Pedagogical Overview, Philosophy and Strategies

Comprehensive Building Design Project: William M Colmer Visitors Center and Park Headquarters

Student: Amy Fruge

This particular studio project was located in the host institution's own climate zone, hot humid. The principles of the studio could be applied to any climate zone.

The studio work I have illustrated is from a fifth year “comprehensive design” studio in our Bachelor of Architecture program. The students work on one project for the entire semester. It is divided into four phases: research, schematic design, design development, and final documentation. Students are evaluated after each phase. There is a specific focus on sustainable design. It is always a project with a real site that can easily be visited and it is often a “real” project. In the research phase the focus is on analysis and interpretation of both quantitative and qualitative data. The students are encouraged to see the site and program as interdependent entities. Climate and microclimate data are transformed into specific design criteria. Both the physical and the cultural contexts are investigated.

Appropriate precedents are studied and often visited if possible. Of course the site is carefully surveyed and both the quantitative and the qualitative (experiential) aspects of the site are studied. I consider this to be one of the most important phases of the project. The outcomes are individual student Program Documents that serve as a record of the students’ understanding of the relationship between the building program; the site, climate, and microclimate; and the specific sustainable design strategies that have been identified. This document serves to facilitate the realization of the designer’s intentions as the design process unfolds.

The schematic design phase is really not much different than any design studio, with the exception that the strategies identified in phase one are emphasized from the beginning. Also we utilize a variety of simulation tools (such as “ComCheck”, “eQuest”, “Ecotect”, and/or “Energy Design Plug-in for SketchUp”) to assist us in this process. The emphasis is on a reiterative design process that (hopefully) is holistic and inclusive. This phase ends with a formal presentation at mid-semester. I try to get reviewers who are familiar with the project and with sustainable design practices. This review is by far the most important one of the semester. After the review the students are given a week or so to respond to the critiques, after which they enter into the design development phase.

In this phase we try to get into as much detail as possible with a specific focus on systems integration and the building envelope. During this phase we rely heavily on “BuildingGreen Suite” and “ComCheck.”
The students are expected to go into as much detail as possible in the selection of materials and assemblies, as well as any “green” technologies they might employ. As an example, if a student is employing a rainwater collection system he or she would be expected to calculate the average rate of collection and the projected average usage and size the storage tanks accordingly. Of course, he or she would also be expected to have carefully integrated the storage tanks into the design instead of simply adding them on at the end. The outcome of this phase is a partial set of construction documents.

The final two weeks of the semester are spent putting together a final presentation that includes all of the pertinent material from the first three phases. These presentations are mounted in the halls of the school and faculty, local practitioners, alumni, parents and friends are invited to participate in a “gallery review.” The students also submit a complete digital record of the project. Throughout the project the students are reminded that just because their designs might be “sustainable”, that doesn’t automatically mean that they have designed “good” architecture. On the other hand, if a student ignores the sustainable goals and strategies
that were identified in phase one he or she will be evaluated accordingly.

As indicated above, I consider the first phase to be critically important to the success of the project. Considerable emphasis is placed on the importance of this phase and the students are evaluated accordingly. It has become abundantly clear to me that there is a direct correlation between the amount and quality of work produced in phase one and the overall quality of the final product. And lastly, I emphasize the importance of recognizing that the goal is not to design a building that is close to carbon neutral and zero-energy. The goal is to design a building that is a physical manifestation of the mission of the institution it will house, that meets or exceeds the programmatic requirements of both the client and the users, that respects the physical and cultural context in which it resides, that conserves water, that utilizes materials and finishes that are renewable and non-toxic, and that requires little or no fossil fuel energy and creates little or no greenhouse gas emissions. In other words, the goal is to create good architecture.

Structure of Project within the Design Studio

 

1. Careful program analysis and interpretation with equal attention paid to user needs and client requirements.

2. Thoughtful site analysis and interpretation in relation to the specifi c programmatic requirements.

3. Climate and microclimate analysis with specifi c implications for design strategies.

4. Analysis of appropriate precedents with specifi c reasons why they where chosen.

5. Utilization of appropriate tools early in the design process (i.e. LEED® checklist, “Climate Consultant”, Sun, Wind and Light, The Green Studio Handbook, etc.).

6. Insist that the beginning stages of schematic design be done freehand and with physical study models before moving to digital media.

7. Utilize “ComCheck” as soon as an initial schematic design has been realized to confi rm that the envelope is well conceived.

8. Utilize “eQuest”, “Ecotect”, and/or “Energy Design Plug-in for SketchUp” to refi ne the schematic design.

9. Utilize “ComCheck” and “BuildingGreen Suite” to further refi ne the envelope in design development.

10. Remember that just because a building might be sustainable doesn’t mean that it’s good architecture. As Glenn Murcutt said, “…When ecology becomes the major issue, you’re left with a scientifi c box that does nothing for the spirit. I cannot separate the idea of the poetic and the rational. If there’s not a junction, we’ve got merchandise, not architecture.”

1. They overcomplicate everything.

2. They don’t understand the relationship between insulation and envelope thickness.

3. They think they’ve got it right the first time.

4. They don’t know when to let an idea go when it’s clear that it’s just hindering progress.

5. They don’t understand the concept and practice of a reiterative design process.

6. They rely far too much on AutoCAD or other primarily production programs in schematic design.

7. They get hung up on one strategy and ignore others that might be more appropriate.
8. They don’t use precedents to their full advantage.

9. They suffer from “analysis paralysis.”

10. They forget point 10 above.

This type of project responded to the HOT HUMID climate zone in this instance, but it can easily be modified to suit any climate type.

This type of approach is suitable for any scale or type of building.

Noted in each subsection of the project.

Entire Semester

Noted in each subsection of the project.