The Florida State University

DigiNole Commons
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

7-31-2006

Architecture Pedagogy: Psychological, Social, and Other Emergent Issues in the Design Studio
Anubhuti Bhatia Thakur
Florida State University

Follow this and additional works at: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd Recommended Citation

Thakur, Anubhuti Bhatia, "Architecture Pedagogy: Psychological, Social, and Other Emergent Issues in the Design Studio" (2006). Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations. Paper 1607.

This Dissertation - Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at DigiNole Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of DigiNole Commons. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu.

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS, THEATRE AND DANCE

ARCHITECTURE PEDAGOGY: PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, AND OTHER EMERGENT ISSUES IN THE DESIGN STUDIO By ANUBHUTI BHATIA

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Art Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2006

The members of the Committee approve the Dissertation of Anubhuti Bhatia defended on 31 July, 2006. ___________________________ Tom Anderson Professor Directing Dissertation ___________________________ Lois Hawkes Outside Committee Member ___________________________ Lisa Waxman Committee Member ___________________________ Marcia Rosal Committee Member ___________________________ Pat Villeneuve Committee Member ___________________________ Sande Milton Committee Member Approved: __________________________________________ Marcia Rosal, Chair, Department of Art Education _____________________________________________________ Sally McRorie, Dean, College of Visual Arts, Theatre and Dance The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.

ii

This dissertation is dedicated to my father Mr. Omprakash Bhatia and my mother Vanita Bhatia, for their inspiration; and to my husband Vikram Thakur for believing in me at every step of the way. Thank you for standing beside me.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My success, not only in this project but in everything I have academically achieved so far will be incomplete without acknowledging the contribution of several people who have been the key figures in defining where and who I am. I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Tom Anderson for having been there to listen and provide advice, and most importantly for instilling confidence in my abilities whenever any doubts arose. He has been a mentor not only for my academic development, but also with respect to the person I am today. Thanks Dr. Anderson for being the family that I have missed having near me for the past several years. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank other members of my committee Dr. Marcia Rosal, Dr. Pat Villeneuve, Dr. Lisa Waxman, and Dr. Sande Milton, and Dr. Lois Hawkes for their continued support and advice on various matters and for providing me the scholarly insight that has been instrumental in my work on this project. Special tha n ks to D r. W a xm a n w h o h a s b e e n m y g u i d e si n ce m y m a ste r s stu d y at the department of interior design. Lisa was always there to listen not only as a guide on academic matters but also as a friend on personal matters. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to the faculty at participating schools for their support during the study. Thanks to all the participants and students of the fourth year studio for bearing my presence during their classes and giving me their precious time. I am where I am because of my husband Vikram Thakur who has been there beside me providing his invaluable support at every step of the way. He has read drafts of my papers and provided important inputs, despite his complete unfamiliarity with the m a te ri al . O f co u rse , I d o n t kn o w w h a t I would have done if he had not retrieved all my work every time the computer betrayed me and if he had not provided all the technical support. My sister, Pratiti Bhatia deserves a special mention for the number of times she has accompanied me on trips to the library and spent hours photocopying articles. There is a special position that my parents; my father Mr. Omprakash Bhatia and my mother Mrs. Vanita Bhatia; hold in my life for all the guidance and support, but more

iv

importantly for their faith in me even past geographical, cultural, and linguistic boundaries. Thanks for instilling in me the ability to set my objectives and strive to achieve them. Last but not the least my sincere regards to my parents-in-law; Commodore Vinod Thakur and Mrs. Kanchan Thakur; for their continued moral support through the most stressful times in this process.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables .................................................................................... List of Figures .................................................................................... Abstract .......................................................................................... 1. Introduction ....................................................................................

ix xi xiii 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 11 12 12 13 15 21 27 34 37 37 37 38 39 45 55 57 57

Statement of the Problem .............................................................. Research Question ........................................................................ Supporting Questions..................................................................... Significance of the Study................................................................ Scope of the Study ......................................................................... Research Design ............................................................................ Assumptions and Limitations ......................................................... Definition of Terms ......................................................................... Summary .................................................................................... 2. Review of Literature .......................................................................... Introduction .................................................................................... Function in Architecture ................................................................. Psychological Concerns in Architecture ......................................... Society and Culture ........................................................................ Architecture Education ................................................................... Summary .................................................................................... 3. Methodology .................................................................................... Introduction .................................................................................... Research Questions....................................................................... Research Strategy ......................................................................... Theoretical Foundations of the Methodology ................................. Research Design ............................................................................ Summary .................................................................................... 4. Presenting the Data: Description, Immersion and Thematics ........... Introduction ....................................................................................

vi

University and School Background Information ............................. Faculty Profiles............................................................................... Introducing Student Participants .................................................... Design Studio Projects ................................................................... The Design Studio Environment .................................................... Themes from Data Coding ............................................................. Summary .................................................................................... 5. Interpretation and Inferences ............................................................ Introduction ................................................................................... Data Interpretation and Inferences for Supporting Question #1 ..... Data Interpretation and Inferences for Supporting Question #2 ..... Data Interpretation and Inferences for Supporting Question #3 ..... Data Interpretation and Inferences for Supporting Question #4 ..... Answering the Research Question ................................................. Synthesis of Findings ..................................................................... Implications for Architecture Education .......................................... The Researcher in Context ............................................................ Limitations of this Research ........................................................... Recommendations for Future Research ........................................ APPENDICES A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q ....................................................................................

58 61 62 64 69 73 122 124 124 125 128 140 150 156 160 164 166 167 169 171 171 172 173 174 175 180 189 199 206 215 243 264 265 266 267 268 269

Internal Review Board Approval Letter ..................................... Consent Form for Student Participants ..................................... Interview Protocol for Professors .............................................. Interview Protocol for Focus Group Interviews ......................... Observation Field Notes from School A .................................... Observation Field Notes from School B .................................... Second Set of Observation Field Notes from School B ............ Interview Transcripts for Professor Karen at School A ............. Interview Transcripts for Professor Roger at School B ............. Interview Transcripts for Focus Group Interview at School A ... Interview Transcripts for Focus Group Interview at School B ... Results from Pilot Study ........................................................... Sample for Color Coding of Data .............................................. Sample for Color Association of Themes ................................. Sample for Entering Descriptors for Themes and Categories .. Sample of Frequency Calculation for Themes and Categories Programmatic Requirements Handout at School B ..................

vii

REFERENCES .................................................................................... BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ....................................................................

270 279

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Frequency Chart for Psychological Concerns Categories ..... Table 4.2: Frequency Chart for Student Interviews and Critiques for Psychological Concerns ........................................................ Table 4.3: Frequency Chart for Faculty Interviews and Critiques for Psychological Concerns ........................................................ Table 4.4: Frequency Chart for Social Concerns Categories ................. Table 4.5: Frequency Chart for Student Interviews and Critiques for Social Concerns .................................................................... Table 4.6: Frequency Chart for Faculty Interviews and Critiques for Social Concerns .................................................................... Table 4.7: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Client Needs ..... Table 4.8: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Programmatic Requirements ........................................................................ Table 4.9: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding S tu d e n ts Personal Design Ideas .......................................................... Table 4.10: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Expression of Self .................................................................................... Table 4.11: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Personal Likes and Dislikes ......................................................................... Table 4.12: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Design Process Table 4.13: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Composition and Form .................................................................................... Table 4.14: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Creativity.........

78 79 80 84 85 86 88 91 92 93 95 97 98 100

ix

Table 4.15: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Professional Practice ............................................................................... Table 4.16: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Budgetary Concerns ............................................................................. Table 4.17: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Culture of the Profession ........................................................................... Table 4.18: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Other Professional Concerns ........................................................ Table 4.19: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Other D e si g n e rs W o rk ................................................................. Table 4.20: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Technical Aspects ............................................................................... Table 4.21: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Personal Background ......................................................................... Table 4.22: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding S tu d e n ts Experiences in Spaces ....................................................... Table 4.23: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Site Context .... Table 4.24: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Studio Culture . Table 4.25: Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Presentation Techniques and Graphics ................................................... Table 5.1: Percentage Distribution of S tu d e n ts a n d F a cu l ty s R e sp o n se s for the 14 Themes .................................................................

101 102 104 105 107 111 114 115 117 121 122 157

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4.1: S u m m e r s M o d e l o f th e T a i C h i P a vi l i o n ............................. Figure 4.2: S u m m e r s M o d e lP l a ce d i n th e C l a ss S i te M o d e l ............... Fi g u re 4 .3 : L u th e r s M o d e l o f th e R i ve r W a lk ........................................ Figure 4.4: Students Personalize their Space with Personal Memorablia ......................................................................... Figure 4.5: Exterior View of the Guggenheim Museum, Bilbao, Spain .. Figure 4.6: Students Catch a Nap after Burning Mid-night Oil Working on Their Projects.................................................................. Figure 5.1: Percentage Distribution of Student Responses to Psychological Concerns....................................................... Fi g u re 5 .2 : P e rce n ta g e D i stri b u ti o n o f S tu d e n ts R e sp o n se s i n F o cu s Group Interviews and Critiques for Psychological Concerns .............................................................................. Figure 5.3: Percentage Distribution of Student Responses to Social Concerns ............................................................................. Fi g u re 5 .4 : P e rce n ta g e D i stri b u ti o n o f S tu d e n ts R e sp o n se s i n F o cu s Group Interviews and Critiques for Social Concerns ............ Figure 5.5: Percentage Distribution of Student Responses for the 14 Themes ................................................................................ Figure 5.6: Percentage Distribution of Faculty Responses to Psychological Concerns....................................................... Figure 5.7: Percentage Distribution of Faculty s Responses in Interviews and Critiques for Psychological Concerns .......... Figure 5.8: Percentage Distribution of Faculty Responses to Social Concerns .............................................................................

65 66 68 71 108 120 131

133 136 137 139 141 142 145

xi

Figure 5.9: Percentage Distribution of Faculty s Responses in Interviews and Critiques for Social Concerns ...................... Figure 5.10: Percentage Distribution of Student Responses for the 14 Themes ................................................................................

146 149

xii

ABSTRACT This study was aimed at understanding the perceptions of students and faculty at two National Architecture Accreditation Board accredited architecture programs regarding the social and psychological considerations in architectural design. A comprehensive review of literature in the field revealed a strong need for integrating th e se co n ce rn s i n th e a rch i te ctu re cu rri cu l u m to e n h a n ce stu d e n ts se n si ti vi ty toward human issues thereby resulting in design of environments more conducive to the society and people. In that context I attempted to identify the position of two accredited architecture schools on psychological and social concerns in architecture as well as stu d e n ts a n d fa cu l ty s interpretations of the schools foci. The study was qualitative in nature and included techniques of observations, individual interviews and focus group i n te rvi e w s. I o b se rve d stu d e n ts p re se n ta ti o n s o f th e i r d e si g n p ro j e cts, a n d fa cu l ty a n d visiting a rch i te cts cri ti q u e s of these projects. I also interviewed the professor teaching the fourth year design studio at each school. Students from the fourth year design studio also participated in a focus group interview at each school. The data from observations and interviews was coded to identify themes related to the concerns expressed by students and faculty. Fourteen themes emerged and some themes were divided into categories during subsequent stages of data coding. An analysis of the responses toward each theme with reference to the emphasis on psychological and social aspects led to inferences for the four supporting questions and the research question for the study. Both schools selected for the study indicated that their curriculum is structured around creative and technical aspects of architecture while peripheralizing psychological and social concerns. However, faculty and students showed sensitivity toward these issues and various facets associated with them in the discussions of their projects. Additional questions were raised and attempts were made to postulate probable reasons for the attitudes that emerged.

xiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The architectural student should be educated, skillful with a pencil, instructed in geometry, well educated in history, have followed philosophers with attention, understand music, have some knowledge of medicine, know opinions of jurists, and be acquainted with astronomy and the theory of the heavens. (Vitruvius, 1960) Vi tru vi u s sl i st o f e xp e cta ti o n s d e si re d o f a n a rch i te ctu ra l stu d e n t i n cl uded technical, graphic and multidisciplinary knowledge. Through his writings, Vitruvius established the position of the architect as the designer of the whole civilization (Kay, 1975). Kay (1975) mentioned that architecture and interior design are fields that influence occupants of designed spaces as well as the society to which they belong, and these considerations should be added to the list of qualifications required in architecture. More recent literature (Gifford, 2002; Nicol & Pilling, 2000; Rapoport, 1987) on architecture and architecture education includes considerations like knowledge of societal beliefs, customs, psychology, and interaction of human beings with the built environment. Fi tch (1 9 7 2 ) d e fi n e d a rch i te ctu re a s a n i n stru m e n t w h o se ce n tra l fu n cti on i s to i n te rve n e i n m an s [si c] fa vo r (p . 9 ). H e e l a b o ra te d th a t a rch i te ctu re has the ability to satisfy several biological, social, cultural, and psychological needs of the people it serves. The size, form, elements, and interiors of buildings have an immense effect on our emotional responses (Holgate, 1992). The idea that architecture has psychological and social dimensions, and thus that architecture pedagogy should too, has formed the basic premise of this study. As an architect and interior designer, I have been concerned, through my education and professional experience, about the influence of the built

environment on occupants of the spaces we design. How the built environment influences our psyche is a topic of extensive research. Scholars emphasized that there is no aspect of the human psyche and lifestyle that is not influenced by various elements of the built environment (Evans, Lepore & Schroeder, 1996; Gifford, 2002; Hemphill, 1996). We are living in an age of controlled environments. Most people only spend as much time in the natural environment as required from the door of their office or home to the car. The remaining time they are in a built environment. It becomes essential, then, to identify and assess the concepts that are emphasized as part of the education of designers of the built environment in order to ensure that the structures they design are appropriate with respect to the needs of the people who will occupy them. The aim of this study is to identify the perceptions of students and faculty at selected architecture schools about concepts related to psychological and so ci a li ssu e s i n a rch i te ctu ra l d e si g n . A s sta te d b y Ja rre tt (2 0 0 0 ), [The] A rch i te ct s ro l ei n so ci e ty, i s w o rki n g n o t to m a ke th e o b j e ct per se the building buti n cu l ti va ti ng a se n se o f p l a ce a n d b e l ongi ng a w o rk o f l i fe (p . 6 1 ). I wish to identify whether this role of the architect is acknowledged and nurtured in architecture schools. Statement of the Problem

An extensive review of literature on architecture and architecture pedagogy indicated the need for instituting a strong emphasis on psychological and social issues pertaining to design (Gifford, 2002, Nicol & Pilling, 2000, Rudd, 1989). Based on my experiences in architecture and interior design pedagogy and practice, I was able to identify and understand the need for addressing human aspects of architecture, which was further reinforced by the literature I read. In that context, this study examined two architecture programs accredited by the National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB) to identify their approach to and incorporation of psychological and social issues. The guiding

questions in this research stem from the issues emphasized by literature as important to architecture education. Research Question

The primary research question which is the central focus of this study is: What are the perceptions of students and faculty in selected National Architecture Accreditation Board accredited architecture programs regarding the psychological and social concerns related to architectural design as they are being taught by the program? Supporting Questions

To answer the primary research question certain supporting questions must be answered. These questions were formatted based on the insights derived from the synthesis of a comprehensive literature review and include: 1. How does the faculty of two programs in Southeastern United States present each sch o o l s p o si ti o n o n p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a l a sp e cts o f architecture that are the central focus of this study? 2. W h a t a re stu d e n ts p e rce p ti o n s o f th e p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a l co n ce rns related to architectural design? 3. W h a t a re fa cu l ty s p e rce p ti o n s o f th e p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a l co n ce rn s related to architectural design? 4. How do selected students and faculty in two selected programs in Southeastern United States i n te rp re t th e sch o o l s position on psychological and social aspects in architecture as suggested by faculty members?

Significance of the Study R o se n m a n a n d G e ro (1 9 9 8 ) d e fi n e d th e d e si g n p ro ce ss a s a p u rp o se fu l h u m a n co g n i ti ve a cti vi ty (p . 1 6 2 ) th a t i s b a se d o n p ro p o se d required behaviors which the design must exhibit and meet. As stated earlier, architectural design influences a large part of human life in several ways. It seems essential therefore, to incorporate concerns related to human behavior and psychology as well as society and culture in design decisions (Escherick, 1984; Gifford, 2002; Honikman, 1975; Jarrett, 2000; Nicol & Pilling, 2000). The concerns that have led to this study may be summarized in the following statements by Bandini (1997): An architectural lack o f e m p a th y b e yo n d th e fo rm a l a n d a n a rch i te ct s difficulty in sharing the dreams of others (architects so often believe themselves to be the only ones who can change the world!) has done so much damage to the social profile of that sort of architect who, in spite of all the evidence coming from the real world, still appears to believe that the true mission of architecture is only to formalize human inhabiting. Such an attitude is common in the teaching of design which is increasingly distancing itself from a problem-solving activity anchored into reality. (p. 428)

Portillo and Dohr (1993) conducted a study to identify color-planning criteria used by interior designers and the categories that took precedence over all others were compositional criteria (manipulating spaces and form for unity or emphasis) followed by symbolic criteria (expressing design concepts). Both these cri te ri a a re l a rg e l y b a se d o n th e d e si g n e r s a e sth e ti c a n d d e si g n co n ce p ts. Behavioral criteria (addressing activity needs) were placed after the criteria re l a te d e sse n ti al l ywi th th e d e si g n e rs i d e a s a n d co n ce p ts. K a u p i n n e n (1 9 8 9 ) m e n ti o n e d th a t th e a rch i te cts th o u g h t p ro ce ss es during the design process and their perception of buildings can be very different from and may even conflict with the way the public views them. If the central role of the architect is to build human culture (Kay, 1975; Bandini, 1997), provide a value to the social structure by

responding to social needs (Escherick, 1984; Honikman, 1975; Nicol & Pilling, 2000), and design spaces to cultivate a sense of belonging for human beings (Gifford, 2002; Jarrett, 2000), the functional as well as psychological needs of people and society ought to be the central concerns in the conceptualization and development of designs. If architecture schools are to further psychological and social ends, it is essential that schools reinforce the role of architects as designers of human society and culture. This study attempted to identify the philosophy and practice of selected schools related to psychological and social issues in architectural design, as a first step toward making the field overtly cognizant of the issue. Scope of the Study

The major focus of this study is the examination of issues that are emphasized as central to the design process with an eye to psychological and social concerns of design. The study explored attitudes of students and faculty toward issues that influence concept development and design decisions. More specifically, the research focused on the evaluation o f stu d e n ts a n d p ro fe sso rs attitudes toward psychological and social issues, and whether these concepts are addressed during the design process in the schools examined. The study is qualitative in nature. The first step was the selection of two schools from the list of accredited programs available on the National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB) website. Data collection for the research took place at the two selected sites. Observation of design activities, focus-group interviews with students and individual interviews with faculty were the key forms of data collection at the selected schools. Observations were recorded in field notes. Open-ended questions in semi-structured interviews were formatted to provide the ability to add, delete, or modify questions as required during the interview in order to effectively capture attitudes, opinions, and emotions as desired for the study (Merriam, 1998).

I, as the researcher, was the primary data collector in the study. Due to the subjective nature of qualitative research, my own responses to the data at hand, experiences during the process of data collection, and sensibility and sensitivity as a researcher as well as an architect guided data collection and analysis (Eisner, 1998; Merriam, 1998). I went back to my experiences in education and practice, and associated my observations with these recollections in relation to collecting, assessing, encoding, and evaluating the data to draw conclusions and raise further questions. Research Design

The proposed study was aimed at evaluating the concerns addressed and emphasized by architecture programs with an eye to human issues. The central concerns were psychological and social concerns in architectural design, and the attitudes of professors and students toward the importance of these facets of design development. The data collection and analysis for the proposed study may be described as follows: 1. Selection of two NAAB accredited schools as a convenience sample from the list provided by NAAB on their website. In consideration of the fact that data collection may require repeated visits to the selected schools, the attempt was to identify schools within close vicinity (within 2-5 hours driving distance) to Tallahassee, Florida where I lived. Both selected schools were therefore located in Southeastern United States. 2. Interviews with faculty teaching the fourth year design studio at the two selected schools. The faculty interview was a means for understanding the position of the school on psychological and social issues of design as well a s th e fa cu l ty s p e rso n a l p e rsp e cti ve a b o u t th e i ssu e s. T h e i n fo rm a ti on provided by the faculty about the projects students were working on and their expectations of student projects proved vital for the subsequent stages in this research. These interviews were tape recorded and later transcribed.

3. O b se rva ti o n o f d e si g n stu d i o a cti vi ti e s, stu d e n ts p re se n ta ti ons and j u ry critiques at the two selected schools. These observations were recorded in the form of field notes and memos. I also used visual documentation in the form of sketches of the environment and setting. 4. Focus group interviews with students in the fourth year of the undergraduate program. After observing student critiques, I invited six students at each school to participate in the focus groups for approximately 90 minutes. The interviews were tape recorded and later transcribed. Assumptions and Limitations

Since the study primarily relied on data collected through observations and interviews, the main assumption was that p a rti ci p a n ts a cti vi ti e s a s re co rd e d by the researcher are a true representation of their attitudes, and that they answered my questions truthfully and to the best of their ability (Rossman & R al l i s, 2 0 0 2 ). T h e i n fl u e n ce o f th e re se a rch e r s opi ni o n s d u ring data collection and analysis may be seen as a limitation, but the sensibility and perception that my opinions bring to the study may prove to be the strength of the study (Eisner, 1998). Eisner argued that complete objectivity in procedure may eliminate any scope of personal judgment in description and assessment of the situation. The introduction of individual subjectivities provided a variety of paradigms. Although emotions, experiences and subjectivities are considered antithetical to research, the subjective world cannot be separated from the objective logic postulated by the field of study. Eisner suggested a transactive approach as a juxtaposition of subjective and objective theories to provide richness to studies of social phenomenon. In qualitative research such as this, generalizability is not the central aim of the study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003), but the results of the study may have implications for other schools accredited by the NAAB and for assessment, evaluation, and restructuring or development of similar programs in spite of the

fact that findings will be non-generalizable. The findings of the study may be used to further research in the field and also to provide a framework for bodies like the NAAB to identify the needs for architecture programs. Definition of Terms

Aesthetics: A study of concepts related to the conception and appreciation of beauty, and to the notion of taste and pleasure (Ziff, 2000). Built Environment: Spaces/structures designed and constructed by people. Case-based Instruction: Ertmer and Russell (1995) defined case-based instruction as a teaching method which encourages active participation by students in real or hypothetical problem situations, followed by reflection and discussion on the experiences encountered in the field under study. Akin (2002) d e fi n e d th i s m e th o d a s th e d i sse m i n a ti o n a n d a cq u i si ti o n o f re q u i si te kn o w l edge in a domain principally through the systematic examination of cases encoded in a ca se b a se (p . 4 1 5 ). Community Architecture: A movement in architectural and urban design that favors the inclusion of the people who will occupy or use the space in the creation and management of the environment (Wates & Knevitt, 1987). Conceptualization/Concept Development: The process of developing a design concept. Crowding: Crowding refers to a personally defined subjective feeling arising from an experience of other people in the space (Gifford, 2002). Design Concept: The theoretical concept that forms the basis of architectural design. The American Heritage Dictionary (2002) defines concept as a general idea, a thought or notion, a scheme or a plan. The design concept is an abstract idea that will guide the development of the proposed design. Akin (2002) defined the term conceptual variables a s th e sch e mata that provide the underlying order a n d stru ctu re fo r a n a sp e ct o n a n a rch i te ctu ra l d e si g n (p . 4 1 0 ).

