Dissertation - The Death of the Live Build project? by Lewis Grant

The Death of the Live Build Project? A study of the Live Build project in the education of architects

through

comparison

with

advances

digital

construction technologies.

Word Count: 10,109

Lewis Grant

Declaration

AB 420 Dissertation 2014/2015

Bsc Honours Architectural Studies with International Study University of Strathclyde Department of Architecture â&#x20AC;&#x153;I hereby declare that this dissertation submission is my own work and has been composed by myself. It contains no unacknowledged text and has not been submitted in any previous context. All quotations have been distinguished by quotation marks and all sources of information, text, illustration, tables, images etc. have been specifically acknowledged. I accept that if having signed this Declaration my work should be found at Examination to show evidence of academic dishonesty the work will fail and I will be liable to face the University Senate Discipline Committee.â&#x20AC;? Registration Number: 201013194 Name : Lewis Grant Signed: Date: 16 March 2015

Acknowledgements I have boundless appreciation for all those who aided this body of work.

Mike Angus for his continued support, inspiration and most of all, encouragement. Lynne Cox and Micheal Holliday of Tog Studio for enlightening me to a world of interest and continued support within this. Ruairidh Moir, for introducing me to the subject of this work and continued encouragement in my studies John Dawson for giving valuable insight into his experience of the construction industry. Dilveer Hoonjan, Jamie McCallum, Sean McQueenie and Alissar Riachi for giving accounts of their experiences in Live Build projects. Jac Lister, for her feedback and advice. Donald Hunter, for valuable discussions throughout the process of this dissertation. Sinje Westerhaus, for her input and advice throughout this piece of research. Alison and Jeff Grant, for reading several drafts and providing valuable feedback. Ryan Canning and Lewis McNeill, for providing much needed distractions over the last six months. My friends and family.

Contents

I. Glossary

II. Abstract

III. Preface

Introduction.

One The Evolution of Construction. 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

The Origins of Construction The Industrial Revolution Arts and Crafts Modern Day

20 22 23 25

Two A Technological Future of Construction: Additive Manufacturing. 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6

Additive Manufacturing: A Definition Communications and Development Large-scale Construction Small-scale Construction: Components Materials A New Structural System

26 29 33 35 37 42

Three Live Build Projects: Architectural Education. 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

A definition Communication Construction process Design processes Collaboration with technology New structure systems Materials

48 51 53 57 63 67 69

Four Architectural Education. 4.1 4.2

Origins Issues

81 85

Conclusion

Postscript

108

Bibliography

111

List of figures

121

Appendices A B C

Case Reports Interview one Group study interview

126 148 158

Glossary 3D printing Technical standards use the term Additive Manufacturing. This is an additive process where successive layers of material are laid down under computer control to make a three-dimensional object. The machine used for this process in known as an industrial robot. AM Additive Manufacturing. This is the technical term for the process more commonly referred to as 3D printing. Expanded definition in Chapter Two. ARB The Architects Registration Board, established by parliament in 1997. Its purpose is to uphold the reputation of the profession of architecture in the UK and keeps a register of British architects. It is involved in the prescription of educational qualifications. BIM Building Information Modelling. This is a process that includes collaborative designing of a building through the workspace of a 3D virtual model CNC Computer numerical control. Accurate automation of machine tools operated by computer programmed commands.

Design and Build Project This term is generally used in the United States of America with the same definition as Live Build project. Often discussed are Design and Build schools, these are institutes (sometimes linked to a university) that offer architectural education through a handson curriculum. Design and Build programmes are also mentioned; these are usually embedded in the curriculum of a university that facilitates them. Live Build project The term used in architectural education concerned primarily with providing practical experience of the construction industry. This term is known by other names such as Live Projects and Design and Build projects, for clarity all will be refereed to in this dissertation as Live Build projects. See Chapter Three for an expanded definition. Live Project The general term for practical experience in education, not necessarily related to the subject of architecture or involving construction. RIBA Royal Institute of British Architects. Established in 1834 it is the professional body of architects in the United Kingdom. In conjunction with the ARB it gives accreditation to schools of architecture.

Figure 1 Completion

Abstract

Live Build Projects are currently a popular topic in the field of architectural education. There has been little investigation into what purpose Live Build projects might have in a world where the majority of the built environment is constructed by digital technology. Why might practical experience of construction be valuable when practical involvement in the construction industry is being replaced by machine? This dissertation is therefore an examination of these practical experience-based educational mechanisms through a comparison with digital technologies that have the potential to revolutionise the way buildings are constructed. By challenging the subject in this way, this study aims to determine the fundamental values found in Live Build projects; why do participants find enjoyment in them? Literature on the subject of Live Build projects generally focuses on approaches for their inclusion in the education of architecture; the field from which they originate. Live Build projects are employed in architectural education to provide practical experience of construction. This element of education was once incorporated in the master-builder apprenticeship methods of education in the form of on-site interaction. Now, however, theoretical approaches to education are dominant, resulting in architects lacking in practical abilities.

Additive manufacturing (3D printing) is the digital technology emerging in the construction industry that is focused on in this study. Its efficient and accurate ability to process and combine materials gives it the potential to dominate the construction of the built environment, with little requirement for human skill in the process. The evolution of construction has continually seen collaboration between hand and tool ever since the first primitive shelters were built. The effects on this relationship from the current developments of technology are comparable to those of the industrial revolution in its progression towards machine-based construction. If the future of construction is to require less practical involvement, are Live Build projects of value to the education of future architects? Is this the death of the Live Build project?

Abstract

Figure 2 Tog Studio Lighthouse

Preface

Bobbing over the most westerly isle of the Inner Hebrides that is the tiny island of Tiree, the aircraft I was seated in touched ground with an unsettling jolt and with that an awakening adventure began. A short car journey south over the startlingly flat, treeless landscape brought me to an old stone lodge at the southern settlement of Hynish. Here Lynne, who had welcomed me at the over-sized waiting room that was Tiree airport, introduced me to the rest of the team. I did not realise that over the course of the next few days on this Island, these people would become more of a family than a team. I also had no idea that constructing a simple, five-meter high timber structure would be the reason for WKLVÂŤ

Figure 3 Summer Build at CAT

Introduction

Architecture is fundamentally concerned with the provision of shelter through the manipulation of materials (Fisher, 2008:136). Since humanity made its first primitive structures, the ability to construct has been determined by the available tools. History has seen the relationship between humans and these tools or technologies progress from the first instances of combining mud and twigs (Vitruvius, 1914:38) to notable moments that have highlighted tensions in the relationship, as evidenced during the industrial revolution. Significantly, a new era of construction technology is currently establishing itself on this timeline (Chalcraft, 2013). In April 2014 Yingchuang a high-tech Chinese construction enterprise, printed ten houses within twenty-four hours with the use of Additive Manufacturing technology (AM) and a custom-built printing machine. Though the resulting structures were of questionable quality, this remarkable feat is proof that advanced technology is on the brink of being feasible in the construction industry at a commercial level (De Kestelier, 2015). The feasibility of AM at this scale is still to be truly proven. However, there is a clear indication that there is reduced requirement for manual labour in this construction method.

Paradoxically, architectural education has recently focused attention on improving practical abilities in construction, including handson experience (Denicke-Polcher and Khonsari 2014). This comes from the perception, voiced by both the construction industry and recipients of architectural education, that practical abilities are unsatisfactory for the current construction industry. A mechanism for providing practical H[SHULHQFH LV NQRZQ DV D Âľ/LYH %XLOGÂś SURMHFW ZKLFK LV EDVHG RQ WKH philosophy that the best method for learning practical abilities is by experiencing them first-hand (Abel, 1998:81). However, in contrast to the new developments of technology in the construction industry the Design and Build school Yestermorrow in Vermont, USA, describes the fundamental theory of Live Build projects as: Â´<HVWHUPRUURZÂˇV FRXUVHV DUH VSHFLĂ&#x20AC;FDOO\ GHVLJQHG WR GHP\VWLI\ WKH GHVLJQLQJ DQG EXLOGLQJ SURFHVVHV XVLQJ KDQGV RQ H[SHULHQWLDO OHDUQLQJ WR WHDFK VWXGHQWV WKH DUW DQG ZLVGRP RI JRRG GHVLJQ DQG WKH VNLOO DQG VDYY\ RI HQGXULQJ FUDIWVPDQVKLS DV D VLQJOH LQWHJUDWHG SURFHVV Âľ <HVWHUPRUURZ

The objectives of such educational pursuits seem at odds with WKH HYLGHQWO\ DSSURDFKLQJ ÂľQHZ HUDÂś RI FRQVWUXFWLRQ WHFKQRORJ\ :KDW sense is there in continuing hands-on experience in the education of architects when projections of the future of construction appear to be devoid of hands-on requirements?

Introduction

Like most areas of study, architectural education is composed of theoretical and practical elements. When it became incorporated in academia an engrained tendency to focus on theory was founded (MacKay-Lyons, 2008:137). This has created a gap between education and practice that the Live Build project has been developed to bridge. This is currently where Live Build projects are justified, however the prospects of the future in construction may determine that practical experience is not as necessary as it has been in the past. AM will be used to ask the question: can the experience based learning of the Live Build project prepare students of architecture for a world of construction where digital technologies dominate the creation of the built environment? To answer this, the areas of the construction industry that will be affected by AM will be analysed, establishing a set of criteria that can be used to compare with various scenarios found in Live Build projects. The affected areas of the construction industry include: the design process, communications, large-scale construction, component production, materials and structural systems. Amongst various advancements in construction technology, this dissertation has chosen AM for the extent of its potential to fundamentally change the way buildings are constructed (Steadman, 2013b). Is this the death of the Live Build project?

Figure 4 A Primative Hut

Â´$UFKLWHFWXUH PD\ EH DERXW LQIRUPDWLRQ DQG LPDJH EXW LW LV DOVR DQG ZLOO DOZD\V EH DERXW WKH PRVW IXQGDPHQWDO KXPDQ DFW RI IDVWHQLQJ PDWHULDOV WRJHWKHU WR JLYH XV VKHOWHU IURP WKH VWRUP Âµ )LVKHU

Evolution of Construction

Chapter One The Evolution of Construction Â¤ Â´7KHUHIRUH LW ZDV WKH GLVFRYHU\ RI Ă&#x20AC;UH WKDW RULJLQDOO\ JDYH ULVH WR WKH FRPLQJ WRJHWKHU RI PHQ WR WKH GHOLEHUDWLYH DVVHPEO\ DQG WR VRFLDO LQWHUFRXUVHÂŤ LQ EHLQJ DEOH WR GR ZLWK HDVH ZKDWHYHU WKH\ FKRVH ZLWK WKHLU KDQGV DQG Ă&#x20AC;QJHUV WKH\ EHJDQ LQ WKDW Ă&#x20AC;UVW DVVHPEO\ WR FRQVWUXFW VKHOWHUV 6RPH PDGH WKHP RI JUHHQ ERXJKV RWKHUV GXJ FDYHV RQ PRXQWDLQ VLGHV DQG VRPH LQ LPLWDWLRQ RI WKH QHVWV RI VZDOORZV DQG WKH ZD\ WKH\ EXLOW PDGH SODFHV RI UHIXJH RXW RI PXG DQG WZLJV Âľ 9LWUXYLXV

Origins

It can be argued that from the first instance of humans realising the potential to create shelter with their hands to the modern day construction industry there have been recurring tensions between the value of human skill and the involvement of technology. Sparked by the act of gathering, humans began to communicate; from this the creation of shelter was instigated (Vitruvius, 1914:38). When craftsmen first became established in society they were valued on their ability to take materials of their land and skilfully construct buildings representative of their culture (Vitruvius, 1914:40). Only through the development of tools could they continue to develop their constructions

Figure 5 The triumph of machine over hand

Evolution of Construction

and thus a harmony between the skills of man and technology was fundamental to the establishment of cultural identity.

The Industrial Revolution

A contrasting moment on the timeline of construction is the industrial revolution of the late 1700s until the mid 1800s. Figure 5. )RUJLQJ WKH ZD\ IRU PDVV SURGXFWLRQ WKHVH VDZ WKH ÂľWULXPSK RI PDFKLQH RYHU KDQGÂś 2[PDQ FLWHG LQ &KDOFUDIW &RQVWUXFWLRQ EHFDPH industrialised and dominated by the advance of technology. Meaning that the collaboration between human skill and technology was not balanced as it once was and as a result, the cultural identity familiar with craft was overlooked (Gammelgaard Neilson, 2012:10).

The Arts and Crafts Movement

Subsequently this defining moment was met with the scepticism of the arts and crafts movement influenced by the art critic John Ruskin, who argued that the standardisation that was characteristic of the industrial revolution was detrimental to society (Gammelgaard Neilson, 2012:10).

Â´7KHUH LV GUHDPLQJ HQRXJK DQG HDUWKLQHVV HQRXJK DQG VHQVXDOLW\ HQRXJK LQ KXPDQ H[LVWHQFH ZLWKRXW RXU WXUQLQJ WKH IHZ JORZLQJ PRPHQWV RI LW LQWR PHFKDQLVP DQG VLQFH RXU OLIH PXVW DW WKH EHVW EH EXW YDSRXU WKDW DSSHDUV IRU D OLWWOH WLPH DQG WKHQ YDQLVKHV DZD\ OHW LW DW OHDVW DSSHDU DV D FORXG LQ WKH KHLJKW RI +HDYHQ QRW DV WKH WKLFN GDUNQHVV WKDW EURRGV RYHU WKH EODVW RI WKH )XUQDFH DQG UROOLQJ RI WKH :KHHO Âľ 5XVNLQ

The dissatisfaction exemplified in this period was a result of the unfamiliarity of machine production. In comparison, craft was more UHODWDEOH DQG WKXV PRUH H[SUHVVLYH RI WKH FXOWXUH IURP ZKLFK LW FDPH Ä&#x192; something that is generally valuable to humanity. Although the negatives of machine production were an alarming concern for Ruskin, his views were a reaction to the scale on which technology was being employed. He does not appreciate the fact that both artisanal and industrial productions DUH VLPSO\ GLIIHUHQW PHWKRGV RI DFKLHYLQJ WKH VDPH REMHFWLYH Ä&#x192; LQ WKLV case, construction (Gammelgaard Neilson, 2012:10). What this highlights is that it is less accepted amongst society when technology is introduced abruptly, regardless of whether it is progressive to construction or not. Thus, the way in which technology is engaged with construction affects the way it is received in society. From the analysis throughout this chapter it can be seen that when the development of technology is relative to the development of human skill; conflict between the two is lessened.

Evolution of Construction

Modern Day

Since the last periods of major craft or artistic based interest in construction, visual representation (as a result of digital technologies) has become a fixation of the built environment (Carpenter, 1993:7). Digital technologies have since continued to dominate the construction industry. At present, this progression is emerging new technologies that look to revolutionise the way buildings are constructed. Earlier this year ¤¤ ;DYLHU 'H .HVWHOLHU DQQRXQFHG WKDW WKLV \HDU ZRXOG VHH µ ' SULQWLQJ¶ WHFKQRORJLHV ZLWK WKH SRWHQWLDO WR DIIHFW VXFK D FKDQJH HQWHULQJ the mainstream in architectural construction (De Kestelier, 2015).

Figure 6, above. 3D printed houses. Figure 7, Right. Craning in 3D printed the walls.

A Technological Future of Construction: Additive Manufacturing

Chapter Two A Technological Future of Construction: Additive Manufacturing.

