Matt Taylor Studio Project An Introduction to Basic Architectural Practice @ The San Francisco Institute of Architecture by Matt Taylor
This course is about the entire design, build, use process in architecture. It is open to anyone who wishes to function in an architectural ValueWeb - in any of the Investor, Customer, Producer or System Integrator roles. The course is open to those with no prior experience and practice to those of extensive experience - the structure of the course and nature of the content is such that - whatever your starting level - you will be able to materially extend your competency. In terms of class interaction, participants from many different places in the total process of creating and using architecture - as well as - different degrees of understanding it, will actually enhance the learning experience for all. There are 9 formal sessions that make up the Course - each is outlined in the Notes linked to this page. These sessions take about three hours. Each, involves presentation and dialog. Assignments will be given at each session, all of which, will make up your final delivered work. You are encouraged to read ahead. The more that this is done, the more time we will have to move beyond the basics and explore the many ramifications of our subject. There will be some informal sessions for more dialog and skill building in the areas of design, document production and web publishing. A field trip or two is desirable based on everyones schedule. Completing this Course means designing a work based on your recreation of the materials presented, offering your work for peer review by all class members and, in turn, providing the same feedback to your classmates project. Your work will be presented on a web page of your design.
Course Outline:
Additional Notes: There have been some questions related to the use of computers, HTML training and if we had enough hardware at SFIA to provide enough access for everyone. In addition, the question has been asked if we should devote some of the first course days to specific media training and general architectural orientation for less experienced participants. We are expanding our computer capability at SFIA but it still is limited. This course is open to those with virtually no computer skills and those with a great deal of experience. The following is my response to these questions and, in addition, thoughts that clarify the attitude of this course:
This course is demanding and rigorous - and it is open-ended. It does not assume one way of achieving a goal. There are some requirements in common so that the works can be taken through a legitimate peer review process. As instructor, I will be doing the same work as each of you and submitting my work to the same review process. In the end you determine your score. As is the tradition at SFIA you cannot fail. You complete or not. Completion means producing what as outlined in and submitting your result to the marketplace of your peers who have shared your experience and are doing the same in return. You set your own Appropriate Response to the challenges offered up by the course content.
Why I am Teaching This Course I believe that professionals in any field should focus on three things: defining their art, building leading edge examples of it, teaching others how to do it. Doing repetitive work, over and over, keeping clients dependent while turning the organization into a factory and, ultimately, kills a practice. The present method of practice that makes up the architectural profession and the whole assemblage of organizations necessary to producing a work is not working well. It is neither sustainable nor affordable. This is the major cause of very little good architecture being build - not the lack of potentially good designers nor the desires of many architects This course will start to get under the covers of this broken method and suggest new pathways for participating in the making of great environments. This course is about many things and it will cover many aspects of architectural theory and practice. At the root, however, it is about creating a new kind of practice - something that effects us all. The architectural practice model cannot be separated from architectural theory or practice intent. Each sets the terms of the other. Each constrains or augments the other.
My Goals To make the case, in practical terms, that the design of practice is integral to the design of environments. That the practice elements of architecture promote or hinder the production of good architecture far more than design as an isolated activity. To demonstrate that good design is not esoteric but the systematic application of known criteria and rules - it is a process that can be learned. To demonstrate and transfer certain principles of group process as essential to accomplishing a complex work. To advance new media methods as a serious means to communicate, coordinate and collaborate across time and distance. To employ examples from my own 44 year career in a two fold way. First how the kind of work I wanted to do lead me to an alternative practice path and, second, how this path opened up alternatives that have in turn effected my concept and practice of architecture.
Sessions Outline and Schedule:
This Course is evolving. Changes will be made each cycle. Prior students can repeat the Course - or any part of it - at their own desecration. Proper feedback and Criticism is a key to an effective DesignBuildUse Method and System. There are many criteria that have to be used to effectively critique a work. This has to be known, articulated and used by the Community-of-Practice that is involved in the creation of a work. Criticism in Architecture, today, is poorly practiced. It, generally, employs too narrow criteria and is too often used to promote a specific school of design rather than to support a feedback process aimed at improving results. There are many different kinds of criteria by which an architectural work can be evaluated: design technique, Pattern Language, utility, economy, building quality, building method, idiom, style, historical reference and meaning and so on. Each of these have different standards, method of proof and importance to a given work. They represent a historical KnowledgeBase, a mental tool-kit available for use in the process of producing architecture. Knowing them and employing them will not, by itself, create a great work. It should prevent stupid mistakes. A great piece requires integration of these elements and ART. Art, is that deep unique expression that comes from an individual, a Community of Practice and a historical time and place - all working together. This, also has criteria and we will talk about this along with all the rest. Criticism in Architecture, today is fragmented, biased and spits the profession. It adds little to the process of making better environments. It is dived into schools that are more interest in promoting their agenda than promoting Architecture and its practice. Proper criticism is part of the feedback loop that promotes improvement of a breed. Feedback is the message to the controller of a system, from a sensor of a system, of the difference between between performance and expectation. For feedback to happen the message has to be to someone or something that can act on the message. For the message to be a legitimate message, it has to come from someone or something that is accepted as a sensor and it has to be rendered by criteria that is accepted as valid. To be useful at all, it must address the difference between what was expected and what happened. Most for what passes as criticism and feedback is not that at all. And, CRITICISM should demonstrate, as an integral aspect of its own process, how to make the art (in question) better. In this course we will practice criticism and feedback in this spirit. It will be an integral aspect of the entire design process. And, we will do feedback on feedback which is, according to Norbert Weiner (the father of Cybernetics) FEEDBACK of a complex kind.
