Material Methods & Makers - Individual Essay by Tom Deacon

M M M MATERIALS

METHODS

MAKERS

Participation - ‘The act of taking part in something’

Participation in Architecture - ‘generally describes ‘the nature of systems that are designed for user contribution. Architecture of Participation is a concept in which a community of users contributes to the content or to the design and development.’

Heterogeneity - ‘the quality or state of being diverse in character or content.’

Self-build - is the practice of creating an individual home for oneself through a variety of different methods. The self-builder’s input into this process varies from doing the actual building work to contracting out all the work to an architect or building package company.

Materials Methods & Makers: Participation & Self Build 3

Can Kilmardinny Craft Hub be Self-Built by the people it aims to facilitate?

Tom Deacon Stage 4 Mackintosh School of Architecture Glasgow School of Art April 2018

Preface

The context of the essay has been informed by my special project: Materials, Methods and Makers. ‘Material Methods and Makers’ is a Stage 4 Research group from the Mackintosh school of architecture, researching into sustainable building materials and the application of traditional heritage techniques into modern architecture.

and an archive of information to support local research & use of traditional building materials. Ultimately, the buildings aims to hold workshops to develop an interest amongst young people into their local heritage and stimulate alternative career directions and internships relating to Traditional Building Skills and Craft.

The project has been run in conjunction with Kilmardinny Arts Centre, Trails & Tails, Mast Architects and HES (Historic Environments Scotland) to aid research in the design of a ‘Kilmardinny Craft’ Hub workshop for traditional building skills and heritage crafts in East Dunbartonshire. The project seeks to build a traditional building skills and craft workshop to enable East Dunbartonshire to actively explore it heritage. This centre would be a hub for all industrial skills and crafts learning, including hands on sessions, workshops, talks and exhibitions

The Mackintosh School of Architecture students are involved through a supervised learning project, ensuring the building is genuinely a result of community consultation, using a mix of traditional materials, methods and aiming for an energy neutral build. I’d like to thank my group members Beth Dutson and Lousisa McG of which it has been a pleasure to work and collaborate with through out the project; Kathy Li (GSA) who has been an excellent supporter and tutor and all the partners who have kindly participated.

Contents

1 Introduction 2 Participation 3 Tranformative Participation Methods of Participation in Self-Build & Padagogy

4 Le Meme, Lucian Kroll Participation & Heterogeneity

5 Bauhausle. Peter Sulzer Participation & Pedagogy

6 The Boathouse, TOG Studio Participation & Innovation

7 Synthesis 8 Conclusion

Fig 1 : Map of Scotland taken from the MMM documnet highlighting the locations of tradesman working on the Mackintosh Restortion.

Introduction The context of my individual research essay lies within the practice of the participatory moment. ‘During the 1970s the failures of the Modern movement were becoming increasingly apparent to many architects who looked for ways to redress the balance of power between the architect and the user. A number of different approaches were developed including methods to involve future users in the design process, using workshops, consultations and through establishing neighbourhood offices. Others chose to self-build so that users could be involved not only in the design of their dwellings but also in their construction, and finally there was a move towards flexible layouts that could adapt to users needs. Whilst their methods differed the architects shared a common aim of empowering users to take control of their dwellings in a manner that allowed for their creative input whilst not reducing the role of the architect to that of a mere technical facilitator.’1 At present day participation through public consultation has become the common protocol in the bid and procurement for pubic buildings and housing projects. However, where participation has become widely utilised in the design process, participation become much scarcer in the actual build. Kilmardinny Arts Centre aims to create a craft hub for Traditional building skills and crafts to represent the marginalised traditional crafts of East Dunbartonshire. The building aims are to hold workshops to develop an interest amongst young people into their local heritage and stimulate alternative career directions and internships relating to Traditional Building Skills and Craft. As part of our joint research project, Materials Methods & Makers (MMM), conducted a series of consultation workshops to engage local school children (potential users of the building) what the building was about and what it was intended for. Our initial idea is that if the users of the building were engaged in the research and design of the project it would be more likely that the building would succeed as a useful asset and resource to the community.