Â´,WÂˇV IXQQ\ ZH OLYH LQ D ZRUOG SRZHUIXOO\ WUDQVIRUPHG E\ D QXPEHU RI IDFWRUV SULPDULO\ WKH GLJLWDO UHYROXWLRQ \HW KRXVHV PXVW VWLOO EH FUHDWHG E\ KDQG Â˛ \RXU FRPSXWHUÂˇV QRW JRLQJ WR GR LW IRU \RX Âľ .KDQ L[

Lloyd Khan made this statement in 2004 in his book Home Work: Handbuilt shelter. A decade later, digital technology printed ten houses in less than twenty-four hours, marking a dramatic change in perception of what is possible in construction with technology. The high-tech Chinese company, Yingchuang that produced these houses used a Technology know as additive manufacturing (AM), more commonly known by the term 3D printing. Definition

At a fundamental level AM is the process of successively layering material under the control of a computer to create a three dimensional object (Genisis Framework, 2015). The object to be printed must be produced as a 3D computer model, from which the computer generates a file to send to the printing machine. Materials used in this process

A Technological Future of Construction: Additive Manufacturing

JHQHUDOO\ KDYH WR EH OLTXLG GXULQJ ÂľSULQWLQJÂś DQG WKHQ HLWKHU KDUGHQ DW URRP temperature or are set by a curing process, example materials currently used are: plastics, metals, ceramics and concrete (Shapeways inc., 2015). AM is only possible because of the accuracy and calculation that digital technologies can achieve, what will be required of architects in dealing with a technology so digitally engrained? Ian Steadman explains that the design of architecture tends to (consciously or unconsciously) adapt to the technologies that are available at the time (Steadman, 2013b). Suggesting that architects are required to acclimatise to working with these technologies to responsibly employ them in their profession. It has been exemplified that AM has extraordinary potential in various fields, such as in archaeology where replications of artefacts can be made and in biotechnology where research is being done on the possibility of creating organs and other body parts (Genisis Framework, 2015), however, to what extent can it affect the way buildings are constructed and therefore the role of an architect? Communication and Development

AM has already been seen to have influenced the way that architects design and communicate (Simondetti, 2013). Alvise Simondetti describes how small-scale 3D printers have become more common in architectural offices all over the world, used for the production of scale-

Figure 8, Above Small-scale 3D Printing Machine Figure 9, Right Example of 3D Printed Model

A Technological Future of Construction: Additive Manufacturing

models that provide feedback on the development of a design. Figures 8 and 9. Opposed to traditional methods this is valuable to the design process as it allows for more frequent and accurate refinements of a design (Simondetti, 2013). This illustrates that AM has an impact on the speed of design development, suggesting that architects might have to adjust the to a different time-scale of design process. Notably, AM is shown to change the nature of communication amongst the design team, centring it on digital technology (Simondetti, 2013). As virtual computer models are a requirement of the design process involved with AM, the opportunity to easily share this piece of information online, is presented. If two architectural offices in different countries each have a 3D printer they can send virtual models to one another, which can then be printed in the respective office, thus, FRPPXQLFDWLQJ ZLWK HDFK RWKHU WKURXJK SK\VLFDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV Ä&#x192; something that previously required face-to-face interaction. Consequently, the nature of communication between design team members is transformed. Whilst this does improve long-distance communication (Simondetti, 2013), it also encourages transmission of information through digital mediums. The evidence here suggests there is a need for architects to develop adaptive communication abilities.

Container for concrete

Delivery pipe

Pump

Output pipe 9mm nozzle

Printed sample

Figure 10 Diagram of Concrete Printing Machine

A Technological Future of Construction: Additive Manufacturing

Large-scale Structure

Â´,PDJLQH D IXWXUH ZKHUH QRW MXVW KRXVHV EXW HQWLUH VWUHHWV DUH SULQWHG LQ RQH JR 7KDWÂˇV WKH SRWHQWLDO RI WKLV WHFKQRORJ\ LI LW ZRUNV Âľ 6WHDGPDQ E

The aforementioned case of AM being used to build ten houses in twenty-four hours is revolutionary in its potential to change the way buildings are constructed (Frearson, 2014). The timeframe on which large-scale construction can take place with AM is remarkable, this is achievable due to the ability for the machinery involved in this process to manipulate material. Illustrated in Figure 10. is the system for using concrete in AM, it comprises of a material container connected to a pump that delivers concrete to the nozzle which is operated by a CNC machine, this dictates the path on which the material is placed by the nozzle (Le, 2012:3). The extent of digital complexity achieves the efficiency of this technology, thus for AM to operate at its large-scale construction potential, those involved in the construction process (including architects) must have an ability to collaborate with digital technologies.

+RZHYHU )UHDUVRQ ILQGV WKDW <LQJFKXDQJÂśV SURMHFW LQYROYHG

a much different construction team to those involved in traditional construction projects (Frearson, 2014). An assembly line of several printing machines was used to create the self-supporting structural

Figure 11, Above. Traditionally Node Figure 12, Right. 3D Printed Node

A Technological Future of Construction: Additive Manufacturing

parts of the buildings that were then assembled by crane on-site Figure 7. What is apparent in this example is that machines are responsible for the majority of the construction, resulting in fewer construction team members than in traditional construction projects. What affect does this alteration to the structure of the construction team have on architects? )UHDUVRQÂśV GHSLFWLRQ RI ODUJH VFDOH $0 DSSOLFDWLRQ VXJJHVWV WKDW WKH architect will have to be flexible in dealing with construction teams of changing dynamics. Thus, architects might require experiences that challenge them to develop adaptive teamwork skills. Small-scale Structure: Components

Engineering company Arup Group Ltd have highlighted the relevance of AM to the construction industry with their research and development into the production of structural steel components. This involved the redesign of a steel node in which the potentials of AM technology were exemplified in its complex geometry. Figure 11 and 12 display a node component made with traditional techniques and the equivalent piece made with AM. Conclusions from this research deem that the technology is currently more expensive than traditional methods however they note that it is likely to eventually become much more efficient, reducing both costs and waste and importantly making more sophisticated design feasible (Arup, 2014). It is shown in the evidence

A Technological Future of Construction: Additive Manufacturing

that research enhances understanding of these components but what benefit does more complex structural components have, will AM continue to be involved in construction at this scale? The reliability that is required in structural building elements has already been proven to be attainable by AM through its use and development in the aviation industry (Clark, 2014). This suggests that this technology for the purpose of creating structural connectors will be desirable as they create new potentials in architectural solutions efficiently. The development of these components will see them become standard in the construction industry (Arup, 2014), thus architects will require an understanding of their potential. Due to the nature of AM this will involve working closely with computers to do so. This means there will be an element of reliance upon computers to aid in the design process and thus, the ability to work with technology is increasingly important for architects. Materials

The research and development of AM in the construction industry also includes concrete in as an architectural component. A collaboration between the University of Loughborough, Skanska (a Swedish concrete manufacturer) and Foster + Partners is investigating the potential of AM to create concrete components and are aiming to develop the worlds first

Figure 13, Above. 3D Printed Lunar Base. Figure 14, Right. 3D Printed curved cladding panel.

A Technological Future of Construction: Additive Manufacturing

ÂłFRPPHUFLDO FRQFUHWH SULQWLQJ URERW Â´ /RXJKERURXJK 8QLYHUVLW\ This includes in-depth investigations into the properties of concrete for this application, namely extrudability and buildability both hugely important for using this material with AM technology (Le, 2012:1). The findings of this research make it clear that there is an importance for a greater level of understanding of concrete than is required for its traditional applications in construction. Which suggests that architects might require a more indepth comprehension of materials than is currently necessary. Fosters + Partners in collaboration with the European Space Agency plan to use AM technology to build a lunar base on the moon. Figure 13. The idea involves utilising materials that are found on the moon rather than transporting them as this is unfeasibly expensive (Foster + Partners, 2013). The intention is that an AM machine will be sent to the moon that can use lunar soil (regolith) as a material to build protective structures that form a lunar base (Foster + Partners, 2013). The project makes use of the potentials for AM to deal with materials in a way no technology has done before. This would infer that architects should have awareness for the potential of new technologies and the materials with ZKLFK WKH\ FDQ SHUIRUP Ä&#x192; XQIDPLOLDU PDWHULDOV EHFRPH FRPPRQSODFH LQ construction.

Figure 15, Above. Protohouse Figure 16, Right. Stress calculations of 3D Printed Structure.

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

Figure 17. Fiberous structure

De Kestelier, co-head of Foster + Partners Specialist Modelling Group explains this further: Â´$V DQ DUFKLWHFW ZH DUH HGXFDWHG LQ WKLQNLQJ DERXW PDWHULDOV DOO ZLWK D SDUWLFXODU JHRPHWU\ ,I , WKLQN VWHHO , WKLQN RI DQ , EHDP ,W FRPHV ZLWK D FHUWDLQ VKDSH DQG JHRPHWU\ WKDW LV LQKHUHQW WR WKHVH PDWHULDOV %XW ZKHQ \RX VWDUW WR ' SULQW \RX KDYH WR WKLQN WKDW JHRPHWU\ LV QRZ IUHH Âľ 'H .HVWHOLHU FLWHG LQ 6WHDGPDQ D

This statement demonstrates that as AM opens up the scope of materials that are available to the construction industry, this also has implications on the structural systems that can be used. This suggests that architects will have to be able to comprehend new structural systems if they arise. New Structure Fundamentals

A project born out of research at the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London is the ProtoHouse 1.0 and 2.0 by Softkill Design. Focusing on structural optimisation through the employment of AM their developments with this technology are examples of construction WKDW ZRXOG QRW EH SRVVLEOH ZLWK ÂľEULFNV DQG PRUWDUÂś 6WHDGPDQ E This implies that AM will have a major impact on the construction industry as it will be challenged to learn unfamiliar methods of construction. If the new structural systems shared familiar characteristics with traditional structural systems this might be a simple transition.

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

However, the structure employed in the ProtoHouse projects is like that of no other common construction method. Opposed to traditional columns and floor plates, this project uses a fibrous structure that has been developed through study of the trabecular composition of bone Figure 17, (Chalcraft, 2013). The structure uses a computer-programmed algorithm to mimic bone structure in order to achieve a similar strengthto-weight efficiency. Sophia Tang of Softkill Design explains that AM machines are the perfect manufacturing medium for this type of structure illustrating that AM opens up opportunity to explore uncharted methods of structure (Steadman, 2013b). The result of this could be that it will challenge architects not only to learn the fundamentals of a completely unknown method of building but it will also require that they rely on a computer to generate the details of the structure for them. Thus, there is a necessary ability for architects to be able to collaborate with digital technology. One of the attractive features exemplified in this instance of AM is that it has the potential to include a large degree of prefabrication. Compared to traditional methods of construction, AM almost entirely avoids on-site fabrication (Retsin, 2013 cited in Chalfraft 2013) only requiring assembly - something that Gilles Retsin of Softkill Design says can be as simple as the clicking together of sections (Frearson, 2013). The appeal of prefabrication in this scenario is that modules of

the structure can be printed in a controlled environment absent of site related difficulties (Vinnitskaya, 2013). On top of this the prefabricated aspect gives opportunity to engrain services such as holes for plumbing as well as door hinges and locks (Steadman, 2013b). What this suggests is that prefabrication requires an architect to have an understanding of its implications and the foresight to consider issues that might otherwise be handled on the site. Traditionally architects would rely on dealing with some details on site where it would be easier to understand in the context of the unfinished building (Carpenter, 1993). If this is removed from the construction process there will have to be a fully rigorous set of information produced before commencing on-site, similar to BIM technology. This reiterates the likelihood for virtual representation of information to be required in the future and indicates that digital skills will be valuable to architects. It has been suggested that this technology could be seen in the future of construction in one of two ways; it becomes a complete replacement for traditional methods of construction, or that it could be used in collaboration with these existing approaches (Steadman, 2013b). It has been claimed that the latter option could even become a new era of construction technology (Oxman, 2013 cited in Chalcraft, 2013) where the craftsmanship of before the industrial revolution is merged with AM technology (in the sense that it removes the standardisation of parts).

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

Whether it is as simple as combining current construction methods or if it is more revolutionary, either of these routes will demand architects to adapt to the implications of the technology. Perhaps this acclimatisation would include developing an understanding of complex structures that requires practical experience and experimentation in combining old and new approaches to construction. Conclusions

The scale of consequence of AM technology emphasises the need of architects to be able to collaborate with digital technology. Other considerations that can be deduced are that there will be significant developments to both the design process and communications amongst design team members. The construction team for projects using AM will have a different dynamic due to alterations in the process of construction and more employment of machinery in the creation of buildings. There is evidence to suggest that architects will have to understand in detail the materials that can be used in AM, including materials that are already familiar, but employed in AM in an unfamiliar way and materials that are totally new in the construction industry. There is a need for architects to have a comprehension of new structural systems that have not been widely used in the profession before. To summarise, the six criteria that will be used in the following chapter are as follows: Communication,

collaboration with technology, the design process, the construction process, materiality and new structural systems. Can Live Build projects provide valuable learning environments for the education of architects that might deal with these challenges?

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

Figure 18. Practical construction experience at Cooper Union School of Architecture.

Â´7HFKQRORJ\ LV EHVW XQGHUVWRRG E\ PDNLQJÂľ 0DF.D\ /\RQV

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

Chapter Three Live Build Projects: Architectural Education Â¤ Âś,W QHHGV WR EH VWUHVVHG WKDW OHDUQLQJ E\ H[DPSOH LV QRW RQO\ WKH EHVW DQG PRVW HIIHFWLYH ZD\ WR OHDUQ DUFKLWHFWXUH LW LV DUJXDEO\ WKH RQO\ HIIHFWLYH ZD\ WR OHDUQ DQ\ FRPSOH[ ERG\ RI NQRZOHGJH Âľ $EHO

Definition

What is a Live Build project? In the context of architectural education a Live Build project is a scenario where students have the opportunity to JDLQ SUDFWLFDO H[SHULHQFH LQ WKH ÂľUHDO ZRUOGÂś 6DUD VWHPPLQJ IURP a perception that architectural education is not aligned to the technical requirements of the industry (Cox, 2014). They generally focus on providing hands-on experience through the construction of a piece of architecture. A detailed case report of each of the Live Build projects that have informed this dissertation is included in Appendix A. The various forms of Live Build projects each have specific approaches in delivering hands on experience to those involved in the construction industry. Ranging from Studio in the Woods (Appendix A), a five-day workshop working on smallscale structures, to community engrained Design and Build programmes, such as Rural Studio (Appendix A), established over several decades. They

! ! "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "!%(%$!!* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $!!* ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 50 ! !'! ! !

$!!!!

! "! ! ! !

! ! ! & ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $!! ! ! !

"! ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ! ! ! ! ! !& ! &"! ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ) $!

* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! "! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $!!* ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $$$! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $

&*+./& & "#& ! & & & '&" & & & & & "# "&$ & &)& "! & %(&& "& " "! & & #&

Figure 19. Camaraderie

Â´, WKLQN LW VKRZHG WKH RYHUDOO HWKRV RI WKH SURMHFW DV ZH DOO VHHPHG WR EH ZRUNLQJ DV LI LW ZDV EOLVWHULQJ VXQ HYHQ WKRXJK ZH FRXOGQÂ·W WXUQ WR IDFH WKH UDLQ Âµ )UDPH FLWHG LQ 0RLU

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

are each able to achieve their aim of educating students and professionals in practical abilities. Against the evidence gathered in chapter two, this chapter will analyse if Live Build projects will prevail in a world where machines may be the dominant builders. The theory behind Live Build projects is that learning by example is essential to the education of architects (Abel, 1998:81). Each of the six criteria used in this chapter (communication, construction processes, design processes, collaboration with technology, materials and new structural systems) are challenges posed to Live Build projects by the emerging technology AM. To what extent does learning by example enhance understanding of these elements? 造 Communication

The infiltration of digital technologies signifies that there will be a change in the way architects communicate (Simondetti, 2013). This alteration will be twofold; on one side it will require better understanding between partners in a design team and on the other it will ask that they are able to adapt to new methods of communication. If this ability is to be challenged, what evidence is there that Live Build projects can develop communication skills amongst a design team? John Connell, the founder of the Design and Build school Yestermorrow (Appendix A), based in Vermont USA, argues that they

teach students that everything in architecture is about collaboration (Connell, 1997 cited in Carpenter 1997:32). This is a common objective found in various Live Build assemblies; in some cases it displays itself in the almost romantic manner of camaraderie (Fisher, 2008:129). Can this be valuable when all that is required is to be able to create an intercontinental understanding of and idea (Simondetti, 2013) through the medium of 3D printed physical models? In the case of Wiston Lodge, a first semester Live Build project run as part of the curricular course at the Department of Architecture at Strathclyde University, students claim that the most important part of their experience in this project was the element of teamwork (Riachi, 2014). When interviewed, Alissar Riachi, a participant in the latest instalment of this Live Build project, went on to explain how she got to know the strengths and weaknesses as well as building strong relationships with the people she was working with. What was concluded from this, was that having a good understanding of the design team allows students to have a good sense of how other team members think. Understanding the thought process of a person would therefore enhance the ability to communicate with them. It can be drawn from this evidence that a collaborative design team would benefit from the social interactions that are stimulated in the Live Build environment.

