Composing Architecture: from concept to construction

DI CHALLIS, JEREMY HAM CHALLIS_HAM_JAE

9/11/2015 1

Composing Architecture: from concept to construction

Abstract

Integrating the conceptual and practice worlds underpins university architectural education. This

paper discusses a project developed, delivered and evaluated at Deakin University, Australia,

which aimed to address learning tectonic composition through a collaborative

explorative/constructivist project, ‘Composing Architecture—the Music Room’. Students

participated in a series of transitions from sole composers of both architecture and music to team

players in the construction of a small but detailed piece of architecture. Along the way, they

experienced the craft of the composer, conductor and musician and related these to an

architectural context, thus achieving a small but vital step towards virtuosity.

The Composing Architecture project—the Music Room

The Composing Architecture project, was the confluence of investigations into composition (both

musical and architectural), tectonics (the science or art of construction) and digital learning

environments, each of which will be discussed below. Seventy-four second year students

undertook the project in semester 2, 2001at Deakin University, Australia. The project comprised a

series of three inter-related sub-projects and one ‘game’ (see below) and its significance was

recognised by the allocation of 65% of the marks for the unit. Project material was delivered

entirely online through a series of unit homepages, resource pages, Virtual Galleries, digital

projects and games, and was supported by a lecture series.

The project design drew on influential antecedents. Several recent innovative works in

architectural research and practice acted as inspiration. The works of individuals such as

Amacher, Fullman, Holl, Leitner, Martin, Novak, Zeug and Ferschin, teams such as Lehner & Oka

as well as dECOi, Burry and others, reveal the current fascination by designers to draw together

the realms of architecture and music. These works have integrated an existing musical piece into


9/11/2015 2

the design process through layered relationships, related instruments to architecture and

designed architecture based on acoustics1 (see Martin, 1994). Of these recent works, the

intelligent, interactive hypersurface wall by Burry, dECOi architects and an international team

particularly inspired the project directly. A series of lectures was given to the class by Prof Burry;

lectures that the class overwhelmingly responded to in the journals they wrote as part of the

evaluation with comments such as ‘absolutely inspirational’, ‘fascinating’ and ‘exciting’ typifying

the reaction.

Two works in architectural education became important points of reference for the programme

under discussion. It drew first on the ‘Reading Room’ project devised by Prof Mark Burry and

delivered in previous years to students in various year levels at several institutions2. From 1999,

the Committee for University Teaching and Staff Development (CUTSD) ‘Reflective Making’

project led to the development of resources, web-based digital projects and ‘games’ for

architectural education in the early years. The intention of this curriculum development was to

provide a learning environment where reflective processes and the wise use of computers in

architectural design are rewarded and encouraged. This will be discussed later in this paper.

Drawing on the CUTSD project, students were motivated by a lure to engage them: the

opportunity either to create a piece of music or an acoustic musical instrument as a ‘game’. This

‘game’ encouraged creative and playful approaches to ideation and composition within a low-risk

self-directed on-line environment’4 and was proffered to students as “a little music therapy for the

mid-semester blues” (unit website). The intention was that the outcomes of the ‘game’ would be

related in some way to the associated series of stages that made up the project. These stages

are detailed in the second part of this paper with data drawn from the evaluation of the project by

an external evaluator, the joint author of this paper, incorporated.

Composition: musical and architectural

Architectural practitioners, it is contended, are really composers of form and space realised

through applied tectonics. They have much to learn from the study of composers and their


9/11/2015 3

compositions in relation to philosophy and technique. The association with non-architectural

disciplines formed an integral element of the project, and was inspired by the Roman architect

and scholar Vitruvius:

Let him be educated, skilful with the pencil, instructed in geometry, know much history,

have followed the philosophers with attention, understand music, have some knowledge

of medicine, know the opinions of the jurists and be acquainted with astronomy and the

theory of the heavens5.

Connections between architecture and non-architectural disciplines are often achieved through

the elective program within the course. However, over the past 15 years, in response to

pressures on the curriculum from external certifying bodies, the architecture course at Deakin

University has reduced the number of electives external to the school from two per year to none.

At the same time, the introduction of a Higher Education Contribution Scheme of around

$5000AUD per year has led to a more career- focussed student body more likely to want to study

only units they perceive as likely to return immediate and clear benefits in their careers.

Such a discernible and growing trend towards the specialisation of architecture, with the resultant

narrowing of the focus of architectural education in terms of its relationship to other disciplines,

restricts an inclusive view of architectural education and connotes a trend towards insularisation.

Valuable lessons can be learnt from exploring design within a non-architectural context, by

looking outside the realm for inspiration. It is a continuing trait of architectural education (as with

other creative arts) that, after a five-year course, there is still a lifetime’s learning to follow before

mastery or virtuosity is achieved.