1. Spatial Agency. 2018. Participation. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.spatialagency.net/ database/participation.1970s. [Accessed 11 April 2018].

Consultation is widely used in the procurement of architecture public buildings. Could we push participation one step further and include the local community and potential users of the building in the live build? As the building is related to traditional buildings skills and crafts, this could become an opportunity for education and social cohesion for the community of East Dunbartonshire. Consequently this had led me to my research question.

Research Question If participation through a live build would to take place: What would be the significance of Kilmardinny Craft Hun being built through participation? Could the process of selfbuild be utilised as a tool of pedagogy? And largely is participation in architecture an idealistic vision or essential element to a buildings success? The objectives of the essay is to understand the self-build and participatory process in the building industry at present, the feasibility of self-build and participation in community projects and the type of skills, methods and procurement of the process. And ultimately understand the significance of public participation in live builds and why it is important that this movement continues to practice. My methods of research have involved written research and reading around the subject. I have analysed texts from key participatory forerunners such as Lucien Kroll and Peter Sulzer to understand their methods of participation against present day advocates such as Jeremy Till, Architype and TOG. The context of my essay lies within the application of this line of study to the procurement of Kilmardinny Craft Centre. I frequently refer back to the joint research document written in conjunction with my research partners for qualitative and quantitative data. I will analyse the process and application of our consultation workshop against other method of engagement. I will refer back to meetings and discussions held at the Engine Shed (HES) to understand the building and procurement process in Scotland and the types of skills and training routed in this sector.

Participation

What is participation and why is there a need for it in Architecture? Participation is the discourse between the users and the architect within the design process, through methods of engagement, starting from the initial briefing through to live construction. Once seen as a threat to normative architectural values and the professional position of the architect. Participation has become a statutory part of the design process, incorporated into almost every public or private scheme. But what determines the success of participation? How much of the process has become statutory within Architectural practice?

The political theorist Carole Pateman states, ‘participation serves as a part of an educative process through which ‘the individual will eventually come to feel little or no conflict between the demands of the public and private spheres’.1 Pateman’s writing is an analysis of participation within the workplace but is suitably applicable to participation within Architecture. In her book Participation and Democratic Theory, Pateman coins the term ‘full participation’, ‘where each individual member of the decision making body has equal power to determine the outcome of decision’.2 Suggesting there must be a balance between the user and the architect, that they both have equal control and opinion within the project. For Pateman the authenticity and success of the participatory process regards the share of power and control between each individual member, resulting in democratic stability. ‘Full participation’ describes the ideal practice of participation; can it really be achieved within architectural practice today? Perhaps not, as Jeremy Till states in response to Pateman’s term, ‘full participation is an ideal and almost an impossible one to achieve in Architecture’.3 A concern is that architects (whether intentionally or unintentionally)

employ engagement methods to create a ‘feeling’ of participation to the user. Pateman labels such types of participation as ‘pseudo participation’, [this] covers techniques used to persuade employees to accept decisions that have already been made’.4 The user is allowed to contribute their view under the illicit control of the senior professional or in this case the architect. Later In Participation and Democratic Theory, Pateman contrasts ‘full participation’ and ‘pseudo participation with ‘partial participation’. ‘Partial participation’ is when there is not equal power in how the decision is made: ‘the final power to decide rests with one party only’.5 In practice architects fall easily in to the category of ‘partial participation’. This is commonly acted through the evening consultation in the church hall, a tick off the checklist to add in to the Design and Access Statement. The pubic are included within the design process but the power and decision-making is ultimately in the hands of the architect. This is a realistic analysis of architectural practice but not one to aspire too. In practice its difficult to warrant the credibility of public participation as more than and idealised concept. The architect or ‘expert’ falls easily into the practice of both ‘pseudo’ and ‘partial participation’ through the way they communicate and work. Architects initiate communication on our their own terms; they use their own language and share information unreadable to the everyday user or citizen. Communication hinders this dialogue, reinforcing the power in the hands of the architect. Practically participation requires a huge amount of time and effort from both parties, more than most are willing to invest and engage in.

