Available online at
Download 124.05 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- The Impacts of Cost Determinism in Architectural Foundation Design Education
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 00 (2016) 000–000 
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia Urban Planning and Architecture Design for Sustainable Development, UPADSD 14- 16 October 2015 The Impacts of Cost Determinism in Architectural Foundation Design Education:an analysis of foundation design studioSeyeon Leea, Phillip Tabbb, Julia Rogersc, Zofia Rybkowskid, Shannon Van Zandte1
Abstract This research concerns teaching cost as an integral design determinant during architectural foundation design education. Design studio course description, syllabi, and studio projects of selected architectural foundation design programs were analysed and the U.S.-based architecture educators and design professionals were surveyed to investigate the degree to which their perspectives and methods of teaching cost conscious and economic design concepts in foundation design education. The result suggests that both academics and design professionals value in learning cost conscious and economic design concepts during foundation design education, however, overall systematic studio courses which teach cost as an integral design determinant were absent. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of IEREK, International experts for Research Enrichment and Knowledge Exchange. Keywords: cost as an integral design determinant; economic design; cost consciousness, architectural foundation design studio. 1.Introduction In the context of architecture and construction, the terms affordable design, low-cost design, economic design, and value-engineered design are used as synonyms. Residential architectural projects often address affordable housing in ways closely associated with cost as it pertains to design and construction. General affordable design, when applied to housing, often results in inferior, ill-equipped, and aesthetically unappealing projects. Without design standards, the consequences of low-cost designs are often unpleasant and severe. People commonly misunderstand that aesthetic value often suffers when less money is put into the design and the architectural project is “designed with an eye on quantity, not quality” (Casselman, 2007, para #3). The terms listed above support this misconception, as they are all associated with material qualities and conditions that rely on economic value. Every year, approximately 27,000 students graduate from accredited architecture schools (National Architectural Accredited Board [NAAB], 2013a). Despite this large number, many architects and designers eschew low-cost projects (Wright, 2014), and similarly only a small number of references are devoted to affordable design in many American architecture and urbanism books (Mallach, 2006). Architects and designers often frown on affordable design, but do not attempt to provide effective solutions to ensure better quality designs. The problem may be “rooted in an [architectural] educational system” (Gellner, 2011, para #2). Architectural educators encourage students to provide unique designs but often lead to costly solutions to hypothetical and real projects because students have an “absence in practical training” (Gellner, 2011, para #11). What one commonly sees in architecture schools is the separation of academic minds from the world around them. Expensive houses or projects are often examples of the quality and quantity of distinguished architecture in today’s construction. This viewpoint leads to a lack of awareness in the inequality of the global economy (Fisher, 2012). The problem may be that current architectural foundation design education does not recognize cost as an integral design determinant. Current foundation design education does not inform students of the cost aspect of architecture in producing realistic designs. In addition, current foundation design education understates modest architectural projects that do not require wealth, yet demonstrate that aesthetically pleasing and affordable designs can be achieved. Designers’ ethical responsibility extends beyond wealth, and architectural education plays a key role in this transition. Despite its importance, this issue has not yet to be systematically investigated. The purpose of this research is to investigate common focus of architectural foundation design studio education in the United States in its association to cost as an integral design determinant. This research also, ascertains attitude and perspective toward teaching cost as an integral design determinant architectural design education. It is an assumption of this research that most design students are encouraged to provide unique but costly solutions without regard for the reality of financial limitations. This research seeks responses from both academic and practicing design professionals in pursuit to identify the need to improve foundation design education pertaining to cost as a fundamental design determinant. 