11231 Architectural Design: Field

Warning: The information on this page is indicative. The subject outline for a particular session, location and mode of offering is the authoritative source of all information about the subject for that offering. Required texts, recommended texts and references in particular are likely to change. Students will be provided with a subject outline once they enrol in the subject.

Subject handbook information prior to 2018 is available in the Archives.

UTS: Design, Architecture and Building: Architecture
Credit points: 6 cp

Subject level:

Undergraduate

Result type: Grade and marks

Requisite(s): 11211 Architectural Design: Forming AND 11227 Architectural Design: Performance

Description

This subject explores the complex relationships between architecture, urban environment and social context. The subject encourages students to approach architecture beyond the object, as an intervention within a broader, dynamic system. It negotiates the spatial conditions of territory, boundary, threshold and occupation against shifting contextual climates.

Through studio and group collaborations, students engage in contemporary discourse to articulate architectural agendas within a wider civic strategy. The studio interrogates existing and projected networks and infrastructures to generate, test and synthesise multi-scalar architecture and its field.

Subject learning objectives (SLOs)

1.	Understand an urban field as a complex and dynamic system
2.	Articulate robust political, social and spatial agendas within architectural discourse
3.	Strategize how architecture can adapt to conditions of change within an urban field
4.	Test the architectural conditions that contribute to civic character through design of a large scale mixed-use public building
5.	Establish communication tactics to synthesise the aesthetic, programmatic and performative functions of a public building.
6.	Collaborate within professional working groups to develop innovative design solutions.

Course intended learning outcomes (CILOs)

This subject also contributes to the following Course Intended Learning Outcomes:

• Apply an informed ethical and sustainable attitude to the discipline by positioning work within a broader social context (A.1)
• Constructively contribute to peer learning by communicating through various modes of oral, written, graphic communication (C.2)
• Display leadership qualities throughout the production and delivery of the project (C.3)
• Creative synthesis of complex ideas, arguments and rationales that address an array of social, technical and environmental practices (I.2)
• Evidence a three-dimensional understanding of spatial sequence and organisation (P.4)
• Evidence disciplinary knowledge through the application of physical and/or digital mediums (P.6)
• Employ an iterative approach to learning using disciplinary specific research methods (R.1)
• Employ critical thinking to evidence an awareness of past and contemporary disciplinary thinking (R.3)

Teaching and learning strategies

This course is designed as an interactive, discursive and creative design studio environment. Four-hour weekly sessions (1-hour lecture, 3-hour tutorials) will include lectures, live debates, exhibitions, in-class workshops, design collaboration and critique.

STUDIO SESSIONS & LECTURES // Regular one-hour lectures will introduce the studio conceptual framework and explore urban resilience, disaster response and civic architecture. Lecture formats will vary to include lectures, panel discussions, student-led ‘news reports’ and practitioners sharing experiences. Three-hour studio workshops include guided working sessions, design pin-up and discourse. Student attendance, preparation and participation to all sessions will contribute to learning outcomes.

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING // UTS staff believe that collaborative peer learning enhances learning. The course is designed as a continuous participatory exercise, aiming to foster to debate, strategic thinking and innovation within the studio environment. Students will work in collaborative groups throughout the semester, including a studio-wide collective research project for Assessment 1, and team architectural proposals for Assessment 2. All studios across the subject will generate collective intelligence about Urban Resilience to be shared via in-class exhibitions and student-led news reports.

ONLINE COURSEWORK // Online resources will be used to support the learning objectives of this subject. This includes multimedia documentation, essential and recommended readings, videos, information about the site and programmatic requirements. All documents will be accessible from UTS Online.

FEEDBACK // The subject provides a range of formative feedback strategies, including peer feedback (workshops), weekly face-to-face tutorials, assessment milestones and formal critique panels. Formal assessment and specified formative feedback will be provided in Review. Students should take advantage of tutorial sessions to get feedback rather than emailing tutors outside of class time. Staff can only provide meaningful feedback if students can demonstrate weekly design development through printed drawings and physical and or digital models. As the subject is designed around progressive design development each week, students must print a draft work-in-progress to receive feedback during tutorials.