1.T Pateman, Carole. Participation and Democratic Theory. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 2. T Pateman, Carole. Participation and Democratic Theory. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

4. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005.

3. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005.

5. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005.

Fig 2 : Thom Simmons leading a stone carving workshop to participanting students from Glasgow School of Art. This was taken from our second engagement workshop setup via MMM.

Transformative Participation ‘...an active signal of its opposition to the passive nature of placatory participation’.

However, if time is invested, how can both parties benefit from the process, can a balance be made? In Architecture and Participation, Jeremy Till goes one step further and coins the term ‘transformative participation’,1 as ‘an active signal of its opposition to the passive nature of placatory participation’.2 By ‘placatory’ Till references the tokenism aspect of both ‘pseudo’ and ‘partial participation’ methods, used for deception or without intent. Till explains that ‘transformative participation’ is when both sides engage in a process that is both expansive to each other’s learning through participation.’3 He suggests a balance is made between both parties through a process that is both beneficial to each other’s learning and education. Where time and energy may be perceived as a loss through participation, Till suggest the reward is found within the dialogue and sharing of knowledge between user and architect. 10

For this to happen ‘transformative participation demands a reformation of expert knowledge and the way it may be enacted’. The architect must be come ‘expert citizen, citizen expert’. Its quite easy for architects to isolate themselves form the design process and forget that he/she too is a user and embodied citizen. Architects need the ‘ability to move between the world of expert and user, with the set of knowledge and experience informing the other’.4 (Billig, cited in Till 2005) Till explains, ‘Participation through bringing in the users knowledge into the design process at an early stage, far from presenting a threat to architectural production actually presents an opportunity to reinvigorate it through challenging the very limits and constraints of specialist knowledge.’5 Participation through learning from the citizen challenges the role of expert and architectural practise. This resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s notion of the ‘organic intellectual’.

1. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 2. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 3.Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 4. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 5.Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005.

As Antonio Gramsci writes in his Selections from the Prison Notebooks 6 (cited in Till 2005) ‘Intellectuals should not remain as eloquent outsiders but as active participants themselves.’ The ‘intellectual’ or architect moving between worlds denotes an organic professional, practising between the spheres of both the user and architect. Billig reaffirms that ‘new knowledge neither grows out of a special method, nor the special mind of a genius nor from new theoretical monologues…but from the voices of ordinary people in conversation.’7 (cited in Till 2005). New spatial possibilities do not arise from the readings of professional knowledge; they come from conversations of ordinary people. Participation is the practice for which architects can learn new spatial possibilities and practise not from within themselves but through conversation and exchange with the user. However, if a reciprocated understanding of exchange between user and architect are realised. Till discloses that the term ‘transformative participation’ is still ‘too cosy’.8 Transformative participation still suggests ‘idealised conditions of mutual cooperation, uncontested knowledge basis, open communication and eventual consensus’.9 It’s perhaps best to understand ‘that no participatory process, no matter how intentioned is going to be completely dissolve of the power structures and inequalities of the various parties.’10 If we accept that both ‘full participation and ‘transformative participation’ are still idealist ideologies what we should take from the participation is its challenge to normative architectural practise through the reciprocal exchange of knowledge, power and context between user and Architect. Participation therefore is essential to the progression of architectural knowledge and practice. In relation to Billig, architects cannot just learn from themselves but from the ‘voices of ordinary people in conversation’11 of which a ‘transformative participation’ can practise.

6. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 7. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 8.Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 9.Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 10.Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 11. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005.

Fig 3 : Thom Simmons leading a stone carving workshop to particating students. This workshop was a method engaging with the school kids to ask them what they new about traditional build skills and inform them about the programme of the Kilmardinny Craft Hub.