Design Development/Design Process: The process of design starting with the development of the concept behind the proposed design (conceptual development) and culminating in the proposed design for the space/structure. Environmental Perception: Environmental perception includes gathering of information about the environment as well as the means of assessing the environment (Gifford, 2002). Environmental Psychology: The study of people and their interaction with their p h ysi ca l su rro u n d i n g s. T h e se stu d i es i n cl u d e th e o ry, re se a rch a n d p ra cti ce aimed at making buildings more humane and improving our relationship with the n a tu ra l e n vi ro n m e n t (G i ffo rd , 2 0 0 2 , p. 1). NAAB Accredited Programs: The National Architecture Accreditation Board is the sole agency in the United States authorized to accredit professional architecture degree programs. The accreditation process is meant to ensure that all architecture programs substantially meet the standards that comprise an appropriate education for future architects. The requirements listed by the NAAB for all graduates include: competence in a range of intellectual, technical, spatial, and interpersonal skills; understanding of historical, socio-cultural, and environmental contexts; ability to solve design problems in architecture while integrating technical as well as health and safety requirements; and comprehension of the role of the architect and the responsibilities associated with this role (NAAB, 2005) Personal Space: The distance between individuals and their relative orientation when they interact (Gifford, 2002). Psychological Concerns: The American Heritage Dictionary (2002) defines psychological a s i n fl u e n ci ng or i n te n d e d to i n fl u e n ce th e m i n d o r e m o ti o n s. Psychological concerns in architecture may include concerns related to the way th e e n vi ro n m e n t a ffe cts th e o ccu p a n ts p sych e , e m o ti o n a l re a cti o n s, a n d behavior in the designed space. These concepts are largely based on the apparent interaction of occupants with the environment/space. Aesthetics of architecture is the primary aspect studied with reference to psychological implications of built environment.

Social Concerns: For the purpose of this study, social concerns may be defined as concerns related to the social structure, culture, and traditions specific to the society where the space/structure being designed is located. This factor also includes the interaction between individuals in a space. These concerns may be addressed at a macro or a micro level depending on the project. For example, while designing a corporate office cultural considerations may include the culture of the community in which the office is located, or the culture of the corporation for which the office is designed. Socio-cultural Concerns: This term will be used in this study as an extension of social concerns to encompass the culture, traditions, beliefs, and lifestyle of the particular society. Culture-sp e ci fi c d e si gn i s d e fi n e d a s o n e th a t re sp o n d s to a n d su p p o rts th e sp e ci fi c cu l tu ra l ch a ra cte ri sti cs o f va ri o u s u se r g ro u p s. (R a p o p o rt, 1987, p. 10). Social Design: An approach to design that involves research on the way physical settings can optimally serve human desires and requirements (Gifford, 2002). Sommer (1983) defined social design as a process that involves people in the planning and management of their spaces, educating them about the optimal use of their environment, inculcating a sense of responsibility among people, and to generate an understanding of the effects of the physical environment on human psychology. Studio Critiques: Studio or jury critiques include student presentations of design projects and critique by a panel. The panel may comprise of professors teaching the studio, other professors in the program and invited professionals. Students present their designs and the concepts that led to the development of the design. Members of the panel as well as other students ask questions and present their opinions about various aspects of the design. The procedures, structure and guidelines for these critiques vary with professors and programs. Territoriality: G i ffo rd (2 0 0 2 ) d e fi n e d te rri to ri al i ty a s a p a tte rn o f b e h a vi or and attitudes held by an individual or group that is based on perceived, attempted, or actual control of a definable physical space, object, or idea that may involve habi tu a l o ccu p a ti o n , d e fe n se , p e rso n a l i za ti o n , a n d m a rki ng ofi t (p . 1 5 0 ).

10

Summary

The central focus of this study was to understand the perceptions of students and faculty at selected NAAB certified architecture programs about psychological and social concerns related to architectural design. In this chapter I discussed the concepts and ideas that led to this research and that formed the foundation for the path that it takes. I have outlined the purpose and scope of the study, the primary and secondary research questions, the assumptions and limitations, and briefly the research design.

11

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction

Pruitt-Igoe was a housing project designed with the intention of replacing deteriorating living spaces in inner-city housing (Gifford, 2002). The project boasted a design that wasted no space, included features that were resistant to vandalism, and was individualistic. The design however was not analyzed with respect to human behavior and contributed to feelings of fear, vandalism, vacancy and increased crime. The complex was demolished by the city of St. Louis 18 years after its opening. Gifford mentioned that Pruitt-Igoe may be the most dramatic example of the failure of building design. In the case of Pruitt-Igoe, its failure as a living space may be attributed to the fact that architects view buildings differently from occupants, and did not take sufficient account of the psychological and social issues involved in actually living there during the design (Brown & Yates, 2000; Deasy, 1974; Gifford, 2002; Kaupinnen, 1989). Architecture can provide immense value to the social structure if it responds to social needs and if architecture education incorporates a theoretical understanding of the way people impart meaning to their physical environments (Honikman, 1975). Literature on architecture emphasizes the need for architecture to encompass social and cultural issues in addition to function and aesthetics (Findeli, 2001; Kosidowski, 1996; Gommel, 1995). Scholars have extensively emphasized the need for inclusion of behavioral and psychological implications of physical settings (Gifford, 2002; Honikman, 1975; Rambow and Bromme, 1995; Rudd, 1985; Rudd, 1989). This review of literature will explore research on the views, opinions, suggestions, and recommendations of various scholars for architecture practice

12

and pedagogy. This chapter is divided into four major sections based on the issues that are central to this study: functional, psychological, and socio-cultural concerns in architecture. The discussion of functional issues will stem from functionalist and post functionalist philosophies (Eisenman, 1976/1996; Holgate, 1992; Norberg-Schulz, 1998; Tschumi, 1977/1996a). The philosophy that guides this study is pragmatism (Anderson, 2003; Dewey, 1958; James, 1907) and I will briefly discuss pragmatism in art and architecture. I will examine psychological concerns in architecture, environmental psychology and its association with human behavior, and how these issues may be incorporated in architectural design. This will be followed by a discussion of socio-cultural concerns in architecture and how they are or can be incorporated in architecture. Finally I will di scu ss th e g e n e ra l stru ctu re o f a rch i te ctu re p ro g ra m s, a n d sch o l a rs vi ew s about architecture programs and design studios. Function in Architecture

The supremacy of functional consideration in architectural design was su m m a ri ze d b y S u l l i va n (1 9 4 7 ) i n th e d i ctu m fo rm fo l l o w s fu n cti o n (M i ch l , 1 9 9 5 ). In the age of Renaissance and Baroque, technicalities were considered subservient to formalist objectives and function was the most important quality for a building to be considered delightful (Holgate, 1992). The belief was that good architecture and beauty are automatically achieved if the design process is strictly geared toward logic, functionality, and economic efficiency. Functionalists believed that the form of all objects is a derivative of the intended purpose and designers can find forms relevant to their intended function in previous examples (Michl, 1995). Proponents of functionalist theories in architecture avoided the term architecture because it references art, which was associated with aesthetic qualities (Norberg-Schulz, 1988). They adopted the term building which, according to them, was a true depiction of what the field meant. Norberg-Schulz further mentioned that aesthetics were replaced by the idea of creating clear and

13

functional construction which did not in any way express or symbolize. This form of architecture was essentially neutral and homogenous providing few possibilities for variations in life. Some proponents of modernism like Walter Gropius and Mies Van der Rohe stated that function or rationalism is only the basic premise for the modern movement but the intent was aesthetic satisfaction (Norberg-Schulz, 1988). The consensus however remains that even though the underlying agenda for modernism may have included an aesthetic component it was function that predominantly guided architectural design. Going Beyond Functionalism Eisenman (1976/1996) introduced the concept of post-functionalism which essentially negates functionalism while proposing certain theoretical alternatives. He argued that function is only worthy as a representative of the meaning that architecture is intended to symbolize. Post-modernism, which is used as a synonym with post-functionalism in architecture, was largely a demand for a meaningful architecture while rejecting the formalist belief in the definition of architecture as being a mere translation of practical and socio-economic conditions into the form of buildings (Norberg-Schulz, 1988). Postmodernists like Tschumi (1980/1996a) discarded modernist concepts and propagated the basic difference between building and architecture as the idea that buildings are based entirely on usefulness whereas architecture goes beyond that limitation. Tschumi (1977/1996b) identified the problem with previous definitions of a rch i te ctu re sta ti n g th a t typ i ca l l y a rch i te ctu re i s co n si d e re d a s a th i n g o f th e mi n d ra th e r th a n a n e xp e ri e n ti a l a rt an empirical event based on the senses (p. 534). He further mentioned that geometry and the pleasure of the senses come together to define the pleasure of architecture. Architecture is an appreciation of both sensory spatial experience and rational concepts, and a work of architecture is defined not by pleasure or functionality, but by the fact that it sets the unconscious in motion. Tschumi (1981/1996c) adopted the idea of post-structuralism which identifies architecture as a human activity and space as related not to function but to events. He claimed that both modernism and post-modernism were

14

tangled in the web of formalism although the definition differed one is autonomous and self-reflecting while the other echoes historical and cultural precedents. There is a need to include the human body, and all its experiences in any discourse about architecture. Psychological Concerns in Architecture

There is a reciprocal interaction between human beings and the place they enter (Lippard, 1997). The identity that human beings bring to a space/place undergoes some alteration based on the place, the relationship to the place, and other occupants of the place. Holgate (1992) argued that there are certain emotional or psychological states and reactions associated with elements of building designs, which are in a constant interplay with our rational responses to the same. The design of spaces affects our perception of the space, our sense of security, sense of place, and feelings such as empathy and nostalgia. Scholars have widely emphasized and studied the need for incorporating theories of behavioral psychology and the interaction of human beings with the built environment as important stages in the architectural design process (Gifford, 2002; Rudd, 1985; Honikman, 1975). Deasy (1974) summarized that the psychological and social effects of spaces work in three ways: (1) the stress we experience in accomplishing our goals group or personal, (2) the form and nature of our social contacts, and (3) our feelings of identity and self-worth. Spaces that are not designed with these concerns impose unnecessary handicaps on their occupants. In other words, the d e si g n e d sp a ce s e sse n ti al l y a ffe ct o ccu p a n ts p sych o l ogi ca l sta te , re l a ti o n sh i p with others, and personal opinion. There are several discussions on the idea of architects working in association with behavioral scientists and social psychologists in order to design and build structures that are responsive to society and human psychology (Gutman, 1972; Deasy, 1974). Deasy stated that this association will be proven highly feasible and rewarding by outlining a design process that starts with the study of the people whom the building will serve.

15

Rambow and Bromme (1995) emphasized a need for the study of psychology in architecture training in order to enhance the evaluation of pre-theoretical personal experiences in the formation of convictions and assumptions during professional practice. Psychological concerns in architecture may be best discussed with reference to architectural experience and sensory perception, essentially the aesthetics of architecture. Several philosophers have discussed the importance of experience and sensory perceptions in shaping lifestyles, beliefs, and identities. The belief that everything in our minds is a result of our sensory experiences formed the basis of empiricism in the eighteenth century and has been prevalent in philosophical discussions (Gaardner, 1994). Empiricist thought is based on the idea that human understanding is confined within the boundaries of experience (Scruton, 1995). Pragmatism derived from the interaction between human beings and art works, an active analysis of the experiences during this i n te ra cti o n , a n d th e co n se q u e n t re o ri e n ta ti on ofpeopl e s bel i e fs toward themselves and events surrounding them (James, 1907; Rorty, 1989; White, 1998). Pragmatism and the ideas associated with this philosophy guided this study. Pragmatism Pragmatism is the philosophy which guides this study because of its emphasis on the importance of experience (Dewey, 1958; Dewey 1925/1981). The basic premise of pragmatic philosophy is the idea that experience consists of interaction between human beings and their environment (James, 1907) and by extension human beings experience with art (Dewey, 1958), including a rch i te ctu re . T h e te st o f th e tru th , the authenticity of experiences lies in its validation in real life. James defined the pragmatic method as one that steers away from supposed necessities and first impressions, and focuses on consequences and facts. Spiegel (1998) identified that art exists in order to achieve certain designed purposes in terms of its effect on the audience. Anderson (2003) outlined the underlying assumption behind pragmatic theories of art as the need for art to do something meaningful while paving the way for the

16

social, political, and spiritual betterment of the world. Pragmatically, the function of art is to maintain the values, attitudes, and sense of reality across generations; and to give character, identity, and status to communities, individuals, and institutions like styles of architecture (McFee, 1970). Neo-pragmatic art educators proposed that pragmatic methods of instruction will enable students to actively analyze their experiences eventually reorienting their beliefs toward themselves and the events that they encounter (White, 1998). Applied to architecture, the pragmatic method will involve a thoughtful analysis of experiences resulting from the interaction between occupants and their environment (Gelenter, 1988; Nicol & Pilling, 2000). This will help architects and students to develop insights into the way architectural elements affect o ccu p a n ts p sych e a n d b e h a vi or as w el l a s th e i r w o rl d vi ew .T he pragmatic view of experience, architecture, and the means to explore and analyze grounds this study. The active analysis of architectural space will include an assessment of aesthetic criteria which are central to the experience and interaction between people and the space they occupy, and therefore the psychological response to the space (Hill, 1999). Aesthetic Experience and Architecture Discussions of beauty and aesthetics have been prevalent since Plato and his definition of absolute beauty as a concept that could only be comprehended by i n te l l e ctu a l s (H o l g a te , 1 9 9 2 ). H o l g a te fu rth e r d e scri bed P l a to si d e a th a t the objects common people encounter in their daily lives are just imperfect reflections of ideal forms presaging the formalist, architect as-designer-above-the-common people. The idea of aesthetics in architecture has been a matter of great debate largely because of the basic difference between architecture and other arts a rch i te ctu re s u ti l i ta ri a n n a tu re (B e a rn , 1 9 9 7 ). B e a rn e l a b o ra te d o n K a n t s argument for separating architecture from fine art. Kant labeled architecture as impure because it is purposeful while beautiful artworks only give the impression of having a purpose but actually have none. As an attempt at reducing the subjectivity in aesthetic discussions, some trains of thought suggested exclusion

17

of objects with a practical purpose including architecture (Holgate, 1992). A rch i te ctu re si n te n t, i ni ts m o d e rn i sti c e ra , w a s l abel e d a s fu l fi l l m entofa particular function. Fitch (1988) accepted the difference between architecture and other arts based on the utilitarian quality of architecture but attempted to place architecture a ste p a b o ve a rt o n th e sa m e g ro u n d s sta ti n g th a t w e i nhabi t w o rks o f a rch i te ctu re ; w e m e re l y p e rce i ve th e w o rk o f a rt (p . 6 ). P e vsn e r (1 9 6 1 ) emphasized the importance of aesthetics in architecture stating that anything that encloses space and facilitates movement of human beings may be said to be a building, whereas the term architecture will only apply to those buildings that are d e si gned w i th a vi e w to a e sth e ti c appeal . P e vsn e r s d e fi ni ti on pl a ce s a e sth e ti cs as the prime criteria for a work to classify as architecture and emphasizes the importance of aesthetics in architectural design (Rowe, 1987). Cherryholmes (1994) elaborated that beauty, harmony, pleasure, joy, success, and well-being are all criteria that should be used in assessing consequences of bringing out aesthetic implications of the pragmatic maxim. Aesthetics in architecture goes beyond beauty and acts as a tool toward the fulfillment of its pragmatic purpose. The main goal of architecture should be to create buildings where the aesthetic aspect is related to experiential reality (Fitch, 1972; Fitch, 1988). The idea of aesthetics in built forms has been restricted to visual stimuli (Fitch, 1972; Holgate, 1992). Scholars have argued for a need to encompass the other senses; qualities that are pleasing to the mind, exalt the senses, and appeal to taste and pleasure (Holgate, 1992; Spiegel, 1998; Ziff, 2000). Fitch discussed the need to include context, physical conditions of viewers, their psychological state, and the response of the occupants to the impact of the building on them. Hill (1999) defined aesthetic experience with respect to architecture as an architectural experience which is accompanied by a sense of place and the emotions attached to the intera cti o n o f o ccu p a n ts p sych e w i th th e space. Bhatt (2000) argued that our aesthetic experiences become justifiable reactions, emotions, acts, and perceptions of our experiences. A study of the interaction between human beings and their environment will yield important

18

information for architects with respect to the emotional and behavioral reactions that the interactions provoke (Gifford, 2002). Environmental Psychology D e w e y (1 9 2 5 /1 9 8 1 ) sta te d th a t E xp e ri e n ce i s ofas w el la s i n n a tu re . It i s not experience which is experienced, but nature stones, plants, animals, di se a se s (p . 1 2 ). A s a re su l tofbui l t stru ctu re s b e co m i ng an i n te g ra l p a rt o f th e surrounding, a large part of nature has now been replaced by environment (Lippard, 1997). In his book Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice, Gifford (2002) defined environment as built settings. He defined environmental p sych o l o g y a s th e stu d y o f tra n sa cti o n s b e tw e e n i ndi vi dual s a n d th e i r p h ysi ca l se tti n g (p . 1 ). H e m e n ti o n e d th a t th e se stu d i e s w o uld lead to more humane environments and improved interactions between people and their built as well as natural surroundings. Environmental Perception Gifford (2002) stated that environmental perception includes gathering of information about the environment as well as the means of assessing the environment. This process of information gathering is primarily visual but includes other senses (Gifford & Ng, 1982). Robson (1999) mentioned three modes of perception in human beings: (1) operational mode, in which we concentrate on elements of the environment important to accomplishing a task; (2) the responsive mode, which includes our everyday noticing of things around us; and (3) the inferential mode, in which we focus our attention on elements that support our knowledge of the environment. An environment which provides information on all three levels is a successful environment especially when it also presents things that are familiar and relate to past experiences of the occupants. Architecture and Environmental Psychology Pelli (1999) talked about emotions and architecture and stated that, A rch i te ctu re i s o n e o f th e g re a t a rts. W e fi n d p ro o f o f th i si n th e d e p th o f e m o ti on th a t g o o d b u i l di n g s p ro vo ke i n u s (p . 9 ). A rch i te ctu ra l e l e m e n ts o f a sp a ce a ffe ct the perception of spaces and consequently the psychological emotional or behavioral response to the environment (Holgate, 1992). These architectural

19

elements include, but are not limited to, walls, ceiling, floors, windows, light and color (Gifford, 2002). Color has a significant impact on daily life and plays an important role in self-presentation as well as forming of impressions (Hemphill, 1996). The behavioral connotations of color influence the states of mind as well as the perception of physical qualities of the immediate environment (Wells, Need & Crowell, 1979-1980). If used resourcefully in the design of spaces, color can i n fl u e n ce th e u se r s e m o ti o n a l a n d m e n ta l b a l a n ce (P o rti l l o & D o h r, 1 9 9 3 ; W e l l s et al, 1979-1980). Hogg, Goodman, Porter, Mikellides and Preddy (1979) identified five factors related to color that influence the perception of an environment. These factors include dynamism, spatial quality, emotional tone, complexity and evaluation. Another factor that influences perception of space is lighting. Sorcar (1987) mentioned that there is an association between illumination and the mood created in interior spaces. Lighting affects impressions of space, relaxation, privacy, pleasantness, boredom, excitement, confusion, insecurity, and brightness. Lighting conditions in a space also affect the perceived color. Gifford (2002) stated that the environment has an effect on the personality of the occupants and thus on the behavior that the environment provokes. Gifford mentioned that understanding personalities of occupants of a space will enable designers to assess the satisfaction, productivity, and relevant behavior of individuals in a given environment. Personality and perception affect behavior and personal as well as social space. Personal and Social Space Gi ffo rd (2 0 0 2 ) d e fi n e d p e rso n a l sp a ce a s th e g e o g ra p h i c co m p o n e n t o f i n te rp e rso n a l re l a ti o n s (p . 1 2 2 ). A l th o u g h th e te rm i s personal space it actually refers to the distance between individuals and their relative orientation when they interact. Other than personal and social factors, physical environment and settings influence personal space. Theories of personal space can provide architects with information that can be incorporated into building designs. They ca n p ro vi de i m p o rta n t b e h a vi o ra l b a si s fo r h u m a n e d e si gn ofbui l di n g s (p . 1 4 3 ).