Content (topics)

KEY WORDS // The course explores urban resilience, including the following concepts: acute shock, extreme stress, climate change, crisis, disruption, wicked problems, sustainability, disaster preparedness and humanitarian response. Each studio will explore specific research lenses: food security, water, health, transport, essential services, life and death, heat, law and order and social economies. Other subject themes include social agency, civic character, democratic public space, threshold, temporality, mapping, infrastructure networks, obsolescence, redundancy, and adaptation.

Assessment

Assessment task 1: Mid Semester Review

Intent:	In this task, students will work collaboratively to develop a studio position around urban resilience, to analyse the existing urban field against long-term stress and to articulate speculative architectural strategies. Students will understand the city as a complex system, anticipate future uncertainty and develop public architecture that responds to change.
Objective(s):	This task addresses the following subject learning objectives: 1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.): A.1, C.2, I.2, P.6 and R.3
Type:	Presentation
Groupwork:	Group, group and individually assessed
Weight:	35%
Length:	Presentation format and layout will be negotiated and curated within each tutorial group. Each student is nominally allocated the equivalent of 2 x A1 sheets + model(s). Deliverables include: WHOLE STUDIO GROUP: Collective studio output: Physical model of 5 block x 10 block Field // suggested scale 1:250, to be agreed with tutor. Model will be built up over the semester using hand made and machined components – cardboard bases recommended to enable regular re-working. Model must demonstrate the existing city fabric (base), the group strategy; and the complex systems of infrastructure and intangible elements that influence this system. The model defines the studio group’s resilience strategy and individual projects. Studio ‘Atlas of Resilience’ // A3 (portrait format), bound collection of six studio analytical city maps (see small group requirements below) Expo: Students will transform their studio space to exhibit their research lens and group strategy to their peers. In addition to deliverables, students may include videos, sound, postcards, actors / props and other creative presentation techniques. SMALL GROUPS: In groups of 3 students to develop Analytical city map // one portrait map per working group, scale to fit on 4xA1 (or equivalent) sheets. Each map should include physical, temporal and intangible information to draw out precise analytical insights to the studio theme and inform group strategy. Each working group must develop a distinctive and critical map. Scale to be determined in studio Physcial model // architectural proposition within the Field : each working group is responsible for part of physical model including their node and its surrounding network Return Brief / A4
Criteria linkages:	Criteria Weight (%) SLOs CILOs RESEARCH: [INDIVIDUAL] Ability to undertake independent original research that contributes to collective understanding of the studio research agenda. Analytical map layers are embedded with insightful, thorough, relevant spatial, environmental and political research to inform a design strategy. 25 1 R.3 INNOVATION: [LARGE GROUP] Ability to synthesise the complexity of the urban network into an innovative group strategy that responds to the studio specific research agenda. The mega model demonstrates sophisticated understanding of existing and projected networks. The craft, detail and materiality of the model resonates with the studio agenda. 25 3 I.2 ADVOCACY: [SMALL GROUP] Ability to engage with broader political, environmental and social agenda through architecture. The return brief and architectural interventions demonstrate robust design strategies and effective civic character. 20 4 A.1 PROFESSIONAL: [INDIVIDUAL] The analytical map, model and overall approach provides rigorous insight into studio themes through architecture. Graphics and model demonstrates professional skill, integrated thinking and architectural flare. 20 5 P.6 COMMUNICATION: [INDIVIDUAL] Ability to actively engage and contribute to the group learning outcomes, including diligent completion of assigned tasks, ability to support or lead the team as needed and articulate, informed verbal communication. 10 6 C.2 SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes

Assessment task 2: Final Design

Intent:	In this task, students will work collaboratively in small groups to respond to a hypothetical urban disruption and post-disaster review. Students are challenged to test the adaptive capacity of their public building against a ‘crisis mode’. The real-time disaster scenario provokes temporal thinking to consider dynamic changes within the urban field and imagine architecture in occupation and over time.
Objective(s):	This task addresses the following subject learning objectives: 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.): A.1, C.3, I.2, P.4 and R.1
Type:	Presentation
Groupwork:	Group, individually assessed
Weight:	65%
Length:	Deliverables for this project are to be negotiated with your tutor. Each student is nominally allocated the equivalent of 4 x A1 drawings + model(s). Outputs may include the following: WHOLE STUDIO GROUP: Collective studio output: Final physical model of Architectural Proposals in the Field // Layered and complex city model that demonstrates studio strategy in multiple modes with architectural interventions. It is expected that the model incorporate removable or digital layers, multiple materials, and refined architectural proposals. SMALL GROUPS: In groups of 3 students to develop: Time-based cityscape // Complex drawing to show architectural propositions within extended Field over time. Base drawing 1:200 streetscape (elevation) extending across 3 city blocks, with overlays, callouts, collage and other layering techniques to show existing conditions and future proposals. Drawing must show 3 simultaneous time frames, including the disaster scenario. Each team member must take responsibility for: 1) one city block of fenestration, 2) one time frame; 3) one threshold detail (see below); 4) one type of urban infrastructure; 5) one or more moments of human occupation. Threshold details // 1:50 sectional perspective drawings / to demonstrate spatial character of 3 architectural thresholds (interior and exterior); one per student. Integrate threshold drawings into cityscape, and include construction and environmental systems and human occupation. Physical model // each small group to contribute (removable) individual model to studio Field. Each group is responsible for ensuring the base model around their building is at final review quality. Architectural drawings // include other orthogonal drawings required to explain the project Group portfolio // A4 L’scape Booklet / creative collation of small group research & design outcomes, with individual contributions noted wherever possible.
Criteria linkages:	Criteria Weight (%) SLOs CILOs RESEARCH: [INDIVIDUAL] Ability to develop a complex and layered response to the disaster scenario through an architectural project. The time-based cityscape demonstrates regular iteration and a strong understanding of how the project and its field would respond to multiple modes of time. 20 3 R.1 INNOVATION: [INDIVIDUAL] The architectural project is an inspirational response to the studio brief, demonstrating creative flare across a range of scales. Network connections are sophisticated, siting is controlled, and architectural character is elegantly articulated through the synthesis of form, circulation, scale, light, material and environmental systems and resolution of key spaces. 35 4 I.2 ADVOCACY: [GROUP] Ability to articulate and challenge the broader political, environmental and social agendas of the project in response to climate change and urban resilience. The refined collective model demonstrates an informed, ethical position and effectively responds to studio themes, including resilience, disaster, temporality, adaptability and social agency. 20 2 A.1 PROFESSIONAL: [INDIVIDUAL] Sophisticated visual communication integrates orthographic drawing techniques with evocative detail to encapsulate and clarify the project. Threshold details, callouts and supporting drawings demonstrates aptitude, strategic thinking and innovation. 15 5 P.4 COMMUNICATION: Ability to participate in collaborative group learning outcomes while sustaining effective self-directed work practices. Weekly contributions, class engagement and overall coordination of design outcomes demonstrate discipline, aptitude and professionalism. Visual material is capably supported with insightful verbal presentation. 10 6 C.3 SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes

Minimum requirements

The Faculty of DAB expects students to attend at least 80% of the scheduled contact hours for each enrolled subject. Achievement of subject aims is difficult if classes are not attended.?Where assessment tasks are to be presented personally in class, attendance is mandatory. Pursuant to “UTS Rule 3.8.2”, students who do not satisfy attendance requirements may be refused permission by the Responsible Academic Officer to be considered for assessment for this subject.