Methods of Participation in Self-Build & Pedagogy Now that the theory and ideals of participation have been laid out. We can begin to analyse methods of participation in practise. The chosen case studies relate to non-traditional practises of architecture incorporating participation through self-build and pedagogy. These are just a small selection of examples of participation in architecture and do not demonstrate the full field of the practice. However they have been selected for their ideals and principles relevant to the self-build of Kilmardinny Craft Hub. The objective of the studies is to understand the methods of engagement that could be implemented in to a hypothetical self-build of Kilmardinny Craft Hub. I will then analyse the methods and practice of participation within these examples against the ideals of â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;transformative participationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;.

La MeMe – Lucien Kroll

Participation and Heterogeneity When writing about participation its fundamental to start with the work of Lucien Kroll and his pioneering work on the Maison Médical student accommodation at the University of Louvain, Brussels (1970-1976) or La Meme in short. Students approached Kroll for an alternative to the monotonous design proposed by the university and conducted a successful campaign for its adoption. Developed in intense consultation with students and others who would use the building, an evolving physical model became a record of the design process. The resulting building has a fragmented look, as it was split into sections with each part handed over to a separate team of architects within the office.1

Kroll’s architecture had been a reaction to the modernist orthodox before him and instead called for architecture of complexity and heterogeneity. ‘The object being to avoid a predictable, imposed outcome and to produce maximum variety and complexity, reflecting a range of individual choice within the community served by the building.’2 The significance of La Meme is not in its heterogeneous appearance but how it enabled residents to participate successfully in the design and build of their own apartments. Kroll achieved this by adopting the SAR method from John Habraken, which incorporates the setting out of a supporting frame leaving the design of the infill in the hands of the participating occupant. Habraken compared the system with the principle of the bookcase, ‘which accommodates the disparate contents within its separate shelves’.3 The supporting frame is left bare ready to be filled by a variety of different materials, methods and makers. As Kroll explains, ‘The primary structure the concern of the industry, the infill could be left to the builders, or in the case, to the dexterity of the individual resident.’4

1.“Participation.“ Spatial Agency. Accessed April 11, 2018. www.spatialagency.net/database/ walter.segal 2. Blundell Jones, P., 1986. The Architecture of Complexity. 2nd ed. London: Batsford.) 3. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987. 4. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987.

Kroll’s structure is designed with precision with the aid of advance of building technology of the time. The infill however, is built by its residents: low tech, fragmented, and organic. The ordered structure houses the infill and bricolage of its inhabitants. This method was best practised in ‘the lofts’ of La Meme, which were devised as empty houses for the students to infill and build their own rooms and home. Kroll states that students were at first reluctant to start building. Feeling uncomfortable with the process and the thought of ‘messing with university property’.5 The students were reluctant to engage perhaps to the unorthodox system of building and their lack of design and building knowledge. Freedom and flexibility in design had been laid before them but it still required Kroll the ‘expert’ ‘to sit down and help design what they had envisioned’.6 The role of the architect as ‘expert’ is still essential to bringing out the potential of the users needs even when control and choice is laid before them. As the build developed over time the lodgings ‘achieved an exceptional agglomeration… groups would develop their own territory for their activities’.7 Indeterminacy and flexibility had developed a hybrid cluster of different living habitations that had not been envisioned. The change and evolution of La Meme through time is the success of the project for Kroll, that ‘the spirit of participation lives on for a generation.’8 Despite later generations not being involved in the original design and build, the sense of ownership and managing passes on from resident to resident. The balance of power between architect and users can be equated if the schemes vision transcends its first incarnation from one generation to the next. A ‘transformative’ exchange of knowledge passing between not just the architect and user, but user to user.

5. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987. 6. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987. 7. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987. 8. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987.

Fig 4 : La MeMe, Brussels 1976

Fig 6 : La MeMe, Brussels 1976. Four views of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Loft spaces which were personally designed and built by the medical student with assistance from Kroll Atelier.

Fig 5 : La MeMe, Brussels 1976. Fire escapes were added after the completion in order to adapt to building regulations that had changed while in construction. The adaption blends in to the complexity of the facade.