20

Hall (1968) defined space as a medium of communication between individuals and introduced zones of proximal development to identify boundaries of social interaction and feelings of privacy. He identified proxemic zones based on relationships between people and objects within the microenvironment. These zones include: i n ti m a te (1 8 ra d i u s), p e rso n a l (1 8 to 4 -0 ra d i u s), social-close (4 -0 ra d i u s), so ci al -fa r (7 -0 ra d i u s), p u b l i c -cl o se (1 2 -0 radius), and public-far (2 5 -0 ra d i u s). D e L o n g (1 9 9 1 ) a rg u e d th a t H a l l s p ro xe m i c zo n e s w e re inconsistent with more recent research on microspatial analysis. He introduced axial orientation of occupants in the space as a factor in defining the zones. The a rra n g e m e n t o f o b j e cts a n d o ccu p a n ts re l a ti ve o ri e n ta ti on i n th e sp a ce i s an important factor affecting these relationships. De Long concluded that the zones sh o u l d b e m o re o vo i di n sh a p e i n ste a d o f th e re g u l a r ci rcl es i n H al l s o ri gi nal theory. The zones introduced by De Long include: Intimate/personal-close, personal-far, social-close, social-far, public-close, separation, privacy, and publicfa r. D e L o n g m e n ti o n e d th a t th e zo n e s a re b a se d o n o ccu p a n ts p e rce p ti on and interpretation of the space, and feelings of relative privacy. De Long (1991) discussed the application of proxemic theories to furniture planning and spatial design. The zones identified by Hall (1968) and De Long are a means of incorporating behavioral studies in the planning and arrangement of microenvironments. These zones may be used to identify the optimum or preferred proportionality of living spaces, furniture arrangement, location of areas relative to the entrance to the space, and the perception of relative formality and informality in the space (De Long, 1991). The arrangement and design of spaces with consideration of proxemics will play an important role in predisposing occupants to certain behavior in the space. The behavioral patterns include individual behavior as well as social interaction. Society and Culture

Society may be defined as a group of people clustered together as a result of shared patterns of interaction (McFee, 1970). Culture may be defined as the

21

values, attitudes, and acceptable behavior based on a common heritage. Several scholars have emphasized the importance of culture and social context in the arts (West, 1991; Anderson, 2003). A n d e rso n (2 0 0 3 ) d e fi n e d a rt a s cu l tu ra l l y si gni fi ca n t m e a n i n g , ski l l fu l l y e n co d e d i n a n a ffe cti n g , se n su o u s m e d i u m . (p . 2 3 8 ). Art in societies relates to subjects in the socio-cultural framework that produced the work. McFee (1986) argued that art derives its meaning and structure from culture and it gives continuity to culture. Rosenman and Gero (1998) emphasized the role of sociocultural context stating that an artifact removed from its socio-cultural environment will continue to function in the same manner but its purpose will alter based on the context. They stated that human beings exist in a physical environment while operating in a socio-cultural context that depends a lot on their personal conceptions of the environment. According to Hicks (1992/1993), there a re cu l tu ra l fi l te rs su p e ri m p o se d o n p e o p l e s p e rce p ti o n a n d vi su a l e xp e ri e n ce s. Further, a complete understanding of a space will require extensive knowledge about how it fits into the varied perceptions that people from varied cultural backgrounds and worldviews will bring to the space. Philosophers like Kant and Marx emphasized the importance of society, culture, and family in the formulation of human ideas, experiences, and beliefs (Gaardner, 1994). Artistic activity depends on the social, cultural, political, and economic influences on artists in the particular socio-cultural context (Gilmore, 1990). Conditions of every day social life have a direct effect on the way that members of the society perceive and interpret art works (Baxandall, 1972). Socio-cultural Concerns in Architecture According to Festinger (1972), architects have largely concerned themselves with providing physical convenience and fulfilling physical needs, but there is a need for architecture to respond to social convenience and needs. Nicol and Pilling (2000) argued that the key to success in the profession of architecture is not only the ability of the profession to represent quality and deliver high standards, but also its ability to represent the values and aspirations of the society that it serves. Designers should be aware of their ability to affect

22

society, individual life-styles, and the interaction within communities through their designs (Waxman, 2003). In the profession of architecture, the idea of culture-specific design, and how the environment responds to the culture in which it is situated has not received sufficient attention (Rapoport, 1987). Rapoport defined culture-specific d e si g n a s o n e th a t re sp o n d s to a n d su p p o rts th e sp e ci fi c cu l tu ra l ch a ra cte ri sti cs o f va ri o u s u se r g ro u p s. (p . 1 0 ). H e fu rth e r m e n ti o n e d th a t a rch i te ctu re n e e d s to question the structure of cultures and how these concepts relate to the structure and use of built forms. Schermer (2001) stated that nurturing an expertise in social and cultural issues is as important in the design studio as technical skills, in order to enable students to produce more meaningful work, promote the values of the profession, and broaden their understanding of the profession. Esherick (1984) mentioned that the claims that architecture makes should surpass issues like ensuring that the buildings will be structurally and technically stable. Architects should be able to take such issues for granted and focus on concerns like social and cultural issues. According to Esherick, this approach will give rise to a refined set of standards for architects, which will embrace societal traditions, and reflect the entire society and its values. Holgate (1992) discussed meaning-making in architecture with reference to the cultural and social implications of architectural structures and their interpretation by observers. Meaning in architecture refers to the manner in which the structures in a society reflect its relationship with the land (geography and topography), technology, economy, social order, world views and religious beliefs. Holgate mentioned that meaning-making is not a process that starts at the built structure to deduce meanings that are expected to be shared by the culture. Discerning meaning is a process that starts both at the building as well as understanding of the culture in order to finally discern the relationship between the two. Incorporating social and cultural concerns in architectural design requires studies of architectural history to address these concerns. Bandini (1997)

23

emphasized that the problems with current architecture historians lies in the fact that they are solely engrossed in the past and critiquing about the formal features of contemporary designs, while ignoring the relationships between the e co n o m i c, so ci al , se n su a l ,pol i ti ca l , a n d cu l tu ra l stru ctu re s (p . 4 2 5 ). F ro m a critical analysis of the history of architecture based on these relationships, architects should be able to derive inspiration and legitimization. The task of the historian thus includes an analysis of case studies with respect to the social and cultural context in the specific period. West (1991) mentioned that architecture education ought to emphasize the need for students to look at history and analyze it from their personal perspectives in terms of social histories of technology and architectural practices. History would then depend on cultural issues and incorporate contemporary cultural issues. Social Design and Community Architecture Gifford (2002) discussed the concept of social design as a way to design more humane buildings for occupants as part of a community. Social design involves research on the way physical settings can optimally serve human desires and requirements. Sommer (1983) defined social design as a process that involves people in the planning and management of their spaces, educating them about the optimal use of their environment, inculcating a sense of responsibility among people, and generating an understanding of how the physical environment influences human psychology. Gifford (2002) mentioned that several architects and designers now acknowledge the importance of designing for people without sacrificing technological or aesthetic considerations. Aesthetics have been a driving concern in architectural design but beautiful buildings may be pleasing to multiple senses and serve the intentions of social design by facilitating social interaction. In order to achieve this, architects can work in association with social researchers during the design process. Gifford (2002) listed six goals for social designers and researchers (1) create physical settings that cater to the needs and activities of the occupants, (2) satisfy the occupants who will spend a considerable part of their lives in the

24

setting, (3) contribute to behavioral changes that may include increased productivity in offices, enhanced social ties, reduced aggression and increased co m m u n i ca ti o n , (4 ) e n h a n ce o ccu p a n ts p e rso n a l co n tro l b y p ro vi di n g th e m th e ability to make changes to the setting so that it will suit their needs, (5) encourage social support by facilitating cooperation, assistance and support, and (6) enhance way-finding for occupants as well as visitors around the building without getting lost. Gutman (1972) discussed the association between architects and sociologists during the design process. He proposed that architects will need to consult with sociologists at three stages during design development. These co n su l ta ti ons i n cl u d e : (1 ) fo r g u i d a n ce i n u n d e rsta n d i n g th e cl i e n ts re q u i re m e n ts, (2) to discuss whether the proposed or present structure of social organization complies with the objectives stated in the design brief, and (3) estimating space requirements for activities. Aside from social researchers, people who will occupy the spaces may also be involved in the process of design. This movement has been termed community architecture and its intentions were defined by Wates and Knevitt (1987) as to b u i l d h o u si n g th a t p e o p l e w a n t to l i ve i n ; to g i ve p e o p l e a se n se o f pride and reinforce their identity with their local community; to build social facilities that are needed and properly looked after; to develop nei g h b o u rh o o d s a n d ci ti es i n w a ys th a t e n ri ch p e o p l e sl i ve s b y b e i ng genuinely responsive to their needs and aspirations (p. 17).

The designed environment works best if the people who will use and occupy it are involved in the creation and management of the environment (Wates and Knevitt, 1987). The design style that is usually adopted through community architecture is one that is contextual and regional with emphasis on establishing identity of the occupants. The primary motivation is to improve quality of life for individuals and the community as a whole, and to respond to localized needs and opportunities. Wates and Knevitt mentioned that community architecture is important for two reasons: (1) creating an environment that fulfills

25

user needs, and (2) creating a strong and participatory community. It will provide the occupants with a sense of community. Sense of community and enhanced quality of life also depend on the psychological reactions to occupied spaces. Design and Social Behavior Deasy (1974) discussed a movement which proposed that the fundamental purpose of design goes beyond creating buildings and encompasses the idea of designing settings for human behavior and for human beings to live together with useful and pleasurable interactions. The design of spaces has an immense bearing on human interaction with others in the community others sharing the place (Waxman, 2003). Territoriality. G i ffo rd (2 0 0 2 ) d e fi n e d te rri to ri al i ty a s a p a tte rn o f b e h a vi or and attitudes held by an individual or group that is based on perceived, attempted, or actual control of a definable physical space, object, or idea that m ay i n vo l ve h a b i tu a l o ccu p a ti o n , d e fe n se , p e rso n a l i za ti o n , a n d m a rki ng ofi t (p . 1 5 0 ). It i n vo l ve s l o ca ti ng obj e cts to d e fi n e o n e s territory in a manner which i ndi ca te s o n e si d e n ti ty. S e ve ra l p e rso n a l a s w e l l a s so ci a l fa cto rs i n fl u e n ce territoriality. These factors include gender, personality, social setting, socioeconomic status, prevalent competition for available resources and legal ownership. Gifford (2002) mentioned that dominance and control is the major social behavior with which territoriality has been associated. Control refers to the ability to i n fl u e n ce i d e a s, sp a ce , a n d o th e r re so u rce s i n th e te rri to ry. P e o p l e s b e h a v ior is affected by the control they have or seek over their territories. Territoriality essentially has an affect on a variety of human behaviors. Personalization of spaces was found to encourage social interaction and improve the atmosphere (Holahan, 1976; Vinsel, Brown, Altman, & Foss, 1980). If designers incorporate knowledge about territoriality in the design of homes, offices and institutions, the spaces will allow occupants optimum amount of control over the space (Gifford, 2002). Such environments can improve the quality of life significantly by providing occupants with a greater sense of selfdetermination, identity, and safety.

26

Crowding. Crowding refers to a personally defined subjective feeling arising from an experience of other people in the space (Gifford, 2002). Several personal, situational and cultural factors affect the experience of crowding. Gender, personality, psychiatric status, preferences, experience, mood, and sociability are personal variables associated with crowding. Culture and community size are other factors related to crowding. Crowding usually evokes negative behavioral and emotional responses and adversely affects social interaction (Stokols, 1978; Sundtrom, 1978). Negatively toned attitudes that may be associated with crowding include less perceived control, safety, privacy, building satisfaction and lower quality of relationship with others in the space (McCarthy & Saegert, 1979). Gifford summarized that crowding has physiological, behavioral and cognitive effects, including health problems. Architectural design has a substantial influence on the experience of crowding. The scale, arrangement of rooms in buildings, organization of spaces, ceiling heights, and light conditions are some architectural characteristics that influence crowding and its behavioral or emotional implications (Gifford, 2002). Factors that augment the experience of crowding include lower ceilings, longer corridors, higher density, taller buildings, curved walls and less light. Evans, Lepore and Schroeder (1996) mentioned that increased architectural depth of high density residences results in less psychological distress and social withdrawal for the occupants. Architectural depth is related to the number of spaces one must pass to go from one room to another. Careful environmental design may help to ease the experience of crowding in a space. Architecture Education

Nicol & Pelling (2000) described the five areas of study in the United Kingdom architecture system as architectural design; the cultural context of architecture; environmental design, constructional and architectural technologies; communication skills; and professional studies and management. The most important among these in terms of the time spent and curriculum emphasis is

27

architectural design, making the design studio the core of all architecture programs. Although attempts are made to introduce psychology, history and o th e r su b j e cts, d e si g n ta ke s u p a l m o st 8 0 % o f th e stu d e n ts ti m e , w h e re a s i n th e professional world there are other concerns in addition to design (Akin, 2002). In the United States, the National Architecture Accreditation Board is the sole agency to accredit professional architecture degree programs. There are currently 114 accredited programs offering Doctor of Architecture, Master of Architecture, and Bachelor of Architecture degrees. There are 67 Bachelor of Architecture programs accredited by the NAAB. The NAAB sets certain standards which form the basis of the accreditation process. The accreditation process is meant to ensure that all architecture programs meet the standards that comprise an appropriate education for future architects. The requirements listed by the NAAB for all graduates include: competence in a range of intellectual, technical, spatial, and interpersonal skills; understanding of historical, socio-cultural, and environmental contexts; ability to solve design problems in architecture while integrating technical as well as health and safety requirements; and comprehension of the role of the architect and the responsibilities associated with this role (NAAB, 2005). An American undergraduate program in architecture normally is approximately four to five years of study. The five year program equips students with a professional degree making them eligible to appear for licensing exams after completing the stipulated number of internship hours. Students who leave at the end of the fourth year earn an undergraduate degree usually in design instead of architecture and are not eligible to get licensed based on this degree. The design studio is usually the only course that students take every semester. Other courses students take during the program include, but are not limited to structural design, mechanical systems, graphic techniques and computer drafting. The design studio is comprised of multiple projects of varying time frames and complexity every semester. Students work on projects assigned by the faculty and the faculty act as clients as well as critics (Akin, 2002). Correa (1997) explained the basic intent of architecture programs as being structured

28

around developing design skills through a series of design studio courses in the course of their program, usually two studio courses per year. Marmot and Symes (1985) argued that studies of social context and role of architecture are being substituted for greater emphasis on the design studio, and topics such as building evaluation, user studies and design methods are becoming difficult to sustain in architecture programs. Jarrett (2000) stated that the design stud i o w o rks a s a l a b o ra to ry w h e re d e si g n m e th o d o l ogy i s co n ta i ned, a rti fi ci al l y co n tro l l e d a n d fre q u e n tl y p re scri bed w i th g u a ra n te e d su cce ss (p . 5 9 ). He attributed this situation to the confinement of the design process within the studio such that students are often isolated from real life. Honikman (1975) suggested that a theoretical understanding of the way people impart meaning to their physical environments through their values should be an integral part of design programs. Educational Issues in Architecture Education This section includes a discussion of certain concepts that have been discussed by various scholars as issues that need to be addressed in design studios and how this may be achieved. These ideas include; reflective inquiry in architecture (Forester, 1985; Livingston, 2000; Nicol & Pilling, 2000), communication abilities and interpersonal skills (Deasy, 1974; Kaupinnen, 1989; Nicol & Pilling, 2000), interdisciplinary learning and teamwork (Schermer, 2001; Wittman & Wittman, 1976), and case-based instruction (Akin, 2000; Ashbaugh & Kasten, 1991; Verma, 1997). Reflective Inquiry in Architecture According to Dewey (1970), the value of an experience lies in the perception of relationships which we reach after reflecting upon our experiences. Extension of our insights through thoughtful analysis of our experiences will lead to more accurate foresights. Thinking is the conscious effort to discover the relationships between what we do and what the consequences of our actions are, so that they both become interlinked steps in a continuous process. This conscious process is one of inquiry and investigation, and involves four stages including sensing a problem, observing the conditions, formulating informed

29

hypothesis and experimenting actively. The knowledge attained as a result of this process is secondary to the process itself since it occurs in an ever-changing world. Dewey, as part of his pragmatic philosophy, rejected the idea of fixed, eternal structures; laws that are considered to be continuous occurrences (Garrison, 1994). Dewey stated that a large part of our epistemological problems arise from our tendency to assume as real what we experience without embarking upon any reflective inquiry. This notion applies to architectural design elements that are assumed universally viable for fulfillment of aesthetic as well as functional requirements (Bhatia, 2005). Bhatia postulated that a large part of the problems in architectural designs are a result of architects finding shelter in previously successful designs without questioning the relevance to the specific project at hand. Functional criteria that work for one project are considered appropriate for all similar projects, but the need is to assess functional criteria with reference to the specific project, social setting, and the aesthetic qualities that will enhance the space and the experience of the space. The process of design is a process of conversations with oneself and d e si gn i s re a l i ze d th ro u g h a so ci a l p ro ce sse s o f re vi e w , e va l u a ti o n , cri ticism, m odi fi ca ti o n , p a rti a l re j e cti o n , a n d p a rti a l a d o p ti o n (F o re ste r, 1 9 8 5 , p . 1 4 ). B y encouraging students to actively analyze and experience a situation is a better means of teaching certain concepts (Livingston, 2000). S tu d e n ts co n sci o u s a n d syste m atic reflections on their personal experiences and their attempts at making sense of these experiences will have a major influence on future learning (Nicol & Pilling, 2000). Critical reflection involves a juxtaposition of theory and practice such that both inform each other. G el e rn te r (1 9 8 8 ) su g g e ste d th a t stu d e n ts re fl e cti o n s o f th e e n vi ro n m e n ts a l re a d y existing will, with help from teachers, transform into cognitive schemata that may be used to infer solutions for the structures they will later design. Q u a yl e a n d P a te rso n (1 9 8 9 ) p re se n te d a si mi l a r co n ce p t a s i n fo rm e d re fl e cti o n (p . 3 0 ). T h e co n ce p t i n vo l ve s i n fo rm e d re fl e cti o n u p o n d e si gn i deas and experiences. This idea is proposed to encourage learning after the

30

completion of a project and forms a bridge between projects. This will also form an important basis for constructive criticism and reinforcing information from various sources. Waxman (2003) added the idea of incorporating the study of place with reference to social interaction located in built spaces in order to enhance stu d e n ts u n d e rsta n d i n g o f d e si gn i ssu e s a s th e y re l a te to p e rso n a l i za ti on of spaces, territorialization and the meaning that spaces have for them. Analyzing and reflecting upon experiences and designs in order to refine their understanding of the spaces they are designing will enable architecture students as future architects to design buildings that are more responsive to spatial experience which is a major aspect of architecture. Communicative Abilities and Interpersonal Skills K aupi n n e n (1 9 8 9 ) sta te d th a t a rch i te cts th o u g h t p ro ce ss d u ri n g th e design process and their perception of buildings can be very different from and may even conflict with the way the public views it. Deasy (1974) elaborated this concept through the exa m p l e o f th e d i ffe re n ce b e tw e e n th e d e si g n e rs o rd e rl y and systematic world against the human world which is in a constant state of change filled with chance. There is a difference between the thought-process, visualization abilities, and concepts of designers and their clients. There is a need for architects to develop interpersonal skills in relationship to clients and other professionals, but also become better at listening and responding to, and communicating with building users and the public (Nicol & Pilling, 2000). T so w a n d B e a m e r (1 9 8 5 ) e xp l o re d th e n e e d fo r e n h a n ci n g stu d e n ts communicative abilities. They stated that the four major steps that require communication with the client include project generation, acquisition, concept and design. The major tool of architects is graphic skills which the client is not fluent in reading and assimilating. Tsow and Beamer argued that it is essential for architecture students to learn to verbalize and write architecture and the thought process during design. This will help students to acquire better abilities to communicate their concepts and ideas with the clients. It will also ensure that the cl i e n ts re q u i re m e n ts a re e ffe cti ve l y u n d e rsto o d b y a rch i te cts.

31

Interdisciplinary Learning and Teamwork Wittman and Wittman (1976) discussed a combined degree program in architecture and social work at Washington University in St. Louis, which aimed ati m p ro vi n g a rch i te cts u n d e rsta n d i n g o f cl i e n ts va l u e s a n d a sp i ra ti o n s, understanding their physical as well as mental needs, and improving their ability to work with clients and community groups. Some architecture programs incorporate concepts of social design and community architecture to emphasize social, ecological and technological criteria in their curricula. The Archeworks (Archeworks, 2005) program is based on research aimed at the development of innovative solutions. Students meet with focus groups comprised of people who are the projected users of the project. Students also meet with doctors, teachers and other professionals working in the field being researched. Critiques of student works includes community members, experts in the field, professional architects, and projected users of the buildings. The essence of this program is team work and multi-disciplinary education. In this context Schermer (2001) discussed client-situated architecture practice. This is a non-traditional form of practice which is gaining popularity in the profession wherein the architect works not for another architecture firm or runs his/her own practice but is employed by another large organization as an inhouse designer and consultant. It becomes essential to include interdisciplinary learning and team-working abilities in the curriculum in order to prepare students for this career option. Case-based Instruction in Architecture Several studies indicated a wide gap in the attitudes and understanding of students and professionals in architecture. Verma (1997) studied students with different amounts of professional experience and concluded that students with professional experience, irrespective of whether the experience was in architecture, indicated a better understanding of design theory. Professional experience plays a major role in the development of design philosophy, concepts, and eventually the design of spaces or structures.