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

However, can Live Build projects help the architects of the future adapt to the new approaches of communication, or do the benefits of Live Build projects only reach as far as improving a level of social closeness? Rural Studio is a design and build programme run at the school of Architecture in Auburn, Alabama that is well established in its community of Hale county and values itself on the impact it manages to have as a result of this. However, they regularly run a temporary program (Project M) to challenge the students from what they are used to at Rural Studio (Walker, 2014). Walker observes that this event induces a challenging situation for the students, requiring them to work with strangers and putting them in situations where they are forced to converse with locals in the community. It is clear that there is a real test of adaptability in their communication abilities. Construction Processes

It has been found that new technologies in the construction industry will cause a replacement of manual labour with machinery as noted by Frearson(2014). Thus, there will be repercussions that change the dynamics of the construction team. Considering that Ghost Lab (Appendix A), a series of design and build summer schools in Nova Scotia, Canada, puts a focus on the master-builder traditional composition of a construction team, are there any examples of Live Build projects that prove to serve the changing composition of construction teams?

Figure 20, Above. Team feed Figure 21, Right. Mapping out the Sequence

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

Figure 22, Above. Team Meeting Figure 23, Right. Design Meeting with Client

In a study of Ghost Lab, Peter Buchanan recognises that there is an intuitive understanding for the process of construction gained by experiencing it first hand (Buchanan, 2008:170). He expands that this allows students to realise the sequence of this process. In this respect, parallels can be made between Ghost Lab and Rural Studio. In the case of the former, students are given collaborative exercises in examining and mapping out the timeframe, sequencing, ordering and fabrication before they go on to complete these stages (Freear, 2014:41). Thus, through having first hand experience, such as these examples, the students attain a detailed understanding of the fundamentals of the construction processes as well as other team members. However, there is no guarantee that this will provide an understanding of what to do if there is a change in this structure, such as the replacement of manual labourers with machinery. In 2013, as part of a Masters in Architecture thesis a Live Build project called A Transient Stanza was held on the Isle of Lewis. Emily Stephen, a participant of this five-day event reflected on her experience recalling that in order for a shared ownership of the completed structure the team was given a freedom to make decisions when Ruairidh Moir, the project leader, had to leave the site (Stephen, 2013 cited in Moir, 2013:51). This required the participants to each be capable of changing their role within the team.

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

Rural Studio is another example of a Live Build project developing skills in dealing with transforming relationships. The previously mentioned Project M that accompanies Rural Studio puts students in situations where they have to collaborate with a team of strangers on quick paced, pressured environment Live Build projects (Walker, 2014). What this H[HUFLVH DFKLHYHV LV D GHYHORSPHQW LQ WKH VWXGHQWÂśV FDSDELOLW\ WR EH versatile with whom they work. Each of these cases provides an example of adaptability that demonstrates an understanding of how to deal with a changing construction team. Design Processes

AM has been shown to require that the design of buildings is produced in a digital format to help predict the details of a building well in advance of the commencement of construction (Steadman, 2013b). This implies that an element of foresight is needed to understand the implications that design changes will have on both the construction and the resultant building for the end user. Where some Live Build projects make a feature out of the deviations that the design of a building might WDNH DV LW ÂľULVHV IURP WKH JURXQGÂś 0DFND\ /\RQV ZKDW FDQ WKHVH learning environments do to provide an ability to foresee the problems that will arise on site, rather than waiting for them to happen?

Figure 24, Above. Rising from the Ground Figure 25, Right. Experiencing the Building

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

,W KDV EHHQ FODLPHG WKDW LQ D /LYH %XLOG SURMHFW WKH ÂłGLDORJXH

EHWZHHQ GHVLJQ DQG FRQVWUXFWLRQ FDQ EH VHHQ PRUH FOHDUO\ Â´ 0RUH 2013:63). In this analysis of the Tog Studio (Appendix A) Live Build summer school of 2013, Rory More expands that this experience highlights that understanding construction improves ones ability to create a more comprehensively thought out design in the first place. This would suggest there is the development of an ability to predict the implications that a design might have when construction begins on site. In the case of AM this would translate as the assembly of the pre-fabricated components (Retsin, 2013 cited in Chalcraft, 2013). However, the topic in question here is the nature of the design process required of this new technology. How will the virtual representation of a design be better understood through experiences found in Live Build projects? In his reflections on Ghost Lab, Robert Ivy notes that it was during the construction process that one could envision improvements to WKH GHVLJQ DQG WKDW LW ZDV RQO\ ZKHQ KH H[SHULHQFHG LW LQ WKH ÂľUHDO ZRUOGÂś that these potentials became clear (Ivy, 2008). Might it be that having an understanding of this kind of experience improves the ability for one to understand an architectural design on a virtual medium? Another commentator on Ghost Lab, Robert McCarter, claims that contemporary architects create construction information in the virtual space of a computer and that this results in a diminished understanding

Figure 26, Above. Client in Her New Home Figure 27, Right. Client in Her Previous House

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

of the information (McCarter, 2008:207). Would it be more relevant, then, to consider if Live Build projects could include digital mediums into the design process of their projects? At Rural Studio they encourage their students to view computer technologies as one of many possible tools for representing information (Freear, 2014:40). They do not suggest that it is essential that students are proficient with digital technologies however, they have respect for the capabilities of computers and there is opportunity to foster a relationship with digital mediums whilst designing. Returning to McCarters observation of Ghost Lab, he warns that digital technologies are dangerous as they allow the opportunity to oversee the experience of those who will inhabit the spaces that they create (McCarter, 2008:12). This suggests that it will be important for architects to be capable of understanding the implications of design moves in great detail - have an experiential understanding of them. On this front there is evidence in Rural Studio that Live Build projects have the capability to instil a genuine understanding of this. As mentioned previously, the premise of Rural Studio is that they take pride in the fact that they have become well established in the community in which they work. Freear and Barthel (2014) describe that the students at Rural Studio spend hundreds of hours with the clients that they are designing and building for (Figures 26 and 27), so that they could observe

Figure 28. CNC Cut Plywood Sheets Enclose Structure.

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

their lives, relationships and how they inhabit their spaces (Freear and Barthel, 2014). This exercise is used as a precursor to the process of design and is proven through years of feedback to benefit the success of their projects in terms of appropriateness to their clients. On this basis Live Build projects show potential to address many of the design process problems brought up by AM technology. Collaboration with Technology

The nature of AM manufacturing has been seen to require a close interaction with digital technology. In Chapter Two it was discussed that there is the potential that AM will spark a merging of craft and new technologies. What instances are there of Live Builds improving a students understanding of such technologies? Due to their hands-on nature, Live Build projects have an engrained appreciation for craft traditions (MacKay-Lyons, 2008). Their ability to combine these with new technologies has been evidenced by Tog Studio on their Live Build projects. On their 2013 Live Build summer school there was a large element of pre-fabrication completed in preparation for this event (Cooke, 2013). This involved collaboration with the MAKlab, an open-source digital fabrication facility in Glasgow, where the main structure was processed with a high-tech CNC router (More, 2013). More finds that the ideology behind Tog Studio allows for students

Figure 29, Above. Setting up Laser-cut Formwork. Figure 30, Right. Pouring Concrete

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

to gain an understanding of the avenues in which craft can be valued in modern day construction industries through its combination with new technologies (More, 2013:63). This evidence suggests that Live Builds have value for dealing with the potential that craft and new technologies might become more engrained. What is still to be addressed is the previously mentioned issue of the depth of virtual information that AM requires before construction can commence onsite. In describing the preparation that students complete before beginning the construction of their projects, Freear and Barthel explain that there is a great depth of investigation encouraged by Rural Studio (Freear and Barthel 2014). Students make drawings and physical models at full-scale of all of the potential issues that could appear during construction. This rigor in testing takes a different approach to virtual PHWKRGV RI SUHSDUDWLRQ IRXQG LQ $0 DV LW LQYROYHV WKH ÂľUHDO ZRUOGÂś however, the fundamental understandings that are gained are comparable. In this instance it would seem that having such an experience in a Live Build project would prepare students well for the pre-construction considerations that they would need to have to work with AM. Above this, there is proof that Live Build projects can go further than simply providing this process of experimentation. It has been found at Rural Studio that encouraging students to experiment with technologies can inspire students to test the potentials

Figure 31. Big Shed project

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

of conventional processes. In one instance the students devised their own technique for pouring concrete for a skate park made of complex curved surfaces. They created a formwork from laser-cut plywood, and achieved something that they would not have been able to without understanding the potential of this digital technology (Freaar and Barthel, 2014:182). What can be drawn from this example is that a Live Build scenario not only allows for collaboration with new technologies but also actively stimulates students to question the capacity for new technologies to aid in their construction projects. The various levels of analysis here, demonstrate that Live Build projects are a particularly appropriate test bed for teaching students to collaborate with various new-technologies relevant to the requirements of AM. New Structural Systems

Discussed in section two was the issue that AM technology brings with it the requirement for an understanding of new structural systems previously unseen in the construction industry (Chalcraft, 2013). What evidence is there of Live Build projects being suitable in providing experience that can prepare architecture students for this? In post-analysing his A Transient Stanza Live Build project, Moir reflected that it was only during construction that the extent of

the difficulty of achieving the desired structure became evident (Moir, 2013:42). At that point the team could understand the issues with the structure and determine a solution. Thus, such a scenario allows for a practical understanding of the consequences of complex structures. Above this there are examples of Live Build projects encouraging experimentation to learn about complex constructions. The Design and Make (Appendix A) course at the Architectural Association in London completed a Live Build project in 2012 called the Big Shed. As seen in Figure 31, the structure has a high level of complexity. This project was used as an opportunity for the students to rigorously test both on-site and in laboratory settings the advanced structural system and its connections with experimental load tests (Nakabayashi, 2012:15). This was seen to develop a comprehension of this structure that would not have been possible in an off-site studio situation. When this is compared to the fact that AM technology asks for an understanding of unknown structural systems, a suggestion would be that Live Build projects would provide suitable situations for these to be investigated. However, it is evidenced that Live Build projects often have a predominant interest in simple materials such as timber (Ivy, 2008:87). Widely discussed in AM technology are the processed materials that are required, does the focus on simplistic materials in Live Build projects limit their ability to prepare students for new structural systems? In her

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

evaluation of the Design and Build school Yestermorrow, Lynne Cox describes that students are encouraged to carry out specific research and analyse potential materials before determining the appropriate one for the desired structure based on their findings (Cox, 2012b). This would suggest that there is the opportunity in Live Build projects that allow for the exploration of materials. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that similar investigations could be performed with the materials used in AM. Thus, it can be concluded that on the evaluation of Live Build projects against their ability to teach the characteristics of structural systems that there is the opportunity for complex structures to be better understood through the inquisitive experiences that are created. Materials

AM technology has been shown to change the way that materials can be used in construction. Meaning that architects will have to learn the properties of entirely new materials if they are to work with AM technology in construction (De Kestelier, 2013 cited in Steadman, 2013a). It can be argued that Live Build projects are particularly good for gaining an understanding of materials in construction. When interviewed (Appendix C), Jamie McCallum explained that interacting with construction materials in a hands-on situation hugely enhances the understanding that one acquires for them (McCallum,

Figure 32. Studio in the Woods testing structures

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

2014). He continued by describing that interaction with these materials enhances ones comprehension of how they can be combined with other materials far greater than in a studio based environment. Having a tangible grasp for the qualities of a material includes how a material reacts when being prepared. As MacKay-lyons explains: Â´,I \RX GRQÂˇW ZDQW WR VSOLW WKH ERDUG ZKHQ \RX GULYH D QDLO LQ LW \RX VKRXOG Ă LS WKH QDLO RYHU DQG SXW LW RQ D KDUG NQRW DQG EHQG WKH HQG RI LW VR LW FUXVKHV WKH ZRRG UDWKHU WKDQ VSOLW WKH ZRRG :HOO VRPHRQH MXVW KDV WR WHOO \RX WKDW DQG VKRZ \RX WKDW DQG WKHQ \RX NQRZ WKDW IRUHYHUÂľ 0DF.D\ /\RQV

It is clear that MacKay-lyons believes that the only way to learn such intricacies of a material is to experience it first-hand. What significance does this have when it so heavily assumes that interaction between human hand and material is required in construction, what if the material is dropped from the nozzle of an AM machine directly onto a site? The implications of AM are that new materials will have to be understood by the construction industry to comprehend how they work and what potential they hold (Steadman, 2013a). It should therefore be considered that it is through Live Build projects that students are given the opportunity to test materials in such a way that they are able to gain these kinds of understandings.

Figure 33. Testing Lamella Structure.

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

As shown in Rural Studio projects there is an emphasis on letting students test material through a trial and error based learning scenario (Freear and Barthel 2014:105). In one situation described by Freear and Barthel (2014) students were designing structural trusses and carried out various bending tests on lengths of timber. The result was that the students came to understand the limits that the material could be pushed to before failure and from this were able to devise the optimum bend for the timber in this particular structure. Importantly this illustrates that the opportunity to examine a material in such a way aids the understanding that a student can get for its capabilities. Rural Studio takes pride in the experimentation with materials that they offer to students. They claim that students, in particular, might be the most appropriate people to rigorously explore materials due to their enthusiasm (Freear and Barthel 2014:105). This has some notable suggestions: firstly that Live Build projects could establish a canvas for the research of materials valuable to the construction industry; and secondly that this would enhance the understanding of the relevant application of them in reality. Although Live Build projects almost exclusively use a simple palette of materials, the evidence discussed here shows that interaction and investigation with these materials has values regardless of what the material is. These values have been proven to provide suitable

Figure 34, Above. Handcrafted Intricacy.. Figure 35, Right. Computer Crafted Intricacy..

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

Figure 36, Experimenting with HybridAdobe Bricks

Figure 37, Architecture Challenge Pavilion

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

understandings of materials that architects will be required to have when dealing with new technologies in construction, even if it is a machine that will be prominently processing them on the construction site. Conclusions

On each of the issues (criteria) posed by the new technology of AM, Live Build projects provide experience that can prepare students of architecture for dealing with such construction technologies. Engaging developments of communication abilities are shown to be common in Live Build projects. The different situations in which students are involved encourage adaptability in these communication skills. Examples have also shown adaptability in the people students are able to work with; the changeable nature of some projects have shown that students are often challenged to work with varying construction teams. Digital design processes are involved in some of the discussed projects, allowing students to employ digital technologies in a practical manner. Live Build projects also help prepare students for the implications of digital design with the thorough investigations that are encouraged into the requirements of clients.

Exploration of structural systems is allowed for through the opportunities that students have to test structural elements in mock-up situations. Evidence has shown that these learning environments can give students in-depth understanding of the potentials and limits of complex structures. It has been seen that materials are tested in similar ways, resulting in an intimate comprehension of their characteristics. An example of collaboration with technology in Live Build projects is where the process of preparation for on-site construction is comparable to that of AM. In another case Live Build projects have shown that they inspire experimentation with new technologies in construction projects. A recurring feature of Live Build projects is adaptability of skills. Seen in this chapter, this ability is generated through practical experience. As this is fundamentally important for students and architects facing a changing construction industry it should be questioned: how can these educational experiences be promoted? To consider this, the source of Live Build projects, Architectural Education should be analysed.

Live Build Projects: Architectural Education

Figure 38, Apprenticeship Method of Education

Architectural Education

Chapter Four Architectural Education

Origins

Live Build projects have their roots in the provision of practical elements in architectural education (Taylor, 2011). To enrich this conversation it is valuable to expand on where this originated. Stated LQ 9LWUXYLXVÂś 7HQ %RRNV RQ DUFKLWHFWXUH LV D EHOLHI RI ZKDW DUFKLWHFWXUDO education consists of: Â´ÂŤDUFKLWHFWV ZKR VWURYH WR REWDLQ SUDFWLFDO PDQXDO VNLOOV EXW ODFNHG RQ HGXFDWLRQ KDYH QHYHU EHHQ DEOH WR DFKLHYH DQ LQĂ XHQFH HTXDO WR WKH TXDOLW\ RI WKHLU H[HUWLRQVÂŤ 7KRVH ZKR SODFHG WKHLU WUXVW HQWLUHO\ LQ WKHRU\ DQG LQ ZULWLQJV VHHP WR KDYH FKDVHG DIWHU D VKDGRZ QRW VRPHWKLQJ UHDO Âľ 5RZODQG

Demonstrated in this quote is the value for architects to have both theoretical and practical understandings in architecture, with emphasis on value in its reality. However, is this still relevant to architectural education of today?

