved, the teaching assistant cut between 50 and 100 modules for each student, effectively incorporating digital workflow into the production process. By producing the tiles for each student, a significant efficacy was accomplished. The students could spend more time on the patterning of the tiles, in lieu of simply producing them through analog means. Students completed production and assembly of the final project between Wednesday evening and Friday morning, in a schedule that paralleled the previous year’s production. (Figure 5)

Fig. 5 Digitally cut tiling modules.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

147

Selected Publications

Liane Hancock, Brad Deal

Fig. 6 Final exhibit showing with the students, final models and the full scale units.

Exercise 3: The Cladding Unit at 1:1 and Digital Work Flow In summer of 2015, the efficacy of producing the scaled cladding panels through digital fabrication methods allowed an additional learning objective. Having incorporated the laser into the design process, it was easy to present an additional step of digitally cutting cardboard “full scale” mockups of the cladding units at 1:1. (Figure 6) The previous exercises had made the students comfortable with the idea of modeling architectural space at a scale. This final assignment allowed the faculty to employ a final abstraction, shifting scale once again. In this last scale shift, the teaching assistants utilized the laser to cut 6 to 8 full scale cladding units out of chipboard. Because the module was limited to 1”x1.5” at ½”=1’-0” scale, at full scale the units were 24”x36”, the size of the bed of the laser. Working at 1:1 allowed the students to fully understand the scale and tectonic implications of their design. The notching and interlocking cladding techniques taught in earlier steps were easily executed at full scale without additional adhesives or assistance, meaning that the units were not models, but full scale mockups.

mental objectives: surface and the enclosure of space; structure and surface to define building envelope; tectonic and structure investigated at scale of inhabitation; and finally, the individual cladding component and its tectonic expression at full scale. This final step provides the opportunity to discuss design-build − an important aspect of our curriculum − and offers the supplementary benefit of underscoring digital fabrication as part of workflow. Finally, this pedagogical approach shows students how the rules that they initiate can be employed iteratively to design an increasingly complex project, providing them with a holistic introduction to the broader architectural curriculum, while at the same time offering a complete experience in a single week.

Notes 1

American Institute of Architects, “Summer Architecture Education Programs for High School Students,” http://www.aia.org/education/AIAS075245.

Conclusion Much can be taught in one week. This camp presents a microcosm of the architectural design process, with each separate exercise conceived at 1:1, and then reframed at a scale to magnify design intention. Breaking the week down into distinct steps allows the faculty to sidestep students’ assumptions about architecture, and their youthful temptation to avoid process in a self-possessed rush to complete the project. Simultaneously, starting each step at a scale of 1:1, as a teaching tactic, allows the faculty to hopscotch through stages of the curriculum, boiling down learning outcomes to their funda148

Brad Deal

Engaging a Critical Metric:

New Strategies in Energy Literacy 3rd,

4th

5th

Elective Course: & year students

Engaging a Critical Metric:

New Strategies in Energy Literacy Students understand sustainability as a checklist

RESEARCH

SELECTED PRESENTATIONS They need to understand logic behind strategies and macro scale issues of climate change

Energy Simulation training framed by an introduction to climate change

vs.

Engaging a Critical Metric:

New Strategies in Energy Literacy

They need tools beyond checklists that inform design decisions

pedagogy + methodology + student work = challenges & opportunities

Introducing Climate Change to undergraduates

Increasingly violent weather Habitat and species loss Interruptions in the global food chain Resource scarcity Sea level rise Massive population displacement, Humanitarian crises Eminent warfare over dwindling resources.

Energy Simulation

in sustainable design Triple bottom line of sustainability: Environmental, Social and Economic viability Energy Simulation has Environmental & Economic overlap.