32

Rambow and Bromme (1995) analyzed the responses of architects (professionals) in relation to those of students (novices) to designs in three separate situations. Professionals indicated more negative features in the designs than students. Students requested more information about clients in order to effectively analyze the designs. The researchers attributed these differences to personal preferences and views formulated by professionals with years of experience. Heylighen & Vertijnen (2003) emphasized the importance of studying cases to acquaint students with the kind of database that architects a cq u i re d u ri n g ye a rs o f p ro fe ssi o n a l p ra cti ce . T h e y a rg u e d th a t stu d e n ts d o n t have the extensive record of cases that professional architects acquire through experience. Akin (2002) argued that in order for professional education to succeed, there should be substantial representation of applications and actions in professional practice in the core of educational experience. Case-based instruction has been studied as an alternate to professional experience and researchers have assessed the feasibility of incorporating it in architecture schools (Ashbaugh & Kasten, 1991; Ertmer & Russell, 1995). There are two components of case-based instruction; case study emphasizes the object being studied and case method signifies the process of studying a problem situation (Kowalski, 1991). Akin (2002) mentioned that in architecture education, the precedents that are studied as cases are specific designs or buildings that students can use to support their designs. Often the precedents are past solutions to specific problems in design and may be negative or positive. Akin elaborated that students are asked to research and collect relevant information about the building being studied. The stages that follow the collection of information are irregular and depend on the case or instructional method. Wright (1996) mentioned that case-based instruction will encourage reflective thinking among students and an analytical predisposition to their careers. The teacher in this system acts as a facilitator helping students to look deeply into the crucial aspects of cases. Akin (2002) suggested that architecture education can adapt case-based instruction to the needs of design process and that of design evaluation and critique. Critical analysis of cases will give students

33

strong justifications on which to base design decisions and should therefore be an important aspect of the process of design. An important component of casebased learning is the discussion of cases which significantly enhance the learning from the cases (Akin, 2002; Levin, 1995). Ertmer and Russell (1995) elaborated that it is essential to encourage discussions about the cases being studied and this process requires significant preparation on the part of the teacher as well as student. Marmot and Symes (1985) suggested an approach to case-based instruction which involved three stages: design method, design negotiations and new roles for architects. The approach included a project provided to the students at a crisis point requiring immediate attention and decision-making and was aimed at increasing student awareness about the benefits of applying research in design to problem solving during the design process. The process introduces students to the a rch i te ct s ro l e a s a d e ci si o n m a ke r i n th e co n stru cti on process, and to the constant changes in client needs and constraints. Summary

The literature review shows the importance of addressing psychological and social concerns in architectural design. It suggests that architects should i n co rp o ra te co n si d e ra ti ons l i ke p e o p l e s e m o ti onal , b e h a vi o ra l a n d p sych o l ogi ca l responses to the space they occupy. There is also a need to understand the interaction between the environment and its occupants (Gifford, 2002; Holgate, 1992). Finally it indicates that architects should understand the society they are designing for, and the culture, beliefs and lifestyles of this society (Jarrett, 2000; Nicol & Pilling, 2000). The review of literature started with a discussion of certain theories in architectural design including functionalism and post-functionalism. In keeping with post-functionalist ideas, several scholars emphasized the incorporation of psychological concerns in architecture (Gifford, 2002; Jarrett, 2000; Pelli, 1999). The interaction between human beings and the space they occupy leads to

34

certain emotional or psychological states and reactions. The design of spaces a ffe cts o ccu p a n ts se n se o f p l a c e, sense of security, sense of identity and feelings. Pragmatism was reviewed as a philosophy that may be most appropriate for incorporating psychological and social concerns in architecture, and emphasizing the concepts in architecture education (Dewey, 1958; James, 1907). The basis of pragmatism in art is the interaction of the viewer with the w o rk o f a rt a n d th e co n se q u e n t re o ri e n ta ti o n o f th e vi e w e rs w o rl d vi ew . Architecture would benefit from this philosophical approach by providing the basis for design of environments that respond to occupants and their lifestyles. Aesthetics of architecture were discussed as the most important factor in the psychological interaction of occupants and the environment. Environmental psychology, the study of the interactions between individuals and their physical setting, is relevant to this study in that architectural elements influence the perception of and response to the built environment (Gifford, 2002; Hemphill, 1996; Portillo & Dohr, 1993). Important aspects of environmental psychology that were discussed include personal and social space, territoriality and crowding. Scholars have emphasized the association of these factors with architectural elements and discussed implications for architectural design. S ch o l a rs v iews about the association of architecture with society and culture were discussed in the next section of the literature review. The literature indicated that designers have the ability to affect the interaction within communities through their designs and it is essential to nurture an expertise in social and cultural issues (Rapoport, 1987; Schermer, 2001; Waxman, 2003). Social design and community architecture were discussed as movements that were introduced in an attempt to achieve a structure for more humane design of spaces (Gifford, 2002). Social design involves the occupants of spaces in the design and management of the environment. This will inculcate a sense of responsibility and belonging among members of the community. The aim is to design environments that will lead to an improved quality of life for individuals, and increased participation and interaction in the community.

35

Finally the literature review discussed architecture education, and certain practices that are prevalent in or suggested for architecture design studios. These practices include incorporating reflective inquiry (Livingston, 2000; Nicol & Pilling, 2000), exercises to improve communicative abilities (Kaupinnen, 1989; Tsow & Beamer, 1985), interdisciplinary learning (Schermer, 2001) and casebased instruction (Ashbaugh & Kasten, 1991; Ertmer & Russell, 1995). The literature repeatedly emphasized the need to incorporate psychological and social issues in architecture pedagogy (Nicol & Pilling, 2000; Rapoport, 1987). There is, however, a need to analyze programs and evaluate whether these concerns are addressed and emphasized in design studios, and this study attempts to address that issue.

36

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Introduction

The review of literature on practices in and suggestions for architecture pedagogy indicated a need for architecture programs to integrate and emphasize psychological and social concerns in architectural design. Through observations and interviews at fourth year design studios at two selected architecture programs, this study will attempt to identify whether the programs incorporate and emphasize psychological and social concerns in architectural design. I will assess the perceptions of students and faculty at the selected schools toward these human facets of design. The results may suggest implications for socially and psychologically centered issues and program development for architecture education. Research Questions

The primary research question which is the central focus of this study is: What are the perceptions of students and faculty in selected National Architecture Accreditation Board accredited architecture programs regarding the psychological and social concerns related to architectural design as they are being taught by the program? To answer the primary research question certain supporting questions must be answered. These questions were formatted based on insights derived from the synthesis of a comprehensive literature review. Based on the responses of the participants and observations of the researcher:

37

1. How does the faculty of two programs in Southeastern United States present each school s position on psychological and social aspects of architecture that are the central focus of this study? 2. W h a t a re stu d e n ts p e rce p ti o n s o f th e p sych o l ogi ca l and social concerns related to architectural design? 3. W h a t a re fa cu l ty s p e rce p ti o n s o f th e p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a l co n ce rn s related to architectural design? 4. How do selected students and faculty in two selected programs in Southeastern United States interp re t th e sch o o l s p o si ti on on psychological and social aspects in architecture as suggested by faculty members? Research Strategy

Qualitative research was adopted as the guiding methodology for this study. The study started with an extensive and critical review of literature on a rch i te ctu re e d u ca ti o n a n d sch o l a rs vi e w s o n th e i m p o rta n ce a n d d e fi ni ti ons of psychological and social concerns in architecture. A study of the list of accredited architecture schools in Southeastern United States from the NAAB website resulted in the selection of two schools where the subsequent stages of data collection took place. A major consideration for the selection of the two sites was geographical proximity to Tallahassee in order to facilitate regular visits for data collection. I used observations and interviews to collect data, which was analyzed in an attempt to answer the primary and secondary research questions. The analysis of data involved coding of information at different stages in the data collection process. Coding was based on a count of the number of times psychological and social concerns were referenced in the observation field notes, and interview transcripts (Eisner, 1998). Emergent themes and their relative positions in the design process were identified to fu rth e r u n d e rsta n d p a rti ci p a n ts perceptions of the concerns central to this study. In the following section I will

38

discuss the theoretical foundations of qualitative research, and the various forms of data collection and analysis utilized in this study. Theoretical Foundations of the Methodology F ra e n ke l a n d W a l l e n (2 0 0 3 ) d e fi ned qual i ta ti ve re se a rch a s stu d i e s th a t i n ve sti g a te th e q u a l i ty o f re l a ti o n sh i p s, a cti vi ti e s, si tu a ti o n s, o r m a te ri al s (p . 4 3 0 ). Rossman and Rallis (2002) noted the two unique features of qualitative research as: (1) the researcher accumulates, analyzes, interprets, and consequently transforms the information or data into learning thus being the central instrument for conducting the study, and (2) the main purpose of such research is to use this information to address recurring social issues and transform it into knowledge. As d e scri b e d b y M e rri a m (1 9 9 8 ), Q u a l i ta ti ve re se a rch e rs are interested in understanding the meaning people have constructed, that is, how they make sense o f th e i r w o rl d a n d th e e xp e ri e n ce s th e y h a ve i n th e w o rl d . (p . 6 ). Researchers are interested in understanding the multiple realities of the world fro m th e p a rti ci p a n ts p e rsp e cti ve (F ra e n ke l & W a l l e n , 2 0 0 3 ). Characteristics of Qualitative Research One of the characteristics of qualitative research is that it evolves during the process of the research instead of starting with a pre-defined hypothesis (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003; Merriam, 1998; Rossman & Rallis, 2002). Given my concern with the psychological and social aspects of architecture and architecture education, an extensive literature review identified the emerging points of the study. The research questions and proposed methodology emerged through this reading and analysis. Generalizability in Qualitative Research Qualitative research does not seek generalizability beyond the particular si tu a ti o n u n d e r stu d y, b u t i sl e ft u p to th e re a d e r si n te rp re ta ti o n (F ra e n ke l & Wallen, 2003). In that regard, this study neither seeks nor claims generalizability but interpretations of the study and findings may provide a starting point for the evaluation of similar programs through implication (Eisner, 1998). Eisner

39

mentioned that people apply images conceived from one situation to other situations that they find relevant and qualitative research writing, through its vivid and descriptive nature h a s a stro n g a b i l i ty to g e n e ra te i m ages i n th e re a d e rs mi n d . H e sta te d th a t, F o r q u a l i ta ti ve re se a rch , th i s m e a n s th a t th e cre a ti on ofan image a vivid portrait of excellent teaching, for example can become a prototype that can be used in the education of teachers or for the appraisal of te a ch i n g (p . 1 9 8 ). In th a t re g a rd , th e re su l ts o f th e stu d y m a y h a ve i m pl i ca ti ons for other schools accredited by the NAAB and for assessment and restructuring or development of similar programs. The Researcher as an Instrument The researcher is the main instrument in qualitative research, and data is collected, analyzed and mediated by the researcher (Eisner, 1998; Merriam, 1998; Rossma n & R a l l i s, 2 0 0 2 ). A s sta te d b y M e rri a m , m e a n i ng i s m edi a te d through the investigator s o w n p e rce p ti o n s (p . 6 ). M y u n d e rsta n d i n g o f th e situation and interpretation of what I see, hear, and experience during the process of data collection at selected schools provided valuable insights in u n d e rsta n d i n g th e co n ce rn s th a t g o ve rn stu d e n ts d e si g n d e ci si o n s (E i sn e r, 1998). As described by Eisner, the process of investigation and data collection in qualitative research occurs in a way that makes sense to the researchers based on the question they attempt to answer, their aptitude, and the context in which the study is conducted and situated. Eisner suggested that a transactive approach, through juxtaposition of subjective and objective theories, provides richness to studies of social phenomenon. The qualitative method of research, through this characteristic, enabled me to develop and express my position and perspective of the situation. These general qualities of qualitative research have formed the basis of the design of this research. I attempted to acquire a rich, detailed and insightful understanding of the structure of architecture programs, and how they incorporate psychological and social concerns in design education. Observations and interviews are two common strategies in qualitative research design.

40

Observations and Field Notes Qualitative research involves the researcher getting close to, or even becoming a part of, the situation, community, people or phenomenon under study (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003). Observations documented as field notes are fundamental to qualitative research (Rossman & Rallis, 2002). Observations help the researcher to enter the setting and become part of the social setting by being there. They enable the researcher to learn about actions and to infer what these a cti o n s m e a n fo r th e p a rti ci p a n ts. A s sta te d b y M e rri a m (1 9 9 8 ), o b se rva ti o n s provide some knowledge of the context or provide specific incidents, behavior, and so on that can be used as reference points for the subsequent i n te rvi e w s (p . 96). Merriam also mentioned that this method provides a means for the researcher to observe topics that people may not feel free to talk about or may not be comfortable discussing. Observation also provides triangulation for inferences derived from interviews and other data (Anderson, 2000). M e rri a m (1 9 9 8 ) m e n ti o n e d th a t o b se rva ti o n s th e m se l ve s a re o n l y hal f th e w o rk (p . 1 0 5 ). F i el d n o te s a re a m e a n s fo r re se a rch e rs to syste m a ti ca l l y d o cu m e n t th e i r i m p re ssi o n s, i n si g h ts, a n d e m e rg i n g h yp o th e si s (R o ssm a n & Rallis, 2002, p. 195). Observational field notes, when added to interview transcripts, aid the interpretation of interviews. Observational field notes include the descriptions of the setting and activities, direct quotations or concise su m m a ry o f w h a t w a s h e a rd , a n d th e re se a rch e r s co m m e n ts i n cl udi n g th e re se a rch e r s fe e l i n g s, re a cti o n s, h u n ch e s, i ni ti a li n te rp re ta ti o n s, a n d w o rki ng h yp o th e si s (M e rri a m , 1 9 9 8 , p . 1 0 6 ). E m e rso n , F re tz, a n d S h a w (1 9 9 5 ) described the process of writing field notes and stated that it is not a passive process of reporting what was seen but a process of making sense of and interpreting the situation, setting and activities. In this study, I will observe design studios and discussions between students and professors about their designs. I will also attend student presentations of their designs to the panel of jury and note the concerns that are addressed, emphasized, and discussed during these presentations and critiques. Photographs and/or sketches of the environment will serve as supporting visual

41

documentation. Field notes will include a description of these critiques and presentations, and of the studio activities and discussions that take place during the design process. Interviews Interviews are a common means of collecting data and their main purpose is to acquire specific information (Merriam, 1998; Seidman, 1998). They provide important insight into phenomena that cannot be directly observed, l i ke p e o p l e s behavior and their interpretation of the world around them. Seidman (1998) mentioned that interviewing is a means of getting participants to recall and reflect upon select details of their experiences. He elaborated that the purpose of indepth interviewing is not to get specific questions but to understand these experiences and the meaning that people derive from their experiences. Patton (1990) explained the importance of interviews as follows: We cannot observe feelings, thoughts, and intentions. We cannot observe behaviors that took place at some previous point in time. We cannot observe situations that preclude the presence of an observer. We cannot observe how people have organized the world and the meanings they attach to what goes on in the world. We have to ask people questions about those things. The purpose of interviewing, then, is to allow us to e n te r i n to th e o th e r p e rso n s p e rsp e cti ve . (p . 1 9 6 )

According to Seidman (1998), interviewing is the most effective means to i d e n ti fy a n o th e r p e rso n s stre a m o f co n sci o u sn e ss. H e sta te d th a t i n te rviewing al l o w s th e re se a rch e r to p u t p e o p l e s b e h a vi or i n co n te xt th e re b y p ro vi di ng a deeper understanding of the significance of the behavior. There are a wide range of practices and formats for interviews: tightly structured interviews, surveys with preset and closed questions, and open ended and unstructured interviews. Seidman mentioned that open-ended interviews allow the researcher to explore responses of participants to the questions and to allow the participant to recount, explain, and explore their experiences. Merriam (1998) discussed that most interviews in qualitative research are semi-structured, which permit the

42

re se a rch e r to re sp o n d to th e si tu a ti o n a t h a n d , to th e e m e rg i n g w o rl d vi e w o f th e re sp o n d e n t, a n d to n e w i d e a s o n th e to p i c (p . 7 4 ).

In this study, interviews with the professors teaching the fourth year design studio at each school provided important insights into the philosophy that gui d e s th e p ro g ra m d e ve l o p m e n t a n d stru ctu re . I w a s a b l e to d e ri ve fa cu l ti e s perspective on psychological and social concerns in architecture, both as the sch o o l s p o si ti o n a n d a s th e i r p e rso n a l o p i ni o n . I asked the professors about the project assigned to students and their expectations of the concerns that students should address in their designs. The information acquired from these interviews was useful as a basic understanding for the observations of student project critiques. I used an interview protocol but the questions were open-ended such that they were open to modification based on particular participants so that I could delve deeper into certain concepts and acquire rich information for the study. Focus Group Interviews Unlike individual interviews, focus group interviews rely on the interaction between interviewees and the researcher facilitates discussion (Morgan, 1988). The concept of focus group interviews comes largely from marketing research (Patton, 1990; Rossman and Rallis, 2002). Patton discussed the merits of focus group interviews and noted that they provide richer and more authentic data as a result of participants correcting each other in turn avoiding false and extreme viewpoints. Interviewees who are uncomfortable in one-on-one interviews can participate with greater ease. In discussing the limitations of focus group interviews, Patton mentioned that such interviews are inappropriate for sensitive and highly personal questions, and some participants might be hesitant to voice their opinions if they disagree with a majority of others in the group. Greenbaum (1993) categorized focus group interviews based on the number of participants and length of discussion. Full focus groups interviews comprise of 8 to 10 interviewees per group and may be 90 to 120 minutes in length. Mini focus groups interviews include 4 to 6 interviewees and last for 90 to

43

120 minutes. Focus groups interviews conducted over the phone take about 30 to 120 minutes. In this study, I chose to conduct focus group interviews with six students at each school for approximately 90 minutes each. The selection of the number of students and length of time was largely based on the fact that I, as the researcher and data collector, wanted to ensure a manageable group for facilitation of rich and meaningful discussions. As part of this study, focus group interviews with fourth year architecture students in selected programs allowed me to understand their thought process during the development of design concepts and of the design itself in relation to the psychological and social issues of design central to this study. All participants signed consent forms (See Appendix B) before the interviews. I used an interview protocol including open-ended questions so that the questions were open to modification during the discussions. I was able to steer the discussion among participants so as to acquire important insights into the concerns central to this study. The interviews enabled m e to a cq u i re a n u n d e rsta n d i n g o f stu d e n ts ideas about architecture and its responsibilities, the concerns that govern their design ideas and decisions, and the concerns that the programs emphasize through the structure and philosophy of the program as well as the curriculum. Information from interviews also helped to get a better understanding of what is observed and noted in field notes. Data Analysis in Qualitative Research Merriam (1998) described the process of data analysis in qualitative research by stating, th e re i sl i ttl e d o u b t th a t th e p ro ce ss i s hi ghl yi n tu i ti ve (p . 156). Data analysis in qualitative research involves analysis and synthesis of the information collected through sources like interviews, observations, and documents into a coherent description of what was observed (Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003). Data analysis in these studies relies heavily on description. The analysis is also an on-going process during data collection. Merriam mentioned that starting the analysis after the data is collected will not provide a rich and meaningful analysis.

44

Merriam (1998) discussed that the qualitative researcher must adopt a certain system of coding and cataloguing which will become a useful format for the analysis and interpretation of data collected through other sources later in the study. Eisner (1998) mentioned that prefigured foci are useful as a starting point for data analysis, and their presence may be useful in drawing attention to unexpected emergent themes during the process. The prefigured foci for this study were derived from conceptual structures and driving concerns acquired from the literature review. Observations provide preliminary data, refined the foci and themes, and resulted in the development of further questions. Preliminary analysis of observations influenced the significance of activities and events being observed. Interviews provided the last set of data and themes, and the interview protocol evolved based on the themes that arose during observations. The proposed study therefore developed and evolved during the process of data collection. In the following section I will discuss the research design in detail including sample selection and stages in data collection. Research Design

This study examined the perceptions of students and faculty at selected architecture programs regarding the role of psychological and social concerns in the formulation and development of design concepts, ideas and decisions. The programs were selected from a list of accredited architecture programs available on the NAAB website. Observations and interviews at two selected architecture programs served as the basic means of data collection. Stages in Data Collection The process of data collection and analysis essentially involved accumulation and analysis of observation field notes and interview transcripts from two selected schools. Breaking down the process further, the stages of data collection and analysis for the proposed study may be enumerated as: site selection, observations and field notes, interviews with faculty, and focus group interviews with students.

45

Site Selection Geographic considerations played a significant role in the selection of two schools for this study. I acquired the list of National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB) accredited architecture schools in the United States from the NAAB website. In consideration of the fact that data collection may require repeated visits to the selected schools, the attempt was to identify schools within close vicinity (within 2-5 hours driving distance) to Tallahassee, Florida, where I lived. Since one of the central aspects being studied relates to locally specific socio-cultural concerns in architectural design, the assumption here is also that there will be a relatively low variation in social and cultural issues across areas in close geographical vicinity. I selected two schools in Southeastern United States which, for the purpose of this study, will be named School A and School B at University X and University Y respectively. Observations and Field Notes I visited the fourth year design studios at the selected schools and observed various activities in the design studio. One activity that I observed was discussions between students and professors during different phases in the development of final design projects, which are a part of the design process. Phases of this process may include but are not restricted to: introduction to the design problem, site visit and analysis, concept development, design development, and finalization of design. At the end of the stipulated time for a project, students present their designs to a panel of jury members comprising of the studio professor, other faculty from the school and invited architects. Other students are also present at these presentations and may be allowed to co m m e n t o n th e i r cl a ssm a te s d e si g n s. S tu d e n ts m a ke a b ri e f p re se n ta ti on about their design which is followed by questions and comments from the audience. I visited the design studios during discussion of student projects at the co n ce p tu a l a n d fi n a l d e si g n sta g e , a n d w a s a b l e to o b se rve stu d e n ts presentations to the panel of critics and the responses of this panel to student designs. The observations were recorded and analyzed in field notes. Student presentations revealed important information about the design concerns that

46

were addressed and emphasized based on how they explained their designs, and the questions and comments from the audience and jury members. Interviews with Professors I requested an interview with the professors teaching the fourth year design studio at each school before I visited the studio. I used an interview protocol (See Appendix C) to guide this interview. I was able to derive important insights into the philosophies that drive program and curriculum development at each school, as well as the positions of the schools on psychological and social issues through these interviews. I also asked the professors for their personal opinions on the psychological and social issues of interest in this study. I gleaned important information about the project that students were assigned and what issues they were being encouraged to address in their designs. I asked professors to describe their expectations of student designs. The interviews proved beneficial in providing me an understanding of issues and directions in programming and instruction, which enabled me to make important observations and ask relevant questions during focus group interviews with students. Focus Group Interviews with Students After attending student project critiques at the design studio, I asked the first six students to complete their critiques to join me for a focus group interview. All six students at School A attended the interview while five students attended at School B. The interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes at each school. The reason for selecting fourth year students for the study derives from the contention that the fourth year studio is the studio in which the design process may be considered most advanced (Demirbas & Demirkan, 2000), since these students are near to completing their programs. Selecting seniors for the study minimized trivialization of the study because seniors will be well aware of traditional knowledge and skills (Sancar, 1996). Students will be well-versed with drawing skills and basic norms that need to be followed in designs, and may be expected to concentrate on design ideas and concepts without having to devote undue concentration and effort on technicalities. Also, more to the point of this study, the students were w e l li m bued w i th th e i n sti tu ti o n s d ri vi n g m o re s, va l u e s, w a ys

47

of doing, and being. In this study, I was also able to identify what courses they have taken, if any of these courses were based on psychological or social concerns, and how they feel these courses were integrated in their design studio. In the interviews I asked students about their opinion of the importance of psychological and social issues and how the schools have or have not fostered their understanding of these issues. The interview protocol for focus group i n te rvi e w s w a s b a se d o n tw o se ts o f q u e sti o n s; stu d e n ts o p i ni ons about architecture as a profession, and discussion of the program and the design studio project (See Appendix D). Opinions about architecture. A pilot study for this research indicated th a t stu d e n ts o p i ni o n s a b o u t a rch i te ctu re a re n o t n e ce ssa ri l y b re d b y th e programs and although these opinions include a sense of responsibility of the profession to focus on society and human psychology, students are not always able to translate these ideas into design concepts (Bhatia, 2005). In the pilot study, stu d e n ts e xp re sse d i d e a s a b o u t a rch i te ctu re i n te rm s o f th e p ro fe ssi on s need to cater to society, and about architecture being an experience for occupants of the spaces. However, when asked about their projects they largely discussed concerns like structure, sewage and lighting. The current study attempted to explore the issue of psychological and social responsibility further in an attempt to identify the role that architecture programs play in fostering an understanding of psychological and social concerns in design. I encouraged students in the current study to discuss the origin of their ideas and whether the program had a hand in fostering their understanding and opinion of the profession and its responsibilities. I asked them what their opinion is about the importance of psychological and social concerns in architectural design, and whether these ideas are fostered in the program of study. Information about the program and design studio. Students were asked questions about courses they have taken through the course of the program and how information from these courses influenced their designs. These questions provided beneficial insight into the subjects that are emphasized in the program, and those that are emphasized in the design studio. I asked students to