,Q PDNLQJ UHIHUHQFH WR 9LWUXYLXVÂś ZULWLQJV RQ HGXFDWLRQ 1LF &OHDU

outlines that the educational challenge for educating architecture students holds similarities today as it did over 2000 years ago. He explains that the

Figure 39, Above. Theoretical element of Education Figure 40, Above. Modern school of Architecture Studio

Architectural Education

objectives that are currently important are; being able to generate and execute spatial designs (Spiller and Clear, 2014,10). On a more formal basis this discussion should consider the criteria that architectural education strives for in the UK. This is outlined in the ARB and RIBA validation criteria for part one and part two courses in architectural education. In introducing this the director of education at the RIBA David Glouster states: Â´:KLOVW WKH YDOLGDWLRQ FULWHULD PD\ RIIHU D EDVLV IRU FXUULFXODU GHVLJQ LW LV LQWHQGHG WKDW VFKRROV GHYHORS FRXUVHV SXUVXLQJ GLVWLQFWLYH LQWHUSUHWDWLRQV RI WKH SUDFWLFDO DQG WKHRUHWLFDO VNLOOV QHHGHG E\ SURIHVVLRQDO DUFKLWHFWV RFFXS\LQJ LQFUHDVLQJO\ GLYHUVH UROHV DQG ZRUNLQJ LQ D JOREDO HFRQRP\ Âľ *ORXVWHU

Most importantly this gives evidence that the two elements of practical and theoretical education expressed by Vitruvius are still an aspiration of architectural understanding. Considering the General Criteria set out by the RIBA there are notable instances referring to understanding RI SUDFWLFDO DELOLWLHV VXFK DV ÂłXQGHUVWDQG WKH FRQVWUXFWLRQDO DQG VWUXFWXUDO V\VWHPVÂ´ *ORXVWHU ,W ZDV HVWDEOLVKHG LQ &KDSWHU 7KUHH WKDW comprehensions of such elements are best gathered through first-hand experience. If the intentions of architectural education in the UK are to include relevant practical education then it would be suggested that Live

Figure 41. Education vs Practice

Architectural Education

Build projects are an appropriate mechanism for attaining this. However, this would only be necessary if the current structure of education was not suitably providing such an understanding. Issues

To establish if this is the case it should be questioned: where does the recent increase in demand for Live Build projects originate? Many of the reasons for establishing Live Build projects have come from a personal dissatisfaction with the provision of practical experience in architectural education. Tog Studio was set up as a reaction to what was felt as a shortcoming of the educational system (Cox, 2014). Cox explains that Tog Studio is founded on the belief that there is a distinct gap between the practical abilities taught in architectural education and what is actually needed in practice. The Design and Build School in Bluff, Utah (Appendix A) was IRXQGHG RQ RQH DUFKLWHFW +DQN /RXLVÂś VKRFN DW KDYLQJ FRPSOHWHG architectural education and feeling completely unprepared for the practical aspects of the profession (Louis 2009, cited in Rall 2009). He explains that it is possible in some schools of architecture to complete a course in architectural education without having hands-on experience of construction, RU LQGHHG KDYLQJ ZLWQHVVHG WKH LPSOLFDWLRQV RI D GHVLJQ LQ WKH ÂľUHDO ZRUOG Âś

Figure 42. CAT, Off-site Fabrication

Architectural Education

$V SDUW RI WKH VDPH WUDLQ RI WKRXJKW *KRVW /DE VWDWH ÂłWKH

GLVFRQQHFW EHWZHHQ KHDG DQG KDQGÂ´ WKDW LV SURPLQHQW LQ VFKRROV RI architecture was inspirational to the Ghost Lab projects (Mackay-Lyons, 2008;136). These examples from observers of academia note their feelings on the issues of a lack of practical experience in architectural education, but are they true in the reality of the profession? When interviewed (Appendix B) John Dawson, a well established site manager with almost four decades of experience in the construction industry, described how he had witnessed a remarkable deterioration in the practical understandings of architects that he has worked with (Dawson, 2014). He also suggested that this was an issue with the education of architects as it causes difficulties during the construction of projects. As noted by, Colin Marrs: Â´)RXU RXW RI Ă&#x20AC;YH HPSOR\HUV EHOLHYH DUFKLWHFWXUH VFKRROV DUH IDLOLQJ WR SURYLGH VWXGHQWV ZLWK WKH SUDFWLFDO VNLOOV QHHGHG WR SUDFWLFHÂľ 0DUUV

It is made clear that the majority of those who are concerned with the output architectural education find it unsatisfactory on the practical education elements. Adding to the evidence that the construction industry, is not receiving the practical abilities that it desires. Thus, from the viewpoint of the construction industry and those involved

Criteria Â´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Ã&#x20AC;HV WKH DHVWKHWLF DVSHFWV RI D EXLOGLQJ DQG WKH WHFKQLFDO UHTXLUHPHQWV RI LWV FRQVWUXFWLRQ DQG WKH QHHGV RI WKH XVHU Âµ 5,%$

General Criteria at Part 1 and Part 2 architects.

Architectural Education

with architectural education, problems are expressed. Would Live Build projects be able to solve the issue of a lacking in practical education? It is apparent that the architectural education body, the RIBA are DZDUH RI WKHVH SHUFHSWLRQV DQG VWDWHG WKDW WKH\ ZLVK WR ÂłUHVWRUH DQG HQKDQFH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ SUDFWLFH DQG DFDGHPLDÂ´ 5,%$ &RXQFLO 2013). Aside from this there are suggested changes occurring in the structure of architectural education in the UK. RIBA President, Stephen Hodder states that for architectural education in the UK to be globally competitive it should be possible to be completed the course in five years of academic study (Hodder, 2013 cited RIBA, 2013). Overlooking other implications this might have, do Live Build projects have a place in the future of this changing educational system? The Cass. School of Architecture at London Metropolitan University have developed proposals to provide more practical education at the same time as fitting architectural education into the shorter time frame proposed by the RIBA. Denicke-Polcher and Khonsari (2014) state that the changes to architectural education have stimulated the recent increase of Live Projects in the field of architectural education within the UK (DenickePolcher and Khonsari, 2014:46). This demonstrates that the intended changes to education are inspiring actions that might address the issues of the current educational system. However, conflicting thoughts have arisen from the field of architectural education.

Figure 43. All Hands-on

Architectural Education

In their book Educating Architects, Spiller and Clear (2014) make the point that the best environments for educating architects do not correlate to the types of environments that universities provide (Spiller and Clear, 2014,13). In the field of Live Build projects this thought is reiterated when MacKay-Lyons questions what right academia has on directing architectural education towards a more theoretical approach (MacKayLyons, 2008:137). These thoughts pose the question: is academia preventing the achievement of an idealistic architectural education? In interviewing Dawson (Appendix B), he explained that he had experienced better on-site practical abilities from architects of previous generations- those that had come from an educational system that employed a larger apprenticeship element (similar to the masterbuilder approach to learning architecture previously discussed in this dissertation) (Dawson, 2014). Ghost Lab advocates the master-builder tradition of learning from hands-on experience because of the tendencies of architectural education to promote theoretical educations (MacKayLyons, 2008:10). Thus, should Live Build projects such as Ghost Lab be employed to enable academia based architectural education in the UK to deliver the level of education that is required by the industry? Example projects by Ghost Lab appear to provide valuable education with regards to the future of construction technologies. However, the focus of craft found in these projects mean that by their

nature they have an element of slowness (Gammelgaard Neilson, 2012), which does not align with the proposed changes of architectural education in the UK. In this case, might it be better to question whether Live Builds should be given higher priority in the architectural education system of the UK to better deal with future technologies? Conclusion

Stemming

from

academic

based

architectural

education,

Live Build projects have been used to supply practical experience in construction. They have become a requirement due to the shortcomings of education to provide relevant practical knowledge to architects. Changes in the structure of this education have highlighted the need for including such experience and there has been an increase of focus on this recently. The nature of academic based architectural education is seen to require Live Build projects in order for it to provide an appropriate education for architects, which suggests that they should be to some extent prioritised in architectural education.

Architectural Education

Conclusion

Conclusion Â´,I >DXWRPDWLRQ@ NHHSV XS PDQ ZLOO DWURSK\ KLV OLPEV EXW WKH SXVK EXWWRQ Ă&#x20AC;QJHU Âľ Â˛ )UDQN /OR\G :ULJKW :ULJKW FLWHG LQ /DVDQVN\

The development of construction has seen continuous conflict between man and machine - advances have been dependant on the available technologies. With the advent of the advanced technology AM, there is remarkable potential to fundamentally change the way buildings are constructed. However, on examination, this technology is found to require architects to have skills that are embedded in Live Build projects. This implies that the values found in these educational environments are still relevant to the construction industry as well as the future technology of AM. At face value, the tendency for Live Build projects to focus on craftsmanship suggests that they might be made redundant by advances in digital technologies. In reality the core of Live Build projects is providing practical experiences, which are seen to be enduring, regardless of the technologies they focus on.

Figure 44. Above. Potentials/ Dangers of Computer Design. Figure 45, Right. Embedded in the Landscape

Conclusion

The real question is more concerned with the educational systems that equip architects. Architectural educational systems have an imbalance of priority on theoretical education, resulting in the need to involve Live Build projects to achieve the practical elements of education. The death of Live Build projects is not near: if there is one-thing Live Build projects should do is thrive. Live Build projects have value in education as well as for preparing architects for future technologies. As found in chapter three there is an awareness that it is important to work with new technologies to better understand them. This is important so that the construction industry is better able to work with them but also so that they can understand the dangers they have to the design process (Buchanan, 2008:177). Explaining these dangers Peter Buchanan states that with the new potentials created by digital technologies it is important to consider what is really appropriate in the design of architecture (Buchanan, 2008:177). The reasoning for this is that digital technologies allow architects to create arbitrarily rather than what they were previously limited to; the design does not rely on the vernacular materials or construction methods. (DUOLHU LQ WKLV GLVVHUWDWLRQ 'H .HVWHOLHU¶V FODLP RQ $0 ZDV ³JHRPHWU\ LV QRZ IUHH´ WKH WHFKQRORJ\ FDQ UHPRYH PDQ\ VWUXFWXUDO UHVWULFWLRQV RI traditional construction.

Figure 46, Teamwork

Â´7KH KDQGLQJ XS RU KROGLQJ GRZQ RI OXPEHU WKH ORRNLQJ DIWHU HDFK RWKHU XS RQ WKH VFDIIROGLQJ WKH FDOOLQJ RXW IRU RU JLYLQJ RI DVVLVWDQFH WKH RGG FRQYHUVDWLRQV KDG KLJK LQ WKH DLU ZKLOH ZDLWLQJ IRU WKH QH[W WDVN WR DUULYH DOO FUHDWHG DQ LQFUHGLEOH FDPDUDGHULH DPRQJ WKH SDUWLFLSDQWV 8S RQ WKH WZR WRZHUV DPRQJ SHRSOH ZKR PRVWO\ GLG QRW NQRZ HDFK RWKHU WZR ZHHNV HDUOLHU D UHDO ERQG GHYHORSHG Âµ )LVKHU

Conclusion

Figure 47, The Spirit of the Selfbuild

100

Cox observed a similar thought from Kenneth Frampton in her attendance of a convention hosted by Ghost Lab. Frampton raised the issue that the increasing use of digital technologies can generate pieces of architecture which lack any relation to their site, condemning WKHP ÂľXQHWKLFDOÂś &R[ D 7KHVH EHOLHIV KDYH D OLQN WR GLVFXVVLRQV LQ chapter one, the Evolution of Construction, in that the scepticism of new technologies causes a contradictory movement towards more traditional constructions. At this moment in time what is the value of traditional construction? Anders Gammelgaard Neilsen (2012) discusses this question in his book, Craft, stating: Â´:KDW ZRXOG KDSSHQ LI DQ HQWLUH QDWLRQ ZHUH WR VWRS XVLQJ LWV KDQGV" 7KH VKRUW DQVZHU ZRXOG EH WKH ORVV RI FXOWXUDO DQG DUWLVWLF LGHQWLW\ WKDW KDV WDNHQ JHQHUDWLRQV WR GHYHORSÂľ *DPPHOJDDUG 1HLOVHQ

This

assertion

would suggest that traditional construction

techniques (craft) are important to the maintenance of human cultures. However, how important is craft in the modern world? Gammelgaard 1HLOVHQ VXJJHVWV ÂłXQFRQVFLRXVO\ RQH FDQ IHHO WKH LQQXPHUDEOH GHFLVLRQVÂ´ *DPPHOJDDUG 1HLOVHQ LPSDUWHG RQ D EXLOGLQJ through the process of craft, giving a layer of character that stimulates the human senses. This would suggest that traditional construction methods

Conclusion

101

encourage carefully thought out design decisions: an attribute that it would be valuable to exercise considering the vast design potential of new technologies. This relates to thoughts of how a piece of architecture might respect its site. As described by Karl Herberman, in his reflections on Ghost Lab, these thoughts are found in the traditional approach to construction that is promoted there: Â´ÂŤERXQG WR WKH ODQGVFDSH LQ WKH EHVW VHQVH RI WKH YHUQDFXODU Âľ .DUO +HUEHUPDQ

This quote exemplifies the ethos of Ghost Lab projects in that they have sensitivity to their surroundings and their cultural roots. This may provide an example of resilience to the threats of globalisation (unethical architecture) that Frampton warns of. Thus, craft has a purpose in the modern world; if it is practiced it will serve as a safeguard from the dangers of new technologies. Would the best way be to ensure that craftsmanship is retained be to combine it with new technologies? Â´7DNHQ DORQH WUDGLWLRQ VWDJQDWHV DQG PRGHUQLW\ YDSRUL]HV WDNHQ WRJHWKHU PRGHUQLW\ EUHDWKHV OLIH LQWR WUDGLWLRQ DQG WUDGLWLRQ UHVSRQGV E\ SURYLGLQJ GHSWK DQG JUDYLW\ Âľ 3D]

102

Figure 48, Above left, Tools of Craft Figure 49, Above Right, Detail Figure 50, Right. Innumerable Impressions

Conclusion

103

Gammelgaard Neilsen claims that since the industrial revolution there has been a gradual convergence of craftsmanship and technological construction methods and that it is possible for the two to work together in harmony (Gammelgaard Neilsen, 2012:33). In chapter two it was discussed that the new technology of AM could allow for the merging of new technologies with craftsmanship (Chalcraft, 2013). Is this a moment of definition, not for the death of Live Build projects but for the synthesis of craft and technology? As concluded in chapter three, Live Build projects are ideal for stimulating collaboration with technology. Thus, do Live Build projects hold the key, not only to combining craft and new technologies, but also to promoting cultural and artistic identities? Â´:H NQRZ DQG XQGHUVWDQG RXU ZRUOG DQG RXUVHOYHV DV FXOWXUDO EHLQJV SULPDULO\ WKURXJK RXU RZQ FRQVWUXFWLRQV ERWK PDWHULDO DQG PHQWDO SDVW DQG SUHVHQW Âľ 3DOODVPDD

Commenting on the importance of the act of building, Juhani Pallasmaa explains that it has value because it allows humanity to reflect upon itself in a historic and environmental context. In this it can also be said that human constructions can be seen as intent; cultural identities gain impetus from the sense of purpose expressed in building. Pallasmaa pursues this thought stating:

104

Figure 51, Above After-project activities Figure 52, Right, Celebratory Bonfire

Conclusion

105

Â´%XLOGLQJ LPSOLHV DQG HYRNHV RSWLPLVP ZH DUH DEOH WR EXLOG RQO\ WR WKH GHJUHH WKDW ZH KDYH FRQĂ&#x20AC;GHQFH LQ WKH IXWXUHÂľ 3DOODVPDD

He suggests that the act of building is inherently a positive action. Mentioning also, in his thoughts on a Ghost Lab project, that the collective physical labour found in Live Build projects has similarities to celebratory expressions. Thus, is the real value of Live Build projects an act of celebration?

7KLV LV FHUWDLQO\ VXJJHVWHG LQ 0LFKHDO +ROOLGD\ÂśV UHIOHFWLRQ RI WKH

2012 Tog Studio Live Build project. He compares the experience at this event to the traditional constructions of the past, where building was the instigator of joy amongst those who contributed (Holliday, 2012:54), with descriptions of laughter as part of the process.

Sensations of comparable nature are found in other Live Build projects: when interviewed (Appendix C) McCallum (Live Build project participant) explained that as a result of physically building a structure he felt a great sense of pride in having created a tangible shelter, noting that the achievement was something he wanted to share with others (McCallum, 2014). These moments of enjoyment, harboured by Live Build projects, have links to primitive human tendencies.