1.1.Architectural Foundation Design Education Research conducted by Sunwoo (2012) at Princeton University identified the frameworks of vertical studio teaching, the unit system used as a pedagogical medium at the Architectural Association in London, England. Sunwoo’s research highlighted programmatic and generational improvements made at the Architectural Association from 1971 to 1990, and described course objectives in the design-studio year-system curriculum that still applies today. The introductory year separates architecture into “fundamentals.” The first-year students are introduced to three-dimensional design, representation, and visual arrangements of planes and forms, whereas second-year students advance to small-scale town planning and more complex construction techniques (Sunwoo, 2012). Similarly today, the first studio course exposes design students to spatial and formal concepts in an abstract way, and it is not until the second year that educators introduce small-scale architectural projects. Foundation design education refers to the first and the second year of architecture school where the fundamentals of architecture are taught. Most students mold their philosophy and embody architectural objectives during foundation design education, and it is when they are most open and susceptible to suggestions of architectural ideas and processes. Therefore, the foundational courses should teach students how to approach design with cost as an integral design determinant. Also, how-to design with quality aesthetics cannot be taught unless why-to can be also cultivated. 2.Method This study took place in two phases: Phase I, analyzing the contents of course description, goals, objectives, course outcome, required textbook of the first and the second year design studio courses of selected architectural schools, and Phase 2, online surveying about teaching and learning experiences of design studio education as it pertains to the cost as integral design determinant. The development of survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the Texas A&M University before distribution. These two separate research investigated the presence and the need of teaching “affordability” or “economic design” concepts in architectural design studio. 2.1.Phase I: Qualitative content analysis of syllabi of selected architectural schools Researchers found that design education is offered as part of many types of architecture degrees. For architectural students to meet qualifications to take the architectural licensing examination in the United States, they must hold an architectural degree from an accredited professional degree program approved by the National Architectural Accrediting Board. However, not all architecture students want to become registered architects; they often seek careers in fields related to architectural design (NAAB., n.d.). Commonly based on 8- to 10-semester programs, pre-professional degrees include the Bachelor of Arts, Architectural History, and Environmental Design. Professional degree includes the Bachelor of Architecture. Regardless of the accreditation, the initial content analysis of the selected architectural programs identified that most architecture schools refer to the first and second years of design education as foundation design education or lower design education. The architecture program at the Texas A&M University serves as the reference category which is composed of a 4-year undergraduate degree program and a 2-year NAAB-accredited graduate program. Only schools of accredited architectural programs in the United States approved by Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture were used as primary selection (ACSA, 2013). Then, these schools were organized by the National Ranking, Design Intelligence Ranking, and Carnegie Classification during 2013. Further selections were made based on their degree program, number of studio courses offered to generate comparable data to the architectural program at the Texas A&M University where the research took place. The final list of schools were contacted, then asked to participate in the research by sharing their internal course information. Design studio course syllabi for all 4 foundation design studio courses of selected schools were received, then analyzed. 2.2.Phase II: Survey for Academics and Design Professionals Simultaneously, Phase II was conducted through an online survey, distributed to identify “the separation of the mind from the hand and of the academic for the world around it” (Fisher, 2012, p. 13). As shown in the Table 1, this online survey involved a sample that was composed of 170 people (141 design professionals and 29 academics) from various design firms and architectural institutions in the U.S. Table 1. Total Number of Participants
For the duration of (3) months (July to September, 2014) online survey invitation was sent out to over 300 recipients in various architectural schools and design firms using contacts from the Texas A&M Alumni Association, various Architecture schools, and sponsoring firms all over the States. Participants were required to identify themselves as either:
Questions were tailored specifically for design professionals and academics. (See Appendix B for the list of questions provide to both groups). 3.Result 3.1.Phase I: Qualitative content analysis of syllabi of selected architectural schools Based on the 2013 report from the National Architectural Accrediting Board, there were only 126 NAAB approved professional architecture programs in the United States as of 2013 (NAAB, 2014). Analysis of various consolidated data indicated that a high percentage of accredited architectural schools were ranked among the top 200 national universities at U.S. Weeks (2013). Similarly, a large number of public universities were classified either as High or Very High by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of High Education in the year of 2013 (The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2014). The 2013 rankings of the top 20 America’s Best Architecture Programs, conducted annually by Design Intelligence for both undergraduate and graduate programs, were also reviewed (Cramer, 2014). Except for the design specialty schools such as Copper Union, Savannah College of Arts and Design, Pratt Institute, Boston Architectural College, Southern California Institute of Architecture, and Rhode Island School of Design, the rest were ranked among the top 200 national universities (U.S. News, 2014). Table 2. Accredited Architectural Institutions in the U.S.