A conviction of the need to encourage the extension of knowledge in non-architectural fields led

to a formal exploration of the commonalities in design processes between music and architecture

through the design of an actual piece of music. The integration of a playful ‘game’ into the

curriculum allowed students to cross the floor, to uncondition themselves as to the nature of their

profession and to become a composer of the temporal arts. The art chosen for the cross-

fertilisation of ideas between disciplines was music, but could have been any other output of


9/11/2015 4

human creativity. Music was chosen following one of the author’s practical and research interests

(as architect and percussionist) and its strong associations with architecture amongst scholars

over the years.

Within the current curriculum structure, it is left to the educational designer to draw upon non-

architectural disciplines and relate them to design projects to attain inclusivity in architectural

education. The aim of any architectural education must be to achieve a degree of virtuosity.

‘Virtuosity’, a term borrowed from the field of music, cannot be achieved entirely within 5 years of

architectural education. What we can provide as educators, though, are the tools to enable

graduates to achieve virtuosity in the future. This may be done by instilling the attitude of the

master at an early stage of architectural education and encouraging “the reasoned application of

the designer’s past knowledge”6 within the shared cultures of musical and architectural

composition. The recurrent themes of composition, instrumentation, virtuosity and music formed

the rich theoretical basis upon which the study of tectonics is founded.

The challenges of tectonic education in Architecture

How does one impress upon students of architecture in their early, and especially formative,

years the importance of ‘designing construction’ and ‘design making’? The importance of a

tectonic approach to design is ideally realised when a design concept is actually constructed and

real-world interaction between user and artefact occurs. It is through this human interaction that

‘the distinct domains of architectural ideas and a constructed reality’ may be related and reflected

upon. As computer enhanced visualisation is currently not at a stage of development to allow

‘haptic holographic illusory VR environments’1 there is no viable substitute to physical

construction for the learning of tectonics in the context of architecture.

This ‘learning by building”7 approach to tectonic design has been a successful element of

architectural education both in Australia8 9and overseas.10 Yet, review of final year architectural


9/11/2015 5

projects at Deakin University, reveals a disturbing lack of understanding of tectonics and the

application of designing construction in some student design projects. These students have

undertaken similar design/construct projects during the course of their studies, yet tend to slip

back into the mould of ‘architect as concept designer’ when given a larger project. At the

culmination of five years of study, some have not come to the realisation that tectonic

understandings are central to good design .

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the majority of projects within the undergraduate

design curriculum operate entirely within the ‘schematic design’ stage, which constitutes only

15% of the fee basis of full architectural services.11 The required level of attention to tectonics and

detailing is often not reached due to large-scale projects with complex briefing requirements

frequently being delivered within short periods of time. Such a practice is unrealistic and

unrealisable and mitigates against authentic learning that prepares students appropriately for

their professional lives.12

The reality of the practice of architecture in the twenty-first century is of design/construct teams

composed of architects, consultants and project managers; early design decisions made through

extensive consultation; with design resolution extending to a highly detailed level to facilitate

actual construction. The environment becomes more complex as issues such as regulatory

conformity, cost control and client negotiations come into play. For architecture students to begin

to understand the tectonics of construction and to appreciate architectural composition as both a

‘product’ and a ‘process’, they must be captured in the early stages of their education for this

knowledge to permeate through subsequent projects. Concepts realised early in the career of the

architect must also be reiterated and integrated into future projects in a way in which ‘reflection-

on-action’ informs ‘reflection-in-action’13 in tectonically driven design processes.

Students of architecture need also to understand the intrinsic importance of ‘design-making’14 in

the craft of architecture. For us, real-world architecture resides within a culture of making. There

continues to be disassociation amongst students between the representation of architecture and

the architecture itself and the architecture and the making of architecture. This ‘perspectival


9/11/2015 6

hinge’15 at work between architectural documentation and the artefact, is consolidated by a

tendency for students not to consider ‘making’ as integral to their craft. This may lead to student

projects that are unbuildable, graduates with minimal construction knowledge and, eventually,

architects who produce poorly detailed and documented work.

Design-making, in both a digital and physical sense, has been included from 1999 in the

architectural curricula in three schools of architecture (Deakin University and Adelaide University

in Australia and Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand) as part of the CUTSD funded

project. Here, 3D CAD models were used to further understandings of construction systems and

assemblies, complemented by the construction of real-scale detail models, the construction and

testing to destruction of timber elements and the use of information technologies to deliver, store

and retrieve construction information.16 These go some way towards achieving an understanding

of the ‘design-construction nexus’ through analysis, but this still needs to be complemented by an

element of synthesis for the nexus to be achieved. The combination of these two modes of

understanding should lead to a more holistic view of architecture as a product dependent on the

process.