106

Figure 53 Around the FIre

Conclusion

107

Â´:H SDVVHG WKURXJK DQ RSHQLQJ LQ WKH WDUSDXOLQ ZKHUH WKH GRRU ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ LQ WKH RULJLQDO KRXVH DQG IRXQG RXUVHOYHV LQ D FURZG RI VPLOLQJ IDFHV EDWKHG LQ Ă&#x20AC;UHOLJKW VKDULQJ GULQNV DQG ODXJKWHU ZKLOH OHDQLQJ DJDLQVW WKH EDWWHUHG ERXOGHUV RI WKH IRXQGDWLRQ Âľ 0DF\ As found at the beginning of this dissertation, primitive humans gathered around a fire and this was the genesis of communication; and that instigated collaborative construction in humanity. Though changes in the way it is performed, have and will continue to occur, construction will always have roots in the gathering around the fire, whether that is the initiation or the continued celebration.

108

Figure 54 The Final Cut, signed

Postscript

109

Postscript And with that cut the frame was complete. The finish was far better than my first attempt only three days before, but more importantly I had the final input to the bones of what the team were building. In that moment I experienced an unforgettable feeling of pride.

Bibliography

111

Bibliography

4Projects by Viewpoint, 2014. BIM: The clock is ticking â&#x20AC;&#x201C; time to act is now. Future of Construction [Online report] 25/6/14. Available at: http://raconteur.net/future-ofconstruction [Accessed 6 February 2015] Abel, Chris.1998. Globalism and the Regional Response. In: Pearce, Martin and Toy, Maggie. Eds. 1995. Educating Architects. London: Wiley-Academy p80-87. Arup, 2014. Construction Steelwork Makes its 3D Printing Premiere. [Online] Available at: http://www.arup.com/News/2014_06_June/05_June_Construction_steelwork_ makes_3D_printing_premiere [Accessed 9 February 2015] Badanes, Steve. 2014. Making things. In: Freear, Andrew ed. 2014. Rural Studio at Twenty: Designing and Building in Hale County, Alabama. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p266 Barac, Mathew. 2012. Centre for Alternative Technology. Architectural Review. Volume 231, no.1379, January 2012: 92-93. Botsford, Giannie. 2006. Studio in the Woods. [Online] Available at: http://www. giannibotsford.com/project/studio-in-the-woods/# [Accessed 19 January 2015] Brown, James B. 2012. A Critique of the Live Project. PhD Thesis, Queens University Belfast. Buchanan, Peter. 2008. Escaping Normality to Embrace Reality. In: MacKay-Lyons, Brian ed. Ghost: Building an Architectural Vision. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p165- 178 Butterworth, Carolyn et al. 2013. A handbook for live projects. Sheffield School of Architecture. PDF Handbook. Carpenter, W. J. 1997. Learning by Building: Design and Construction in Architectural Education. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

112

Chalcraft, E. 2013. In the future we might print not only buildings, but entire urban sections. [online] Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/05/21/3d-printingarchitecture-print-shift/ [Accesed: 14 February 2015] Clark, T. 2014. Arup in 3D printing breakthrough. Architects Journal. Volume 238 Number 239. 20.06.14. p.12. Clear, Nic., 2014. Convergence: Architecture as integrated spatial design . In: Neil Spiller and Nic Clear. 2014. Educating Architects: How Tomorrow’s practitioners will learn today. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. Cooke, Jamie. 2013. The Big Idea: TOG Studio – Empowering people through design and collaboration. The Royal Society for the encouragement of the Arts. [Online] Available at:http://www.rsablogs.org.uk/2013/fellowship/big-idea-tog-studioempowering-people-design-collaboration/ (Accessed: 3 January 2015) Cox, Lynne. 2012a. Ghost 13 Ideas in Things. [Online] Available at: http://www.ads.org. uk/scottisharchitecture/features/ghost-13-ideas-in-things [Accessed: 6 January 2015] Cox, Lynne. 2012b. A Design-Build School in Vermont, USA. [Online} Available at: http://www.togstudio.co.uk/visit-to-yestermorrow-in-vermont/ [Accessed: 6 January 2015] Dawson, John. 2014. The Role of Architects in the Construction Industry. Interviewed by Lewis Grant. [Face to face interview] Grangemouth Stadium 14 December 2014. De Kestelier, Xavier. 2015. 3D Printing Will Enter the Mainstream in Architecture. Architects Journal. Vol 241, 9 January 2015. p.44. Denicke-Polcher, Sandra and Khonsari, Torange, 2014. Architecture of Multiple Authorship. In: AAE (Association of Architectural Educators), 2nd international Conference of the AAE, Living and Learning. Sheffield, 2014. Designboom, 2010. The Rural Studio. [Online] Available at: http://www.designboom. com/history/rural_studio.html [Accessed: 11 January 2015] Dobson, Adrian. 2014. 21 things you won’t learn in architecture school. London: RIBA Publishing.

Bibliography

113

Fisher, Thomas. 2008. Seeing Ghosts. In: MacKay-Lyons, Brian ed. Ghost: Building an Architectural Vision. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p119-130 Foster + Partners, 2013. Foster + Partners work with European space agency to 3D print structures on the moon. [PDF] Foster + Partners. Available at: http://www. fosterandpartners.com/news/archive/2013/01/foster-partners-works-with-europeanspace-agency-to-3d-print-structures-on-the-moon/ [Accessed 12 February 2015] Frampton, Kenneth, 1992. Modern Architecture a Critical History. 3rd Ed. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. Frearson, Amy. 2013. 3D printed plastic house will be assembled in a day. 13 February 2013. [Online] Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/02/13/protohouse-2-3dprinted-house-by-softkill-design/ [Accessed 12 February 2015] Frearson, Amy. 2014.Chinese Company 3D Prints 10 Buildings in Day Using Construction Waste, [Online] Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2014/04/24/ chinese-company-3d-prints-buildings-construction-waste/ (Accessed 18 December 2014) Freear, Andrew. Barthel, Elena. 2014. Rural Studio at Twenty: Designing and Building in Hale County, Alabama. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Fulcher, Merlin. 2013. Profession divided over RIBAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s shake-up of architectural education. Architects Journal. Volume 238, 13.12.13: 9-10. Gammelgaard Nielsen, Anders, 2012. CRAFT, Craft at the millennium. Aarhus; Forlaget Archi Tegn. Genisis Framework, 2015. What is 3D printing. [Online] Available at: http://3dprinting. com/what-is-3d-printing/ [Accessed 9 February 2015] Glouster, David. 2010. RIBA Validation Criteria at part 1 and part 2. [Online] Available at: http://www.architecture.com/files/ribaprofessionalservices/education/validation/ ribavalidationcriteriafromseptember2011parts1,23.pdf [Accessed 27.1.15] Harper, Peter. 1995. Crazy Idealists? The CAT story. Aberystwyth: Cambrian Printers. Harriss, Harriet and Widder, Lynnette. 2014. Architecture Live Projects : Pedagogy into practice. London: Routledge

114

Hejduk, John and Canon, Roger, 1999. Education of an Architect: A Point of View the Cooper Union School of Art and Architecture. 1964 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 1971. New York: Monacelli Press. Hill, Derek. 2014. The Real Deal: Case Studies in Alternative Teaching Strategies. In: AAE (Association of Architectural Educators), 2nd international Conference of the AAE, Living and Learning. Sheffield, 2014. Holliday, Micheal. 2012. TOG 2012. RIAS Quarterly. Issue 12, Winter 2012:52- 54 HM Government, 2012. Building Information Modelling [PDF] Available at: <https:// www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/34710/12-1327building-information-modelling.pdf> [Accessed 7 February 2015]. Ivy, Robert. 2008. The Bones of Ghosts: Structuring the Ephemeral. In: MacKay-Lyons, Brian ed. Ghost: Building an Architectural Vision. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p. 81- 91 Khan, Lloyd. 2004. Home Work: Handbuilt Shelter. California; Shelter Publications, Inc. Lasansky, Medina. 2014. Mediating Architecture in Popular Culture. London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. LE, T.T. et al., 2012. Mix design and fresh properties for high-performance printing concrete. Materials and Structures, 45, pp. 1221â&#x20AC;&#x201C;1232. Lizotte, Cedric. 2014. Arup Develops 3D Printed Structural Steel. http://3dprint. com/5505/3d-printed-steel-arup/ [Accessed 9 February 2015] Loughborough University, 2014. Partnership aims to develop 3D concrete printing with contractor. [Online] Loughborough University. Available at: http://www.lboro. ac.uk/news-events/news/2014/november/204-skanska.html [Accessed: 11 February 2015] MacKay-Lyons, Brian. 2008. Ghost: Building an Architectural Vision. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.

Bibliography

115

Mackay-Lyons, Brian. 2014. Interview: Brian Mackay-Lyons on the State of Architectural Education and the Architect’s Role. Interviewed by Karissa Rosenfield. [Face to face] Archdaily, 22 October 2014. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/559906/interviewbrian-mackay-lyons-on-the-state-of-architectural-education-and-the-architect-s-role/ [Accessed 27 November 2014] Macy, Christine. 2008. Ghost Stories. In: MacKay-Lyons, Brian ed. Ghost: Building an Architectural Vision. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p15-17 Makstutis, Geoffrey. 2011. Intercultural Interactions in architectural education. London: ASD Projects, London Metropolitan University Malleson, A, 2015. Ready, steady BIM. RIBA Journal. Volume 122, No.1 Jan 2015. P2829. Marrs, Colin. 2015. Universities Not Equipping architecture Students for the Real World. [Online] Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/ report-universities-not-equipping-architecture-students-for-real-world/8677848.article Accessed: 2 February 2015 McCallum, Jamie. 2014. Wiston Lodge Live Build Experience. Interviewed by Lewis Grant. [Face to face group study] James Weir Building 12 December 2014. McCarter, Robert. 2008. The Thought of Construction. In: MacKay-Lyons, Brian ed. Ghost: Building an Architectural Vision. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p191209 McGuigan, Cathleen. 2011. Ghost Lab 13: Plotting a New Course for architecture. [Online] Available at: http://archrecord.construction.com/news/2011/02/110224ghost_ lab_13.asp [Accessed: 21 February 2015] McQueenie, Sean. 2014. Wiston Lodge Live Build Experience. Interviewed by Lewis Grant. [Face to face group study] James Weir Building 12 December 2014. Moir, Ruairidh. 2013. Processes, outcomes and results from building ‘A Transient Stanza’. [PDF] Self-published title. More, Rory. 2013. (Tog)etherness. RIAS Quarterly. Issue 16, Winter 2013:62-63 Murray, Christine. 2013. With EU directive looming, the RIBA’s plans to ditch Parts 1-3 are timely. Architects Journal. Volume 238, 13.12.13: 5

116

Nakabayashi, Nozomi. 2012. Design By Making. Domus. September 2012:10-15 Pallasmaa, Juhani. 2008. The Dance of Construction. In: MacKay-Lyons, Brian ed. Ghost: Building an Architectural Vision. New York: Princeton Architectural Press. p143152 Paz, Octavio.1990. Nobel Lecture: In Search of the Presentâ&#x20AC;?. The Nobel Foundation. [Online] Available at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/ laureates/1990/paz-lecture.html [Accessed 28 February 2015] Pearce, Martin and Toy, Maggie. Eds. 1995. Educating Architects. London: WileyAcademy Rall, Dutch. 2009. Design Build Bluff. â&#x20AC;&#x201C; PBS profile produced by Dutch Rall. [Video online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxoRWVyERxM&t=114 Accessed: 19 January 2015. Riachi, Alissar. 2014. Wiston Lodge Live Build Experience. Interviewed by Lewis Grant. [Face to face group study] James Weir Building 12 December 2014. RIBA, 2010. RIBA Validation Criteria at part 1 and part 2. http://www. architecture.com/files/ribaprofessionalservices/education/validation/ ribavalidationcriteriafromseptember2011parts1,23.pdf [Accessed 27.1.15] RIBA, 2013. RIBA Influences Professional Qualifications Directive changes and Outlines Principles for Future Education Reform. [Online] Available at :http://www.architecture.com/RIBA/Contactus/NewsAndPress/ NewsRIBANews/News/2013/RIBAinfluencesprofessionalqualificationsdirecti hangesandoutlinesprinciplesforfutureeducationreform.aspx [Accessed: 9 December 2014] Ricoeur, Paul. 1961. Universal Civilization and National Cultures. In: Frampton, Kenneth, 1992. Modern Architecture a Critical History. 3rd Ed. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. p314- 327. Rowland, Ingrid D. and Noble Howe, Thomas, (eds. and trans.) 1999. Vitruvius. Ten Books on Architecture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ruskin, John. 1849. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. New York: John Wiley

Bibliography

117

Sara, R. (2004) ‘Between the Studio and the Street: The Role of the Live Project in Architectural Education’, PhD thesis, University of Sheffield, UK. Shapeways inc., 2015. 3D printing materials. [Online] Available at: http://www. shapeways.com/materials [Accessed 9 February 2015] Simondetti, Alvise. 2013. Connectivity/ 3D printing makes better designers. [Online] Available at: http://thoughts.arup.com/post/details/275/3d-printing-makes-betterdesigners [Accessed 9 Februaury 2015] Spiller, Neil and Clear, Nic. 2014. Educating Architects: How Tomorrow’s practitioners will learn today. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. Steadman, Ian. 2013a. ESA and architects team up to design method of 3D printing lunar labs. 1 February 2013. [Online] Available at: <http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ archive/2013-02/01/foster-esa-moon-base-3d-printing> [Accessed 10 February 2015] Steadman, Ian. 2013b. The race to build the first 3D printed building. [Online] Available at:http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-06/04/architecture-and-3dprinting [Accessed 11 February 2015] Steele, Brett., 2013. Architectural Anti-realism: The AA School in 2013. In: Neil Spiller and Nic Clear. 2014. Educating Architects: How Tomorrow’s practitioners will learn today. London: Thames & Hudson Ltd. Stephen, Emily. 2013. Team Feedback Form. In: Moir, Ruairidh. 2013. Processes, outcomes and results from building ‘A Transient Stanza’. [PDF] Self-published title p89-90. Tavernor, Robert and Schofield, Richard. 2001. Andrea Palladio, the Four Books on Architecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts; The MIT Press Taylor, Piers. 2011. Studio in the Woods. [Online] Available at: http://www. invisiblestudio.org/selected_work/studio-in-the-woods/ [Accessed: 12 December 2014] University of Sheffield, School of Architecture, 2014. About Live Projects. [online] Available at: http://www.liveprojects.org/ [Accessed 24 November 2014

Vinnitskaya, Irina. 3D Printing ProtoHouse 1.0 and ProtoHouse 2.0 / Softkill Design. 24 Feb 2013. Available at: ArchDaily. http://www.archdaily.com/?p=335887 [Accessed 18Feb 2015.] Vitruvius. 1914. Ten Books on Architecture. Translated by Morgan, Morris Hicky London: Humphrey Milford Oxford University Press. Walker, Rob. 2014. The Heart of Hale County. [Online] Available at: http://www. fastcompany.com/3024175/the-heart-of-hale-county [Accessed 21 February 2015] Watt, Kathleen and Cottrell, Derek. 2006. Grounding the Curriculum. The international Journal of Learning. Melbourne: Common Ground Publishing. Wilson, Rob 2014. Education as Practice. Uncube Magazine. [Online] No. 26. Available at: http://www.uncubemagazine.com/magazine-26-14231695.html#!/page16 [Accessed 7 December 2014] Winston, Anna. 2013. A step closer to the printed house? Building design. No. 2046, 1 Feb 2013. p.22. WSP Group Limited, 2013. What is BIM? [Online] Available at: http://www.wspgroup. com/en/wsp-group-bim/BIM-home-wsp/what-is-bim/ [Accessed: 11 February 2015] Yestermorrow, 2015. Our philosophy. [Online] Available at: https://yestermorrow.org/ about/our-philosophy/ [Accessed 19 January 2015]