Among the 126 NAAB accredited architectural schools (NAAB, 2014), only 33 schools (25%) are composed of a four-year undergraduate degree program and a two-year NAAB-accredited graduate program as the reference category. However, among the 33 schools, only 15 schools offer design studio courses which consist of both lectures and hands-on design studios in the first semester at the freshmen level; and only 11 schools are found in the top 200 list at U.S. News. When an initial contact was made to each program coordinator, only seven schools gave their consent to participate and be compared to the reference architecture program at the Texas A&M University. Therefore the final list contains a total of eight schools: Washington University in St. Louis, Georgia Institute of Technology, University of Florida, Texas A&M University, University of Minnesota at Twin Cities, North Carolina State University, University of Buffalo, SUNY, and Ball State University. The initial content analysis has been made by reviewing each program’s course descriptions found on the school webpage. Except for the Washington University at St. Louis, all other seven schools are public universities. They also, hold RU/VH standing except for the Ball State University (RU/H). While all course titles and numbers are different, only five out of the eight schools offer first-year core courses common to all other majors within the college such as interior design, landscape design, and urban planning (The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, 2014). Since this research focuses on the second-year design studio course, an in-depth analysis of the second-year design studio course descriptions was made to compare their similarities and differences. While the program coordinators confirmed that the courses include both lectures and hands-on studio hours, the credits varied from as low of 3 credits at the Washington University at St. Louis and to as high as 6 credits at the University of Minnesota, North Carolina State University, and the University at Buffalo, SUNY. Across the eight selected schools, the second-year design studios are generally introductory courses which help students to familiarize with architectural form and space, materials, building technology, programing, and terms related to sites (or site analysis). While most of the terms appear in the descriptions of all schools, fabrication and production are only found in the descriptions of the Texas A&M University. However, terms related to cost as an integral fundamental design determinant or economic aspects of architecture are absent in all schools. As for the course syllabi and project briefs analysis for the two second-year design courses, only four architecture schools: the University of Minnesota; Texas A&M University; the University at Buffalo, SUNY; and Ball State University gave their consent to participate and shared their internal documents. Since the course outcomes and goals are directly related and referenced to the course description itself, the analysis focuses more on the required or recommended textbooks, reading materials, and studio projects. While it is mandatory for the instructors at the University of Minnesota, University at Buffalo, and the Ball State University to use a common syllabus in all studio sections within the courses, the sectional instructors at the Texas A&M University are given some flexibility to modify their syllabus to better suit their teaching objectives and projects. Therefore, it is a bit difficult to generalize the common textbooks and projects for the second year courses at the Texas A&M University. As for the projects, the instructors assigned different reading materials while some made a remark that the reading list was not final. The Ball State University had the same reading list for both semesters, and they all pertained to architectural history, theory, and critical thinking. In sum, there was no common textbook or authors across the four schools except for Francis Ching’s 2010 book titled “Architecture: Form, Space, Order,” which was listed as reference. Although no single textbook was found common in the syllabi, the required textbooks all focused on architectural principles and theory. All four programs assigned two or three small-to-medium scale projects per semester, and the types of building varied from a small abstract project to a large hotel with detailed program descriptions. In the latter case, there were at least 2-3 pages long project briefs with detailed breakdown of square footage and required program. However, no information related to practical or economic aspects of the project was given. Materials were slightly discussed but not limited to certain materials. As to cost aspects or realistic realm of architecture, there was only one affordable housing project at the Texas A&M University. While it based on a potential project with a real client, the main focus of the project was to help students learn about electronic media therefore made less emphasis on the cost or economic aspects. Clearly, no evidence of discussions or teaching of cost as an integral fundamental design determinant was found in both syllabi and project briefs across all four programs. 3.2.Phase II: Survey for Academics and Design Professionals The online survey results indicates that academic participants are currently teaching at (8) different schools in the U.S. and (3) in international institutions. Also, (6) participants have indicated that they teach at multiple design schools. 50% of the academic participants are currently teaching the first or second-year design studios, and among these 67% indicated that they already teach or discuss affordability and economic ways to design in their studio courses. As a whole, 62% of the academic participants are already discussing such topics in their design studios. Table 3. Currently teaching economic design or affordability in the foundation design studio course