Evaluates and compares both low & high tech building strategies

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

First lecture: Why are we doing this? 21st century is slated to include Not yet clichĂŠ to students

Energy Simulation

in sustainable design Energy Simulation has historically been the task of mechanical engineers

Venturing outside the typical architect s scope requires design students to engage building science and systems more thoroughly (if it works) the tool can be a valuable example of interdisciplinary exploration and collaboration

149

Selected Presentations

The Current State

Attempting Energy Literacy

of energy simulation tools

Among Undergraduates

The tools are starting to fragment and improve through specialization

Sketchup + Open Studio 3D inputs

simulation engines

Rhino/Grashopper + DIVA

parametric speciﬁcations & output delivery

Attempting Energy Literacy

Course Assignments

Among Undergraduates

Sketchup + Open Studio

Rhino/Grashopper + DIVA

01_Case Study Research + Simulation Attempt

02_Personal Residence Personal Energy Audit + Simulation to match Empirical Data

03_Studio Integration Fitting simulation into their personal design process

Attempting Energy Literacy

Course Assignments

150

Course Assignments

01_Case Study Research + Simulation Attempt

Student presentations were full of opportunities to clarify misused green building terminology correct assumptions and false statements presented

Many problems with simulations

Extensive PR & Marketing regurgitation Including some green washing

Many blindly associated LEED certiﬁcation with exemplary energy consumption

Brad Deal

Attempting Energy Literacy

Course Assignments

02_Personal Residence Personal Energy Audit + Simulation to match Empirical Data

Research Global energy use per capita

Course Assignments

RESEARCH

Engaging a Critical Metric: New Strategies in Energy Literacy

02_Personal Residence Personal Energy Audit + Simulation to match Empirical Data

Propose a goal for individual American energy consumption Gather their personal energy data Run simulations of their own house Identify necessary adjustments to meet your personal energy goals

Attempting Energy Literacy

Course Assignments

02_Personal Residence Personal Energy Audit + Simulation to match Empirical Data

03_Studio Integration Fitting simulation into their personal design process

Presentations improved, but students struggled to grasp the acceptable deviations for the numeric inputs and results

Apply their new energy simulation knowledge to their current studio projects

Students struggled to eﬀectively summarize benchmark data + inputs + variables tested + conclusions drawn

Actual'2011 Elec'(Kwh)

Students were of the opinion that American s couldn t realistically be expected to reduce their energy consumption to globally equitable levels

Gas'(Kwh)

611

5526

755

8342

10000-

480

2107

9000-

599

962

8000-

904

1758

1029

7000-

1172

6000-

1283

5000-

1514

1230

1040

1339

821

1149

611

6335

Attempting Energy Literacy Course Assignments

Variety of project scale & development yielded a valuable discussion of the timing of the use of simulation tools

Elec-(Kwh)-

300020001000-

Total:

10819

Cost:

$1,190

28749

1- 2- 3- 4- 5- 6- 7- 8- 9- 10- 11- 12-

$559

$1,749

03_Studio Integration Fitting simulation into their personal design process

Gas-(Kwh)-

4000-

/YR

Attempting Energy Literacy

Many Challenges Critical Opportunities Identify personal motivations and responses to climate change and issues of sustainability Energy simulation can provide an awareness of interdisciplinary opportunities

Total sqft 144,000

Mechanical System - HVAC - Fan Rooms 1000 sq ft - Ducts 3 ft D - Boiler 400 sq ft - Chiller 500 sq ft

Provide a toolset that goes beyond checklists that quantiﬁes performance and promotes experimentation

Simulation data presentations improved, but there was no feasible way to check the many suspicious energy results

Introduce these issues and tools early in their design education so that they can develop them through the remainder of their education Engage students in the dialogue of climate change that will be the collective deﬁning challenge of their careers.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

151

Selected Presentations

SIZE MATTERS

2000-2004

Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations

Pavilion scale | small groups | 9 months 1

“capstone” experience for 5th year studios defined by intersection of “community, collaboration and craft” 9 months: 3 quarters: predesign, design and construction Groups of 4 completing multiple simultaneous projects

Brad Deal

2000-2004

Pavilion scale | small groups | 9 months

2005-2010

residential scale | large group | 9 months

d/b program started

partnered with local habitat for humanity chapter

adequate time for all project stages

increased scale required concentration of faculty and funding resources

more students have obligation and privilege of original design

built mutually beneficial community relationships

1 large team built a single family home alongside a deserving family greatly simplified pre-design and project identification

donation & funding resources stretched over multiple projects instructor spread thin across simultaneous projects. quality control issues projects limited by man power and funding to pavilion scale

2005-2010

residential scale | large group | 9 months

2011-2013

residential scale | med group | 6 months

concentrating fundraising and faculty guidance made them far more focused and therefore valuable.