Bibliography

119

List of Figures

121

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Studion in the Woods, 2013. Completion. [Image online] Available at: http:// studiointhewoods.org.uk/ [9 January 2015] p. 10 Fig. 2. Tog Stuidio, 2012. Tog Studio Lighthouse. [Image online] Available at: http://www. togstudio.co.uk/ [16 December 2014] p. 14 Fig. 3. Lomas, Sebastian. 2013. Summer build at CAT. [Image online] Available at: http:// blog.cat.org.uk/2013/09/23/the-sanctuary-cat-professional-diploma-summer-buildingproject-2013/ [9 January 2015] p. 16 Fig. 4. Laugier, Marc-Antoine. 1755. A Primitive Hut. [Engraving] Available at: http://2. bp.blogspot.com/-Z8LIJsYvzyY/UCet_ZVZiJI/AAAAAAAAAGU/_UmPATApRQo/s1600/ primitive.jpg [11 February 2015] p. 20 Fig. 5. c.1890. The triumph of machine over hand. Author Unknown [Image online] Available at: http://progressiveera-block2-w10.wikispaces.com/Child+Labor+HP [27 February 2015] p. 22 Fig. 6. Yingchuang New Materials, 2014. 3D Printed Houses. [Image online] Available at: http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1375654/3d-printed-house-china-built-within-24-hours. jpg [24 February 2015] p. 26 Fig. 7. Yingchuang New Materials, 2014. Craning in 3D Printed Walls. [Image online] Available at: http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1375654/3d-printed-house-china-built-within24-hours.jpg [24 February 2015] p. 26 Fig. 8. Grant, Lewis. 2014. Small-scale 3D Printing Machine. [Photograph] Authorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Own. p. 30 Fig. 9. Rietveld Architects. 2015. Example of a 3D Printed Model. [Image online] Available at: http://www.in3dviet.vn/2014_12_01_archive.html [27 February 2015] p. 30 Fig. 10. Westerhaus, Sinje. 2015. Diagram of Concrete Printing Machine. [Drawing] Private Collection. p. 32

122

Fig. 11. Arup, 2014.Traditional Node. [Image online]. Available at: http://www.arup.com/ News/2014_06_June/05_June_Construction_steelwork_makes_3D_printing_premiere. aspx [9 February 2015] p. 34 Fig. 12. Arup, 2014. 3D Printed Node. [Image online]. Available at: http://www.arup.com/ News/2014_06_June/05_June_Construction_steelwork_makes_3D_printing_premiere. aspx [9 February 2015] p. 38 Fig. 13. Foster and Partners. 2013. Visualisation of 3D Printed Lunar Base. [Image online]. Available at: http://www.fosterandpartners.com/news/archive/2013/01/foster-partnersworks-with-european-space-agency-to-3d-print-structures-on-the-moon/ [9 February 2015] p. 38 Fig. 14. Foster and Partners. 2014. 3D Printed curved cladding panel.. [Image online]. Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2014/11/25/foster-partners-skanska-worlds-firstcommercial-concrete-3d-printing-robot/ [3 January 2015] p. 38 Fig. 15. Softkill Design. 2013. Protohouse. [Image online]. Available at: http://protohouse. tumblr.com/ [3 January 2015] p. 40 Fig. 16. Softkill Design. 2013. Stress Calculations of 3D Printed Structure. [Image online]. Available at: http://protohouse.tumblr.com/ [3 January 2015] p. 40 Fig. 17. Softkill Design. 2013. Fiberous structure. [Image online]. Available at: http://www. dezeen.com/2012/10/23/protohouse-by-softkill-design/ [3 January 2015] p. 41 Fig. 18. Author Unkown. Practical construction experience at Cooper Union School of Architecture. [Photograph] (Original Edited in Adobe Photoshop) (Hejduk and Canon, 1999:76-83). p. 48 Fig. 19. Morrison, Donald. 2013. Camaraderie. [Photograph] (Original Edited in Adobe Photoshop) Private Collection. p. 50 Fig. 20. Martines, Mark. 2010. Team Feed [Photograoh] Available: http://www.flickr.com/ photos/markogiuseppe/4799434420/in/pool-1440152@N24 [27 February 2015] p. 54 Fig. 21. Architectural Association School of Architecture. 2012. Mapping Out the Sequence. [Image online]. Available at: http://pr2012.aaschool.ac.uk/students/Big_Shed [22 February 2015] p. 54

List of Figures

123

Fig. 22. Ghost Lab. 2009. Team meeting. [Image online]. Available at: http://www. mlsarchitects.ca/mobile/ghost9.htm [18 December 2014] p. 55 Fig. 23. Invisible Studio. 2011. Design meeting with client. [Image online]. Available at: http://www.invisiblestudio.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/img_32021.jpg [22 February 2015] p. 55 Fig. 24. Ghost Lab. 2007. Raising from the Ground. [Image online]. Available at: http:// www.mlsarchitects.ca/mobile/ghost2.htm [14 December 2014] p. 58 Fig. 25. Ghost Lab. 2010. Experiencing the Building. [Image online]. Available at: http:// www.mlsarchitects.ca/mobile/ghost2.htm [14 December 2014] p. 58 Fig. 26. Hursley, Timothy. 2014. Client in Her New Home. [Photograph] (Freear and Barthel, 2014:82) p. 60 Fig. 27. Hursley, Timothy. 2014. Client in Her Previous House. [Photograph] (Freear and Barthel, 2014:83) p. 60 Fig. 28. Moir, Ruairidh, 2013. CNC Cut Plywood Sheets Enclose Structure. [Photograph] Private Collection p. 62 Fig. 29. Hursley, Timothy. 2011. Above. Setting up Laser-cut Formwork. [Image online]. Available at: http://www.archdaily.com/102358/lions-park-rural-studio/ lionsparkgatehursley/ [14 December 2014] p. 64 Fig. 30. Hursley, Timothy. 2014. Pouring Concrete. [Photograph] (Freear and Barthel, 2014:187) p. 64 Fig. 31. Architectural Association School of Architecture. 2012. [Image online]. Available at: http://designandmake.aaschool.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/bigshed02950x633.jpg, http://designandmake.aaschool.ac.uk/hooke-park-big-shed/ [22 February 2015] p. 66 Fig 32. Martines, Mark. 2010. Studio in the Woods testing structures [Image online] Available: http://www.flickr.com/photos/markogiuseppe/4799434420/in/pool-1440152@ N24 [27 February 2015] p. 70

124

Fig. 33. Hursley, Timothy. 2014. Testing Lamella Structure. [Photograph] (Freear and Barthel, 2014:119) p. 72 Fig. 34. Ghost Lab. 2007. Handcrafted Intricacy. [Image online] Available at: http://www. mlsarchitects.ca/mobile/ghost2/9.jpg, [14 December 2014] p. 74 Fig. 35. Author Unknown. 2013. Computer Crafted Intricacy. [Photograph] Private Collection. p. 74 Fig. 36. Hursley, Timothy. 2014. Experimenting with Hybrid-Adobe Bricks. [Photograph] (Freear and Barthel, 2014:79) p. 75 Fig. 37. Author Unknown. 2013. Architecture Challenge Pavilion. [Photograph] Private Collection. p. 76 Fig. 38. Hadrich, Ken. 1937. Apprentice-ship Method of Education. [Image online] Available at: http://www.hedrichblessing.com/classicportofolr.html [4 March 2015] p. 80 Fig. 39. Author Unknown. Theoretical element of Education. [Image online] Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/architects-urge-strathclyde-to-loan-emptystudios-to-gsa/8664021.article [4 March 2015] p. 82 Fig. 40. Tyler School of Art. Modern school of Architecture Studio. 2013. [Image online] Available at: http://tyler.temple.edu/student-work/architecture [4 March 2015] p. 82 Fig. 41. Architects Journal. 2015. Education vs Practice. [Image online] Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/daily-news/report-universities-not-equippingarchitecture-students-for-real-world/8677848.article [4 March 2015] p. 84 Fig. 42 Lomas, Sebastian. 2013. CAT, Off-site Fabrication . [Image online] Available at: http://blog.cat.org.uk/2013/09/23/the-sanctuary-cat-professional-diploma-summerbuilding-project-2013/ [9 January 2015] p. 86 Fig. 43. Hursley, Timothy. 2014. All Hands-on [Image online] Available at: http://www. ruralstudio.org/projects/rose-lee-house [16 December 2014] p. 90 Fig. 44. Bdonline. 2014. Potentials/Dangers of Computer Design. [Image online] Available at: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/jan-kaplicky-1937-2009-visionary-for-whomreality-fell-short/3131978.article [11 February 2015] p. 96

List of Figures

125

Fig. 45. Tog Studio, 2013. Embedded in the Landscape. [Photograph] Private Collection. p. 96 Fig. 46. Ghost Lab. 2010. Team Work. [Image online]. Available at: http://www. mlsarchitects.ca/mobile/ghost12/14.jpg [18 December 2014] p. 98 Fig. 47. Segal Self Build. 198-. Spirit of Self-build [Image online]. Available at: http://www. segalselfbuild.co.uk/about.html [18 December 2014] p. 99 Fig. 48. Gammelgaard Neilson, Anders. 2012. Tools of Craft. [Photograph] (Gammelgaard Neilson, Anders. 2012: 11) p. 102 Fig. 49. Gammelgaard Neilson, Anders. 2012. Detail. [Photograph] (Gammelgaard Neilson, Anders. 2012: 31) p. 102 Fig. 50. Bannert, Sophia. 2014. Innumerable Impressions [Image online] Available at: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/dark-itecture-by-sophia-bannert/8672708. article [2 February 2015] p. 102 Fig. 51. Hathaway, Sebb. 2014. After-project Activities. [Image online] Available at: http:// www.togstudio.co.uk/teaser-for-tog-2014-film-released/ [17 December 2014] p. 104 Fig. 52. Ghost Lab. 2008. Celebratory Bonfire. [Image online]. Available at: http://www. mlsarchitects.ca/mobile/ghost7/4.jpg [18 December 2014] p. 104 Fig. 53. Ghost Lab. 1994. Around the Fire. [Image online]. Available at: http://www. mlsarchitects.ca/mobile/ghost1/7.jpg [18 December 2014] p. 106 Fig. 54. Moir, Ruairidh. 2012. Final Cut, Signed. [Photograph] Private Collection. p. 108

126

Appendix A

127

Appendix A Having come across many Live Build examples during my research, I have documented a few that were particularly important to the dissertation to provide context to those referred to in the text.

Name : Architectural challenge Founded By: Visiting tutors from the Vienna School of Applied Arts: Bence Pap, Alex x. and Andrei Gheorghe. Location: Aarhus School of Architecture Denmark. Publications/Information: - n/a Background: As a complimentary course at the end of the semester, visiting tutors from the Institute of Applied arts in Vienna went to the Aarhus School of Architecture to host their Live Build project, Architecture Challenge. Instigated by the arrival of a new water-jet cutter at the school in Denmark this course concerned itself by testing the potential of this new piece of technology. This project also used the computer programs Rhino with the plug-in Grasshopper to design the pavilion. OSB was used for the structure. Type: Four week long workshop. Status: Temporary - completed June 2013.

128

Appendix A

129

Name : Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) Founded By: Gerard Morgan-Grenville in 1973 Location: Powys, Wales. Publications/Information: Crazy Idealists? The CAT Story. Harper, Peter. 1995 Voices from a disused quarry: Celebrating 40 years of the Centre for Alternative Technology. Shepherd, Allan. 2014. http://gse.cat.org.uk/ Background: Concerned with the search for globally sustainable, whole and ecologically sound technologies. They have a Graduate School based in the Wales Institute for Sustainable Education that offers a professional diploma in Architecture. This combines academic and hands-on learning in their educational approach. The hands-on element includes on site fabrication testing. Type: Graduate school linked with Wales Institute for Sustainable Education (WISE) Status: Permanent

130

Appendix A

131

Name : Design Build Bluff Founded By:: Hank Louis, 2000. Location: Bluff, Utah Publications/Information: http://www.designbuildbluff.org/ Background: Design Build Bluff is a graduate architecture program at the University of Utah focused on immersing students in hands-on, cross-cultural experiences. They work with the Navajo community of San Juan County in the Utah Four Corners. Focusing on collaboration with the local community and environment. Concerned with the lack of hands-on experience in architectural education this school focuses on practical elements. Type: Design and Build school Status: Permanent

132

Appendix A

133

Name : Design and Make Founded By: Architectural Association Location: Hooke Park campus of the AA, Dorset. Publications/Information: http://designandmake.aaschool.ac.uk/ Background: Students of the course develop abilities of architectural design through full-scale building. Situated in a rural location on the campus that researches timber and alternative rural architecture. Type: Masters course at the Architectural Association Status: : Permanent

134

Appendix A

135

Name : Ghost Lab Founded By: Brian-MacKay Lyons, 1994 Location: Upper Kingsburg, Nova Scotia. Publications/Information: http://www.mlsarchitects.ca/mobile/ghost.htm MacKay-Lyons. Ghost: Building an Architectural Vision. 2008. Background: Situated on the farm of Brian MacKay-Lyons, this was a twoweek, design and build summer workshop focusing on the model of hands-on learning of construction, similar to the master-builder tradition. Its rural location has an impact on the designs that are made, with a close consideration of the vernacular in these designs that ranged from accommodation to viewing platforms. Type: Annual two week summer workshop. Status: Temporary, currently on hiatus

136

Appendix A

137

Name : Rural Studio Founded By: D.K Ruth Samuel Mockbee and Andrew Freear in 1993. Location: Hale County, Alabama. Publications/Information: Rural Studio at Twenty Freear, Andrew. Barthel, Elena. 2014. Proceed and Be Bold. Andrea Oppenheimer Dean & Timothy Hursley 2005 Rural Studio: Samuel Mockbee and Architecture of Decency. Andrea Oppenheimer Dean & Timothy Hursley 2002 http://www.ruralstudio.org/ Background: : On the basis that everyone, rich and poor deserve the benefits of good design, Rural Studio was set up as a community based Design and Build program. Offering students of architecture a hands-on educational experience at the same time they provide well designed architecture for the benefit of the community in which they have established themselves- Hale County, Alabama. Centring themselves in this location they have also created projects in three surrounding counties. Their projects are not limited by a short time-span â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they are permanent additions to Hale County. Type: Off-campus Design and Build program at the University of Auburn. Status: Permanent.

138

Appendix A

139

Name : Studio in the Woods Led By: Peirs Taylor, Meredith Bowles, Gianni Botsford, Kate Darby, Toby Lewis, Erect Architecture and Studio Weave, with Peter Clegg and Ted Cullinan as critics Location: UK, - multiple locations Publications/Information: - http://studiointhewoods.org.uk/ Background: Studio in the woods is a gathering of people interested in construction including professional architects and students. Inspired by personal dissatisfaction with architectural education due to the lack of contact with construction and materials. Informal and recreational to some extent these projects focus on the celebration of building outdoors with good company, whilst informing some productive debates on construction experimentation. Type: Annual 5-day summer workshop Status: Temporary

140

Appendix A

141

Name : Tog Studio Founded By: Richard Campbell, Lynne Cox, Chris Hall and Michael Holliday. Location: Isle of Tiree, Inner Hebrides Publications/Information: RIAS Quarterly winter 2013 RIAS Quarterly Winter 2013 http://www.togstudio.co.uk/

Background: Concerned with empowering people, regardless of prior experience or skill, to build. Their projects provide on-site learning environments that are not found in the educational system. Tog was founded on the belief that formal architectural education does not always deliver to students the practical abilities that the industry requires of them. Their projects are aimed at providing some of these incredibly valuable skills in a rural location and with a strong consideration for the value of teamwork. Type:: Annual two week summer workshop Status: : Both temporary and permanent

142

Appendix A

143

Name : A Transient Stanza Founded By: Ruairidh Moir Location: Isle of Lewis, Outer Hebrides. Publications/Information: http://rona.co.nf/ http://www.bard.co.nf/ RIAS Quarterly Summer 2013

Background: This was the product of a Masters in Architecture thesis developed by a student at Strathclyde University. The Live Build project involved students of architecture gathering at the Northern most point of the Isle of Lewis, Ness. Over five days students were encouraged to get involved in the development of this structure and there was a strong focus on shared ownership of the build. The project extended further than the site, into the local pub and a level of camaraderie amongst the team developed. On-site duties included preparation of the site, preparation and erection of frames each of which involved much hands-on experience. Type: Masters thesis, 5-day one-off event Status: Temporary, completed in August 2013.