48

reflect upon their opinions about the profession and how that relates to their opinion about the program. Students typically work on several design projects through the course of their programs. The duration of these projects varies by program. I asked students to discuss the project they were working on at the time of the interview. Students discussed their design concept, and concerns addressed in the process of development of the project. I specifically asked them their opinion about psychological and social concerns in architectural design and whether these concerns are addressed and fostered by the program. These discussions also provided a reference for a better understanding of the observations in the design studio and project presentations. Data Analysis As discussed earlier, several themes emerged during data collection. Eisner (1998) mentioned that prefigured foci are useful as a starting point for data analysis, and their presence may be useful in drawing attention to unexpected emergent themes during the analysis. The prefigured foci for this study were derived from conceptual structures and driving concerns acquired from the literature review. The foci derived from literature formed the focus of observations and assist the identification of significant activities and events (Eisner, 1998). As sta te d b y E i sn e r, W h e n there is a prefigured focus, the e m e rg e n ce o f th e u n a n ti ci p a te d ca n co m m a n d sp e ci a l a tte n ti o n (p . 1 7 7 ). I w as open to emergent themes that may arise during the process of data collection and analysis. Observations provide preliminary data and additional questions that may need to be asked to answer the primary research questions (See Appendices E, F, G). The interviews with professors and focus group interviews with students provided the final level of data and issues/themes (See Appendices H, I, J, K). Personal memos during the process of data collection helped me to capture reflections, emerging themes, ideas, and suggestions for what I should focus on in future observations and interviews (Merriam, 1998). The themes that emerged in the memos provided the starting point for the analysis and

49

interpretation of the data after the interviews were transcribed and field notes were written. The pilot study conducted for this research identified certain themes (Bhatia, 2005), which also provided a basis for interpreting and categorizing the data (See Appendix L). My sensitivity to the topic, experiences from my life as a design student and experiences working in the field influenced data interpretation and my sensibility as a researcher framed the data analysis. As an informed observer, I was able to provide this study with richness of interpretation and theory which is an inherent feature of qualitative research (Eisner, 1998). I entered the field and the process of interpretation of the data with honest awareness of my subjectivities. The analysis of the data largely involved content analysis, which may be defined as the process of identifying, coding and categorizing patterns that may emerge from the data (Patton, 1990). Merriam (1998) elaborated on content analysis stating that it has historically been understood as a quantitative approach to analyzing data in qualitative studies. The unit of measurement was i d e n ti fi e d b y M e rri a m a s th e fre q u e n cy a n d va ri e ty o f m e ssa g e s (p. 160) during the communications. I attempted to identify and thematically categorize concerns in the design process through content analysis of interview transcripts and field notes. The analysis started with open coding to identify all issues and ideas that the data may suggest. This step was followed by focused coding involving careful analysis to identify topics and themes that have been established as points of interest (Eisner, 1998; Emerson et al, 1995). There are several computer programs available for the analysis of qualitative data (Creswell, 2005). However, coding data by hand remains an effective means of analysis. Creswell noted that hand coding may be used for qualitative data under certain circumstances which include; analyzing databases with less than 500 pages of field notes a n d tra n scri p ts, a n d th e re se a rch e r s need to be closer to the data for a better understanding. In the case of this study, I chose to adopt the hand coding method since my data is less than 500 pages, and I wanted to effectively assess the comments from the participants with reference to this study and my sensitivity to the topic.

50

In order to answer the primary and supporting research questions I identified and isolated the psychological and social concerns that students and faculty addressed during the design process. During the initial transcription certain emergent themes formed the foundation for data analysis. Creswell (2005) discussed means of data analysis and explained that coding by hand typically involves the use of color to mark relevant parts of the text. Every significant comment or entry in field notes and interview transcripts was marked with a colored highlighter (See Appendix M). A distinct color was associated with each category in order to facilitate references to the notes during the writing of data presentation and findings (See Appendix N). At the end of one round of coding there was a need for deeper analysis of the data to group themes and identify categories under each theme. I analyzed the data further to assess the categories associated with the central themes of the study which are psychological and social concerns in architecture. A second coder was involved at this stage to analyze the data and validate themes and categories. Results from the second coder were matched with the results from my coding. Observation and interview data was reviewed once again to enter descriptors for each theme and category in the margins (See Appendix O). The occurrence of each theme and category was then counted on a separate sheet of paper using tally marks (See Appendix P). Spreadsheets were created to organize the data and run some statistical analysis. Finally the themes were further refined and graphs created to better illustrate the findings of the study. Reporting the Study In reporting a study it is essential to identify the audience for whom the study is intended (Emerson et al, 1995; Merriam, 1998; Rossman & Rallis, 2000). The audiences that my study targets are the educators in the field of architecture and related fields like interior design. I hope that the results of the study will provide important information to educators and developers of curricula to enable them to evaluate and assess their programs and strategies. The NAAB may be another audience for the study which may acquire insights for their accreditation process.

51

Emerson et al (1995) mentioned that the process of reporting a qualitative study involves organization of themes derived from the evaluation of data into a coherent story about the people and settings that were studied. They explained th a t th e sto ry n a rra te d i n su ch re se a rch re su l ts fro m a n o rd e re d p ro g re ssi on of fi el d n o te e xce rp ts (p . 1 7 1 ). T h e fi el d n o te s th e re fo re se rve a s b u i l di ng bl o cks fo r the story in the narrative. The process involves returning to the field notes and interview transcripts at several points in the development of the narrative in order to identify important themes and voices of participants. The narrative includes my experiences in the research setting, my understanding of the situation, and my interpretation of the data. As stated by R o ssm a n a n d R a l l i s (2 0 0 0 ), T h e sto ry i s yours to tell, even if the story is about another o r o th e rs (p . 3 3 7 ). T h e y co n ti n u e d to sta te th a t, Y o u ch o o se a vo i ce that allows you to reveal yourself, to articulate you r b i a se s. (p . 3 3 7 ). I recalled several instances from my past, and included these incidents and my thoughts in the narrative presentation of the data. Rossman and Rallis further mentioned that al th o u g h i ti s e sse n ti a l to e sta b l i sh o n e se l fand one s bi a se s, it is essential to m ai n ta i n a bal a n ce b e tw e e n o n e s vo i ce a n d th e p a rti ci p a n t s vo i ce s i n o rd e r to e n su re th a t th e re se a rch e r s sto ry d o e s n o t o ve rp o w e r th e p re se n ta ti o n o f th e study. I will include quotes from participants obtained during observations and interviews in the report. These quotes were a source of themes and concerns that emerged during the analysis of the data, and were therefore the source of a large part of inferences and implications derived from the data. In addition to themes that arose from literature, the verbal quotes from observations and interviews were an important means of substantiating findings, conclusions and suggestions. Internal Validity Internal validity is believed to be an inherent strength of qualitative research because the researcher is the primary instrument for data collection and therefore closer to reality (Merriam, 1998). As stated by Merriam (1998): W e a re th u s cl o se r to re a l i ty th a n i f a d a ta co l l e cti on i n stru m e n t h a d b e e n interjected between us and the participants. Most agree that when reality

52

is viewed in this manner, internal validity is a definite strength of qualitative research. In this type of research it is important to understand the perspectives of those involved in the phenomenon of interest, to uncover the complexity of human behavior in a contextual framework, and to present a holistic interpretation of what is happening. (p. 203)

Eisner (1998) listed three means of achieving credibility in qualitative research where experimental evidence may not be acquired: (1) structural corroboration or triangulation through multiple forms of data collection, (2) consensual validation or agreement from peers of the correctness of description, interpretation, evaluation and thematics of the situation under study, and (3) referential adequacy to enhance the understanding and perception of the situation. Merriam (1998) listed six strategies to enhance internal validity in qualitative research: (1) triangulation involves multiple investigators, data sources and methods to confirm emerging findings, (2) member checks involves returning to participants of the study with tentative interpretations at several stages in the study, (3) long-term observations or repeated observations, (4) asking peers for their comments as the findings emerge, (5) involving participants at different stages of the research from conceptualization of study to writing of findings, and (6 ) cl a ri fyi n g th e re se a rch e r s bi a se s, a ssu m p ti o n s, w o rl d vi e w a n d th e o re ti ca l orientation at the beginning of the study. In this study, I incorporated triangulation through multiple strategies for data collection that evolved with emergent themes, repeated observations at each selected school, and discussions with peers. I have clarified my assumptions and theoretical orientations in this and previous chapters. I will provide detailed understanding of the situations that I studied and analyzed: the two selected architecture programs and the design studios. I also involved a second coder to validate the themes and categories from my data coding.

53

Authenticity Merriam (1998) defined reliability (or authenticity) as the extent to which the findings of a study can be replicated, and identified that the problem with authenticating qualitative research arises beca u se o f th e re se a rch e r s su b j e cti vi ty in interpreting the situation under study. Eisner (1998) discussed authenticity in qualitative research with reference to three features that may be used to render a study believable: coherence, consensus and instrumental utility. Ei sn e r s (1 9 9 8 ) d e fi ni ti o n a n d co n ce p t o f a ch i e vi n g co h e re n ce i na qualitative study is in keeping with the pragmatic philosophy (Dewey, 1958; James, 1907) that guides this study. Pragmatic view of truth renders experiences to a test of authenticity through their validation in the real world. Eisner defined coherence as tightness and consistency of argument. In his discussion of co h e re n ce , E i sn e r sta te d th a t T o sa y th a t a q u a l i ta ti ve stu d y p ro d u ce s a w o rk that is not literally true is not to sa y th a t th e w o rk i s n o t ri g h t o r u se fu l (p . 5 4 ). A n d e rso n (2 0 0 0 ) m e n ti o n e d th a t n a rra ti ve s i n qual i ta ti ve stu d i es don t h a ve to b e scientifically true; they only need to be internally coherent and externally feasible. Eisner (1998) argued that coherence may be achieved through structural corroboration or triangulation, using multiple data sources that compliment each other and provide consistency of findings. Merriam (1998) stated that in qualitative research dependability and consistency of interpretations given the data collected should be the basis of reliability of the research. Eisner suggested that the research should draw conclusions based on several smaller pieces of evidence that substantiate the results being drawn. The second feature related to believability or authenticity discussed by Eisner (1998) is consensus. He defined consensus as a form of multiple corroboration and requires agreement from investigators and readers on the conclusions presented by the researcher. Eisner clarified that achieving consensus means achieving agreement, not the Truth. The third feature of believability according to Eisner is instrument utility which refers to the usefulness of the study. The study should either provide useful understanding

54

about a situation (usefulness of comprehension) or go beyond description and provide anticipatory theories about the future (usefulness of anticipation). Techniques that will be used to ensure authenticity in this study include: (1 ) e xp l ai ni n g th e i n ve sti g a to r s a ssu m p ti o n s, theory, basis for selecting participants and the social context in which the study is conducted, and (2) triangulation through multiple methods of data collection and analysis. In order to use multiple data collection methods to identify the concerns that schools emphasized I used p a st l i te ra tu re i n th e fi el d,i n fo rm a ti o n fro m sch o o l s websites, visual documentation of design studio environments, observations of various activities in design studios, and interviews with professors and students. Summary

The purpose of this study is to understand the perceptions of students and faculty at selected NAAB accredited architecture programs regarding psychological and social concerns in architectural design. In the search for the answer to this question the study used qualitative methods of document analysis, observations and interviews. The review of literature provided the starting point for the development of the research question and the themes that were the focus of this study. The central concerns identified for the study are psychological and social concerns in architectural design. The supporting questions were developed to assist the research strategy and provide structure toward answers to the primary research question. The research design abides by the characteristics of qualitative research in that it was field located, used the researcher (me) as the primary instrument of data collection and analysis, analyzed data simultaneously with collection, was open to development and modification during the data collection, and did not claim or seek generalizability (Emerson et al, 1995; Fraenkel & Wallen, 2003; Merriam, 1998; Rossman & Rallis, 2000). Although the research strategy was outlined at the onset of the study, this strategy was subject to manipulation and development when primary findings indicated the need to do so.

55

The analysis of data from observation field notes and interview transcripts involved content analysis and occurred simultaneously with data collection. Partici p a n ts vo i ce s a n d a cti o n s formed an integral part of the narrative and discussion of the study. Another important aspect of the study was my interpretation and experiences in the field. I hope that the results of the study will provide information to those related to architecture education for purposes of assessment, evaluation and development of programs and curricula.

56

CHAPTER 4 PRESENTING THE DATA: DESCRIPTION, IMMERSION AND THEMATICS Introduction

Architecture, as a profession, has allowed me to dream, to give those dreams a definite form and to help others realize their dreams their home, their workplace or even tiny details like the candle-stand on their di ni n g ta b l e . T h e re i sal o t th a t ca n b e b u t a rch i te ctu re , a cco rd i n g to m e , h a s th e p o w e r to m a ke w h a t ca n b e , w h a t i s A d e si gner i s, I b e l i e ve , l a rg e l y re sp o n si bl e fo r th e l i fe styl e th e u se r (of the space) is going to lead.

These sentences are excerpts from the essay which was part of my application for my graduate program in interior design. They represent the opinions I held at the end of an undergraduate program in architecture and a year of working with several clients designing their homes. I always perceived the supremacy that architecture endows on its practitioners as part of every a rch i te ctu re stu d e n t s m e n ta lity. All students I met boasted about their ability to d e fi n e a n d co n tro l p e o p l e sl i fe styl e s th ro u g h th e i r d e si g n s , such that they as designers became superior to occupants of the spaces. In my essay I referred to a rch i te ctu re a s a cre a ti ve p e rfo rm i n g a rt. I have come a long way since I wrote that essay as has my attitude toward the responsibilities of architecture. Now I refer to the power of architecture as responsibilities. I refer to architecture as a profession with a responsibility to appreciate, uplift and nurture society, culture and people. Today architecture, for me, i s a so ci a l a rt w ith considerations that go far beyond creativity. At the beginning of this study an extensive review of literature reinforced the direction that my approach had taken and led me to the

57

guiding questions for this research. This study took me back to the architecture studio and to architecture students in a quest for the answers to my research question: What are the perceptions of students and faculty in selected National Architecture Accreditation Board accredited architecture programs regarding the psychological and social concerns related to architectural design as they are taught by the program? In this chapter I will present the data starting with introductions to the sites and participants and subsequently in a thematically organized narrative. I will present preliminary findings supported by excerpts from field notes and interview transcripts. University and School Background Information

In this section I will present background information about the two schools selected for this study. The information listed in this section was derived largely from the university and school websites. In order to maintain the anonymity of the institutions, I will refrain from listing the addresses of the websites. Interviews with the faculty at each school also provided further insight into the schools vision and approach toward architecture education. School of Architecture (School A) at University X University X is a highly reputed, research intensive university in Southeastern United States a n d b o a sts o f b e i n g o n e o f th e n a ti on s m o st academically diverse public universities. It is one of the largest universities in the United States with over 45,000 students. There are 16 colleges at the university that offer over 100 undergraduate majors. Their School of Architecture (School A) has approximately 650 undergraduates and 150 graduate students, with about 40 faculty members. The school offers four degree programs: the professional Bachelor of Design, the professional Advanced Master of Architecture, the Core Master of Architecture, and the non-professional Master of Science in Architectural Studies. The Mission of the School of Architecture as presented on the website is as below:

58

The School of Architecture at [University X] is dedicated to providing an excellent educational experience for students intending to enter the profession of architecture. The primary mission of the School and its programs is to provide a curriculum and educational context that teaches students the means by which they can be responsive to human needs in creating the built environment. Our students must be perceptive, skilled and inventive - capable of acting in a responsible manner in today's profession, while continuing to learn throughout their lives so as to realize a visionary profession for the future. The most important facet of this educational mission is to instill in our students a strong social consciousness and a desire to be active participants in improving the quality of their communities. The website fu rth e r m e n ti o n s th a t th e u l ti m a te a i m o f th e sch o o l i s to encourage graduates to utilize their unique talents in the construction of places that contribute in a fundamental way to the b e tte rm e n t o f th e i r fe l l ow nei g h b o rs. The Bachelor of Design Program is a four year program that combines general education and architecture courses. T h e sch o o l sta te s th a t th e d e si gn stu d i ol i e s a t th e h e a rt o f th e p ro g ra m . In a n o ve rvi e w o f th e u n d e rgraduate program the school acknowledges that several factors interplay in the development of the form and function of architectural design, including b y h u m a n b e h a vi o r, p e rce p ti o n a n d a cti vi ty; b y th e l i mi ta ti ons and potential of materiality, structure and construction; by interaction of the exterior with the interior, and the built object with its natural setting; and by historical precedents and cultural values that invest the built environment with meaning and relevance.

Support courses that are interlaced with the design studio to help students produce meaningful and functional designs include history, theory, structural tectonics, building technology, and construction materials and methods.

59

School of Architecture (School B) at University Y University Y is a fully accredited, co-educational public university in Southeastern United States. It is on the United States G o ve rn m e n t sl i st o f Historically Black Colleges and Universities. There are approximately 12,000 students at the university. The 13 colleges and schools at the university offer 62 u n d e rg ra d u a te d e g re e s i n 103 m aj o rs, 3 6 m a ste r s d e g re e s i n 56 m aj o rs, tw o professional degrees and 11 PhD programs. At the undergraduate level the School of Architecture offers a four year Bachelor of Science in Architectural Studies and a five year professional Bachelor of Architecture degree. At the graduate level the school offers a Master of Architecture as the terminal degree in the profession of architecture and the Master of Science in Architectural Studies for students who are not interested in earning a professional accredited degree but wish to acquire the skills associated with the profession. The Mission of the School of Architecture as presented on the website is to p ro vi de an enl i g h te n e d a n d e n ri ch ed academic, intellectual, moral, cultural, ethical, technological, and student-centered environment, conducive to the development of highly qualified individuals who are prepared and capable of serving as leaders and contributors in our ever-evolving socie ty. According to School B, architecture education is about personal growth, creativity, making things, and the satisfaction of craftsmanship. Outlining the essence of architecture education, the website states, Important fundamental life competencies are acquired as we progress through the curriculum. We learn how to work cooperatively and constructively with others, to handle diverse viewpoints, and to manage them to consensus. We learn to size up complex situations, ask incisive questions, and translate foggy circumstances into effective action plans, ways to reach envisioned goals. We learn to write well, speak to groups, and think on our feet. We learn to negotiate, make mid- course corrections, and help others articulate their hopes and dreams.

60

The core of the architecture program is the design studio which is complemented by other courses including architectural history and theory, professional practice, computers, building construction, environmental technology, and structures. The curriculum also includes requirements in mathematics, physics, social sciences and humanities. Faculty Profiles

The participants for this study included the professors teaching the fourth year design studios at both schools. In this section I will present profiles of the two faculty members, Professor Karen at School A and Professor Roger at School B. These profiles are based on each professor s personal webpage on the university website, and information gained from them during the interviews. In order to maintain anonymity I am using pseudo names and will refrain from citing the addresses of the websites. Professor Karen, School of Architecture A, University X Professor Karen holds a Bachelor of Arts and a Masters in Architecture degree from two prestigious universities in the United States. At the School of Architecture A she teaches design and architectural theory classes at the undergraduate and graduate level. Her research interests focus mainly on the relationship between the human body and large shared contexts like cities and landscapes. She concentrates on cultural contributions to urbanism and issues of social justice. She maintains a private architectural practice in addition to teaching at the university. During the interview Professor Karen mentioned that her outlook is anchored in th e co n ce n tra ti o n o f h e r m a ste r s th e si s w hi ch explored the affect of built environment in choreographing human activities. Professor Roger, School of Architecture B, University Y Professor Roger joined University B as the Dean of the School of Architecture B. After serving as Dean for eight years, he began full-time teaching. He holds a graduate degree in architecture from a prestigious university in the United States. He currently teaches fourth year design and theory or history

61

co u rse s, i n cl udi n g co u rse s th a t p re p a re stu d e n ts fo r th e i r m a ste r s th e si s. Professor Roger also serves as a consultant in architecture and planning. Introducing Student Participants

In this section I will outline the profiles of the student participants of my study based on their input about their attitudes toward architecture, their school and their projects in the focus group interviews. I observed several students critiques which were included in the field notes. The students profiled here are only the eleven participants from the focus groups. Selection of these eleven students was random. I invited the first six students who completed their project critiques on the day of my visit. I attended their critiques and then interviewed them in a separate room. All six students from School A participated in the interview and five students participated from School B. I will use pseudo names for the students in order to maintain anonymity. Some students at School A chose the names they wanted in this study. Lauren, School of Architecture A, University X Lauren is an Hispanic female who initially wished to become an artist but moved to architecture, and according to her, the reason she chose to study architecture was because she enjoys creating things. She m e n ti o n e d th a t o n e o f th e th i n g s th a t I re a l l yl i ke i s th a t i d e a o f cre a ti n g , yo u kn o w , m y o w n sp a ce . Summer, School of Architecture A, University X Summer is a white American, female architecture student. She went through the architecture program until her third year and then left for two years because she found the program extremely stressful. She returned to the fourth year to complete the program. According to her, the safety of people within the building is the most important aspect of architecture. Mike, School of Architecture A, University X Mike is an African American male in the fourth year of the architecture p ro g ra m . H e b e l i e ve s th a t a rch i te ctu re i s a n a rt w h i ch i n vo l ve s a n i n n o va ti ve

62

process of thinking that tries to incorporate the issues of design and how one e sta b l i sh e s a sp a ce s u se a n d p u rp o se . Susan, School of Architecture A, University X Susan is a white American, female student of architecture and has gained insights into the progression of learning in the program through her experiences as a teaching assistant. To her the essence of architecture lies in designing spaces that people are happy in and that can contribute to the development of th e o ccu p a n ts. S h e m e n ti o n e d th a t th e sch o o l te a ch e s stu d e n ts to cre a te beautiful spaces tha t p e o p l e w a n t to i nhabi t. Lisa, School of Architecture A, University X Lisa is a white American, female in the architecture program at School A. She went to a community college for the initial years of the architecture program and then moved to the university to complete the program. She mentioned that she moved from a very pragmatic approach to architectural design at the community college to an aesthetically oriented approach at the university. According to her, a rch i te ctu re i n th e U n i te d S ta te s d o e sn t re p re se n t w h o w e a re a n d a l otofi t e sse n ti al l ymi mi cs h i sto ri ca l a rch i te ctu re fro m o th e r co u n tri e s. Joey, School of Architecture A, University X Joey is a male student who comes from an Asian background. He mentioned that what drew him to architectu re w a s th e d e si re to e xp e ri e n ce w h a t sp a ce s a re . H e sa i d abouthi m se l f th a t h e i s a b i gj o ke r a n d l i ke s to m a ke j o ke s about people which help to lighten the otherwise stressful atmosphere of the design studio. Samuel, School of Architecture B, University Y Samuel is a white American male student in the fourth year of the architecture program. He came to the field of architecture from an engineering background. His definition of architecture revolves around the concept that architecture strive[s] for p e rfe cti o n . Luther, School of Architecture B, University Y Luther is a fourth year African American male student in the architecture program. His concepts about architecture are rooted in social interaction between

63

people and the building as well as in cultural contexts. He discussed that as he progresses through his education at the school he is beginning to realize that a rch i te ctu re i s re a l l y co m p l i ca te d , e sp e ci al l y th e so ci a l p a rt o f i t. Stanley, School of Architecture B, University Y Stanley is an African American male who has been studying sign language for ten years and tries to incorporate concepts learned there in his designs. For him architecture has immense behavioral connotations in terms of h o w th e e n vi ro n m e n t a ffe cts p e o p l e s a cti o n s. H e m entioned that architecture a ffe cts yo u r p sych e n u m b e r o n e b u t yo u r p h ysi ca l b e i ng as w el l b e ca u se e a ch building has its own tone, each building sort of has its own atmosphere, its own am bi e n ce a b o u t i t. Allen, School of Architecture B, University Y Allen is a white American male with a background in building construction. His ideas about architecture have been greatly influenced by architecture history courses. He anticipates that in the coming years architecture is going to be overcome by the cities and co u n ti e s p u tti n g a p re tty sti ff b ri m o n a rch i te ctu re a n d h o w fa r i t ca n g o . B u i l di n g s, a cco rd i n g to h i m , te l l sto ri e s o f th e p e rso n w h o designed them as well as their own stories. Anna, School of Architecture B, University Y Anna is a white American female for whom architecture is an expression of herself and a representation of her feelings when she is designing. She explaine d th a t a rch i te ctu ra l d e si g n fo r h e r i s n o t n e ce ssa ri l y so m u ch o f a n external, you know, how other people would view it but how I feel and how I want to be or within that space how I would want to see, how I would want to interact wi th th e b u i l di n g . S h e b e l i e ve s th a t th e cri ti ques w i th fa cu l ty a n d vi si ti ng architects are the most beneficial aspects of architecture education. Design Studio Projects

As part of the observations and interviews I studied the approach of students and faculty toward the undergoing project in the fourth year design

64

studio. In this section I will briefly outline the projects that students were designing at each school. This information is based on the description of projects by the faculty and students. The projects assigned to the fourth year studio at both schools were multi-use community spaces located on sites which were significant to the respective communities. At School B, all students worked on the same project whereas at School A the class was divided into five groups each designing a part of the site. Project at School of Architecture A, University X The central concept of the program for the Spring 2006 semester was Healthy Body, Healthy City. The site chosen for the project was located in the downtown of the same city as the university. Each student was asked to pick a healing practice which they would practice every day. These practices included judo, running, belly dancing, dietary changes and yoga. They were asked to adapt their experiences with the healing practice to their design of one of five blocks in downtown. Figure 4.1 i s a pi ctu re o f S u m m e r s m o d e l o f th e T a i C h i pavilion which she designed for her adopted healing practice on her site.