5-year B Arch became 4+1 M Arch fourth year students now build house as capstone to undergrad

higher quality design through synthesis group ideas

Programing component disconnected from project and now only two quarters spent on d/b project rather than three.

social justice narrative from client clear qualitative improvement in student experience and d/b program identity

design in November each year and build December - May. class sizes were increasing

struggle between aesthetic desires of students and idea of traditional familiar “home” for clients.

competition and d/b tracks established.

thwarted some efforts to think critically and creatively, and be site, climate and function specific. rigid H4H project parameters led to repetition in projects

152

Brad Deal

2011-2013

2013-2014

residential scale | med group | 6 months

+ _

pavilion scale | large group | 3 months

same as previous

RESEARCH

Size Matters: Investigating the Scale of Projects, Teams and Time Through Four Design/Build Studio Iterations

the competition and design/build time allowances were reduced to a single quarter and both required for all students

debates surfaced: value of d/b vs competition experience

db reframed as a third year growth experience instead of capstone

unchanging project parameters, accelerated design processes, and continued aesthetic struggle between student and clients led to repetition

competition moved to fourth year H4H homes traded for pavilion scale projects

time and man-power constraints + inefficiencies of novice builders, led to less exploratory design process

brought variety of design problems, budgets, site influences and client interests

time compression led to neglect of other classes and responsibilities d/b students and noticeable difference in graduate school apps and portfolios both tracks ultimately considered highly valuable experiences

2013-2014

pavilion scale | large group | 3 months

+ _

2014: large group of 25 students

2013: parks department needed signage for a pedestrian entrance to a neighborhood park.

Med Camps of Louisiana: needed a large, accessible meeting space

program and client allowed flexibility, student research and design exploration: generative design tools and structural folding

redeeming social narrative and clear client identity yielded a more client driven design process - less room for research agendas able to include some electrical, plumbing and semi traditional structural systems

no typical framing, MEP and waterproofing systems experience no clear end user or social narrative

larger class size did not translate well to the larger project scale scale + time led to intense build and noticeable neglect of student responsibilities.

2000-2004 2005-2010

Pavilion scale | small groups | 9 months

residential scale | large group | 9 months

2011-2013

residential scale | med group | 6 months

2013-2014 pavilion scale | large group | 3 months

CONCLUSIONS BETTER FASTER YOUNGER

striving to create equal or higher quality research and service learning in less time, with more students who have less experience to compress more knowledge and experience into curricula further obligates educators to deliver high quality, efficient and effective learning experiences like the immersive, motivating environment of the design/build studio

SIZE = TIME

d/b as a studio format, research endeavor and community service can be executed successfully at various scales

AGENDA=CLIENT EVOLUTION IS NOT OPTIONAL

but physical and temporal constraints must be aligned

the most valuable projects include and satisfy both sets of interests

more students does not translate to a larger project in same time frame

if these two are not aligned and compatable from the outset dissapointment will occur

students need time to make mistakes through the process and learn through addressing their mistakes 1000sf H4H house needs 9 months smaller projects can be scaled appropriately to time available

d/b projects are typically defined by the embeded academic research agendas or client needs

compressed design schedules increase the difficulty of balancing and satisfying both

an unchanging program, site and client risks losing academic value through repetition

...unless the research agendas are clear and evolving form one project to the next research and pedegogical agenda’s are best realized through a variety of projects with varing parameters “If you want to survive, you’re going to have to change. If you don’t change, you’re going to perish” -Thom Mayne

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

153

Selected Presentations

Making it Theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio

Brad Deal, Miguel Lasala Louisiana Tech University

154

Brad Deal

RESEARCH

Making It Theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio

2014: COMPETITION

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

155

Selected Presentations

2015: COLLABORATION

156

Brad Deal

RESEARCH

Making It Theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

157

Selected Presentations

2014: COMPETITION

2015: COLLABORATION

COMPARING THE MODES

2014: COMPETITION

2015: COLLABORATION BOTH

Frustrated with competition. 50% suggested allowing input from others on final design.