144

Appendix A

145

Name : Wiston Lodge Founded By: University of Strathclyde in 2010 Location: Wiston Lodge, South Lanarkshire. Publications/Information: http://www.wistonlodge.co.uk/news/stories/university-of-strathclydestudents-complete-live-build-shelters Background: Architecture students take part in this event as part of their first semester design project. Focusing on making students aware of the implications of building at 1:1 scale from an early stage in their education this project involves a simple brief of sheltering. This project sees students take a design from conception to construction allowing them to have experience of the full process both theoretical and practical. Type: Annual 2-day workshop Status: : Temporary

146

Appendix A

147

Name : Yestermorrow Design and Build School Founded By: John Connell in 1980 Location: Warren, Vermont. Publications/Information: https://yestermorrow.org/ Background: A design and build school that offers hands-on courses focusing on crafts in architecture and construction. With a focus on experiential learning to teach students good design and craftsmanship they believe that architects are all too often trained without enough building experience. They also have a focus on developing a community through considering closely the way people build houses. Type: Design and Build school Status: : Permanent

148

Ethics form: Approved for interview by Dr Andrew Agapiou

Appendix B

149

Appendix B Interviewer: Lewis Grant Interviewee: John Dawson, Site Manager. Haden Construction. Interview Setting: Interview conducted in a cafĂŠ on Sunday the 14th December 2014 at 12am. Affiliation with interviewee: John is someone I know as a running coach but who I have had regular conversations about the construction industry including visiting sites he has worked on.

Transcript: (Start of Interview) LG: How long have you worked in the construction industry? JD: Since 1978, I served my apprenticeship as a joiner and moved up through supervisor, assistant manager, and site manager over the years. I served my time at a small building company which was invaluable, we done everything from repairing windows to building schools, right across the board, so you learned the whole array, and because it was a small company there was an electrician on board a plumber, brick layer and a plasterer so you were working hand in hand with these guys every day, so you got to know what they were doing, how it was supposed to be done, which helped from my point of view in later life with supervision. Now, Iâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve got to understand what everyone is doing, even the architects. Youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;ve really got to understand what they are trying to say on their details and on their drawings; some are brilliant some are not so good. But again I think that all depends on the level of participation the architect takes in the job and the amount their being paid and the amount they are being asked to provide.

150

LG: So would you say it’s the architects motivation or involvement that is important to the success of a project? JD: I personally feel the more motivated and the more the architect is involved in the job the easer it runs, the detailing is better and they are more approachable. The bigger projects, I’m working on one just now, on a school in Falkirk, and we are quite lucky because it’s Falkirk council so they aren’t as money orientated, so I can contact the architect and he’s there in two minutes to answer questions and re-detail and stuff like that. Things are changing in the construction industry when it comes to architects and builders working in partnership rather than working for separate people. LG: Considering your experience of working with all members of a construction team, how have you generally found architects to work with? JD: It varies, Lewis. It’s easy to draw something on a piece of paper and say go and build that, it’s not always so easy to put it together and architects attitudes are an issue, because in the past the old-school architect would have had everything detailed, every single thing detailed, but nowadays it’s like everything else in the industry; corners get cut and there’s not as much information going on drawings and the younger architects that I’ve come across, some are good some are bad. Some have an attitude ‘I’m the architect, I’m in charge, you’ll do what I tell you to do’ the ones who are like that don’t really get much do on a job and that’s the jobs that are always behind programme, never build right, always got problems afterwards. The approachable guys are the ones whose jobs are always running smooth and are always detailed properly. LG: Going back to that ego thing you mentioned, where do you think that comes from? JD: I would say a lot of the older architects aren’t so egotistical but a lot of the younger ones that are coming through are, a wee bit more aloof. LG: How have things changed over your experience in the construction industry; have you noticed a development in the attitude of architects? JD: Yes, I’ve noticed a big change. There is an architecture practice we have been working quite closely with and they have two or three older partners and they have

Appendix B

151

one or two younger partners; and when I say younger generation I mean mid-thirties early forties, that age, I’m not talking about you guys who are just starting to come through, I’m talking about that mid-generation. Where as the guys in their late-sixties early seventies, these are the guys we want to work with. And that’s because they are not afraid to come onto site and get their boots on, get their jackets on and climb a scaffold because you architects have got to do that. LG: Do you think this difference in attitude between the generations of architects has to do with their education? JD: I think a lot of it is just attitude, the attitude of people in that age group from about fifty to about thirty five, my age group, professionals tend to think they are something better than you. I even get looked down upon in my profession as a site manager, because now to be a site manager you have to go to university, get a degree to be a site manager but these guys come from university and they go straight in and they are absolutely hopeless, because they haven’t got a clue how the construction industry works. OK they are brilliant on paper, their paper work is fantastic, but their jobs are running behind they aren’t on budget. It’s all about experience, I mean I’ve just worked my way up and I’ll stand beside any site manager with a degree and give them a run for their money. I probably know as much, if not more, of the basic fundamentals of how a construction site works, and how things are put together, LG: As a site manager what are the main issues that you come across when working with an architect? JD: The main issue I would find is approachability. The architect I worked with on the Birks cinema was first class, he would come in every morning, every morning without fail, because he lived in the village so on his way into work he would come in and he would spend ten, fifteen minutes asking if there were any problems from yesterday and so on. And that’s the kind of people that are part of the team because you’ve got to be part of the team, if your not part of the team then it doesn’t work, you become separated from the team. Approachability is a big thing if you are an architect. As well as that, I would say being able to listen and take in what’s being said to you rather than writing it off because ‘I’m the architect, you’ll do what I say’ because the architects not right all the time, just because they’ve got it down in black and white on a piece of paper doesn’t mean it’s the best way to do it. A good architect should be able to take criticism, I’m a great believer that its never too late to learn, so if you’ve done something and someone comes to you and says this is a better way to do it then if you

152

take that on board and move forward then you become a better person and better at what you’re doing. LG: Do you think approachability purely comes down to personality? JD: Yes, big time. LG: I’m just wondering if you think that kind of thing can be taught to someone? JD: I think over time it can be taught to some people. But it can be an expensive lesson. There are architects out there that I’ve dealt with for twenty years who are the same, unapproachable and they don’t move forward and their drawings still have the same issues it’s the same things you’re phoning them about, ‘look this doesn’t work, this isn’t detailed properly, I’ve not got a detail for this… we spoke about this on the last job’ and a lot of the times they are just using details out of books, rather than looking at the issues and doing their own details. There are millions of details out there, it’s easy to just pick one and there you go, copy and paste, and that’s it there you go but that doesn’t always work. LG: That ability (copy and paste) is maybe hindering their understanding? JD: Yeah! Where before the old-school architect used to sit at their desk and draw it, they couldn’t copy and paste a detail, so they had to understand what the details were, and I think that has been lost in the architectural profession the actual sitting down, because they are not doing the detail all they are doing is copy and paste ‘right that’s that one done’ rather than thinking about how is this going to work. ‘Is that going to work, no its not…’ All they are thinking about is ‘right, which page is it on. And that’s a big factor. LG: Does it come down to the technology then, if you didn’t have a computer then you couldn’t ignore it? JD: Yeah, you had to know how it was built and how it was put together. LG: (After explaining the theory of Live Build projects) Do you think this description sounds like a solution or provision of approachability skills?

Appendix B

153

JD: That has taken a long time to be noticed in your industry. And be accepted. That has been a big factor, the architecture industry has taken a long time to accept that its moved from guys sitting at desks physically hand-drawing something to computers coming on board and then losing the knowledge of how it all goes together. The old school know how it goes together but the middle generation don’t. They can draw it, but are they really drawing it or is the computer drawing it. And I’ve had major fights with architects as a result of that one. The best architects in the industry are the architects who are involved big time in the project and big time with the site team, who want to be part of the team. And the architect should be taking the lead when he comes on to site not standing back its their project at the end of the day so they should be taking the lead. And if they aren’t understanding something that’s been done then they should feel obliged to come forward and say ‘look I’ve drawn this but is this how it should be’ or ‘I’ve drawn it and you’re doing it but there’s something no right’ and that’s when a team come together and say ‘well it’s no right there’s easier ways to do this.’ So being able to listen is one of the biggest pieces of advice I could give to you as an architect, being able to listen and take on board what guys in the team, who know what’s going on and have huge amounts of experience are advising you on. And architects who can take that on board are better architects. LG: Do think the theory of live build as I’ve explained it to you would provide these skills? JD: Yeah I think it would. I think architects need to get out onto site, and even in that case (live build projects) where they are actually doing things, even a foundation detail architects should be out there, wellies on ‘right how’s this put together ‘ (runs through process of creating a foundation detail) ‘right I’ve done it physically, I know how it’s done.’ Even roofs, yeah get up there and give that a go. LG: Do you think then, that site experience is more important than something supplementary like Live Build projects? JD: It depends what your site experience is going to be, if you’re going to come to site, probably coming to site and shadowing a site manager, even for a week would be invaluable. Just observation. It’s difficult to come to site on a live project that’s on a programme and on a budget to bring an architect onto site and say ok you’re mixing the concrete today, stuff like that. But to actually physically be there for eight hours a day for a week, rather than thirty-five minutes every two weeks, because you’re not

154

seeing the project, you’re not seeing the build. LG: Do you think it is important for an architect to be able to do these things like, mixing the concrete? JD: I think its important to understand how to mix it, how much sand how much cement how much gravel, that kind of thing. Something that’s hit me big time on a job I’m on just now where we are taking half a roof of and old school and we are raising it, but we aren’t raising the outside pitch we are only raising the inside ceiling level. So half the roof comes of and the other half stays on and then there’s a new half roof goes on with the inside of the roof raised but the outside stays the same so when its all put back together it all just looks the same but inside it’s higher. And I think we are on revision L already, because well it’s mostly down to the engineering. These guys are an absolute nightmare, they are just not getting how it should be constructed, and now we are on revision L and I could go back my paper work to July and say well that’s what we spoke about then, you know, six months ago. That’s listening for you. Listening and taking on board what the guys who are building it are saying, because the guys who are building it know how it should be constructed. And you know right away when you get a set of architectural drawings in, and on them you’ve got ‘typical detail’ because the moment it says typical detail, that just annoys me, because there are not two builds that are typical. Nine times out of ten you’ve got to go back to the architect and ask him for a proper detail for what you’re doing. Where as, if he was on site and he knew how that was constructed he could sort it out right then. But Lewis, you’re either an architect or you’re a builder. To be both you’d have to go through twenty-five years in the building industry and then start you’re architectural education. It’s good to know a wee bit, the fundamentals of the construction industry. That’s why the big, big companies work as teams where the architect and the builder are like one person, where they have meeting on a daily basis and things are getting banded about the table, both listening to each other and that’s how big jobs move forward. Teamwork, from an architect’s point of view is a big thing, on all scales of building. A lot of it’s down to the individual architect, the success of all these projects. LG: When I’ve been on Live Build projects they get manufactures of certain construction products such as roofing or cladding and they come and teach us how the products work and how to fix them on, things like that. Most people enjoy this and I’m wondering if you think this would be beneficial to all students. JD: Everybody’s attitude towards these kinds of things is totally different you know, “I’m

Appendix B

155

the architect, I’m not here to put it together, that’s what the builder does” but these guys never learn. You’ll come across these kinds of guys in practice. LG: Live build projects are likely to be more popular in the future, but it has to be considered what is the best way to go about developing and employing them. Do you have any suggestions on what they should focus on in order to address the most important issues? JD: What you’re describing in the Live Build projects that you’ve taken part in is what I was talking about earlier, it’s all based on working as a team. Because in that instance up there (referring to TOG Studio Live Build projects) if you didn’t work as a team it wouldn’t have worked so and that’s the same when you go back to your office and your architectural office, you know, you’re not a lone person. Ok, the architect’s the architect but, if you look at the minutes of a meeting there’s the structural team, there’s the design team architect, engineer, surveyor then there’s the build team, and on ours we have the construction team, and the construction team is the architect the engineer the site manager and the construction manager and we try to hide nothing from anyone, if there is a problem arises and I’m emailing my boss, the architect gets a copy so he’s aware of what’s happening and it can be sorted there rather than going under the radar. Work as a team and listen and take on board criticism and don’t get lazy with your drawings. The typical detail thing is fine but if you can draw your own it is far better, I know it’s difficult nowadays because it depends what practice you go onto, a lot of practices are push, push, push this is go to be ready in such an amount of time and that’s a big factor in the construction industry now why its all falling to pieces and why it has been falling to pieces for the past twenty-five, thirty-years. LG: I understand this typical detail issue, that’s what it was like in the practice I have worked in. But its about the fact that time is the issue. JD: That’s what it all is now, gone are the days where you were sitting at a desk and you just drew it. The thing is if it moves on, hey, computers are great, ok there are banks of details that can get drawings passed through building control and stuff like that but then you’ve really got to sit down and say right is this detail relevant to what we are going to be doing because at the start of a job the first thing I do is sit down and I go through all the drawings and I look at all the typical details and I do a request for information list, which can be, you know, that length (gestures with hand to indicate a long list) and most of it is “relevant detail to this specific job…” and I do that every single job, and it really annoys ninety percent of the architects (laughing)

156

LG: I think the thing is though that if you want to get a practice up and running you have to have money coming in and that causes this “typical detail” scenario. JD: Yeah but you have to be able to work with people and practices that last the longest are practices that work hand in hand with the construction industry, and they end up with a good reputation, and reputation is everything in the industry, and every industry I suppose. Ok. LG: Yeah, that’s great. Thanks very much, John.

(End of Interview)

Appendix B

158

Ethics form: Approved for interview by Dr Andrew Agapiou

Appendix C

159

Appendix C Interviewer: Lewis Grant Interviewee: Dilveer Hoonjan, Jamie McCallum, Sean McQueenie and Alissar Riachi, Interview Setting: Interview conducted in seminar room one on Friday the 12th December 2014 at 1pm. Affiliation with interviewees: The participants are all fellow students with one member from first, second, third and fourth year. Some of them I have known prior to this interview, others have nominated themselves to take part in the interview.

Transcript (Start of Interview) LG: (Introduces dissertation subject and findings of research so far, as well as his experience of his first Live Build project at Wiston Lodge in first year. Mentions benefits he has seen in later years of education as a result of this experience in first year.) I want to move the discussion on to the experience you guys’ had at your Wiston Lodge Live Build, because maybe I’m just really interested in this subject, so I want a nonbiased student opinion of this experience. If I get one thing out of this it’s just to have a good discussion about your experiences at Wiston Lodge, and general thoughts on it. So lets go round the table and start of with a description of your experiences. AR: Well, I was really impressed with it because in my home country the way of teaching architecture is more theoretical so they wont get design studio until maybe second or third year. So when I came here we get design studio and when you start doing this knowing that your design might actually get built, and it was actually our first project, the nice thing is that you take everything into account. And right now we are doing our second project where we chose our site from Wiston Lodge I noticed how most people knowing that this time it’s not going to be built they tend to omit some

160

information, because they are like ‘no one is going to know if this tree is three metres away or five meters away.’ I think it taught us to pay attention to detail. Also I think the most beneficial thing was teamwork. Now we are split into units from the beginning of the year so we are with our units but when we have been building together, this experience creates this bonding between us all and you start knowing the strengths of people in our group, for example, we got divided into different groups in our unit, one is design, one is construction, one is materials and one is about the presentation. So it’s like you start knowing people, you start knowing where their strengths lie and you start knowing how to separate a team so that it functions in the best way, because you know that this thing needs to be executed. It’s kind of like what you might expect one day in a real life projects, you have the engineer who doing the construction and you have the architect who is the designer. This experience was really good doing it was really valuable. It integrates practice with theory, even focusing more on the practical part. LG: Was there anything that you didn’t enjoy about the experience? AR: It was cold! (Laughing) LG: Would you have rather done it somewhere else? AR: I’m not sure; it was really Scottish experience, which was great. I really enjoyed it, especially the atmosphere inside the lodge; it felt like one big family. The experience is not just about architecture it’s about helping people to bond. You know it was great when we could all sit together and eat homemade soup and stuff like that. I don’t think there was anything I didn’t like. I didn’t like the fact that we only had one or two weeks to prepare our designs, and most people were pre-fabricating their designs, which, doesn’t give a lot of time. LG: How much time did you have to build on-site? AR: We started at 12am, we had till 1om for lunch and then after that till it was dark, so maybe 5:30, 6 o’clock and then we had to present at 8pm. LG: That was all on the one day? AR: Yes. DH: We had a day and a half. (2010) LG: That’s right we had a day and a half. (2010)

Appendix C

161

SM: We had one day. (2011) JM: We had one day as well. (2012) It was very much the same as Alissar. It was a case of get there at 12am and work until it was dark. LG: You guys must have had to do so much preparation? AR: For some units it was really frustrating. For example our design was really simple and we had it pre-fabricated and all we had to do was assemble it on-site. But some teams had lots of details to work out onsite and they were really tired at the end of the day. And it was bad because when you have such limited time you can’t really afford to pay that much attention to small details. LG: Do you think that held you back then; having such a limited amount of time? Would you have learned more if it had been longer? AR: I think it has both a plus and a minus. The plus is that you focus more, no room for procrastination, you focus and you get it finished. But maybe if we had more than just one day we could have explored the way the structure works on the site. Because it’s not just about putting it there, it’s about knowing how it functions. LG: I remember we made some mock-up joints before we went to site, is it that kind of experimentation you mean? AR: Yeah ok, you do that in the workshop but that’s not what I mean. Our design was a moveable one, so we made it and then we decided where we wanted to put it, so it takes some time to decide exactly where it would fit. Despite the fact that it’s a project called ‘Room Without a View’ it’s still about putting the structure in the right location. SM: Did Derek (First Year Director) give you a specific site? AR: We told him that we wanted a flat site, he gave us a flat site but then we noticed that our structure just didn’t fit in well so then we found another place and put it there instead. But maybe if we had more time we would have explored more and found an even better site. LG: On my experience at Wiston Lodge we were all told to assume that our site would be flat. Looking back that makes it quite unrealistic because in a rural setting like this it’s never going to be perfectly flat unless it’s a manicured green or something.