Figure 4.1 S u m m e r s M o d e l o f th e T a i C h i P a vi l i o n . This was part of her design for the block in downtown which included the business school.

65

The class was divided in five groups and each group was assigned a block in downtown. A meeting with the community was the starting point for determining programmatic requirements for each block. Each individual student also interviewed one person from the community to discuss specific issues and informed the class of insights gained from the interview. The project started with massing studies and Joey described the process a s, H o w w o u l d th e b u i l di n g s si ti n to th e ci ty ? How would we put them together to fo rm ci ty e d g e s, p e d e stri an l i fe a n d b a si ca lly how to make (city) a more modern urban city walking city, a 15 minute walk to anywhere? Other issues that were addressed in the project were site considerations like sewer and water retention, fulfillment of parking requirements, and relationship of the building with the nearby street. Professor Karen summarized the project as m i xe d u se bui l di n g s th a t re sp o n d to b ro a d so ci a li ssu e s spread across five blocks in downtown. Figure 4.2 i s a pi ctu re o f S u m m e r s m o d e lp l a ce d i n th e class model.

Figure 4.2 S u m m e r s M o d e l Placed in the Class Site Model. This model was her overall design for the block, a part of which was the Tai Chi pavilion illustrated in Figure 4.1

66

Project at School of Architecture B, University Y The fourth year design project at School B was titled Public Space and Transparent Architecture. There were two professors teaching the studio and the class was divided equally between the professors. They each had a different project for their students but both projects involved the design of public spaces for recreation. I fo cu se d o n P ro fe sso r R o g e r s stu d e n ts a n d h i s p ro j e ct w a s a multi-use community recreation center on the riverside of a historic town in Georgia. The challenge of the project was to integrate modern technology and life with the historically significant character of the area where the site is located. The foremost consideration in the design and program was to address the social needs for assembly and recreation. Professor Roger explained that he wished to see students d e si gn a bui l di n g th a t i s i m p o rta n t a s so rt o f a ci vi c pl a ce in the life of the people of the community but also important in terms of its location and the physical characteristics h i sto ri ca l ch a ra cte ri sti cs. He added that another essential aspect of the project is modular buildings and long spans requiring special structural considerations. In terms of design concept, Professor Roger encouraged students to attend to tra n sp a re n cy i ssu e s l i ke i n te rn a l a n d e xte rn a l , and implied and explicit transparency a s w e l l a s m o ve m e n t th ro u g h a d j a ce n t spaces. Programmatic requirements for the community center included a competition pool, play pool, gymnasium, fitness area, two theatres, arcade, food court, parking, administrative areas, locker rooms, and other service areas like first aid. Other facilities to be integrated in the building were entrance to the public transit system and access to the riverside, which is the focal point of the site. A handout included minimum area requirements and other significant information for the project like number of seats required in the theatres (See Appendix Q). Professors indicated possible approaches to the design of the community center with reference to its location on the river walk of a historic district. Professor Cramer explained this as a liberty that the programmatic outline of the p ro j e ct p ro vi d e d th e d e si g n e rs. D u ri ng S am uel s critique he mentioned,

67

The program suggests that the building can emphasize itself more in the fabric or can reinforce the fabric, I want to be like everything else ; or I want to break from that. In Savannah there is a reason not to break from that but this program has enough human activity to pose a convincing argument for breaking from that idea.

Some students designed their buildings as iconic statements in the landscape such that the architecture was detached from the historic character of the buildings surrounding the site. Others attempted to respond to and follow the architectural character of the buildings in the vicinity. Some responded to the industrial buildings across the river and others to the buildings adjacent to the site on the river walk. L u th e r s d e si g n co n ce p t w a s th e m o st se n si ti ve to th e adjoining architectural character and he based his design on the geometry and modules that the surrounding buildings followed. Although the class built a model of the site and its surrounding areas, Luther made his own site model in keeping with his concept of designing a building which merged with the existing streetscape. Figure 4.3 i s a pi ctu re o f L u th e r s si te m o d e l i ndi ca ti n g th e topography of the riverside of the historic town in Georgia which is the site for the stu d e n ts p ro p o se d m u l ti -use community activity center.

Figure 4.3 L u th e r s m o d e l o f th e R i ve r W a l k

68

Students mentioned that professors normally select sites in the Southeastern United States in order to enable students to visit the site before starting the project. However, this semester they were unable to visit the site as a class and relied on information and photographs brought back by a few students who volunteered to drive to Georgia. Some of them complained about their inability to respond to the character, culture and experience of the site because they were unable to go and experience it themselves. Professor Roger told me that previously better budgets had enabled site visits for all students and the students who voluntarily made the trip were the source of information for the rest of the class. The Design Studio Environment

The studio environment in architecture schools is an important aspect of the culture of architecture education and has a huge impact on the development of students. Several architecture schools have design studios available to students later than regular school hours and sometimes even round the clock. My first encounter with an architecture student was accompanied by the story of his professor asking him on his first day at school if he had brought his toothbrush in his backpack. I w a l ke d u p to th e stu d e n t s sp a ce i n hi s stu d i o a n d saw hi s to i l e tri e s ki t, a sl eepi n g b a g a n d sn a ck p a cks. I re m e m b e r th i n ki n g , H e h a s a mini-h o m e h e re . Both the schools I attended, for architecture and interior design, however, locked the studios after school hours. B u t I a tte n d e d se ve ra l fri e n d s m i n i-h o m e s i n th e i r stu d i o s a t o th e r sch o o l s. Architecture students are teeming with stories of late nights and experiences in the design studio. The studios form a support environment among classmates. During the focus group interview at School A, Lisa commente d th a t it is g o o d to b e a b l e to w o rk w i th p e o p l e to b e a b l e to b o u n ce i d e a s o ff o f e a ch o th e r. She added that the culture taught her a lot about working with peers in an office and also helped during the design process. S h e sa i d , Y o u kn o w w h e n yo u come across a problem that you are trying to solve and if you are not sure that

69

something is working for you, or something you can ask others and say what do you think about this and then help out each other. Other students shared similar feelings about the culture. A few students mentioned the other side of architecture studio culture. They talked at length about the stress caused by the extended hours spent in the studio trying to complete projects and meet deadlines. The Design Studio at School A I walked into the fourth year design studio at School A a few minutes after Professor Karen. She had collected all the students around a large scale model of the five block area of downtown which was the site for the final project. There were three other visiting architects that day. Professor Karen declared that she would stay behind the scenes for the day and let the three visiting architects discuss and critique student projects. She discussed the project briefly for the benefit of the visiting critics and enumerated the key points she was encouraging students to address in their designs. The class dispersed back to their drawing boards after the brief introduction and I requested permission to shadow the critics to continue my observations. S tu d e n ts d ra w ing boards were arranged around the studio in no particular pattern. Each drawing board looked different because of the way students had arranged and personalized shelves or partitions around their space. Some of them had personal photographs and notes from loved ones pinned close to their space. Drawing equipment and model-making tools were omnipresent. Several students had their previous projects near their seats or pictures of them pinned up on the wall or partitions near them. Figure 4.4 is a photograph of the design studio taken by Lisa and shows one student s space in the design studio.

70

Figure 4.4 Students Personalize their Spaces with Personal Memorabilia

Several students were busy working on last minute finishing touches to their drawings or models and three students volunteered to start the critiques with the visiting faculty. Some students were talking with each other, discussing their projects or other matters. I stood beside one student listening to her discussion with the critic about the project. Professor Karen walked around the stu d i o o cca si onal l y sto p p i n g a t a stu d e n t s d e sk to d i scu ss th e i r w o rk a n d progress. She would stop to listen to the critiques and provide any background information the critics required to better assess stu d e n ts d e s igns. She also gave her comments on the designs being discussed but for the most part she let students discuss their work with the visitors. I stayed in the design studio listening to other critiques and taking notes. Six students volunteered to participate in the focus group interview after their critiques.

71

The Design Studio at School B Professor Roger walked me into the fourth year design studio of School B after we talked for a few minutes in his office. The large studio was divided into small cubicles a b o u t 8 w i d e b y 10 d e e p a n d e a ch cubicle was home to three students. Students set up their drafting boards and personalized their space by pinning drawings, photographs, notes and calendars on the partitions. One cubicle had an old couch and students told me that some of them fall asleep on the couch when they are tired after long hours on the drafting board. One girl had a small potted plant on a filing cabinet behind her. There were drawing sheets, small models and all types of drafting and model-making tools scattered around the studio. The cubicles in the studio were flanked on either side of a long hallway and several projects were pinned on the partition walls of the cubicles. Professor Roger pointed out certain projects to me and explained what students had worked on earlier in the semester. Students had sketched skeletons of different animals and developed them into the design of a recreation structure constructed with solar panels. There were several computer generated three-dimensional images of students designs pinned on the partitions on either side of the hallway. Professor Roger walked into one of the cubicles to check if his students were ready to pin up their drawings for critiques. He tried to get all his students together while the students complained about not having completed substantial work on their projects. They asked if they may get an extension and hold the critique another day. Professor Roger told the students to display whatever work they had so far and that the critiques scheduled for the day were essentially preliminary discussions of their designs. Some students volunteered to start and walked out to the corridor to get ready for the presentations. I attended five critiques and the same students volunteered for the focus group interview.

72

Themes from Data Coding

As discussed earlier, the data collected from field notes and interviews was analyzed to identify recurring themes. I started with psychological and social concerns as the central foci of this study but found more emergent findings in the concerns which faculty and students raised with respect to the design projects and the design studio. Several layers of data coding and verification from a second coder led me to a total of 14 major themes. Some of the themes were divided into categories, especially the psychological and social concerns which are the central focus of this study. The 14 themes that emerged include; (1) Psychological concerns, (2) Social concerns, (3) Client needs, (4) Programmatic requirements, (5) S tu d e n ts p e rso n a l d e si gn i d e a s, (6) Design process, (7) Creative aspects, (8) Professional practice, (9) Precedent studies, (10) Technical aspects, (11) Personal experiences and background, (12) Site context, (13) Studio culture, and (14) Presentation techniques and graphics. The frequency count of each theme and category was separately evaluated for interviews and observations to enable comparison between answers during the interview with me and concerns that surfaced during discussions of design projects between students and faculty. In this section I will discuss each theme and related categories supporting their definitions with situational data from my observations and quotes from participants. I will also present frequency tables for each theme and category, and discuss preliminary inferences of the data. Psychological Concerns Tallahassee Builders Association hosted their annual Parade of Homes in May, 2006, with builders showcasing 73 of their best homes. For two weekends all houses were open for general public to visit. My husband and I visited one of the more expensive homes in the parade which was listed for a little over $1.5 million. As we walked through the house we commented on the extravagance of the finish materials used in every space in the house. We walked into the master bedroom and I saw several visitors awed by the two separate bathrooms for the husband and wife through the bedroom. My husband was amazed, and so was I,

73

but both for different reasons. He was amazed, like the other visitors, at the extravagance and almost royal appeal of the concept. I looked at the bathrooms and sa i d , If yo u ca n n o t h a ve th e h u sb a n d a n d w i fe sh a re a b a th ro o m , h o w d o you expect them to share their lives together? In India a wife is also her h u sb a n d s ardhaangini which literally m e a n s h a l f th e b o d y (ardh meaning half, ang meaning body). A couple not only shares a life and home together, they share a soul and body. Here, the designer, by dividing the bathrooms may be influencing more than the comfort level of the home owners. I wondered if the thoughts had crossed the designers mind when they conceived the idea. Did the designers think about the psychological connotations of the spaces they were designing and delivering to projected users? In Chapter 2, I discussed, in detail, different concepts and views about the role of psychological concerns in architectural design. Several scholars emphasized the need for architects to address p e o p l e s p sych e , e m o ti ons and behavioral responses to the built environment (Gifford, 2002; Jarrett, 2000; Pelli, 1999). In that context, I reviewed field notes and interview transcripts for references to various psychological concerns in architectural design in order to understand the perceptions of faculty and students at the two schools. In depth analysis of the data revealed five categories which contributed to this theme; (1) Interaction with building, (2) Image of the building, (3) Affects on occupant behavior, (4) Feeling within the space, and (5) Other psychological concerns. I will discuss each of these concerns supporting the definitions with quotes from the data. Interaction with Building An important a sp e ct o f h o w sp a ce s a ffe ct o ccu p a n ts p sych e i s th e re su l t of the interaction between people and buildings. I believe that this interaction is the initial stage for all psychological effects of the built environment of its occupants. This category, therefore, may be understood as the foundation for the other four categories in this theme. In their projects, students at School A addressed the interaction of occupants of the building as well as pedestrians around the building and people approaching the building. Lauren felt that

74

Professor Karen emphasizes the understanding of how the spaces they design respond to people. At S ch o o l B , d u ri ng A l l en s cri ti q u e P ro fe sso r R o g e r ta l ke d to him about the edge of the building and explained, Something is better about the experience of the building inside and outside if there is a communication between the inside and outside. It is an unpleasant urban experience if there is a wall and you have no idea what is going on inside.

During another critique at School B, Professor Greene suggested to a student designing a student activity center that relocating the column grid may create gathering spaces for people around the building. He said that the level of activity on the outside of the building will make the passers-b y q u e sti o n , If th e re i s so m u ch g o i n g o n o u tsi d e h o w m u ch m o re ca n b e g o i ng on i n si d e . Image of the Building At School B, Allen described that psychological aspects of a building are rooted in how the building portrays itself. He explained that w h e n yo u a p p ro a ch a bui l di n g , yo u a u to m a ti ca l l y g e t a fe e l i n g o f w h a t th e b u i l di ng i s m a yb e n o t th e folks in it but how it presents itself. S tu d e n ts ta l ke d a b o u t the experience of walking up to a building and the information gathered about the building during the approach. When asked about the most important psychological concern that architects must address, Mike from School A, said it was essential to consider people in the space and ask if they have a fe e l fo r w h a t i t w a s u se d fo r. H e included cognition and way-finding as other important aspects related to how the building presents itself to its occupants. His major concern was whether people can find their way around the building when pointed in a certain direction. While presenting his design Luther (School B) talked about the context in w hi ch th e b u i l di ng w as l o ca te d a n d sa i d , If yo u d i d n o t kn o w th a t i t w a s a g ym you would n o t kn o w fro m th e o u tsi d e . He was designing a multi-use community recreation center in a historic district and in that context his design concept was to follow the architectural style and proportions of the surrounding buildings. His

75

concept was anchored in masking the true identity of the building such that it may archetypically imitate the contextual functions and architectural style. Affects on Occupant Behavior W h e n I w a s w o rki n g o n m y m a ste r s th e si s d e si gni n g a fi ne di ni n g se a fo o d restaurant, I repeatedly told myself that the sophistication, relaxation, appetite and patronage that people bring to the restaurant will be determined by the ambient characteristics of the space. How spaces affect o ccu p a n ts p sych e will define how they behave, and behavioral implications of architecture become an important component of addressing psychological concerns in the design process. The literature I read reinforced my opinions about the behavioral influences of architecture and provided me important insights into different facets of the ambient environment. Some student participants were sensitive to occupant behavior in their designs. Joey and Samuel (School A) talked about the affects of color on behavior. During the interview at School A, Lauren described a video the class saw about New Yorkers in plazas and noticed certain behavioral patterns based on design features that stir o ccu p a n ts curiosity. S h e sa i d , S o I th i nk i ti s g o o d to have like an element of surprise in the architecture so that people will want to go i n th e re a n d e xp l o re w h a t i s goi ng on i n th e re . Mike (School A) added that the se l e cti o n o f m a te ri al s ca n i n fl u e n ce h o w (people) basically walk through a sp a ce . None of the students talked about the behavioral connotations of their design decisions when they presented their projects during critiques. Professor Karen talked about her thesis which was based on understanding a rch e typ a l a cti o n s, h u m a n a cti o n s a n d th e w a y th e sp a ce h e l ps to ch o re o g ra p h th o se a cti o n s o r su p p o rt th o se a cti o n s. During La u re n s cri ti que, at School A, one of the visiting architects asked her how she wants people to move along or through the courtyard in her building, and that she should integrate those ideas in her design. The only references to behavioral concerns in architecture by faculty or critics were made at School A.

76

Feeling within the Space Several students talked about comfortable occupation of the buildings they were designing, especially during the focus group interviews. Lauren (School A) summarized that the most important psychological concern that architects ought to address lies in the details a n d sm a l l th i n g s th a t h a p p e n i n yo u r b u i l di n g th a t make people experience something. The details, like, people will experience something what you want them to expe ri e n ce . She felt that the feelings that sp a ce s e vo ke a re re l a te d to p e o p l e s m e m o ri e s o f th e p a st: m a yb e a d o o r kn o b that reminds you of your old house or what you used to do when you were a little kid or something like that. So I think details can impact p e o p l e . S u m m e r s (School A) design was based on the understanding that in her design of the business school it was essential to provide open spaces for the occupants to walk through when they left their classrooms or conference rooms after hours of being indoors. She explained that her main design concept was re l i e f fro m i n si d e , a n d sh e h a d cre a te d a se ri es ofi n d o o r a n d o u td o o r sp a ce s to achieve that. Professors and critics suggested the implications of stu d e n ts designs on o ccu p a n ts e m o ti o n s, a n d indicated elements that may provoke negative emotions like fear, rejection and dullness. D u ri n g S ta n l e y s cri ti q u e at School B, Professor Roger asked him to reconsider the location and design of the fitness ro o m s a n d sa i d , N o o n e w a n ts to b e e xe rci si n g o r sw i mmi ng i n a d u n g e o n a re a . A gai n d u ri n g L u th e r s cri ti q u e h e ta l ke d a b o u t th e fe e l i n g s th a t so m e d u l l sp a ce s m a y e vo ke a s n o t d i n g y d u n g e o n y ki n d o f spaces where you wonder who mi g h t b e a ro u n d th e co rn e r. At School B one of the visiting architects co m m e n te d o n S u m m e r s d e si g n o f th e p a rki ng l o t th a t i ti s u n fri endl y to p a rk cars at the very end. It is nicer to have activities and functions at the edge of p a rki n g . He suggested that it is better to not make people park next to inanimate objects. The feelings that different design elements and spaces evoke in their occupants was a widely emphasized concern during critiques at both schools.