The series of inter-related sub-projects (structured as stages) at the centre of this paper is a

composite of layered and inter-woven understandings relating to the teaching of tectonics through

composition and the teaching of composition through tectonics. Student understandings of

construction are translated from an analytical perspective to the synthesis through ‘design

making’ of a small-scale architectural ‘masterpiece’, the Music Room.


9/11/2015 7

The digital learning environment

The nationally funded CUTSD project mentioned above led to the development of a series of unit

webpages, resource pages, Virtual Galleries, digital projects and ‘games’. These constituted a

new mode of delivery of projects within the School of Architecture and Building and reinforced a

major direction of Deakin University.17 By the onset of the second semester design program,

students had achieved a high degree of mastery of digital technologies such as digital

presentation media and 3D computer models. The Composing Architecture project was regarded

as the natural extension of this continued exploration.

In the use of digital media in the delivery of course work, hyperlinks embedded within project

resource pages allowed self-directed online research. A webpage template enabled constructor

groups to document the construction process online, provide images of the final product,

recognise sponsors and monitor attendance. These were linked to the unit webpage (Fig. 01) and

Virtual Gallery. This also had the benefit of allowing design staff to review work in progress whilst

providing an opportunity for team members less able to participate in actual construction to

contribute to the project.

Fig 01. Web page interface for project delivery: Unit website (left) online project (right)


9/11/2015 8

A dialogue between digital operation and physical construction was present throughout the

project, based on the principle of utilising media appropriate to the task. It was envisaged that

through the culmination of the year’s work, ending with the Composing Architecture project,

students could operate ‘post-digitally’18, drawing upon a wide range of appropriate digital and

physical media to communicate their design intentions. The resultant websites and digital

presentations provided compelling evidence of the successful transference of skills obtained in

other units to this project, demonstrating acquisition of an important higher-order skill.

Project stages: their design, delivery and learning outcomes

Stage 1: Composition and Instrumentation

This ‘game’ was designed with the following aims:

• To explore creativity through the self-expression and craft of music in a way that informs

architectural design processes.

• To develop skills in composition, instrumentation and making. To develop creative and

responsive design skills.

• To create a beautiful and well-crafted musical composition or acoustic musical instrument

to accompany the design of a Music Room.19

The ‘game’ webpage summarises its intentions:

This is a game about creative self-expression through the exploration of music. Music in

its many forms is something that is integral to most of our lives, something that we

experience and enjoy every day; much like our architecture. You are asked to undertake

the transition from listener to the role of composer or instrument maker in order to

address one of two propositions that relate music to architecture. Firstly, that practitioners

of music and architecture share similarities in compositional and design processes.

Secondly, that musical instrumentation and tectonics are both products of 'making',

reliant on intuitive and sensory interplay in order to produce a finely 'tuned' artefact.


9/11/2015 9

It is contended that architects have much to learn about architecture from the study of

music and this game uses the paradigm of play to achieve this. The accompanying

project, 'Composing Architecture' studies the association of music and architecture in

experiential terms through the design of a small-scale architectural masterpiece, the

Music Room. Together, the project and game will form a small step in achieving virtuosity

within the realm of architecture.

Students were asked to be playful in their approach to the ‘game’ and explore their creative skills

in a non-architectural medium. Alternative understandings of what constituted music were

discussed in studio sessions and links to compositional websites provided opportunities for self-

exploration of what was a new field to most. The works of some twentieth century composers

(Bartok, Schonberg, Zappa and, most notably, Cage) were discussed to establish a dialogue on

‘what is music?’ Web-based project delivery allowed links to downloadable music composition,

sampling shareware sites and reference material. The ‘game’ delivery was accompanied by

lectures, followed by a studio-based esquisse in translational associations with music, which took

the form of free-form sketching while listening to musical pieces. This ‘game’ and associated

esquisses freed up student’s thinking from previous projects and allowed a guided entry into what

was for most the hitherto unknown world of musical composition.

The ‘game’ was intended to inform the associated series of projects, provide a lure for student

engagement and the impetus for the creative exploration of non-architectural media and design

processes. The observations of the lecturer and the evaluator, who sought student opinion,

confirmed that this was case. Student engagement was high and there was a palpable sense of

enjoyment with the activity, construed by most as a refreshing change (“a good break”) and fun.

As envisaged, the experience of the previous semester with digital software meant the students

could readily demonstrate digital mastery, going beyond comfort with functionality to use the

medium creatively to compose their musical pieces. This was reflected in the grades achieved,


9/11/2015 10

with the average mark being 67% and the highest 90%. Students also had the option of designing

a prototype musical instrument. For students (approximately 15%) who took this option, results

tended to be polarised with some magical responses counterpointed by others that did not

address the assessment criteria of craftsmanship and finesse.