One of the things wrong with traditional architectural education, by the way, is that one can get an advanced degree never ever having heard of Norbert Weiner or a host of others who established the present foundations of science (let alone Business) - this Course will address this situation.
A Short Rant On Habits That Dont Make Sense Well... while I am on this subject, I will also note the curiosity that one can get a Masters Degree in Architecture never have ever built a building. Imagine going to a surgeon who has a doctorate in the field but who has never actually touched a body or performed an operation. You go first! I place things like this in a the category of has anybody noticed? Like down spouts and gutters. With the overwhelmingly common application of down spouts and gutters several things are accomplished. After some effort to produce a pleasing elevation, the down spouts and gutters are put on in the most ugly manner possible with (I suppose) everybody playing lets pretend they arent there. Then, to add insult to injury, down spouts and gutters take a generalized problem (distributed water runoff) and make a specific, chronic problem out of it: high volume, concentrated water runoff focussed where you most do not want it on the foundations of the building! Thus, insult (an ugly solution) is added to injury (accelerating the destruction of the building) in one brilliant architectural stroke. The pattern language of the down spouts and gutters logic (!?) is common and repeats itself over and over becoming a habitual practice of otherwise well meaning and intelligent people. Walk around the block and look for foundation cracks. Then locate the down spouts. It seems that we can do better than this. One reason, besides creating a strong sense of shelter, that Mr. Wright used large roof overhangs was to get the water away from the building. Warren Callester used to dump the runoff into a nice 12 inch wide gravel strip that ran the perimeter of the building. How rational! These are good examples where art, practical engineering results from straightforward thinking. Well, end of rant - however it is the pattern of the thinking behind these things that we want to discover and change for the better. This is only a small example of the habits that need to be challenged. And yes, there is a way to do down spouts without these negative consequences.
Internet delivery is an essential tool for an effective modern practice. Unless you intend to stay in a physically specific Boutique Practice, a modern practice is, by definition, geographically dispersed. No amount of travel - even staying permanently mobile as I do - will be sufficient for you to meet your minimum commitments. You have to accomplish effective VIRTUAL presence. There are many (still nascent but powerful) tools available to help you do this. They, however, do not by themselves add up to a method of work adequate for you to be successful. Here is a test: I am not suggesting that you should do this but... if you could sit in a 20 foot by 20 foot room and conduct a successful $50,000,000 design/build practice by yourself, never leaving the room - this would mean that you have a practice method that employs the now-available tool kit and meets the present market demands. Now, think about having that ability and being able to get out of the room and employ all the other tools and methods... There is more to it, of course, than delivery. The www is inherently a multimedia experience - and more importantly - it employs (however rudimentary) Hypertext. This means that a browser can be used to access a vast variety of documents that can be linked in a way that provides an organized yet freeing, user controlled, documentation of any project. A server, web Browser and publisher combined with a database system and interactive dialog space can combine to make a powerful practice tool that can be afforded by anyone. Between five to ten thousand dollars and a hundred or so a month will equip a knowledge worker with a powerful multimedia, computing and communication tool-set. In my mind, lacking this tooling is not an option. It is taking a careless risk. It is opting out of the emerging global society. It is equivalent to breaking your legs and then trying to run a marathon. This course will show you one way to employ these new tools. Please, do not convince yourself that you cannot afford this level of tooling or that you can learn it later. It is a way of working. The learning curve will get steeper and steeper even as the tools get more powerful and easier to use. Look at CadCam. The profession resisted it for years. Now, as it is being adapted, wholesale, to make documents in a style driven by 100 year old ideas and methods. Its present use means the net product is inferior to the old hand drawings, the drawing process is no longer in the hands of the architect (more shrinking of practice) and the real power of the tool is rarely used. About the sole benefit gotten is that revisions are less expensive than redrawing would be. This CadCam use is a classic example of adapting new technology to old ways of working for marginal economic improvement while missing the opportunity for a quantum leap in practice. Few architects use the tool to design building that they cannot draw. Few us the materials handeling and cutting potential. Frank Gehry is a rare exception. One challenge of this Course is to think of the way of transferring an architectural concept to the many necessary to design, build and use it in a way that speaks their language and addresses the conditions and challenges that they face at the time they face them. Given todays tools, and challenging yesterdays conventions, how would you communicate architecture today?
Palo Alto SolutionBox voice of this document: posted December 4, 1999 revised May 17, 2000 This document is 85% finished Copyright© 1999, 2000 Matt Taylor
Matt Taylor Studio Project |