Greatest motivation: Chance to Build Full Scale

2015: COLLABORATION 25% frustrated with eclectic final form and suggested a single design be built

Most Valuable Lessons: Construction Knowledge Teamwork

(even more groups working together back here) (competition winner telling everyone what to do)

(student loosing interest)

2014: COMPETITION

2014: COLLABORATION COMPETITION 2015:

“Learning to work as a group was definitely valuable, because it led to better communication skills…there’s something really valuable about moving from pencil and paper to a three-dimensional space where you really understand the weight of materials and the strength of the things that hold them together” - 2015 student

“Having a single person’s project built was not ideal because then they were in charge of everyone and it created conflict among classmates” - 2014 student

158

(figuring things out together)

Brad Deal

GUIDELINES

2014: COMPETITION

RESEARCH

Making It Theirs: Singular vs Inclusive Design Authorship in the Building Studio

2015: COLLABORATION

Frustrated with competition Suggest allowing input from others on final design.

25% frustrated with eclectic final form and suggested a single design be built

BOTH

Many were less engaged because they were left our of decision making processes

experienced frustration with design authorship

All were engaged, but a few were less satisfied with the final outcome.

INDIVIDUAL DESIGN OWNERSHIP IS A LIABILITY KEEP EVERYONE DESIGNING AT EVERY STEP ALLOW TIME FOR COLLABORATIVE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

159

VIDEOGRAPHY WORK Scan the code above or visit vimeo.com/user55489561 to view these videos.

Each Summer following the completion of a design/build project, I gather all available imagery and edit together a video diary that attempts to preserve the experience of the project. In recent years my filmmaking efforts have won several awards in the AIA’s national I Look Up Film Challenge.

Grand Prize Winner

People’s Choice

AIA I Look Up Film Challenge

2016

First Runner Up

AIA I Look Up Film Challenge

2017

My 2017 I look up Film Challenge Entry Pisces

160

The Hero’s Launch 2016 Video Diary Brad Deal

RESEARCH CHIASMUS ARCHERY AND PAINTBALL RANGE

The Chiasmus Archery & Paintball Range 2015 Video Diary

LARKIN GIBBS MEMORIAL PAVILION & GARDENS The Larkin Gibbs Memorial Pavilion 2014 Video Diary

The Huckleberry Trails Pedestrian Entrance 2013 Video Diary Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

161

SERVICE

Brad Deal Tenure & Promotion Dossier 2017

Statement on Service Evidence of Service: Grant Proposals Awarded Service to the Program and School Service to the College and University Service to the Community Letters of Recommendation

163

STATEMENT ON SERVICE Beyond my teaching, research and creative efforts I’ve taken every opportunity to serve the School of Design, the University and our Ruston community. These efforts have included repeated guest lectures in the KINE 415 Facility Design Course and in College of Business presentation workshops for the Business Accelerator & Student Venture programs. Frequent interdisciplinary collaboration efforts with my friend and colleague Dr. Heath Tims and other faculty from Liberal Arts, Computer Science and Engineering led me to participate in a range of recruitment-oriented week-long camps, including regular participation in the Cyber Discovery Camps and co-founding the STEMDiscovery Camps that have given hundreds of high school students an intensely positive first impression of our University. These experiences led me to work with Liane Hancock and Karl Puljak in 2014 to develop our own “Design Camp” summer recruitment program in the form of a one-week residential academic experience for high school students interested in design majors. Since arriving at Tech my service efforts have also included the departmental responsibilities of training and supervising the Graduate Assistants assigned to the Art and Architecture Workshop, chairing our program’s Physical and Information Resources Committee, and acting as the Architecture and Interior Design department’s property custodian, managing all off-campus use forms, our internal property inventory and the state property audit each year. As a father, husband and representative of the University’s values I’ve also worked to contribute regularly to our local community. I’ve served on the board of the Montessori School of Ruston, donating professional design and consultation services, as well as constructing an elevated deck and entrance that solidified the school’s new master plan in the Fall of 2014. I also consistently volunteer as a youth soccer coach for my sons’ Ruston Parks and Recreation teams and as an assistant and guest speaker for their community service activities in Cub Scout Pack 45 of Ruston.