The next stage of the project was to relate the musical compositions or instruments in some way

to the composition of architectural space.

Stage 2a: Individual design

The architectural project intrinsic to the ‘game’ was the design of a ‘Music Room’, a space

“specifically designed for the contemplation and/or composition of music”. Work was undertaken

individually and submission was limited to non-digital media as a counterpoint to the full

immersion into digital mastery in previous projects. The first submission allowed students to

operate entirely conceptually, in the knowledge that the projects would be developed further.

The project website informed students of the stated aims and background to the project:

This project provides the opportunity to explore associations with non-architectural disciplines

to expand your understandings in the Vitruvian sense in order to inform your design skills.

Compositional processes are examined in relation to music, architecture and other artistic

disciplines throughout this project and related Game. Within this theoretical context, you are

asked to conceptualise a space specifically designed for the contemplation and/or

composition of music. The building must be imaginatively sited, beautifully crafted and

designed in response to the theoretical context of the project. Resolution for this project is to

be entirely at a conceptual level, and represented using traditional architectural media. The

conceptual and theoretical issues within the project must be resolved in the form of a small

architectural masterpiece, a Music Room.

The fundamental issues being explored within the project were:

1. Design and compositional processes


9/11/2015 11

2. The nature of space

3. The relationship between the interior and the exterior

4. Relating architectural artefacts to a site context

5. Introspection and habitation

6. Relationships between fine and useful arts

7. Handcraft and making

This project took place over a period of four weeks parallel to the ‘game’. A roving review allowed

students to peer review colleagues’ design work, along with associated musical compositions and

instruments.

At best, students produced excellent designs, well conceived and developed, that related directly

to the instrument or composition. (see Fig 01). However, there was some concern that students

had not spent enough time on the tectonic aspects of the project and design and composition

were compromised as students revealed difficulty in relating the music to architecture. While the

average mark for this project was 63%, with a highest mark of 90%, 9 students, representing

twelve percent of the cohort, received marks of below 50% through not adequately addressing

the tectonic and conceptual issues at hand. This reinforces the need to address this issue.

Already a theme was commencing that would become increasingly prominent as the project

developed: the subordination of music to the architectural activity.


9/11/2015 12

Fig. 02 Hand-rendered presentation (left) and 3D CAD model of same design (right).

Stage 2b: Individual detailed development

A second individual submission required students to explore more deeply the tectonics of their

conceptual design, culminating in the construction of a 1:10 model and detail drawings. Students

who had achieved poor reviews from the ‘composing architecture’ project had an opportunity to

re-design their initial concept.

The project website informed students that this was an extension of Project 2a, the conceptual

design of a Music Room. They were told:

The project requires you to achieve thorough resolution at a detailed level of your

conceptual design; a means of allowing your design concept to transcend from the idea

to the realisable. The resolution must address and respond to the tectonic and

construction issues inherent in the design concept. The means of achieving this is

through detailed studies and drawings, along with CAD or physical models. (Fig 02)


9/11/2015 13

Fig. 03 Drawings and detail model of successful student project

A large number of students took the conceptual nature of the first project too literally and

produced unbuildable designs, which required significant modification in order to pass. This may

well reflect the conditioning of traditional design studio thinking, where the buildability of designs

is not tested through large-scale details and models. The most pleasing results, in terms of

learning, occurred when students undertook considerable effort to undergo the transition from an

abstract concept to a buildable concept, utilising research skills obtained in previous aspects of

the programme. Some students, however, were required to completely redesign their Music

Rooms, a learning opportunity in itself. The stimulus for this effort was the opportunity to have

their schemes selected for construction in stage 3, with more developed works more likely to be

selected (see Fig. 03).


9/11/2015 14

The top mark for this project was 100%, with professional quality work, inclusive of engineering

calculations, innovative details and 3D CAD models. Because this was the work of two mature-

aged students, it cannot be seen as representative of typical second year undergraduate students

who are within the 18-22 year age group and who have less life and professional experience. The

average mark was 63% with 10 students (14%) receiving a mark of below 50%. Four students

chose not to submit any work, one, who was demonstrably in error, arguing that the required level

of tectonic detailing was achieved in the previous submission. These results reinforce the point

that novice designers have considerable difficulty in realising the tectonics of their design

concepts. Consequently, major learning opportunities are offered in this stage and those who

failed to realise the tectonics of their design learnt through this failure. While high quality work

rewarded both the students and the lecturer, there was recognition that some of the most

productive learning occurred for those students who struggled with this aspect of the project.