Bauhäusle - Peter Sulzer Participation and Pedagogy Bauhäusle is a self-build student housing scheme at the Technical University of Stuttgart. It was designed and built by students, between 1981 and 1983, under the supervision of Peter Sulzer and Peter Hübner. A number of factors came together allowing the project to occur, including strong support from the University and an existing long running first year project where students designed their own rooms. The lack of accommodation in Stuttgart that year prompted the students to ask whether they could build their designs.1 With strong support and backing from the university Sulzer and Hubner were able to implement participatory methods for pedagogy purpose. Here the architects or tutors took on a ‘supervisory role’ overseeing the full participation of students in the design and build of the building.

Sulzer explains the design process was initiated through adopting a military method of imagining ‘scenarios’ when designing asking the students, ‘what happens when your mother arrives on a Sunday morning at 8 o clock?’2 These pragmatic questions drew in the student’s personal experience of spatial encounters, which were then materialised into models and drawings by the students. The Tutors themselves made models of the communal spaces of the project to see how the student’s proposals related to one another. Students are very much the catalyst of design decisions; the tutors become enablers, reminding the students of practical matters. However as Sulzer explains, ‘whether dealing with clients or students you can make models or drawings, but they never really understand the building until they can step inside’.3 Despite an enhanced amount of participation by the students, Sulzer believes the architect still has the greatest amount of expertise in practising architecture, foreseeing what the student or user can’t initially imagine.

build its self, decisions can be made and altered as the building is constructed. The informal practise of the operation allows flexibility and space for reflection. The students learnt and engaged through ‘doing’ gaining a practical knowledge rather than ‘professional or academic’. Like Kroll, Sulzer had incorporated a building framework based on the Segal method, which devises a set of lightweight building components that with the use of a set grid, are adaptable to the requirements of the self-builder. The ‘Segal Method ‘ ‘Designed in consultation with Jon Broome, the system makes use of materials that are readily available and simple to work with and removes the need for any wet trades. Once the positioning of the timber frame and a services and circulation core are set, the standard size panels can be positioned according to user needs. Each self-builder was provided with basic plans, sections and a specification that described the sequence of construction. Within a set grid, they were able to make adaptations to the lightweight, dry and demountable construction system, which was screwed or bolted together.’ 4 The beauty of self-build is that it welcomes aspects of indeterminacy. As the students built they began to veer away from the Segal Method and the instruction of their tutor Sulzer. The normative architect would have discouraged a move from the set system. But as a pedagogical process Sulzer welcomed the student decisions, as their actions would develop them further as designers. Student learnt through ‘doing… and making their mistakes’.5 Besides a process of learning through design, the Bauhausle project ‘revealed how participation and self build gives the users a sense of owner ship’.6 The camaraderie of students resulted in the project having a ‘communal atmosphere persisting long after the original students left’. Like La Meme, the success of the Bauhausle is not just the reciprocal exchange between the students and tutors but that the ‘spirit of participation and self build lives on for a generation’. The ‘spirit’ of the project, being ownership and community.

The greatest benefit of the self-build process is that it immerses the user beyond the design process and in to the

1. “Bauhäusle Building – Stuttgart, Germany 1981 – 1983.” Spatial Agency. Accessed April 11, 2018. http://www.spatialagency.net/database/bauhausle. 2. Peter Sulzer. ‘Notes on participation’ in Architecture and Participation. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015. 3. Peter Sulzer. ‘Notes on participation’ in Architecture and Participation. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015.

4. “Walter Segal.“ Spatial Agency. Accessed April 11, 2018. www.spatialagency.net/database/ walter.segal 5. Peter Sulzer. ‘Notes on participation’ in Architecture and Participation. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015. 6. Nishat Awan, Tatjana Schneider, Jeremy Till . Spatial Agency, Other Ways Of Doing Architecture . Abingdon: Routledge, 2011.

Fig 7 : Top - Bauhausle, 1883. The building to the right shows the completed four bedroom flat built and designed by students in their 5th year. The students utilised the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Segal methodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; subsequently adapting it to their personal preferences.

Fig 8 : Bottom - Bauhausle, 1883. Students from TUS mid construction of their own student accommodation.