Brad Deal Assistant Professor | Architecture School of Design Louisiana Tech University

164

Brad Deal

SERVICE GRANTS

SERVICE TO PROGRAM & SCHOOL

SERVICE TO COLLEGE & UNIVERSITY

SERVICE TO COMMUNITY

2016

Student Technology Fee Board, Two Form 2 SLA 3D Printers

2015

Louisiana BORSF Grant 7 Axis Robotic Milling Cell (first runner up)

2014 & 2015

Lagniappe Ladies Grant Makerbot / CNC mill / Shop Workstations

2014

Student Technology Fee Grant DJI Inspire Aerial Photography Drone

2012-Present

Technical and Managerial Supervisor of the School of Design CNC workshop

2014-2017

Co-founder and Director of SOD Summer Design Camp Recruiting and Outreach program

2013

SOD Faculty Search Committee: Ceramics Faculty

2012-Present

Director: ARCH 335 Design Build Studio

2016

SOD Website update for Accreditation

2013-Present

Architecture / ID Property Custodian

2012-Present

Academic Advisor for a rotating pool of approximately 15 Architecture Majors

2012-Present

Design Faculty Contributor NICERC Cyber Discovery Camp Recruiting and Outreach program

2015-Present

Design Faculty Contributor STEM-Discovery Camp

2016

Design Assistance and Staging La Tech Gubernatorial Debate

2015-Present

Guest Speaker KINE 415, College of Business I20 top 20 & Business Accelerator & Student Venture teams,

2015

Donated design services for Master Plan Montessori School of Ruston

2015

Donated Design and Construction Services to create Montessori School of Ruston Toddler Program

2015

Donated design services for Master Plan MedCamps of Louisiana

2014-2015

Volunteer member: Board of Directors Montessori School of Ruston

2015

Constructed Elevated walkway Montessori School of Ruston Master Plan

2014-Present

Youth Soccer Coach Ruston Parks and Recreation

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

165

In the Fall of 2014 I worked with our program chair, Dr Pasquale DePaola to secure a Lagniappe Ladies Grant for the purchase of two 3D printers, a desktop CNC mill, and two new PC Workstations to update our Fabrication Lab Spaces.

166

Brad Deal

SERVICE

GRANTS AWARDED

In 2014, working with Kevin Singh, Robert Brooks and Frank Hamrick, I wrote a grant to the Student Technology Fee Board securing a state of the art aerial photography drone. Since being awarded the grant Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve trained myself to operate this equipment and registered with the FAA.

In 2016 I worked with Dr Pasquale DePaola to secure a Student Technology Fee Board Grant for the purchase of two SLA Form 2 3D printers to update our Fabrication Lab Capabilities.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

167

SERVICE TO SCHOOL OF DESIGN

Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;m responsible for training and supervising the Graduate Assistants assigned to the Art and Architecture Workshop. This task includes managing the acquisition and maintenance of the Schools Tool Libraries.

My responsibilities managing the shop spaces include set up and maintenance of CNC and metal working tools, training oversight and assistance for student workers and coordination with other workshop faculty & staff.

168

Brad Deal

SERVICE In the Fall of 2016 I worked with the Alumni Association to start a fundraising campaign for new tools for the design/build studio.

In addition to exceeding our goal for monetary donations we also received approximately $12,000 in in-kind donations of tools from Stanley Black and Decker (parent company of DeWalt Tools) and a construction trailer with new graphics from JPS Equipment Rental.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

169

Service to the School of Design

Since 2014 Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve worked with Liane Hancock and Karl Puljak to develop our own School of Design Summer recruitment program in the form of a residential academic camp experience for high school students interested in Design Majors.

Creating a complete camp experience included the creation of a range of branding, graphics and printed material that created a rich first impression and added to a robust experience of our program for the perspective students attending.

170

Brad Deal

SERVICE

Service to the School of Design

A talk by Karl Puljak at Design Camp 2015

Final projects from the Architecture and Interior Design campers included a gallery exhibition of their design work including full scale mock-ups of tile patterns they designed during their week at camp.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

171

Service to the School of Design

I was part of the 2014 SOD Faculty Search Committee that brought Kyle Triplett to Louisiana Tech. Since his arrival, he has elevated our ceramics programs beyond expectations, collaborated regularly across departments and has generally been an invaluable asset to our program and our community.