Fig. 04 1:10 detail models of student projects selected for construction


9/11/2015 15

Stage 3: Group 1:1 construction and presentation

This stage of the project is the culmination of a year’s immersion into design and construction and

ultimately serves to find answers to the following question that was the foundation of the unit:

“What is the relationship between architectural design and architectural technology within the

environment?” The project also served to find a balance between design making and digital

mastery in the representation of architectural ideation and realisation, the transition from concept

to construction.

Five fundamental questions were explicitly explored within this project:

• What constitutes architectural propriety?

• Is building design the privilege of the sole author?

• What happens when detailed resolution is devolved to teams of designers rather than

individuals?

• What is the relationship of building technology to architectural design?

• Which, if any, leads the design process? (unit website, following Burry 2000)

This project saw the transition from sole practitioner to collaborative team player and from design

architect to construction manager and constructor of a colleague’s project. Six teams of 10-13

people were formed from studio groups (basically in alpha sequence) with each group required to

select a colleague’s project to undergo the transition from concept to construction.

The project tested collectively a conceptual hypothesis developed by a class colleague and the

commitment that comes from building at full-scale. In this model of project design, the rigour

involved in the translation of architectural ideas to reality quickly became apparent to the

students. Previous notions that architectural design occurred only to conceptual stages were, by

necessity, overturned as the reality of achieving a constructed outcome in three weeks dawned

upon them. Design and making were brought together as one, decisions made on the fly through


9/11/2015 16

‘reflection-in-action’,20 tasks delegated and the construction program managed: in essence a

distillation of the architecture/construction practicum.

From the outset groups were encouraged to see the project as challenging, but realisable. While

all necessary information was available on the web, face-to-face support was readily available in

terms of one tutor for each of two groups, a workshop facilitator and a metal worker as well as an

allocated half an hour per team weekly for discussion with the lecturer and email contact with him

plus daily informal visits. Within this supportive structure, groups were encouraged to explore and

find their own solutions. In observed meetings of the groups with academic staff, the lecturer and

tutors were willing to share ideas and offer suggestions and, although there were a few instances

where their enthusiasm for their ideas took over, they strove not to be the dominant and

controlling voice in the decision-making process. There was an openness in the process that saw

students engaged in discussion more as colleagues than as working with mentors, feeling free to

amend, and even correct, at times. There was a confidence also to reject suggestions (“X wanted

us to build a seat but we thought this distracted”) and one group was adamant that once the

lecturer let them “get on with it they were fine”. There is, however, a tension here for this group

did struggle with a very complex project and, had they been more willing to use the academic

staff resources available to them, it is likely that they would have produced a more successful

final product. However, in doing so, they would have forfeited some of the periods of angst and

frustration that were an important part of the learning for them and also ownership of the ideas

they finally incorporated. Such observations point to the inherently complex interplay between

academic staff in their role as supportive advisors and students who need opportunities, such as

this, to test the boundaries in a safe space.

At the commencement of this stage practical issues dominated with students seeking advice

about support, access and location of the completed work. Seeking advice on what criteria should

drive their selection of a colleague’s project, they were advised that they should look for

something that could be built within the three weeks time frame. This clearly drove the selection


9/11/2015 17

process. All six groups settled into work very quickly and, while some individuals expressed

reservations, 4 of the 6 groups reached consensus within the first hour. Nearly all seemed

strategic in their selection of a colleague’s project, looking closely at the pragmatics. This

approach meant that some highly imaginative and captivating designs were summarily rejected.

The one group, who opted for something that they initially saw as “unbuildable”, rejoiced in the

fact they had achieved something against the odds (“We did it!”). However, the problems with

load and supporting the structure were never elegantly resolved (the fishing wire ‘cables’ were

noted) and, despite praise for choosing a “very difficult, complex piece” and “doing a really good

job considering the complexity you were facing”, their need to compromise was reflected in their

final assessment.

Students had been advised to undertake a skills audit within the group, and this led to rapid

decisions about individuals who would be responsible for discrete elements of the task, most

especially managing sponsorship and garnering resources and preparing the poster and website,

as distinct from the actual building of the project. The very short timeframe meant that roles were

inevitably linked with perceived expertise. Some students justifiably felt this restricted their

learning as they did not have the opportunity to contribute in areas where they believed they had

a lot to learn. While some welcomed the opportunity to contribute in a clearly bounded way (such

as preparing the poster) and it was impractical to have groups of 10 or so students working on

building the project simultaneously, project management within the team structure became an

important learning experience for all groups.