77

Other Psychological Concerns Several comments from the participants referred to psychological concerns in architecture but were not clearly articulated to be placed in one of the defined categories. General references to architects re sp o n si bi l i ty toward human psyche and emotions were counted toward this category. Students showed concern about the difficulty of empirically defining how people react in certain spaces. Samuel (School B) m e n ti o n e d th a t p sych o l ogi ca l l yal o t o f th i n g s yo u have to just use a rule of thumb because everybody is different, their psyche are di ffe re n t. Y o u re a l l y ca n thel p th a t. A n n a s (School B) approach was to analyze how she would feel in a space and assume a similar response from other occupants. Susan (School A) introduced another aspect of human psyche the spiritual component. S h e sa i d th a t a rch i te cts a re re sp o n si bl e fo r th e development of themselves whether it be you know a spiritual sort of connection with their surroundings or if it is just an area of comfort. H e r d e fi ni ti on of architecture was that, It is more than shelter. It is designing spaces that people a re h a p p y i n . Table 4.1 presents the frequency chart for each category for psychological concerns in architecture as counted from observation field notes and interview transcripts. Table 4.1 Frequency Chart for Psychological Concerns Categories Category Interaction with building Image of the building Affects on occupant behavior Feeling within the space Other psychological concerns TOTAL Students Faculty Total 8 5 3 9 5 30 6 0 3 9 1 19 14 5 6 18 6 49

78

Students and faculty showed equally high concern about the feelings of occupants in the spaces they design. Students were concerned about the image that their buildings portrayed but professors and critics did not talk about this concern. In order to compare the responses from participants during interviews and during discussions between faculty and students about student projects, I divided the responses during interviews and during critiques. Table 4.2 presents the frequency chart for student responses to the various psychological issues divided by interviews and critiques. Table 4.2 Frequency Chart for Student Interviews and Critiques for Psychological Concerns Category Interaction with building Image of the building Affects on occupant behavior Feeling within the space Other psychological concerns TOTAL Interviews Critiques Total 7 3 3 7 5 25 1 2 0 2 0 5 8 5 3 9 5 30

During the focus group interviews students talked extensively about various psychological concerns and showed empathy toward o ccu p a n ts interaction with the spaces they design, and also toward how spaces emotionally affect their occupants. Lauren (School A) talked about how the selection of finishes in a space and the proportions of the space can make people feel welcome or uncomfortable. All students felt that it is important to ensure a feeling of comfort in the space. Lisa, at School A, elaborated and said that it is essential to d e si g n w h a t i t fe e l sl i ke n o t w h a t i t n e ce ssa ri l yl o o ks l i ke . At School A students continually talked about pedestrian interaction with the building and experiences at the street level.

79

I also divided references to various psychological issues by faculty members by interview and critiques. Table 4.3 presents the frequency chart for fa cu l ty m e m b e rs re sp o n se s to th e fi ve ca te g o ri e s fo r p sych o l ogi ca l co n ce rn s i n architecture. Table 4.3 Frequency Chart for Faculty Interviews and Critiques for Psychological Concerns Category Interaction with building Image of the building Affects on occupant behavior Feeling within the space Other psychological concerns TOTAL Interviews Critiques Total 3 0 2 1 1 7 3 0 1 8 0 12 6 0 3 9 1 19

As discussed earlier, professors and visiting architects presented insights to students about the emotional implications of their design decisions on the occupants of the space. They indicated specific design elements and especially emphasized the negative feelings that occupants may experience in response to those elements. Some critics made suggestions for students to enhance the experience of different spaces in their designs. During the interview, Professor Karen described the school s m aj o r fo cu s a n d sa i d th a t a l th o u g h i ti s n o t th e p ri m a ry fo cu s, stu d e n ts a re i n tro d u ce d to th e idea of experience, the personal experience of architecture and of spaces that one person walks through or something like that. A n i m p o rta n t e xp e ri e n ti al aspect for her was the interaction of people with the designed spaces. Social Concerns For the purpose of this study, I defined social concerns in architecture as concerns related to the social structure, culture, life styles, and traditions specific

80

to the society where the building or space will be located. Social concerns in architectural design may be addressed at a macro level referring to the community as a whole, or at a micro level referring to the specific space or project being designed. Fostering interactions between occupants of the space is an important aspect of architecture which is responsive to society. During the focus group interview at School B, Anna said about interaction in a society that bui l di n g s sh o u l d n o t e n cl o se p e o p l e , sh o u l d n o t e n ve l o p th e m a n d ke e p th e m a w a y fro m e ve ryth i ng el se th a t su rro u n d s th e m . S ta n l e y m e n ti o n e d th a t th e most important social concern architects should address is to not only look at the immediate community bu t a l so th e n e xt co m m u n i ty o ve r yo u kn o w th e p ro j e cte d u se rs o f th i s sp a ce . S tu d e n ts a n d p ro fe sso rs sh o w e d se n si ti vi ty toward various social issues in architectural design. During the coding of observation and interview data, six categories emerged for social concerns in architecture. These categories include; (1) Interaction among people, (2) Response to society, (3) Community, (4) Public versus private spaces, (5) Culture, and (6) Other general considerations. In the following sections I will define each of these categories, and present opinions of student and faculty participants which contributed to them. Interaction among People Gifford (2002) discussed six goals for social designers and researchers, important among which was enhanced social ties. Deasy (1974) established that the purpose of design is to include settings for people to live together and have pleasurable interactions. In that regard, I analyzed the information from observation field notes and interview transcripts to categorize references to this aspect of architecture. Comments in the data that were counted under this category were related to understanding and incorporating ideas of gathering spaces for people, avenues for accidental meetings, and spaces for people to relax, eat and talk. Since the projects at both schools were community centered public spaces, social interaction was an important aspect of the designs.

81

Response to Society Anna, at School B, summarized the comments which defined this category a s, a rch i te ctu re i s a s ocial, has also a social impact and unless we feel the, yo u kn o w , w h a t s goi ng on i n th e so ci e ty [we are designing in] w e ca n t re a l l y d e si g n so m e th i n g th a t w i l l b e se n si bl e fo r i t. F o r a rch i te ctu re to b e e ffe cti ve i ti s important for architects to respond to society, social convenience and needs (Nicol and Pilling, 2000). I looked for these concepts while coding the data to define this category. Students at School B were concerned about how successful they may have been in this regard because they were unable to visit th e si te fo r th i s se m e ste r s p ro j e ct. A n n a sa i d th a t si n ce sh e w a s u n a b l e to se e a n d e xp e ri e n ce th e si te i tw as di ffi cu l t fo r h e r to d e si g n so m e th i n g th a t w i l lb e se n si bl e fo r i t. Community Wates and Knevitt (1987) defined the primary motivation of community architecture as one that strives toward improving quality of life for individuals and the community as a whole, and to respond to localized needs and opportunities. The statements from participants and from situational data that contributed to this category included all references to architecture that contributes to the improvement of the community, nurturing community values and concepts like walkable community. At School A, Professor Karen encouraged students to meet with the community in order to identify programmatic requirements for the project. They were also asked to interview a member of the community to better understand the needs of the people and include the insights gained from these discussions in their designs. At School B, Stanley elaborated on social aspects of architecture and said that an important facet is to attend not only to the immediate community but the next community over to include all projected users of the space. Public versus Private Spaces The boundaries that are drawn between personal areas and areas that catalyze social interaction define the distinction between public and private spaces. Although this concept was discussed as part of environmental

82

psychology in the literature review, the comments from participants of the study led me to situate them under social concerns. Participants referred to distinctions between public and private spaces with respect to areas within a building, and the edges of buildings and streets. The comments included references to socialization, societal interaction and defining the boundaries of social life. At School B, Professor Roger mentioned that this was a major concern he wished to see students address in their designs. He wanted students to attend to segregation of spaces while still ensuring smooth flow of circulation through di ffe re n t a re a s. A t S ch o o l A , P ro fe sso r K a re n s stu d e n ts w e re a tte n d i n g to th e e d g e s o f th e b u i l di n g a n d th e i ssu e o f th e p u b l i c sp a ce o u tsi d e th e b u i l di ng s premise versus the privacy of the people within. Culture One student repeatedly mentioned cultural considerations in architectural design and reflected the same in his project. When asked to define culture with reference to his design of the community center on a historic riverside in Georgia, Luther (School B) e xp l ai n e d , F o r m e , i t w a s th e e xp e ri e n ce o f w a l ki n g a ro u n d shops and restaurants people walking around. It has been there for a very long ti m e . It d i d n o t ch a n g e . This category was defined by the comments from participants that questioned and addressed the heritage and cultural setting where the projects were located; the downtown in case of School A and the riverside in case of School B. Some students and critiques talked about the relationship of the design to the activities that were part of the co m m u n i ti e s cu l tu ra l h e ri ta g e , l i ke th e stri p o f sm a l l sto re s o n th e ri ve r w a l k w h e re S ch o o l B s project was located which was characterized by pedestrians and restaurant patrons. Other Considerations Several comments from participants referred to social concerns in architecture but were not clearly articulated to be placed in one of the defined categories. The general references to architecture, society and sociology were counted toward this category. Participants, during discussions, made statements

83

l i ke a rch i te ctu ra l e l e m e n ts h a ve a h u g e so ci ol ogi ca l i m p a ct a n d b u i l di ngs re sp o n d to b ro a d so ci a li ssu e s. Table 4.4 presents the frequency chart for each of the categories for social concerns in architecture as counted from observation field notes and interview transcripts. Students expressed that the most important social concern was the interaction among people in a space whereas the concern regarding segregation of public and private zones was the aspect stressed most by professors and critics. Table 4.4 Frequency Chart for Social Concerns Categories Category Interaction among people Response to society Community Public versus private spaces Culture Other considerations TOTAL Students Faculty Total 8 3 4 3 3 5 26 6 0 3 9 1 5 24 14 3 7 12 4 10 50

In order to compare the responses from participants during interviews and during discussions between faculty and students about student projects, I divided their responses during interviews and during critiques. Table 4.5 presents the frequency chart for student responses to the various social issues divided by interviews and critiques.

84

Table 4.5 Frequency Chart for Student Interviews and Critiques for Social Concerns Category Interaction among people Response to society Community Public versus private spaces Culture Other considerations TOTAL Interviews Critiques Total 7 3 4 1 0 5 20 1 0 0 2 3 0 6 8 3 4 3 3 5 26

During the focus group interview students exhibited immense sensitivity to the social role of architecture in nurturing interaction among occupants of the space. When asked about the most important social aspect of architecture, Lauren (School A) sa i d th a t o n e o f th e m a i n co n ce rn s fo r h e r i s h o w m a n y sp a ce s d o yo u h a ve i n th e b u i l di n g fo r m a yb e a cci d e n ta l o r I d o n t know, like pl a ce s fo r p e o p l e to j u st g o a n d i n te ra ct j u st m a yb e fo r p e o p l e to j u st si tdow n a n d ta l k or i n te ra ct. O th e r stu d e n ts m e n ti o n e d si mi l a r co n ce rn s th a t th e y believed were integral to architectural design. Similarly, I divided references to various social issues by faculty members by interview and critiques. Table 4.6 presents the frequency chart for faculty m e m b e rs re sp o n se s to th e si x ca te g o ri e s fo r so ci a l co n ce rn s i n a rch i te ctu re .

85

Table 4.6 Frequency Chart for Faculty Interviews and Critiques for Social Concerns Category Interaction among people Response to society Community Public versus private spaces Culture Other considerations TOTAL Interviews Critiques Total 0 0 3 3 0 3 9 6 0 0 6 1 2 15 6 0 3 9 1 5 24

For faculty members, the consideration of segregation, transition and interaction between public and private spaces within the building was an important concern which was repeatedly expressed when commenting on student designs during critiques as well as during my interview with them. The interaction of occupants of the building with pedestrians on the adjacent street was another concern that was addressed with respect to identifying the boundaries between the privacy of the building versus the public areas around the building. During the critiques, interaction among people in the building was an important concern which was commented on and addressed. Faculty and visiting architects repeatedly talked about how students were creating areas within and around the building that would serve as gathering spaces and draw people. One vi si ti n g a rch i te ct co m p l i m e n te d a stu d e n t s d e si g n a n d sta te d th a t sh e h a d cre a te d i n te re sti ng l e ve l si n h e r d e si gn w i th d i ffe re n t p l a ce s fo r p e o p l e to b e . In another critique one professor made some design suggestions to a student working on a university student activity center and explained that it would help to g e n e ra te i n fo rm a l g a th e ri n g sp a ce s a n d a cti vi ty a re a s.

86

I asked both faculty members, during my interviews with them, to describe what concerns they were expecting to see students address in their projects. Among other issues, Professor Roger mentioned that one of the key concerns he w oul dl i ke stu d e n ts to a d d re ss i s th e i m a g e o f th e b u i l di n g a s a ci vi c pl a ce i n th e life of the people of th e co m m u n i ty. P ro fe sso r K a re n ta l ke d a b o u t re i n fo rci n g th e concept of creating a walkable city with parameters that would respond to pedestrians in order to enhance the community. In that regard, the important social concern that both professors wanted to see addressed in student designs was the influence of the building on the community. Client Needs As I coded and recoded my data to find categories and themes, refined and narrowed the results, and defined each theme; I debated for at length whether client needs and programmatic requirements should be separate themes. I went back to my years in school and my definition of the two themes at that time. I recalled what definitions the professors were projecting in our discussions at that time. There is a very thin line between the two concepts which could be easily obliterated. The client may be the person or company commissioning the project, the projected users of the space or even the community where the project is proposed. Programmatic requirements will be discussed in detail in the next section, but essentially comprise of the list of the functions, activities or spaces that the space is projected to fulfill. This list is part of the spatial requirements to be fulfilled in the design. But in coding the data I found the need to separate client needs as a theme which referred more to the needs of the people above and beyond functions of the proposed space. Client needs refer to considering people and as Stanley stated during the interview at School B, th e b u i l di ng i s su p p o se d to fi ti ts u se rs. Summer (School A) e xp l ai n e d h e r u n d e rsta n d i n g o f a rch i te ctu re a s, th e y a re re sp o n si bl e fo r th e sa fe ty o f th e p e o p l e wi th i n th e b u i l di n g . She later mentioned that the school tries to inculcate the idea that buildin g s a re d e si g n e d fo r th e p e o p l e w ho w i l lb e i ni t. Another aspect of client needs is the understanding of what information to get from clients to achieve the optimal design for their needs. Lisa, at School A,

87

talked about the inability of clients to understand and visualize their needs. According to her it is the responsibility of architects as professionals to w o rk w i th th e m , to sa y O k. W e l l ! (H o w d o yo u ) sp e n d yo u r d a y, w h a t i s the process of you getting up and going through your day, and how do you interact with your children and your co m p a n y a n d th i ngs l i ke th a t. A n d try to help them make decisions to make that space comfortable for them to live in rather than to just design it for an aesthetic purpose.

At School A, Professor Karen extensively emphasized the need for students to communicate with projected users of their buildings in the community and glean important information about the needs of the community. She talked a b o u t th e a cti vi ty a s re se a rch i n th e co m m u n i ty a n d sa i d th a t th e y b u i l t kind of a kn o w l e d g e b a se o f w h a t th e co m m u n i ty i s hopi n g to se e h a p p e n . She attributed her concepts to her own background and her thesis which was based on archetypal actions of human beings and how spaces choreograph and support those actions. She defined these actions to include all the things that people do like shelter, work/play, competition, [and] eating. She summarized her opinions i n th i s sta te m e n t: I th i n k th a t su p p o rti n g th o se a cti ons w el li s th e m o st i m p o rta n t h u m a n ro l e o f a rch i te ctu re . Table 4.7 presents the frequencies for this theme as counted for students and faculty separated by interviews and critiques. Table 4.7 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Client Needs Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 11 3 14 0 0 0 11 3 14

88

It was interesting that both faculty and students talked to me about client needs and the responsibility of architecture associated with this concept during the interview. But when they discussed student projects during the critiques, programmatic requirements took precedence over client needs and I did not find any references or comments associated with this theme in my field notes from either school. Programmatic Requirements Programmatic requirements for a project include the list of functions, spaces or activities that designers must incorporate in their designs. During this study I found two vastly different approaches to developing these requirements. At School A, Professor Karen encouraged students to meet with the community, walk the city, talk to people and analyze all the information to identify what was needed in the five blocks of downtown which were the site for the project. She asked students to adopt their own healing practices and integrate the activity in their individual programs. Students adopted different activities like meditation, yoga, belly dancing, running and diet management, and designed spaces for the practice of their activity in their individual design for one of the five blocks in the community. Each student, therefore, had an individual program for the design. Some students mentioned that they were working closely with their classmates who had the block adjacent to theirs and they were integrating both their activities in each design. On the other hand, Professor Roger provided students at School B with clearly outlined requirements for the community center they were designing on the riverside. This list of requirements included the area to be allotted in the design for each space or activity. Students followed the list of requirements closely. Professor Roger mentioned, during my interview with him, that at School B there is a strong orientation for making design that integrates functional aspects of architecture in addition to technical and aesthetic considerations. During the critiques at School B some students mentioned outdoor spaces they had created which were not listed in the program. Faculty and critics also suggested possibilities of functions that students may add to their building and

89

site design. The program of the multi-use community activity center for a historic town in Georgia was in contrast to the other activities on the riverside and the outdoor spaces created by students were a part of their attempts to integrate the building in the urban fabric. Professor Roger suggested to Luther that he may p ro vi d e sp a ce s th a t co u l d be al l o tte d fo r fu tu re p ro g ra m e xp a n si o n . Other inclusions in this theme were addressing needs like entry, exit, circulation, and as Lisa (School A) m e n ti o n e d , d e si g n to m a ke i t livable, to make i t a co m fo rta b l e sp a ce . Mike talked about the rules and regulations which become a part of the program but he felt that the professors at School A allow students to judiciously manipulate rules and optimize them for the particular building. He said, B u t w i th i n th e ru l e s, w e d e si g n th e ru l e s n o t to j u st p u t th e m within place but that they work. We design them so that they work with the building but also work with the requirements of how they are in the specific bui l di n g . Other programmatic requirements for a project were ones that were not clearly outlined or included in the list drafted either by professors or students. These requirements were addressing service and administrative needs for effective functioning of the building, like offices for the management staff, areas for loading and unloading of supplies for the restaurants, and janitorial areas. During the critiques Professor Roger asked students about addressing needs like H o w d o yo u g e t fo o d to th e ki tch e n a n d h e ga rb a g e o u t? A re you cooking in that area near the ball-ro o m o r j u st h e a ti n g ? Y o u n e e d to g e t th e g ro ce ri e s u p th e re . Table 4.8 presents the frequency chart for programmatic requirements from faculty and student responses divided by interviews and critiques.

90

Table 4.8 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Programmatic Requirements Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 7 2 9 5 10 15 12 12 24

S tu d en ts Personal Design Ideas In my first draft of the proposal for this research I mentioned the first thought that drove me to the study. I had seen several presentations by students w hi ch sta rte d w i th I w a n te d to a n d e n d e d w i th T h e re fo re I th i nk i ti sa su cce ssfu l d e si g n . The concern that drove me to this study was what I perceived as the almost egotistical and self-centered approach to design and consequently the possible peripheralization of human, psychological and social facets of architecture. At the onset of this study I was concerned about finding the niches i n stu d e n ts co n ce p ts w h e re h u m a n co n ce rn s re l a te d to cl i e n ts psychological and social needs were embedded. This theme was among the pre-figured foci for data analysis and it was refined and reinforced as I read and reread comments from students and professors. A s stu d e n ts p e rso n a l co ncepts became an important theme in data coding, I found two categories which contribute to the formulation of these concepts. The categories were formed during the coding of student transcripts and this theme was not very prominent in the discussions with professors as would become clear in the frequency charts below. The two categories a sso ci a te d w i th stu d e n ts p e rso n a l co n ce p ts a re (1) Expression of self and (2) Personal likes and dislikes. Table 4.9 presents the frequency chart for these categories for faculty and students.

91

Table 4.9 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding S tu d e n ts P e rso n a l Design Ideas Expression of Self Personal Likes and Dislikes Total Students Faculty TOTAL 7 0 7 8 1 9 15 1 16

Clearly the professors and visiting critics did not display much consideration for the experiences, beliefs, or preferences that influenced stu d e n ts co n ce p ts a n d d e si g n d e ci si o n s. H o w e ve r, th e stu d e n t p a rti ci p a n ts i nmy study indicated that their experiences and preferences play a significant role in design development. I will define the two categories in the following sections. Expression of Self Among all the student participants in my study, Anna (School B) was the most influenced by self-expression in her designs. When I asked her about her opinion of architecture as a profession and its responsibilities, she said that for h e r a rch i te ctu re i sl i ke a n e xp re ssi o n o f m yse l f a n d h o w I fe e l w h e n I a m designing a building and I want the building to express how I am feeling at that ti m e . She said that the psychological and social connotations of architecture are not necessarily external but something rooted within her. She added later that presentations and critiques were important for her because they present the opportunity for her to express the feelings that she tries to portray in her designs. However, during my observations of student critiques, I did not find any suggestions of self-expression in student presentations. Table 4.10 presents the frequency chart for this category for students and faculty divided by interviews and critiques.

92

Table 4.10 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Expression of Self Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 7 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 7

Some other students had opinions similar to Anna (School B) about design as an avenue for expressing themselves. Allen, at School B, said that the buildings architects design tell their stories. When I asked students about the subjects they had studied during the course of the program, Samuel said that all the classes at School B w e re e q u a l l y b e n e fi ci a l b u t a d d e d , W h a t I fi n d m o st important I get where it comes from my values, my theory, myself as an architect a n d w h e re I sta n d . At School A, Lauren talked about the progression through their design studios each semester and said that the one thing that they re m e m b e r w h e n co n n e cti n g o n e se m e ste r to a n o th e r i s th a t th e i r co n ce p ts d ri ve (the) projects n o t th e o th e r w a y ro u n d . The development of the concept is the first step in the design process that weighs on all design decisions a n d stu d e n ts personal ideas have an immense influence on the conceptualization of their design ideas. Personal Likes and Dislikes During the interview at School B, I asked Anna what she would attribute her design ideas to, she explained that in the absence of empirical generalized data about how people will feel in a space, she has to rely on her own i m p re ssi o n s o f th e sp a ce . S h e su m m a ri ze d h e r a n sw e r i n th e se sta te m e n ts, I don t kn o w fo r su re h o w w h o e ve r i s goi n g to u se th a t sp a ce i s goi n g to feel in that space. I can only tell by how I feel and if I feel happy with with a curved wall then I am just going to assume that everybody else is going to be happy with this cu rve d re d w a l l . She said that no one can teach the students how to feel about

93

th e b u i l di n g s a n d th e p ro fe sso rs ca n o n l y gi ve th e i r opi ni o n s b u t th e b o tto m l i ne is how I feel about it." Other students agreed with the approach and also emphasized that design is eventually based on their own concepts of how the space will present itself. For Lauren (School A), what drove her to the field of architecture was the ability to create something with her own hands and she said that one of the th i n g s sh e l i ke s m o st a b o u t a rch i te ctu re i s th a t idea of creating, you know my own space. And obviously you want to make the space so that you would like it and i f yo u l i ke i t yo u w i l l m a ke i t so th a t p e o p l e wi l ll i ke i t to o . Stanley (School B) explained that the experience of the space is very personal and based on personal opinions and said that, yo u might come over the next day and say that th i s sp a ce i s th e w o rst sp a ce o n th e fa ce o f th e e a rth a n d w e a re sti l l sa yi ng Oh w el l !T hi s sp a ce i sl i ke th e b e st sp a ce . During the critiques students, at both schools, reinforced their personal concepts when they presented their designs. Several students talked about what they wanted to do, the ideas they liked, and how they wanted the building to look. I h e a rd th e m sta rt th e i r p re se n ta ti ons w i th I l i ke th e i d e a o f p ro vi di n g a ce n tra l a cce ss, I wanted to derive from the Spanish steps. I thought it would be a good idea. a n d I w a n te d to p ro vi d e a m o n u m e n ta l sta i r o f so m e so rt. At School B, students had the option of either responding to the historic context in which their building was located or designing a building which would stand out as an iconic landmark. The choices that students made for the direction their designs would take were based on their personal design ideas, personal design styles and preferences. Professors reinforced this approach and stated that they were not arguing for one or the other approach toward the design. Table 4.11 presents the frequency chart for this category for students and faculty divided by interviews and critiques.