My greatest contribution to our program has surely been the new partnerships, projects, rebranding, and publications of the work of the ARCH 335 Design/Build Studio that I was so fortunate to inherit.

172

Brad Deal

SERVICE

Service to the School of Design

In 2016 I was responsible for a major update to the SOD Website in preparation for the architecture programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s NAAB accreditation visit.

I also act as the Architecture and Interior Design departmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s property custodian, managing all off-campus use forms, the Fall property inventory as well as the state property audit each year.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

173

SERVICE TO UNIVERSITY

Frequent interdisciplinary collaboration efforts with other Liberal Arts disciplines, Computer Science and Engineering Faculty led me to participate in several recruitment oriented week-long camps including multiple Cyber Discovery camps every summer since I began at Tech.

My Participation in the Cyber Discovery Camps led me to work closely with Dr. Heath Tims, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies for the College of Engineering and Science, to carry out a National Science Foundation Grant to develop a STEM-Discovery Camp.

174

Brad Deal

SERVICE In 2016 I assisted a diverse team in staging and planning for the Louisiana Gubernatorial Debate hosted in the Davison Athletic Center.

Since 2015 Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve regularly served as a guest speaker for the KINE 415 Facility Design Class, and the College of Business, Business Accelerator group and Students Entrepreneurship workshops.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

175

SERVICE TO COMMUNITY

In the Summer of 2014, when I joined the Board of Directors of the Montessori School of Ruston, I donated master planning, design and project management services to the School free of charge which allowed them to renovate the school adding a much needed toddler program.

In the Winter of 2015 as we were planning our second design/ build studio at MedCamps of Louisiana, Robert Brooks, Marla Emory and I worked together to develop a master plan for Camp Alabama that would provide a road map for growth and easily identify future projects for our studio. The Board of Directors was very receptive and began the process of planning for a bridge and acquiring the land necessary to circumnavigate the lake.

IDEA PLAN scale 1:1000

176

Brad Deal

SERVICE Following the renovation of the Montessori School of Ruston, in the Fall of 2014 I personally constructed an elevated walkway that provided a major element of the master plan and addressed several security and congestion issues for the school.

From 2012 to the present I have regularly volunteered my time in the Fall and early Spring as a youth soccer coach for Ruston Parks and Recreation, and participated in numerous events and meetings with the Cub Scouts Pack 45 of Ruston.