In introducing this stage to the students, the lecturer had stressed three essential attributes

(creativity, dedication and teamwork) and reinforced the necessity to work as a team by his

remark that he thought there should be five essential attributes with the other two being “more

teamwork” and “then more teamwork”. Given this stated importance, teamwork was an issue

looked at closely by the evaluator. During the three weeks of the project it was obvious that in all

cases the groups went through the normative teamwork experiences of forming, storming,

norming and performing.21It was equally obvious that in all the teams, as could be expected,


9/11/2015 18

leaders emerged and their role was variously effective. At its most problematic, the student who

saw himself as leader of one group openly expressed his irritation and frustration at what he saw

was an abrogation of responsibility by three-quarters of the group. At the same time, these

students were intolerant of his controlling influence and what they saw as undue dominance to

the extent that they held a meeting when they knew he could not attend and connived to

complete the project without him but in such a way that he could say “I’m rapt with it. It’s

sensational”. A talented mature student, with a background in the industry, it was disappointing

that initially he felt the experience had not taught him anything about group process. Here the

evaluation process, when in discussion he was challenged by his peers, explicitly contributed to

his learning for he was compelled to confront and consider issues from others’ viewpoints and

hopefully gain insights. This led him to concede (and it remained a concession) that, as a

leader/manager, he needed to incorporate strategies that allowed opportunities for broader

contribution and involvement and be more respectful of others.

More generally, the group presentations exposed a tension between what the students thought

should have been the case–“It was a pleasure to work with everyone. Everyone contributed

equally as a team”–with the reality engendering frequent self-corrections from the use of “I” to the

inclusive “we”. In more than one instance, “I opted to go for …” was replaced by “We, as a team,

decided …”, although conversation and observation outside of the presentation made it obvious

that this was the decision of the leader of the group who also did most of the work. Language

such as “the rest of us were relegated to …” was highly revealing. The posters and introductions

also conveyed the lack of effort by several students, with some not being named and others

introduced in a very embarrassing way: “And this is X our little gofer. Sorry X, I couldn’t think of

anything”. During the three week period, while group delegation meant that some students would

not be actively involved in the construction, quite often the work was being carried by three or four

students (in one group basically one and in another group two) and, when the list of names of the

group was checked in week two, it was disturbing to have students say “Who’s Y?”, “Has anyone

seen Z”? and so on.


9/11/2015 19

Students had the opportunity to reflect on and judge team effort as students gave individual

marks that were factored into the group project result. Scores were allocated according to a

number of parameters (eg “degree to which individual has contributed to the project, attendance,

innovation, enthusiasm”) and individual scores were divided by the team average to produce a

multiplication ratio of the overall group mark. While some students struggled with peer

assessment, this, also, is part of the reality of the professional world and was a valuable part of

the learning experience. It did lead to several people obtaining very high marks for the project at

the expense of some of the non-contributing team members. The highest individual mark for the

project was 100%, the lowest was 20%, with a high overall average of 83%.

Male students (who represented 73% of the cohort) dominated observed activity within the

groups and also the presentations. The dismissing of female opinion was tellingly illustrated when

one female was observed standing disconsonantly beside a pile of aluminium. The male

members had gone off seeking a solution and she said that she had warned them not to make

that decision as there would be a difficulty in bending the aluminium and although she had been

proved correct, and had ideas to offer, her input was ignored. The only group where a female

member was very highly regarded was not for her discipline skills but for her ability to generate

sponsorship.

When building the 1:1 ‘masterpieces’ began there was a high level of expectation, even

excitement, within the groups but at the same time several students openly expressed scepticism

that they would be able to garner the necessary resources (both in time and money) that would

allow them to complete the project successfully. While there was a comment from within one

group that they needed to know about the need for sponsorship much earlier to have a

reasonable chance of success, the success of that group in obtaining significant financial support,

as well as the contributions from within other groups, indicated that sufficient resources could be

speedily generated to allow the projects to go ahead. Although for some groups this meant some

compromise in quality (for instance the decision to substitute redwood for the far more expensive


9/11/2015 20

jarrah), this gave students good experience of the impact of cost on design. By the second week

it was apparent that the groups had dealt with the financial issue very differently. Some opted for

a $100AUD contribution per member, the average being about $50AUD. One group managed to

get $1750 in sponsorship that nearly covered the entire cost of materials of $1800 and the most

expensive project ($1900) was abundantly supported by $2300 of sponsorship. Groups with

sufficient funds to have major aspects constructed professionally and then erected at the

University were envied by some students in other groups and there was fairly widespread

concern regarding fairness by those groups who did all the work themselves. Yet, in terms of the

learning from the project, students were given real-world experience in garnering resources and

making decisions about their use of time as well as money. Some students commented they had

spent up to 60 hours on construction but, when they saw the result of their work, none

complained that it was not time well spent. (Fig. 05)

Fig 05. The construction stage

Given the highly sophisticated nature of the produced work, the students generally were naïvely

honest in terms of its presentation. This is instanced by the group who confessed that the rocking

motion (praised by one of the assessors) “happened by chance” and the designer of one of the

projects candidly saying, “Compared to the research they’ve (the group) put in and what they’ve

done, I’d just started.” Sophisticated self-promotion is an important part of the repertoire of the

successful architect and this is a skill that is rarely explicitly taught. The opportunity for


9/11/2015 21

constructive critique during the studio was forfeited, in part, by the conditions that made hearing

more difficult than it should have been (Fig. 06). A contributing factor was the lack of ability of

some of the presenters to communicate effectively, despite the mandatory links to websites as

support. This is an area that the project aimed to address and this experience indicated that

students generally are yet to recognise its importance and require further skill development and

support.