Tog Studio - Boathouse

Participation and Innovation In the words of Tog, ‘Tog Studio help people build. [They] are a team of architects and engineers who design built projects that can be constructed by anyone regardless of prior experience or skill. This empowers self-builders, students and marginalised members of society by providing a unique on-site learning experience and results in the delivery of projects which might not otherwise be viable in today’s economic climate.’1

‘Tog Studio was conceived by a team of Scottish architects and engineers to address the gaps they believe are missing from conventional education in the construction sector. Tog Studio believe in the value of teaching practical aspects of building through active collaboration on real construction projects in beautiful locations.’2 Their project ‘The Noust’; a community boathouse for Tiree Maritime Trust involved architecture and engineering students to participate in the build of the project. Like the Bauhausle, Tog Studio have utilized participation through pedagogy, involving architecture and engineering students into the live build. Unlike the Bauhausle the student’s participation lies only with the build of the project rather than the design. Michael Holliday the lead architect on the project states the process is ‘not to turn students into builders, but to understand how drawing turns into the built object. [Encouraging] ‘students to get their hands dirty and turn drawings and ideas into real buildings’3 through understanding construction. Here the students labour is exchanged for the architects knowledge and building experience.

Comparing La Meme and the Bauhausle, a trait with selfbuild is that it requires a method or framework to help enable and govern the participant builder. Here the building method lies within the prefabrication of the Boathouses structural element, which were shipped to site ready to assemble like a puzzle. It could be argued that for the students the construction played out like an advance piece of Ikea furniture. This is meant as no discredit, as like Ikea furniture, the assembly is always more complex than first imagined. However, there is a comparable lack of participation to La Meme and the Bauhausle and the project deems no measurable indeterminacy but as Tog architect Michael Holliday explains the project isn’t about ‘delivering good architecture… or about architects, designs or materials, its about people… getting people to work together’.4 Conveying the message that the self-build process is less about architecture and more about the social engagement of people through working with one another. The scope of the Boathouse is very much a prototype for the architects and participants to learn construction skills and test new technology. If the project were to expand to perhaps the scale of La Meme, the Boathouse could set the precedent for an innovative engagement and learning tool before embarking on much larger projects. Or perhaps expand on how a pre-fabricated system could set the framework for a new self-build method.

Looking back at La Meme and the Bauhausle, a trait with 1. Tog. 2013. Bio. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.togstudio.co.uk/. [Accessed 11 April 2018]. 2. Tog. 2013. Bio. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.togstudio.co.uk/. [Accessed 11 April 2018]. 3. Tiree Boathouse. Performed by Michael Holliday. Tiree Boathouse. 2013. Accessed April 11, 2018. http://www.edinburghfilmcompany.com/work/.

4 Tiree Boathouse. Performed by Michael Holliday. Tiree Boathouse. 2013. Accessed April 11, 2018. http://www.edinburghfilmcompany.com/work/.

Fig 10 : Top - The Tog team on site featuring participating students of architecture and engineering.

Fig 9 : Bottom - Inside view of the completed boathouse. Total construction took just one week with the help of participants. The majority of the structure and components were prefabricated by MAK Lab in Glasgow, then assembled on site in Tyree, cutting construction time on site.

Synthesis The three case studies show the successful participation of engagement into the self-build process, challenging the norm of architectural practice. La Meme is perhaps the most extreme of the three highlighting the extents to which user participation can achieve with the right architect and structure in place.

The Bauhausle furthers the ideas of Kroll and Segal utilizing self-build for the purpose of both housing and pedagogy. Finally, Tog represents the contemporary application of participation and self build incorporating methods for pedagogy and contemporary construction. The success of the three case studies cannot of course be achieved without the strong backing and support from their funding institutions. Without the backing of money and approval of superlative figures this practice of architecture is very hard to initiate. Backing provided, participation can create astounding and visionary pieces of architecture that on the surface challenge the very norms of architectural image. Kroll and Sulzer’s schemes best represent the image of heterogeneity in their architecture. But the success of these schemes is not down to the image of the architecture but the systems and methods that designed and built them. The marriage between these projects is there incorporation of a building system devised by the architect. The system whether it be the; SAR method, Segal method or pre-fab-