Tenure & Promotion Dossier | Sept 2017

177

LETTERS OF RECOMMENDATION

178

Brad Deal

Letters of Recommendation

179

Letters of Recommendation

Sep 17 2017

Colleagues of the Tenure and Promotion Committee, I am honored to write this letter of recommendation for Brad Deal. Although I have known Brad since his arrival at Tech during the Fall Quarter of 2012, I did not really get to know him until we began teaching the ARCH335 – Design/Build Studio together in the Spring Quarter of 2014. Since that time, I have worked closely with Brad, and have come to know him on many different levels: a colleague, a professor, a mentor, a maker and a leader. Because of the wide range of experiences I have shared with Brad, I could wax ecstatic about his broad range of teaching strengths and abilities, as I have witnessed them first hand. I could easily write glowing remarks about his scholarly research and how he applies his research into the intellectual workings of the traditional design studio; I am also tempted to write about how Brad has a proven gift of taking his scholarly research and applying it directly to the physical and creative work of the design/build studio – the results of which have helped his students produce AIA award winning projects. I could provide examples and anecdotes about his unwavering and enthusiastic dedication to serve at all levels of engagement, both professionally and personally – the results of which can be seen in within the School of Design, around the university and throughout our community. I could also write directly about Brad’s ability to identify unique opportunities to build healthy and engaged relationships across many different (and sometimes divergent) perspectives to harness the power of teamwork and collaboration. However, his CV and Portfolio speak clearly and directly about those topics, and provide several metrics upon which one can objectively evaluate his performance over the last 5 years. Instead, I want to take a slight step sideways, and reframe my recommendation from a less measurable and more subjective set of qualities: The qualities of integrity, leadership, caring, and humility. Qualities that are at once both difficult to measure yet easy to spot, and that are often easy to profess but difficult to apply. Perhaps most importantly I believe these qualities are the most important lessons we can teach our students directly, through our own actions. From small folly-like projects set in remote parts of the Parish, to outdoor classrooms for children and singlefamily homes for those in need, the design/build studio has been through many permutations since its inception nearly 25 years ago. In 2013 Brad took up the reigns of the studio, completing an existing commitment to the City of Ruston. He led his students to produce a technically and aesthetically remarkable entrance feature to Huckleberry Trails Park. However, it was clear that the design/build studio needed a fresh direction. A direction that would better address the educational needs of the students, while continuing to embrace the progressive ideals of the contemporary design studio, and reaffirming the commitment to continue the hands-on learning experience. To this end, Brad and I worked together to develop a relationship with MedCamps of Louisiana and have completed 4 successful design/build projects to date. During this 4-year time, the direction of the studio, and all the logistics required to make it work in an educational, safe and fun manner was due to Brad’s leadership and vison. I can honestly say, without hesitation, that the design/build studio has become what it is because of him. During the last four years I have witnessed him working alongside students, in the bitter cold and rain, deep into the wee hours of the morning to help the students complete a time-critical task. Why? Because he cares deeply about the design/build studio, our students, and the project at hand. He also knows that teaching and leading by example is more fulfilling (and oftentimes yields better result) than teaching by anecdote or from a position of authority. During the last four years I have witnessed Brad make extraordinary efforts to do the “right thing”, even when

180

Brad Deal

Letters of Recommendation

Sep 17 2017

there was a far easier and less complicated path for the taking. Doing the right thing takes integrity and forms the basis from which trust is earned. During the last four years Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve had the privilege of working beside Brad as he has carefully and thoughtfully developed a long-range vision for the design build program, a daunting feat alone, while simultaneously managing the day-to-day operations of construction, scheduling, budgeting, classroom management and morale; each of which is no small task. During the last four years I have seen Brad go above and beyond the call of duty to help students with a wide variety of personal issues and circumstances, not because it is an obligation. Rather, itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s because he truly cares about their well-being and is willing to offer help to anyone in need. During the last four years I have seen him contribute significant portions of his personal non-teaching time to independently design and build items for camp fundraisers. I have listened to him talk tirelessly about the power of design and its ability to promote happiness and joy in a sometimes-dark world. As his dossier has illustrated, Brad has created and produced two nationally award winning short films regarding the design/build studio. The success of those films has earned us the honor of traveling all over the United States, bringing awareness and visibility to Louisiana Tech University, the School of Design and the Arch335 Studio. We have had the honor of the film being screened at remarkable events, like SxSW Eco, the ADFF in New York, the ADFF in New Orleans, and at the 2017 National AIA convention in Orlando where it opened for the Key Note speaker Michele Obama. Indeed, this amount of exposure and recognition for the work and the program is quite remarkable. However, what I find even more remarkable is Bradâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s grace and humility where he could have very easily (and rightfully) taken credit for all the success of the films and goodwill of the accomplishments of the studio. To the contrary, and without fail, Brad insists that any success or accomplishment is due to the entire team of dedicated students, the unwavering support of the administration and the deep appreciation shown for us by MedCamps and the community at large. There is no better measure of a true leader. Finally, and personally, I have come to understand Brad as caring and just human being, with a generous and selfless spirit. He truly believes, as shown through his dedication and perseverance, that teaching, service and research is best when in the service of others. Like many great leaders, Brad has never asked anyone to give more, care more or act more than he was willing to give of himself. Brad is a remarkable role model for all of us. It is for these reasons, along with countless others, that it is my honor to recommend Brad for tenure and promotion to Associate Professor, without reservation or hesitation. Robert Brooks

Associate Professor | Architecture School of Design Louisiana Tech University

181

Robert Brooks and I on a warm afternoon during the 2017 ARCH 335 Design/Build Studio

182

Brad Deal

Caleb Seney with me at the Chiasmus Archery Range design presentation during the 2015 ARCH 335 Design Build Studio

Brad Deal

Assistant Professor | Architecture Tenure & Promotion Dossier September 2017