Fig 06 Final group presentations of project to colleagues and reviewers

During the presentations, students were asked by the assessors to articulate what had been the

most important element of their learning. The hands-on experience was the most immediate

response and students often needed prompting to discuss the intended relationship between

design and construction. This aspect was more readily surfaced by the discussion within each

group’s presentation with the construction group and the designer. In the more successful groups,

the designer had been consulted during the construction stage and had agreed with changes

being made, seeing them as functional. A group where this had worked especially well indicated

that they had learnt “how designers need to specify very precisely and be prepared to link with

the construction process”. A group that had minimal (if any) contact with the designer, in his

assessment had only “captured half of (his) threshold”. It took until the presentation for the

students of that group to realise that the roof was such an important element, because, in the

words of the designer “wherever you sat you’d feel differently”. While this designer was surprised


9/11/2015 22

by, and uncertain about, significant changes (“I don’t know about the tusks”), the designer of

another project considered the changes had been a definite improvement—“I never liked the

feet”—and the designer of one of the most successful outcomes admitted that he knew very early

on that what he designed would not work and he was confident the group had produced a better

alternative. All the designers were very gratified to see their 1:10 models becoming 1:1

constructions, with some being quite “stunned” by the scale and height of the finished pieces and

one considering that the deliberate scaling down had made the finished product “more feasible”.

While the task was to construct the design concept, the assessors took the view that the “original

design concept was an idea open to interpretation” and praised additional elements, such as the

potential for movement in one piece.

Although the students during the presentation had difficulty articulating what they had learned,

they had explored fundamental questions and in later discussion with the evaluator could draw on

that experience in quite cogent and compelling ways. They were far more aware of what

happened (from the perspective of both designer and builder) when a team constructed

something conceptualised by someone outside of that team and had an enhanced sense of the

traps and delights of working collaboratively. This was especially important for those students (the

majority) who were only at this point two years out of secondary school and, unlike the mature

students, could not draw on industry experience.

Educators reporting on the experience of students working in teams tend to correlate successful

learning with successful outcomes in terms of demonstrable activities and achievements within

the group during the life of the team, not solely (as here) with satisfactory completion of the set

tasks at the end. Teams where there have been demonstrable difficulties in such areas as

communication, leadership, involvement and time-management and where disputation was rife,

are generally seen as ‘failed’ learning experiences. However, our experience with working in and

observing teams in several disciplines over many years, indicates that so-called ‘failed’ teams

often generate the most powerful learning experiences. In each of the six teams discussed here,


9/11/2015 23

irrespective of quite profound difficulties in the group process for half of them, the Music Room

was built and the presentation was given and that, in itself, is achievement. But, even if that had

not been the case, it is our view that this would not deny the learning that would have resulted

had the teaching (a significant caveat) provided a supportive environment for the students to

explore and reflect on the causes of the problem(s) and also to consider what strategies would

have assisted. Given the need to provide experiences that simulate and prepare for the

professional world where successful teamwork is never assured, problematic teams can provide

incredibly rich learning experiences. Where, as here, in all cases no problem was

insurmountable, the evaluation that sought student perceptions confirms that students had learnt

much about team building and they had left the experience with positive impressions because

they had coped with difficulties, learning important strategies as they went.

Given that the project was premised on an integration of music with architecture, and there was

explicit encouragement from the lecturer for students to incorporate music directly into the

presentation, it was disappointing that this was a generally disregarded aspect. No group

illustrated what it was like to listen to music in the space they had built. Only one group

incorporated sound and lighting effects and the chosen designs, themselves, rarely incorporated

explicit music elements. One design that did this, and which had been built in part, was chosen

however, not for its evocation of music, but for its “sculpture-like qualities”. The designer (the only

female) thought that the group had captured the essence of the project and, significantly, agreed

with their decision not to include the chimes (the sound element that would have been brought

into play as the person slid down a ramp/slide) on the basis that “they take away from the

arches”. Such a comment further evidences that, in students’ minds, music increasingly became

the subordinate element.

In earlier studio work there was a propensity for students to disengage and to leave once the

work with which they were involved was reviewed. On this occasion the presenters were

encircled by students with interested faces, very positive body language and retention was

reasonably high with over thirty students (40% of cohort) at the finish some five hours later.