162

AR: Assuming a flat site is what we did with our design but then we chose a slope beside a stream, really inclined, really not flat. But when we put it there it just worked. LG: So maybe that’s, good that you got to experiment in that way. Good. Moving on to second year. JM: Very similar to yourself Alissar in the way it was conducted, we were over two days because of the size of our year group so there were six structures one day and six the following day. So some people went down one day and the others went down the next day. Everyone was getting the same amount of time on-site. So in terms of timescale it was the same, in terms of site selection we didn’t know the site. So the process was that everyone in the year made a proposal for Wiston Lodge and that was narrowed down to, I think thirty proposals, and everyone got to speak about them and then the best were then voted for. It was the top twelve that were voted for and they went forward. Anyone whose design was chosen as one of those twelve, for example mine one was one of the twelve that got picked, so I moved to another team so I didn’t work on my own design, and I think that added to the experience. At first I was a bit disappointed that I wouldn’t get to be in control of mine but at the end of it I actually preferred working on another teams because I felt a little bit more ownership over it and I felt that I was responsible for following what the author of the original design wanted. Making sure I wasn’t steering it away from what he had wanted. So I think that aspect added a bit more depth to it. But not having a site or any context, I understand the title of this project is ‘A Room Without a View’ so it is all internal you’re not supposed to have a site and a context, but even a room in the middle of nowhere has to have some kind of narrative or context behind it so, fair enough it might not be a totally flat site, but even if it is a flat site it would be nice to understand the site before you went to it. My team opted for pre-fabrication of the design, in my year we were the only group to do so, and that was purely to do with the size of the project. In terms of design we didn’t have a lot of time before we left, so a lot of it was time spent in the workshop doing the pre-fabrication. I feel this added another level to it as well because we were meeting at lunch times, Friday afternoons, anytime we could get into the workshop as a team and do it and most of the time, everyone was there, everyone was committed. It was only if someone was busy for another reason that people weren’t showing up, So, although it maybe wasn’t their design, they didn’t have that much ownership over it, but they still felt part of a team, they still turned up and wanted to be there, not because they had to be there but because they actually wanted to be there. LG: Why do you think that was?

Appendix C

163

JM: I feel it was the company, the kind of community thing between everyone, picking up on what was mentioned earlier, its when you come together and do things like that, you’re spending a lot of time with the same people so naturally you do bond. Same as you said earlier some of the people I did Wiston (Lodge) with I still talk to on a regular basis, didn’t speak to them before hand because we were all just coming in, we were new to the University so definitely it does help with the bonding. The only thing that I would say would be about the actual scale of the project, as much as I enjoyed it, we are preparing for an architecture course and it’s a shelter that we’ve built, in reality you don’t build shelters for a client in their back garden for a hut, do you know what I mean? So the actual scale of the project is actually really small in terms of what’s going to be built in modern architecture offices. So I feel that the scale of the project is too small, but if you were to go any larger that would present its own challenges. So you are quite limited in live building, especially at first year. When you come in at an entry level of first year you don’t know a lot so the small scale is all you can do. But for example if a live build was held in fifth year, with five years worth of education, a bit of time in practice, I mean it could be a completely different project, I couldn’t think what you could build with that, it would be quite different. LG: Do you think it loses value because its not a project with a specific client as it would be in the real world? JM: No, I don’t feel it loses any value or becomes any less significant. I think the physical act of building itself, having something tangible rather than just drawing is enough. Especially at first year, you’re happy to see something tangible that you’ve built and have photographs and be able to say that you done that in an afternoon, do you know what I mean? LG: So do you think that the feeling of achievement is a big part of it? JM: Yeah definitely, even the informal side of it; obviously it is a uni trip. Everyone in my group was so pleased with the project and they’re going home and uploading pictures on Facebook and stuff like that. I mean how many of your friends put on what they do at uni. It shows that people are proud of what they’ve achieved, enough to share it with their friends. There’s something quite nice about that. SM: I think pride is quite an interesting point. Because I found when people are asking me, ‘what do you do?’ then you know, architecture and actually being able to show them something instead of just saying, ‘I’m sitting writing essays’ or ‘I’m doing sums all day in maths’. We didn’t budget on ours, we were just told to source the materials, which was quite difficult because it gave you an appreciation for how much things

164

cost or how difficult it is to find things. We made a 1:20 and a 1:5 model just to test out different connections. And then we built it in the workshop and just took it in the van to site so it was done we just had to put it on a tree, because ours was a design that was hanging from a tree. I think it would be interesting if you done one of these projects every year, or if you done one every second year, you know, first third and fifth to get experience of it and test how much you’ve learned between each year. Because I think, it’s only this year that I’ve really started to appreciate structure, and really got in about details in design. Second year is the first time you do tech sections; environmental calculations and you’re mostly just relying on what books are saying or what you’re being told in lectures. But third year is the first year I’ve know what structure I really want to use and I know how I’m going to use it and I know how it actually goes together. But it would be nice to have some work on site to show you the limits of what’s possible or instead of you going along to the engineer and they are questioning you on why you want to do that but you are a bit stuck because you aren’t in a position of having hand on experience of dealing with it, but I think that is maybe where the year-out, in practice maybe would help with. But you can’t really do your year-out any earlier but you could probably fit in more live build projects at different scales. Or even if you had teams of, first second third and fourth and fifth years all working together they would all learn together. Because I feel if I went up to Wiston Lodge with the first years right now I’d probably learn more and they would obviously learn from me too. LG: I think vertical integration is lacking a bit and I think that kind of scenario would improve things. SM: The second project in first year, ‘Room with a View’ Would be interesting to see built because it’s of a scale that is small enough to be built by students but its not too complicated, but it has that extra bit of detail. AR: We are at the stage with that project where we have chosen a site at Wiston Lodge and right now we have had presentations and one of the issues is that after being on site I have been really precise taking into account where the trees are and how I could position my design with this in mind, but then I look at other people who know its not going to be built and they are like ‘no one is going to know the distance between these two trees’ and they end up with something that wouldn’t work in reality. LG: What is it that makes you be so precise? AR: The idea is that I create something, that’s why I’ve chosen a site, that’s why I’ve chosen a view because I’m using this site, why would I change it if I have chosen it. I think it teaches you to be more precise and more detailed, better to start this as a habit now rather than later.

Appendix C

165

DH: By doing that you learn how to deal with these awkward situations where as people who aren’t being as precise, when it comes to real life they don’t know how to deal with it because usually they just make it up, but they can’t do that in reality. If you start dealing with the site properly it is definitely beneficial. SM: It gives you more to discuss as well, because you’ll research more and you’ve taken these things into account instead of just overlooking them. And those same people, I notice them struggling now to come up with better designs because of that lack of depth. On the other hand people who have been really quite delicate or paid attention to the detail, it really helps. LG: That’s a great point. If you add more value to your project just by being specific about the details of the site, ‘that tree is right there, and it has that view’ then you have a nicer story and justification, and if you have that in the design it makes it better. Learning to be site specific is very valuable design ability. SM: That was something mentioned at a lecture last week that people aren’t sketching so much anymore or making models as much, they are just coming up with a concept and going straight onto computer programs and for the next six weeks they are doing all these great looking renders but it comes back to it and they have no idea why they’ve orientated it the way they have. AR: The Live build experiences make us find this balance between the design and the technical. Yeah its alright if we can create designs that are really, you know, abstract or whatever, but we have to know how it works. LG: Can you imagine going through your whole architectural education and you haven’t interacted with something that you’ve designed. DH: Even just doing a model, model making, that is still building something. I think they really help; you can still interact with them, see how the light is getting in. LG: And I supposed you also get to question the structure through whatever material you are making the model from. DH: Yeah exactly, even if its at a smaller scale. JM: I think it helps actually having the materials, so like for this experience at Wiston, you’re building with OSB, rope and willow and that kind of stuff, and so we were

166

encouraged to go and cut down willow, get bits of rope from B&Q and OSB and things like that. I think actually having something tangible like if you’re building with brick for example it helps if you know what a brick looks like, but not just looking up pictures on Google but picking it up and feeling it and seeing how it works with cement and how it goes together with other materials. Rather than, for example saying that you’re designing with steel and having never touched a bit of steel in your life. I think it definitely helps to have a tangible understanding of the materials. DH: For our design at Wiston Lodge it was made out of pallets. They were used as a modular unit and made up the entire shelter. We had to make a scale model of this design, so we sat and made all these scale pallets at 1:50, but obviously that model was totally different to actual pallets in terms of weight of it, so when we made the smaller scale model it seemed fine but when we came to actually building it things were falling over because of the weight, we didn’t really know how much it weighed before we built it, but that actually had a big influence on the design of it. If we had tested a section of it at 1:1 that would have alerted us before we attempted to make the real thing. SM: One of my lecturers suggested that it would be great to go out onto a building site in first year for a week just to experience it, even just carrying bricks for a week or laying them. DH: I think that is important, going on site and being able to interact with people that are building the building. Being able to have a dialogue with them, not being like ‘oh I’m the architect and I’m better than you’ kind of thing but be able to talk to them. SM: At the end of the day architecture is creating the space for the right activities for people who are using it but you’ve got to consider who’s building it as well. I heard a story recently about the aquatics centre and the velodrome in London, very similar designs but on the aquatics centre by Hadid, she said she wanted the roof two columns at either end and nothing supporting in between which took the engineers three months to do all the steel work for the concrete roof and all the services are in the roof so engineers had to go into the roof and crawl through it just to get to whatever they needed to change. Where as in the velodrome, they built the roof at low level and just hoisted it into place. It was up within days, and all the services were behind panels so an engineer could come in and access it easily. So you can tell there, there’s a difference in experience of being on site and an understanding of the user as well. AR: So I guess it’s a good approach to start us immediately in this frame of mind, it was

Appendix C

167

literally the first project and they (the tutors) are like ‘you are going to do something now, small scale, but in six weeks you’re going to have to build it.’ It makes you think, from the very beginning you start thinking about how this is actually going to work. DH: You’re right because when it come to us actually doing our designs I’ve been thinking as if I was actually going to build this, but my tutors are like, ‘no, do this do that’ but I think, ‘well no, that’s not going to work.’ I still feel maybe we aren’t being taught as technically as maybe we should be. AR: I think so too. I come from a background of civil engineers, so when I mention to my father the design I’m making, and mention to him what my tutors are advising me on. My father responds like ‘all these architects have no idea what they are doing!’ (laughing) Well I do notice when they (tutors) give us advice they don’t always take these technical things into account, like I asked my tutor ‘how do you think I should support this?’ and he advises me to talk to one of the engineers. But I feel that he should be able to tell me how to do that. SM: In my opinion first year is more about just pure design and being able to come up with a concept and considering what it is like to inhabit a space. And then it’s not until second year you start to get more technical. JM: Technical sections and details, that’s when you learn the details, you go away find out for yourself and you find what exactly is required. I’m actually doing this right now. SM: The final project in second year is the library, which is called ‘To Learn’ and ‘To Build’ it can be done in any material but mostly it is done in timber since the project before that, the church project, has to be done in timber construction. So there are certain projects where you are limited to certain materials so it forces you to learn the details for them. But it would be good, even if, well ok a library is going to be far too big for sixty students to build but it would be good even to just build 1:1 or 1:2 prototypes of certain parts of a design like that. If you are supposed to be learning how it is supposed to be built then rather than 1:100 model of the design. DH: I think as the years go on you get more into technical details of how the walls are built up and stuff like that, I think it is important to look at how you would actually build that up at 1:1 so you can see all the elements that are actually found on site. When I was in practice I went to one of the sites and there were things that I was seeing that I didn’t even know what they were. I think that is important, it would be good every year if you were to get some kind of interaction on site whether that comes in the form of a live build or even just going on to a site where a project is actually getting built just to

168

see what materials are being used and conventions that are being used. SM: That is what I was thinking because, with technical sections, they can look amazing and you can understand how a building comes together but because of the insulation and other things it can be hard to actually see what is going on like where the primary and secondary structure is actually sitting. So it can be quite easy to get lost in the insulation, because there is a lot of stuff hidden behind that in section, you don’t really understand that, or where its going, or what happened when it comes to a corner or in wall to roof details how they are actually wrapped up because in a section its just a line that sits behind another line. LG: How would you find out about that then? SM: I would just read about it. But if you had go and build it then you’d learn from your mistakes and that much better than reading it in a book and forgetting it, because if you make a mistake then you probably won’t make it again. LG: I remember the first time I encountered construction details and I found it difficult to read them, I didn’t understand them in 3D and that was after having been on Wiston Lodge in first year. So it shows that this kind of experience doesn’t cover everything, it gives you a basic introduction to making things stand up. I would like to know if you think there is a better way to introduce students to construction details like that you’ve mentioned that you come across in a book. Is there a better way to teach that, like building a mock-up part of a wall? SM: What would be pretty cool to do is have first and third years working together. So first year design something and have a competition to narrow down what is going to be built and then the third years get involved and try to detail it and then first and third years work together to build it, so that the first years can start to get a bit of a grasp of details but they are just going through the concept of designing, where as the third years aren’t coming in until the detailing stage, and they are getting a bit more experience of that and they are seeing what it actually looks like, and if it is wrong then they know what they need to work on, or they know how easy or hard their details are to understand. Because obviously the details we do are totally different to an engineer’s ones, so much less complex, that is obviously where things are getting missed out or misunderstandings occur. LG: Coming back to the issue we discussed earlier about pride in work. Do you think that only applies to people who study architecture, wouldn’t someone who studies something else take as much pride in having written an essay or achieved a body of work?

Appendix C

169

SM: I think that when you hand-draw a drawing, instead of doing it on a computer, the kind of satisfaction you get from that would probably be the same satisfaction as you would get from writing a really good essay or solving a difficult problem in physics, but the actual physically built something is a totally different thing. My cousin is looking at doing architecture and he wasn’t convinced, and I said ‘how many other subjects, other that maybe music, maybe being a surgeon, allow you to be able to go around a city and look that’s something I’ve done, or helped.’ LG: Do you think though, is that just the types of people that architects tend to be? JM: I think its creative subjects, art architecture that kind of background. I don’t think it’s just exclusive to architects, or architecture, I think just creative disciplines in general have more pride. Where as English you may write an essay about something, you can’t really take as much ownership over that, because you know, you say that piece of writing came from my head but as Sean said, if you design a building, you can see it but if you write an essay its less visible, it’s not really the same. AR: I think what is different about architecture to other creative disciplines is that you actually do something that in some way accommodates someone else, ok writing a book of course is a great achievement but architecture is on a really large scale its making something practical, its making something that you can call ‘home’. A book or other creative activities can’t bring that level of influence on people. SM: We spend over 90% of our lives in the built environment, so it has to be done well. DH: It will really affect your quality of life; depending on what environment you are in. My dissertation is about creating dementia friendly environments and I think it is really important that we understand each other’s needs at home so you can relate to them on a personal level. Who’s using it, how are they using it? LG: Thanks very much guys, I’ll be in touch again to let you know how I get on. (End of Interview)

170

171