Among those who are not discussing such topic in their design studio, exactly the half indicated that they would adopt a newly developed course in order to discuss economic ways to design and affordability. The other half of the survey was created for design professionals. The participants are graduates of (54) different U.S. architectural schools and (14) international schools. 65% of the participants have graduated from architectural schools in between 1991 and 2010. It is also found that while the majority of whom graduated before 2000 have obtained either 5 year accredited degree or 4 year pre-professional degree with 2 year accredited degree, more of even spread of degree obtained is observed in between 2001 and 2010. But yet, the overall results indicates either 5 year accredited degree or 4+2 year degree are preferred amongst architectural design professionals. Table 4. Years of Graduation and Architectural Program
80% of the participants responded that they did not learn or discuss economic design or affordability during the foundation design studio courses, and 90% of these participants stated it would have been beneficial if they learned about such topics during the foundation design studio courses. Table 5. Learned economic design or affordability in foundation design studio course
4.Discussion This research illustrates that there is a difference between architectural programs as to teaching cost as an integral design determinant. While 72% of the participating academics indicated that they are already discussing the topic in their studio courses, 80% of participating design professionals said that they did not learn anything about it during their architectural foundation studio courses. In addition, no terms or projects except for the one affordable housing project at the Texas A&M University, have been presented in any of the course description, syllabi, or project briefs. However, it can be assumed that while this specific term “cost” is not used by many instructors as an integral design determinant in the foundation design studio course, its concept could have been verbally discussed while working on studio projects. Furthermore, the sample size representing academics is proportionally very small in comparison to the number of design professionals therefore it is a bit early to make such conclusion that the economic aspect of architecture is missing in the foundation course (or architectural education) based on the inconsistency between the academics and design professionals. The majority of the participants indicated that learning and teaching such topic will be beneficial and enhance students’ design quality, and in this regard, suggested the earlier the better to introduce the importance of the fundamental contents of built environment and its surrounding realm to students. In addition, as scrutinized by the online survey responses, if such course was developed and adopted, approximately 87% (including those who are already teaching such topic) of foundation design studio courses and 80% (including those who are already teaching such topic) of design studio courses responded that they would use a systematic approach to teaching cost as integral design determinant. Therefore, this research discovered a strong notion that everyone is very well aware that teaching and learning such topic is important and the foundation design education is proper and timely to do so. In sum, the value and the needs of teaching economic aspects of architecture are found. One of the participants brought up his concern that teaching cost as an integral design determinant is not necessary because is not included in the current NAAB Conditions. Although student’s ability to integrate cost into quality design in its expected outcomes for accredited professional programs has not been presented in the current report, the NAAB conditions for Accreditation do include the understanding of financial consideration in architectural education (NAAB, 2013b). It is true that none of the NAAB Conditions are enforced in the pre-professional programs because it solely is not accredited. However social, political, and economical aspects of architecture are also very important, and thus equal emphasis should be given to the conditions of function, purpose, and context (Ching, 2010). Cost in design often impede quality design, however, “despite cost pressure, high-quality projects can still be developed if commitment is high” (Thill, 2012, p. 458). In summary, this research has identified the need to improve foundation design education pertaining to cost as a fundamental design determinant. The future study proposes to develop and test an instructional strategy to improve awareness of cost in architectural foundation design education. It shall contribute to knowledge in the context of developing an effective teaching strategy of foundation design especially with regard to cost as an integral design determinant. The investigation shall identify indicators to achieve better cost conscious design at low cost, and suggest ways to improve and strengthen foundation design education with learning objectives focused on cost as an integral design determinant. Critical design methods and approaches in teaching cost as an integral design determinant to foundation design students will be developed for students to interpret indicators and integrate them with other design considerations. Furthermore, this study shall assess the effectiveness of indicators and the integrative quality of students’ design to improve the value of cost determinism as a part of the foundation design curriculum. As such, this study should be of particular interest to design instructors and educators, as well as affordable housing design and construction practitioners. If the proposed study demonstrates that a new course can effectively teach design with cost as a design determinant, this outcome will not only change the perception of affordable design, but will also act as a guiding principle to achieve high quality affordable designs. 5.Content Analysis of Programs and Course Description
6.Online Survey Question Q1: My primary role in architecture is as a: □ Design Professional □ Academic Questions to Design Professional Q2: In what year did you graduate with a degree in architecture? (ex. 2013) Q3: What is your architectural degree? □ 5 Year: Bachelor of Architecture (NAAB Accredited) □ 4 Year Pre-professional degree (Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, Bachelor of Science in Architecture, Bachelor of Architectural Studies, Bachelor of Environmental Design) □ 4 Year Pre-professional degree with 2 year Master of Architecture Degree (NAAB Accredited) □ Others