Required texts

daSilva J., Kernaghan, S. & Luque, A. 2012. A systems approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate change, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 4:2, 125-145

Moffatt, S. 2014. Resilience and competing temporalities in cities, Building Research & Information, 42:2, 202-220

Resilient Sydney. 2016. City Context Report and Preliminary Resilience Assessment Report Download here: http://sydneyyoursay.com.au/resilient-sydney.

Sphere Project, 2011, ‘Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response’, Belmont Press Ltd, Northampton, UK. http://www.spherehandbook.org

Vale, L., 2014. The politics of resilient cities: whose resilience and whose city?, Building Research & Information, 42:2, 191-201

Recommended texts

CITY OF SYDNEY LINKS:

City of Sydney: Vision: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/sustainable-sydney-2030

City of Sydney: Policies: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/our-responsibilities/policies

Resilient Sydney Documents: http://sydneyyoursay.com.au/resilient-sydney.

HUMANITARIAN ARCHITECTURE

Aquilino, Marie J. (ed), 2011, ‘Beyond Shelter: Architecture for Crisis’, Thames and Hudson, London UK

Architecture for Humanity, 2012, ‘Design Like You Give Damn [2]: Building Change from the Ground Up’, Abrams New York

Ballesteros, M et al (ed.) 2007. Verb: Architecture Bookazine: Crisis. ACTAR. Barcelona.

Stevens, Q. 2006. Betwixt & Between: Building thresholds, liminality and public space. in Loose Space. Taylor & Francis online.

MAPPING & NETWORKS (THEORY & PRACTICE)

Allen, Stan. 2000. ‘Mapping the Unmappable: on notation’. In Allen, S and Agrest, D. Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation. G+B Arts International, Amsterdam.

Corner, J. 1999. The Agency of Mapping in Cosgrove, D. Mappings. Reaktion Books.

de Certeau, M. 1980. 'Walking in the CIty' in the Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press, Berkeley

Eco, U. 2013. On the Impossibility of Drawing a Map of Empire on a Scale of 1:1. How to Travel With a Salmon & Other Essays.

Fernández Per, A. and Arpa, J. 2008. The Public Chance: New Urban Landscapes. a+t in common series. Impresión. Santamaría.

Mostafavi, M with Doherty, G. Ecological Urbanism. Harvard University Graduate School of Design. Lars Muller Publishers.

Tschumi, B. 1998. Event Cities. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Rome.

MAPPING (GRAPHICS)

Klanten, Robert. 2010. Data flow 2 : visualizing information in graphic design. Berlin : Gestalten.

Klanten, R., Van Heerden, F. 2008. Data flow : visualising information in graphic design. Berlin : Gestalten.

Lima, Manuel, 2011, ‘Visual Complexity: Mapping Patterns of Information’, Princeton Architectural Press, NY

Solnit, R. and Jelly-Shapiro, J. 2016, Nonstop Metropolis: A New York City Atlas, University of California Press

Van Es, E. 2014, Atlas of a Functional City: CIAM 4 and Comparative Urban Analysis, THOTH

References

RESILIENCE LITERATURE (JOURNAL PAPERS – FULL LIST):

Allan, P & Bryant, M. 2011. Resilience as a framework for urbanism and recovery, Journal of Landscape Architecture, 6:2, 34-45

Bulkeley, H. & Tuta, R. 2013. Understanding urban vulnerability, adaptation and resilience in the context of climate change, Local Environment, 18:6, 646-662,

daSilva J., Kernaghan, S. & Luque, A. 2012. A systems approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate change, International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 4:2, 125-145

Marcuse, P. 2009. From critical urban theory to the right to the city, City, 13:2-3, 185-197

Moffatt, S. 2014. Resilience and competing temporalities in cities, Building Research & Information, 42:2, 202-220

Tainter, J.A., & Taylor, T.G., 2014. Complexity, problem solving, sustainability and resilience, Building Research & Information, 42:2, 168-181

Vale, L., 2014. The politics of resilient cities: whose resilience and whose city?, Building Research & Information, 42:2, 191-201

Vigano, P. 2015 'State of Crisis and the Project: Horizontal Metropolis' in Bianchetti et al 2015. Territories in Crisis. Jovis, Turin.