9/11/2015 24

Student comments about the presentations were also very positive, and the few students who

had exhibited considerable angst and frustration during the process were celebrating the

demonstrable success of each of the teams.

From the outset, the word ‘masterpiece’ had been used and there was a strong shared sense that

the final piece would be something in which the students could justifiably take considerable pride

and the experience, and the lessons from it, would be taken with them into the rest of their

studies and their professional lives (Fig. 07).

Fig. 07: The six completed ‘Music Room’ projects

Conclusion

The learning program discussed here engaged students in integrating construction in

architectural design through a series of inter-related staged projects based on non-architectural

associations. Although there was a tendency for students to disassociate the architectural and


9/11/2015 25

musical components as the program progressed, the musical ‘lure’ successfully drew students

into the project.

As we have attempted to make clear during this discussion, while there was abundant evidence

of very high quality work, there were documented occasions when some students struggled.

However, as we have contended, the experience, of itself, and the problems that were

encountered and variously overcome provided rich learning opportunities. Students were forced

to consider the role of tectonics within the design process and this was reinforced by the

physicality of actual construction. Poor tectonic consideration simply led to more physical work

and increased stress within the constraints of a pre-determined timeline. Moreover, the extent to

which many struggled with realizing the conceptual, reinforces the requirement to integrate this

element into the curriculum.

The distillation of the essence of the design/construction practicum in the final stage of the

project, balanced by the highly conceptual nature of the early ‘Composing Architecture’ design

project, is where the richness of the program lies. Students, having undergone a series of

rigorous and challenging stages, learnt that, as a team, they could achieve what they thought

initially was unachievable: the creation of a small-scale masterpiece, The Music Room.

1 Elizabeth Martin, Architecture as a translation of music Pamphlet Architecture (New York: Princeton

Architectural Press 1994)

2 Claire Newton and Mark Burry, Building Architecture: Using sticks, stones and computer visualisation

(Singapore, Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Computer Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia,

pp. 511-519, 2000 )

4 Robert Woodbury, Susan Shannon and Tristan Sterk, (2001) What works in a Design Game: Supported

by Student Reactions to Being Made to Play, Proceedings of The Sixth Conference on Computer Aided

Architectural Design Research in Asia, pp. 411-420


9/11/2015 26

5 Marcus Pollio Vitruvius (translated by Morris Hicky Morgan) The ten books on architecture; with

illustrations and original designs prepared under the direction of Herbert Langford Warren (New York :

Dover Publications, 1960)

6 Daniel F. MacGilvray, “The proper education of musicians and architects” Journal of Architectural

Education (1992) pp 93-94

7 William Carpenter, Learning by building: Design and construction in architectural education (New York

: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1997)

8 Building Architecture: Using sticks, stones and computer visualisation

9 Gregory Nolan, (1997) Building simple structures with timber, Australia and New Zealand

Architectural Science Association Conference, pp. 275-285

10 Joseph Lim, Design learning in a 12 day building expedition, (2001) Architectural education for the

Asian century, proceedings of the 1st ACEA conference on architectural education.

11 Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Practice Notes “Fee Guide No. 8” (RAIA Practice Services

1996).

12 Di Challis “Integrating the conceptual and practice worlds: a case study from Architecture". Paper

presented at the 25th HERDSA International Conference, 8-10 July, 2002 at Edith Cowan University and

published in Goody, A et al eds., Research and Development in Higher Education: Quality Conversations,

HERDSA, ACT, pp. 106-113.

13 Donald Schon, The reflective practitioner: how professionals think (New York: Basic Books, 1983)

14 Reflective Making: Higher Order Learning in Early Tertiary Architectural Education Committee for

University Teaching and Staff Development application.

15 Perez-Gomez , A and Pelletier, L, Architectural representation and the perspectival hinge (MIT press

Massachusetts 1997)


9/11/2015 27

16 Ham, Jeremy, (2001) ‘The reflective making of ‘games’ for construction education’ in the proceedings

of the first Playful Design Learning Forum’

17 Deakin University Teaching and Learning Management Plan ‘The Deakin Advantage’ (Deakin, 2000).

18 John Frazier, “Towards the Post Digital Era” AVOCAAD Second International Conference

AVOCAAD Conference Proceedings Brussels (Belgium) 8-10 April 1999, pp. 35-39

19 Architecture 2b website: http://www.ab.deakin.edu.au/online

20 Schon, The reflective practitioner: how professionals think.

21 Tuckman, B.W., (1965) ‘Development Sequence in Small Groups’, Psychological Bulletin, 63, 284-499.

Composing Architecture: from concept to construction

Documents

Transcript of Composing Architecture: from concept to construction