rication, is the tool for which the architect can formulate a plan to enable and harness the ideas and ideals of the user. You could argue that self-build doesn’t require the use of an architect, and depending on the scale it doesn’t. But the participatory system is what allows for unconventional practice of architecture and building to fit within the real world of planning and building code. The architect is the facilitator and mediator between radical practice and statutory building authority. Participation enables exchange between the public and authority of which radical practice can occur. It’s essential that as we listen and communicate with the user so that their voice is heard. We must, as architects understand that we too are ‘citizens’ or users and we must act as both for a reciprocal dialogue to proceed. The overall link between the case studies is that through participation a strong sense of community arises. Participating through conversation, building or pedagogy brings people together through a shared experience. A sense of ownership of their surroundings ensues. The success of these methods is that spirit of participation transcends the projects first users or inhabitants on to the next generation. Conveying a sense of ownership and responsibility for their surroundings from one generation to the next.

Conclusion What we can learn from participation is that it is an essential tool to question the very practise of architecture. If we accept that both ‘full participation and ‘transformative participation’ are still idealist ideologies what we should take from the participation is its challenge to normative architectural practise through the reciprocal exchange of knowledge, power and context between user and architect. Participation therefore is essential to the progression of architectural knowledge and practise. In relation to Billig, architects cannot just learn from themselves but from the ‘voices of ordinary people in conversation’1 of which a ‘transformative participation’ can practise.

What next? The scope of this essay has touched upon the theoretical thinking of participation and analysed a few of its key advocates. Continuing on from my analysis of Tog studio it would interesting to see how the application of new building technology can aid the process of participation and self-build further. It would also relevant to analyse the practises’ of ‘Assemble’ and ‘Muf ’ who utilise participation between the practise of both art and architecture. Carrying on from my research in ‘Materials Methods and Makers’ I’d also like to organise a self build workshop with students of architecture to test my own principles of participation.

Self-build is just one example that equates the ideals of transformative participation. In response to my initial research question The viability of Kilmardinny Craft Hub to be built through participation would be ultimately down to the financial backing and support of its superlative figures.

Its is now my intention to carry forward what I have learnt from MMM and my essay and ensure that architecture through participation isn’t used as a statutory process but a as a transformative mechanism.

However, from my investigation it is clear that the viability of Kilmardinny Craft Hub to be built by the people its aims to facilitate can be successfully delivered. But it requires the total service of the right architect and support of its funding body. Through participation and pedagogy I hope Kilmardinny house can see that the self-build process would be more than a hindrance or statuary procedure. But lead to the development of an established community for the building that would transcend future generations.

1. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005.

Bibliography Introduction 1. Spatial Agency. 2018. Participation. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.spatialagency.net/database/participation.1970s. [Accessed 11 April 2018]. Participation 1. Oxford Dictionaries. 2018. Definition. [ONLINE] Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/participation. [Accessed 8 April 2018]. 2. Tim O'Reilly. 2018. architecture of participation. [ONLINE] Available at: https://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/architecture_of_ participation.html. [Accessed 11 April 2018]. 3. T Pateman, Carole. Participation and Democratic Theory. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 4. T Pateman, Carole. Participation and Democratic Theory. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. 5. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 6. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 7. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 8. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. Transformative Participation 1. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 2. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 3. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 4. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 5. Till, Jeremey. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 6. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 7. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. ¬¬ 8. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 9. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. 10. Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005 La MeMe - Lucien Kroll 1. Participation.“ Spatial Agency. Accessed April 11, 2018. www.spatialagency.net/database/walter.segal 2. Blundell Jones, P., 1986. The Architecture of Complexity. 2nd ed. London: Batsford.) 3. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987.

4. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987. 5. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987. 6. Lucien Kroll. Lucien Kroll, Buildings and Projects. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd, London, 1987.