Q4: From which architectural institution did you graduate from? If you have earned degrees from multiple institution, list them all. Q5: Foundation design education referes to the 1st and 2nd year of architectural program. Did you discuss economic design or affordability in the foundation design studios? □ Yes □ No Q5-a: If yes, how was it achieved? Q5-b: If no, do you think it would have been benefitial if you have learned different ways to achieve economic design or affordability in architecture? □ Yes □ No Q6: Do you address or teach economic design or affordability in projects of your practice to your architectural interns? □ Yes □ No
Q6-b: If no, please explain why you do not discuss or teach economic design or affordability to your architectural interms? Questions to Academic Q2: At which institution do you teach? Q3: Foundation design education refers to the 1st and 2nd year of architectural program. Are you currently teaching a foundation design studio? Q4: Do you address economic design or affordability for both hypothetical and real projects in your studio course? □ Yes □ No Q4-a: If yes, please explain your methods and approaches to introduce economic design or affordability to your foundation students? Q5: If a new course was provided to address affordable and economic design to foundation design students and it would promote quality design at low cost, would you introduce these concepts in your studio course? □ Yes □ No Q5-a: Please explain why or why not
American Institute of Architects. (2007). Factors affecting building costs. Retrieved April 4, 2013 from http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/ek_members/documents/pdf/aiap016639.pdf Ball State University. (2014). Undergraduate Course Catalog. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://cms.bsu.edu/academics/undergraduatestudy/catalog/current-year/collegesdeptprog/cap
Cramer, J.P. (2014). Big Shifts in Design School Rankings for 2013. Retrieved from July 22, 2015 from http://www.di.net/articles/big-shifts-in-design-school-rankings-for-2013/ Fisher, Thomas. (2012), Seeing the World Whole. Journal of Architectural Education, 65: 13–16. doi: 10.1111/j.1531-314X.2011.01193.x Gellner, A. (2011). Affordable housing: What do architects know about it? Retrieved February 13, 2012 from http://arrolgellner.blogspot.com/2011/08/affordable-housing-invisibile-answer.html Georgia Institute of Technology. (2014). 2013-2014 Catalog. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://www.catalog.gatech.edu/docs/2013-14CATALOG.pdf Mallach, A. (2006). Designing affordable housing. Retrieved April 4, 2013 from http://www.nhi.org/online /issues/books/145.html. National Architectural Accrediting Board. (n.d.). National Architectural Accrediting Board. (2013a). 2012 Report on accreditation on architectural education. Retrieved from http://www.naab.org/accreditation/statistics.aspx National Architectural Accrediting Board. (2013b). 2014 Conditions for accreditation—First draft. Retrieved from http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2014_Conditions.aspx North Carolina State University. (2014). 2013-2014 Undergraduate Catalog. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://catalog.ncsu.edu/pdf/2013-2014.pdf Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts. Washington University in St. Louis. (2013) Deans Letter Fall 2013. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://samfoxschool.wustl.edu/files/Dean's%20Letter%20Fall13_for%20WEBSITE_0.pdf Sam Fox School of Design & Visual Arts. Washington University in St. Louis. (2013) Deans Letter Spring 2013. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://samfoxschool.wustl.edu/files/Dean's%20Letter%20Spring13_for%20WEBSITE_0.pdf
Texas A&M University (2014). Environmental Design Catalog #136 (2013-2014). The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (n.d.). Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup_listings/srp.php?clq=%7B%22basic2005_ids%22%3A%2215%22%7D&start_page=standard.php&backurl=standard.php&limit=0,50 Thill, A. (2012). Cost awareness as design strategy. Detail. May2012: pp. 452-458. U.S.News (2014). Best Colleges National Universities Rankings. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2014 from http://colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/rankings/national-universities University at Buffalo (2014). 2013-2014 Undergraduate Catalog: Administrative Policies and Procedures. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from http://undergrad-catalog.buffalo.edu/archive/1314/ University of Minnesota (2014). Course Catalog 2013-2014. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from https://www.myu.umn.edu/psp/psprd/EMPLOYEE/CAMP/c/ESTABLISH_COURSES.CATALOG_SEARCH.GBL University of Florida (2014). 2013-2014 Undergraduate Catalog. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from https://catalog.ufl.edu/ugrad/1314/courses/descriptions/architecture.aspx 1* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-979-845-1015; fax: +1-979-862-1571. E-mail address: seyeon79@tamu.edu 1877-0428 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of IEREK, International experts for Research Enrichment and Knowledge Exchange. Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2015 2015 -> Police Militarization 2015 -> 2015 ihbb championships: hs history Bowl Round 4 – Prelims First Quarter 2015 -> Wrtp/big step · 3841 W. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, wi 53208 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 December 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Darton College 2015 -> Training Workshop on Planning and Implementation of Multi-Sectoral Development Programme (MsDP) in Bihar Date : 6th 2015 -> Rao bulletin 15 June 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 September 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Rao bulletin 1 August 2015 html edition this bulletin contains the following articles 2015 -> Science, and transportation united states senate Download 124.05 Kb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||