RESILIENCE & CLIMATE CHANGE (BOOKS):

Alberti, M. 2016. Cities that think like planets : complexity, resilience, and innovation in hybrid ecosystems. Seattle : University of Washington Press, [2016]

Bartlett, S., Satterthwaite, D., 2016. Cities on a finite planet : towards transformative responses to climate change. Abingdon, Oxon New York, NY Routledge.

McDonald, D., 2016. Making Public in a Privatized World: The Struggle for Essential Services. Zed Books London.

Pickett, S., Cadenasso, M., McGrath, Brian. 2003. Resilience in ecology and urban design linking theory and practice for sustainable cities. Dordrecht ; New York : Springer, c2013

White, I. 2010. Water and the city : risk, resilience and planning for a sustainable future. New York : Routledge, c2010.

RESILIENCE & DISASTER (BOOKS):

Anshelm, J., and Hultman, .M. 2015. Discourse of Global Climate Change: Apocalyptic framing and political antagonism. Routledge, Taylor and Francis, New York and London.

Bosher, Lee. 2008. Hazards and the built environment : attaining built-in resilience. London : Taylor & Francis, 2008.

Coaffee, J., 2009 The everyday resilience of the city : how cities respond to terrorism and disaster. Basingstoke [England] ; New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2009.

Coaffee, Jon. 2016. Urban resilience : planning for risk, crisis and uncertainty. London Palgrave.

Pelling, M. 2003. The vulnerability of cities : natural disasters and social resilience. Sterling, Va: Earthscan Publications, 2003.

Rogers. P. 2012. Resilience & the city : change, (dis)order, and disaster. Burlington, VT : Ashgate Pub.

Other resources

CLIMATE CHANGE VIDEOS:

Naomi Klein: This Changes Everything. Guardian Docs. https://youtu.be/Rqw99rJYq8Q

Human Extinction 2030: Climate Disruption Movie: https://youtu.be/VsU5ZG_BPVw.

FUTURE SCENARIOS (SAMPLES):

Shell International BV. 2008. Shell Energy Scenarios to 2050 (report): http://www.shell.com/content/dam/shell/static/public/downloads/brochures/corporate-pkg/scenarios/shell-energy-scenarios2050.pdf

Ecologic Institute (ed). 2014. CECILIA 2050: Scenarios for 2050 for a 2-degrees World: http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/projects/cecilia/Deliverable_3_1A_final.pdf

Deutsche Post AG. 2012. Delivering Tomorrow: Logistics 2050: A Scenario Study: http://www.dpdhl.com/content/dam/dpdhl/logistik_populaer/Studie2050/szenario-study-logistics-2050-en.pdf

CITY OF SYDNEY LINKS:

City of Sydney: Vision: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/vision/sustainable-sydney-2030

City of Sydney: Policies: http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/council/our-responsibilities/policies

Resilient Sydney Documents: http://sydneyyoursay.com.au/resilient-sydney.

REFERENCE DATA:

Kister, Prof. J. 2012. Neufert Architects' Data. Fourth Edition. Wiley-Blackwell. UK.

PUBLIC ARCHITECTURE (EXAMPLES)

The UTS Library supports an extensive collection of architecture books and monographs. Useful examples include El Croquis publications – call number 720 (Large Books) – including Alvaro Siza, Steven Holl, David Chipperfield, Collective Experiments, Toyo Ito, SANAA, Joao Luis Parrilho da Graca, Herzog & de Meuron

C3 Magazine – examples include: 365 // In the Community: The Public and Institutional Buildings, 341 // UrbanHow: Variation and Transtion, 370 // Amenity in Urban Revival