Bauhausle - Peter Sulzer 1. "Bauhäusle Building – Stuttgart, Germany 1981 – 1983." Spatial Agency. Accessed April 11, 2018. http://www.spatialagency.net/ database/bauhausle. 2. Peter Sulzer. ‘Notes on participation’ in Architecture and Participation. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015. 3. Peter Sulzer. ‘Notes on participation’ in Architecture and Participation. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015. 4. “Walter Segal.“ Spatial Agency. Accessed April 11, 2018. www.spatialagency.net/database/walter.segal 5. Peter Sulzer. ‘Notes on participation’ in Architecture and Participation. Abingdon: Routledge, 2015. 6. Nishat Awan, Tatjana Schneider, Jeremy Till . Spatial Agency, Other Ways Of Doing Architecture . Abingdon: Routledge, 2011. Tog - Boathouse 1. Tog. 2013. Bio. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.togstudio.co.uk/. [Accessed 11 April 2018]. 2. Tog. 2013. Bio. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.togstudio.co.uk/. [Accessed 11 April 2018]. 26 3. Tiree Boathouse. Performed by Michael Holliday. Tiree Boathouse. 2013. Accessed April 11, 2018. http://www.edinburghfilmcom-

pany.com/work/. 4. Tiree Boathouse. Performed by Michael Holliday. Tiree Boathouse. 2013. Accessed April 11, 2018. http://www.edinburghfilmcom Conclusion Blundell, Peter, Doina Petrescu, and Jeremey Till. Architecture and Participation. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge, 2005. Images Fig 1 : Map of Scotland taken from the MMM documnet Fig 2 : Thom Simmons leading a stone carving workshop to students from Glasgow School of Art. This was taken from our second engagement workshop setup via MMM. Fig 3 : Thom Simmons leading a stone carving workshop to students. This workshop was a method engaging with the school kids to ask them how much they new about traditional build skills. Fig 4 : La MeMe, Brussels 1976 Lucien Kroll. La MeMe, 1979. Domus Magazine, Brussels. https://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2010/06/30/lucien-kroll-utopia-interrupted.html (accessed April 12, 1979)

Fig 5 : La MeMe, Brussels 1976. Fire escapes were added after the comletion in order to adapt to building regulations that had changed while in construction. The adaption blends in to the complexity of the facade. Lucien Kroll. La MeMe, 1979. Domus Magazine, Brussels. https://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2010/06/30/lucien-kroll-utopia-interrupted.html (accessed April 12, 1979)

Fig 6 : La MeMe, Brussels 1976. Four views of the ‘Loft spaces which were personally design by the medical student with assistance from Kroll Atelier. Lucien Kroll. La MeMe, 1979. Domus Magazine, Brussels. https://www.domusweb.it/en/architecture/2010/06/30/lucien-kroll-utopia-interrupted.html (accessed April 12, 1979)

Fig 7 : Top - Bauhausle, 1883.The building to the right shows the completed four bedroom flat built and designed by students in their 5th year. The students utilised the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Segal methodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; subsequently adapting it to their personal preferences. Bauhausle. Bauhausle, 1983. Bauhausle, Oxford. www.bauhaeusle.de/about.html (accessed April 12, 1983)

Fig 8 : Bottom - Bauhausle, 1883. Students from TUS mid construction of their own student accommodation. Bauhausle. Bauhausle, 1983. Bauhausle, Oxford. www.bauhaeusle.de/about.html (accessed April 12, 1983)

Fig 10 : The Tog team on site featuring participating students of architecture and engineering. Tog. The Boathouse, 2014. Tog website, Tiree, Scotland. www.togstudio.co.uk/portfolio/2014-boathouse/ (accessed April 12, 2014)

Fig 9 : Inside view of the complted boathouse. Total construction took time took one with the majority of the structure and components prefabricated by MAK lab in Glasgow and assembled on site in Tyree. Tog. The Boathouse, 2014. Tog website, Tiree, Scotland. www.togstudio.co.uk/portfolio/2014-boathouse/ (accessed April 12, 2014)

M M M MATERIALS

METHODS

MAKERS