94

Table 4.11 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Personal Likes and Dislikes Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 3 1 4 5 0 5 8 1 9

Students clearly indicated a greater sensitivity to expressing their preferences in their designs. At some occasions they used their likes and dislikes as the measure for what the projected occupants might like and at other occasions their designs were anchored in concepts that were grounded in these preferences. Design Process Earlier in the study I defined design process as the process of design starting with the development of the concept behind the proposed design and culminating in the proposed design for the space/structure. In my experience of design education in India and the United States, I found that design process was one concept that was emphasized heavily in both countries. Professors emphasize a series of activities that contribute to a logical, well appointed and judiciously implemented design. Diagrams, sketches, site visits, readings, case studies and searches for inspiration are some of the suggestions in the initial stage of the design process. The design progresses with refining initial sketches, incorporating all programmatic requirements, and implementing information from several sources including but not limited to architecture books, anthropometric standards and inferences from site visits. During the focus group interview at School B, Anna mentioned that the d e ve l o p m e n t o f th e co n ce p t, w h i ch sh e ca l l e d th e b i gi d e a , w a s fa r m o re important than the development of technical drawings. S ta n l e y s (School B) complaint regarding the project they were working on was that Professor Roger

95

was dictating the design process and the approach they were taking to the design. Study models and studies of other structures for inspiration, were a major facet of the process at School B. Students mentioned looking at historic structures such as the Spanish steps to understand the relationship of the bui l di n g m a ss w i th th e g ro u n d . T h i s a p p ro a ch w a s te rm e d th e fi g u re -ground a p p ro a ch . S e ve ra l ske tch e s and study models marked the transition stages from the study to the design of the community center on the proposed site. At School A the focus was to start designing with studies of massing of the building and its components and evaluate its relationship with the surroundings. Professor Karen had an experiential approach to the design process. She incorporated the development of the program in the process and asked students to walk the site, talk to people and meet the community to discuss needs of the community. She also asked students to adopt a healing practice and implement it in their daily schedule to better understand the essence of the project which she defined as Healthy Body, Healthy City. At both schools conceptual design was based largely on form and massing studies. Student participants in my study were very familiar with the process of design as emphasized by the professors throughout the course of their study. Faculty and visiting critics at School B emphasized the importance of study models during the design process and showed discontent when students did not have models to show as part of their presentation. They complimented students when the sequential logic of design was evident in the design and the presentation. During the critiques at School A, one of the professors used small re cta n g l e s o f p a p e r o n S u sa n s m o d e l to e xp l ai n th e p ro ce ss sh e m a y u se to articulate the landscape around her building. Table 4.12 presents the frequency chart for student and faculty comments regarding design process during interviews and critiques.

96

Table 4.12 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Design Process Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 6 1 7 2 4 6 8 5 13

Creative Aspects The debates about architecture and its aesthetic component have been ongoing for decades. The root of all debates was the fundamental difference between architecture and other arts, which is its utilitarian nature (Bearn, 1997). Fitch (1988) approached this difference as an added merit for architecture and sta te d , We i nhabi t w o rks o f a rch i te ctu re ; w e m e re l y p e rce i ve th e w o rk o f a rt (p . 6). Other scholars supported the aesthetic, artistic and visual components of architectural design. Design studio exercises revolve around the development of stu d e n ts cre a tive, graphic and visualization skills, and in my study the professors at both schools mentioned that these were among the central foci of their programs. In that context, this theme was among the pre-figured foci at the onset of the study and was further refined during data collection and coding. I found two categories which contribute to the definition of creative aspects in architecture; (1) Composition and form, and (2) Creativity. Composition and Form The composition of different blocks of a building, their organization on the site, and the overall form, geometry and proportion were key elements during the discussions of student projects. On analyzing the data and calculating frequencies for all themes and categories, I found that this category had the largest discrepancy in the number of student and faculty responses. Table 4.13 presents the frequency chart for student and faculty comments regarding composition and form during interviews and critiques.

97

Table 4.13 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Composition and Form Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 6 2 8 7 40 47 13 42 55

Professors and visiting architects showed immense concern about the fo rm th a t stu d e n ts d e si g n s w e re ta ki ng.T hei r co m m e n ts a n d su g g e sti o n s w e re focused on the models that students had made and the three dimensional images. During the observations I noticed that although they commented on the d ra w i n g s, cri ti cs d i scu sse d stu d e n t w o rk l a rg e l y fro m th e m o d e l . Professor Roger expressed dissatisfaction when some students at School B did not have a study model at the preliminary discussion, and encouraged them to start working on a model to analyze the form of their building and roofs. At School A, Professor Karen asked students to start their designs with massing studies to see how the buildings on their site were located and shaped with respect to each other and with respect to the surroundings. It was interesting that the composition of masses and spaces, and the overall form of the building were concerns that overlapped several other themes that were addressed, especially site context and technical aspects. Professors made suggestions for how students may develop the form of their buildings while addressing the surrounding context and the limitations posed by technical concerns. During the critiques at School B, Professor Roger pointed to the va ri e ty o f sh a p e s i n A nna s d e si g n o f th e co m m u n i ty ce n te r a n d co m m e n te d , T h e re i s a te n d e n cy h e re to e n d u p w i th a n u m b e r o f p i e ce s th a t m i g h t fa l l a p a rt. You need to get in control of making sure they all hold together. H e r cri ti que started with this comment and other critics joined in agreement to note that al th o u g h th e co m p o si ti o n o f sp a ce s i n th e p l a n h a n g s to g e th e r, sh e w a s

98

w o rki ng w i th to o m a n y ro o f fo rm s. At School B, du ri n g L u th e r s cri ti que, Professor Cramer agreed with his approach to the design which revolved around mimicking the context but suggested that he modify the form by changing the heights of different blocks in his building. Most of the critiques I attended at both schools revolved around addressing the compositional aspects of student designs as is shown in the frequency chart presented above. Student comments on the importance of composition and form were limited. When asked about their opinion on architecture, Summer (School A) mentioned that there is a consensus among students that the school is teaching stu d e n ts th a t th e y d e si gn bui l di n g s fo r th e p e o p l e w ho w i l lb e i ni t a n d th e n yo u d e si gn w hati tl o o ks l i ke . I asked students to discuss their design concept for the project and Mike (School A) talked about the spatial composition of his building, how spaces were related to the other and how they were related to the outside. During their critiques students talked about the compositional or formative inspirations they had taken from other buildings. Creativity When asked about the major focus of the program at School B, Professor Roger said that is a strong visual orientation in the program. Later in the interview he said that most students successfully integrate the ideas he expects of them in their designs. However he elaborated that there are some students who are pragmatically oriented, who look at conventional ways of doing things as the way of solving problems of being a professional. You kn o w th o se a re h a rd e r to crack through that shell sometimes because what we try to do is stimulate cre a ti vi ty a n d i m agi n a ti o n . A t S ch o o l A o n e o f th e vi si ti n g cri ti cs l o o ke d a t S u sa n s p ro j e ct a n d sa i d th a t sh e n e e d s to a d d re ss th e p ro j e ct w i th m o re a rch i te ctu re a m b i ti on and be more creative about her approach to the building. He said that the project is m o re th a n j u st ca rs. One statement that I repeatedly heard during student cri ti q u e s w a s m a ke i t m o re i n te re sti n g . L a u re n s di scu ssi o n o f h e r p ro ject at School A e n d e d w i th th i s sta te m e n t fro m th e cri ti c, If i ti s noti n te re sti ng,i tdoes n o t m a tte r h o w e ffi ci enti ti s. During the focus group interview at School A,

99

S u sa n m e n ti o n e d th a t p ro fe sso rs w e re e xp re ssi n g co n ce rn a b o u t a l l th e interesting sp a ce s i n h e r d e si g n and she felt that being overwhelmed by technical regulations was compromising her creativity on the project. Table 4.14 presents the frequency chart for student and faculty comments regarding creativity during interviews and critiques. Table 4.14 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Creativity Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 13 3 16 3 4 7 16 7 23

Some students talked about the visual orientation at their respective schools and how that overshadows concerns that may be more beneficial to them during their professional practice after graduation. Others agreed with the school s fo cu s o n cre a ti vi ty a n d S ta n l e y (School B) summarized that attitude as, th e o n e th i n g th a t m a ke s a rch i te cts d i ffe re n t th a n e n g i n e ers is that architecture speaks of problem solving gracefully, elegantly and actually thinks outside the box and designs curves or pitches or different things that an engineer w oul d n o t ta ke i n to co n si d e ra ti o n . Among the definitions of architecture that I got from the students several revolved around creativity and craftsmanship. Professional Practice Going into the interviews, professional practice was a theme that I did not expect to find but students expressed a lot of concern about whether the school w a s p re p a ri n g th e m fo r th e re a l w o rl d . In their fourth year, being ready for their first step into professional practice was a large concern and they talked about their anxiety. I re m e m b e re d m y fi rst d a y i n a n a rch i te ct s o ffi ce a fte r g ra d u a ti on. I walked in the office with great trepidation and went on to see my boss. He sat me

100

d o w n a t th e d ra w i n g b o a rd a n d sa i d , F o rg e t e ve ryth i n g th e y ta u g h t yo u i n sch o o l .W e w i l l sta rt o ve r. A rch i te ctu re o ffi ce s a l w a ys sh o w e d co n ce rn a b o u t outdated curricula in schools, hypothetical projects, and the focus of architecture programs being more on creativity and less on practical issues like budget management and construction methods. Some students in my study had experiences from internships or summer jobs at architecture firms, which made them more anxious about whether or not they will be prepared at the end of their program. There was a lot of anxiety about the issues that are important in the profession and the culture of architecture firms. During my interview with Professor Roger at School B, he mentioned that the school has a series of courses geared toward professional practice although the spine of the program was visual orientation. He mentioned that in interpreting the guidelines of the NAAB the school has incorporated several aspects of professional practice in its curriculum. Table 4.15 presents the frequency distribution for professional practice for students and faculty divided by interviews and critiques. Table 4.15 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Professional Practice Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 15 4 19 0 1 1 15 5 20

While transcribing the focus group interviews I found professional practice as an emergent theme. Several layers of data coding and refining led me to three categories under professional practice: (1) Budgetary concerns, (2) Culture of the profession, and (3) Other professional concerns. I will discuss each of these categories and present separate frequency tables below.

101

Budgetary Concerns th e y ta u g h t us the aesthetics and they taught us how to make it look good and left out the key ingredient which is m o n e y, said Allen talking about what he thought School B was focusing on. At School A, however, Lauren thought that toward the latter years in the program, professors introduce considerations of budgets and materials in the program and encourage students to address these concerns in their designs. Budgetary concerns were only brought up by students and only during the focus group interviews. During the critiques neither students nor faculty mentioned costs as a facet of evaluating designs. Table 4.16 summarizes the frequencies of responses related to addressing budgets in architectural design. Table 4.16 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Budgetary Concerns Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 3 0 3 0 0 0 3 0 3

Culture of the Profession When Lisa (School A) talked about the interaction and group work professors encouraged in the design studio, she felt that it was an important step toward preparing them to work in office environments with peers and in teams. At School B, Anna accepted that when she starts a job she will have to relearn several things to conform to the standards and needs of the particular employer. According to her, one has to be prepared to spend the initial stages in the job p re tty m u ch cu tti n g a n d p a sti n g . She felt that the school s fo cu s o n d e si gn and aesthetics was justified and explained that no matter where you go you will have to relearn how they, how they prepare certain things, how they prepare their

102

deals, how they prepare their sheets. She continued to say that in order to progress from following guidelines at the firm to designing a project it is essential to have the knowledge to develop conceptual ideas. Students felt concerned about their preparedness to deal with the variety of occupations that architectural practice involves. Susan felt that although School A had been very helpful in preparing students for the field she wished they had a class about how they might interact with other trades like contractors and developers. She said that professors had acted as clients during several projects and provided them some experience in dealing with and presenting to clients. Other trades that architects have to work in close co-ordination with did not get the attention Susan would have liked. In this context, Professor Karen (School A) mentioned that her aim was to help students develop architectural leadership skills. She said that she was asking students to work with the community so that they may learn to recognize people who might be their future clients and projected users of their spaces. She w a n te d h e r stu d e n ts to u n d e rsta n d th a t th e se p e o p l e m ay al so h a ve e xce l l ent ideas sometimes so that they will be kind of tuned to hearing those ideas if they co m e fro m so m e o n e w h o d o e sn t h a ve a rch i te ctu ra l b a ckg ro u n d . She also felt that it is important to imbibe in students the understanding that it is their re sp o n si bi l i ty to co m m u n i ca te to th e re st o f the world the value of thoughtful a rch i te ctu re . She was talking about the people who fund projects and make administrative decisions that affect the profession and design of environments, butdon t n e ce ssa ri l y kn o w a b o u t q u a l i ty b u i l t e n vi ro n m e n ts. Table 4.17 presents the frequency distribution for this category for students and faculty divided by interviews and critiques.

103

Table 4.17 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Culture of the Profession Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 4 2 6 0 0 0 4 2 6

Other Professional Concerns At School A, L i sa ta l ke d a b o u t h e r e xp e ri e n ce s i n a n a rch i te ct s o ffi ce w hi ch sh o w e d h e r th a t th e re a l w o rl di sal otdi ffe re n t th a n w h a t w e h a ve i n sch o o l a n d I th i nk i t s I th i n k th e y sh o u l d p ro b a b ly start preparing students a lot so o n e r th a n w h a t th e y d o . S tu d e n ts co n ce rn s a b o u t th e i r tra n si ti on i n to th e profession did not end at incorporating budgetary concerns in designs and dealing with the culture of the profession. They talked about not getting enough time to detail their designs to the extent needed in the profession, expressed concern that they may not have the creative freedom that they have in school, as well as unfamiliarity with the regulations and legalities involved in the profession. Students talked extensively about professional practice but I heard it mentioned a lot less by faculty members and during critiques. Also the only comments related to professional practice by the faculty occurred in the data collected at School B. As mentioned earlier, Professor Roger mentioned that the program attempts to focus on preparing students for the profession and integrates courses to that effect. During the critiques at School B, Professor C ra m e r co m m e n te d o n L u th e r s d e si gn i n w hi ch h e w a s u tilizing only a small portion of the site leaving the rest as open green space for interaction and gathering. He suggested that Luther should continue in the same direction and should label the open space as area available for future expansion and said, T e l l the client we can squeeze the building into this sliver and have the rest of the site to se l l fo r $ 8 m i l l i on and gi ve yo u so m e o f i t! He laughed and continued to say,

104

O r b u i l d a n o th e r b u i l di n g a n d co m m i ssi o n yo u to d o i t. The comment was made in humor but gave some direction on practicing and dealing with clients. Table 4.18 presents the frequency distribution for this category for students and faculty divided by interviews and critiques. Table 4.18 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Other Professional Concerns Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 8 2 10 0 1 1 8 3 11

Precedent Studies Professional experience plays a major role in the development of design philosophy, concepts, and eventually the design of spaces or structures. Heylighen & Vertijnen (2003) emphasized the importance of studying cases to acquaint students with the kind of database that architects acquire during years of professional practice. In the absence of professional experience students may take inspiration and guidance from the work of other designers. Akin (2000) talked about case-based instruction as a representation of applications and actions in professional practice. Kowalski (1991) defined two components of case-based instruction; case study emphasizes the object being studied and case method signifies the process of studying a problem situation. During data coding this theme arose from the references that participants made to the work of other architects either as inspiration they were taking or as justification for their concepts. Subsequent stages of coding led me to two categories under this theme: (1 ) O th e r d e si g n e rs w o rk, and (2) Other references.

105

O th er D esig n ers W o rk Students talked about precedent studies in terms of the work of other designers as instrumental in their understanding of the design process and the impact of design on society and occupants. Susan (School A) summarized this category in these statements, (Professors) are always telling us to look at precedent and see what works a n d w h a t d o e sn t a n d se e h o w i t m a ke s yo u fe e l a n d h o w i t m a ke s o th e r people feel. And take it and interpret it and work with it and kind of massage it into a new context and try something a little bit different. And to keep on looking until something works right. Li sa co n ti n u e d S u sa n s th o u g h t a n d sa i d th a t p ro fe sso rs l e a d th e m to designers who had done work similar to the concept that they were adopting. She felt that the professors give them direction for their ideas and help them understand what they are doing and where they are heading with their concept. When I asked students what subject they thought was the most beneficial to them, Summer at School A and Allen at School B mentioned that according to them it was architectural history. Summer said that architectural history helped them gather a knowledge base for reference during their design process. Allen said that at School B the history teachers emphasized the study of historic buildings with respect to the impact those buildings had on society as well as the designer. H e fe l t th a t a rch i te ctu ra l h i sto ry w a s i m p o rta n t i n u n d e rsta n d i n g h o w to fe e l a n d w h e re to sta rt i n d e si g n . Table 4.19 presents the frequency chart for students and faculty for this category divided by interviews and critiques. Students talked extensively about th e b e n e fi ts o f re fe rri n g to o th e r d e si g n e rs w o rk d u ri n g th e i n te rvi e w s b u t fa cu l ty and critics used examples from other designers only during the critiques.

106

Table 4.19 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Other D e si g n e rs W o rk Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 6 0 6 1 3 4 7 3 10

T he onl y re fe re n ce s to o th e r d e si g n e rs p ro j e cts b y fa cu l ty w e re d u ri ng critiques and discussions. I found that references to this category by faculty and critics only occurred in my field notes from School B. At School B, students were working on a project located in a historic area. Some students took an approach to d e si gn w hi ch m a d e th e i r bui l di n g s sta n d o u t i n th e h i sto ri c u rb a n fa b ri c. T h e buildings did not necessarily follow the historic architectural style reminiscent of the surrounding structures. In that context, students and faculty continually re fe rre d to F ra n k G e h ry s iconic design of the Guggenheim museum in Bilbao, Spain. Mr. Greene talked about one student s project and commented that it reminded him of Frank Gehry and him doing things irrespective of the context. He i sj u st m a ki n g a m a rk a n d cre a ti ng an i co n . D u ri ng S am uel s cri ti que, Professor Cramer mentioned that he liked the dynamism in Frank G e h ry s buildings which eradicates the need for any embellishment and Samuel could take inspiration from that. Figure 4.5 is a picture of the Guggenheim museum as it stands amid the surrounding buildings. The architecture is described as modern expressionist that i s a fre e scu l p tu re o f cu rva ce o u s m e ta l-cl a d fo rm s (Great Buildings, 2006). The design has been a topic of discussion because of the statement it makes in the surrounding. It was interesting that this was the repeated reference during interviews and critiques.

107

Figure 4.5 Exterior View of the Guggenheim museum, Bilbao, Spain Note: Picture from www.pps.org. The caption under this picture on the website was P e rh a p s th e fu rth e r o n e i s fro m th e b u i l di n g , th e b e tte r i tl o o ks. (Kent, 2006) I was inclined to question why this building was used as an example of creative form and iconography while students worked on a project for community activity. One of the complaints that has repeatedly surfaced in architectural circles about this building is that it does not respond to pedestrian needs, is insensitive to the riverfront where it is situated and ignores the city. The website G re a t P u b l i c S p a ce p l a ce d th e G u g g e n h e i m m u se u m i n th e i r H a l lo f S h a m e and called i t a n a tta ck o n human activity and civic life (Kent, 2006). The professors at School B, referred to the design of this museum with respect to the form of the building and its position in the landscape as an icon. They did not refer to any discussions about the impact of the building on the society and the debates associated with the design. Although there are proponents of the su cce ss o f th e m u se u m s d e si gn as i t re sp o n d s to th e l a n d sca p e , p ro fe sso rs a n d critiques failed to introduce an informed discussion about the two opposing

108

p e rce p ti ons w i th re sp e ct to th e re l a ti o n sh i p o f th e G u g g e n h e i m m u se u m s d e si gn to its stature in the society where it is located. Other References Students introduced other references related to precedent studies during the focus group interviews. One of these aspects was reading and assessing opi ni o n s o f o th e r p e o p l e to o th e r d e si g n e rs buildings or spaces. At School B, Anna mentioned that it was important to understand the opinions of others to sp a ce s th e y vi si t a n d th e n try to cre a te th a t sa m e se n se o f fe e l i n g . S h e sa i d that since she does not know how someone might feel in the spaces she is designing these references helped her refine her ideas. One student at School B also mentioned that references by professors to their own experiences in the field and discussions of projects they had worked on prove very beneficial to them in their understanding of design, architecture, and the profession. Samuel (School B) talked about the benefits of discussions with his professors about their past and their experiences and mentioned that those discussions, acco rd i n g to h i m , a re p ri ce l e ss. He said that it provides insights into different perceptions of designs and concepts. Anna (School A) mentioned that for her critiques were the most important aspect of the program because the discussions with critics gave her a variety of opinions and perspectives of her designs. I am not presenting a frequency chart for this category since the only contributions to this category came from focus group interviews with students. There were two comments in the interview transcripts that contributed to this category and both were from School A. Technical Aspects How are you going to build this? What materials are you using? These and other such questions reverberated through every one of my design classes and critiques. During my visits to the schools for this study, it was dj vu all over again. Professors and critics continually asked students the same questions; h o w fa r d o e s th i s tru ss sp a n , w h a t m a terial is your building a n d te l lu s a b o u t th e stru ctu re ? I started the coding with this theme being labeled structural concerns but subsequent stages of coding revealed several other technical

109

facets that would define this theme, which I then renamed technical aspects. Some of these aspects were building codes, lighting, storm water retention, and egress locations. I asked both professors if they could list the concerns they were hoping to se e a d d re sse d i n stu d e n ts d e si g n s fo r th e p ro j e cts th e y h a d a s signed for the semester. Both professors included structural and other technical concerns in their lists. Professor Karen mentioned that she was encouraging students to analyze design issues like storm water retention and parking, whereas Professor Roger mentioned that students need to deal with large span structures and modular building techniques as required by the program. He mentioned that he encourages students to look at precedents to identify construction techniques that may be available. During Anna s cri ti q u e at School B, Professor Cramer talked about the swimming pool which was open to balconies at several levels above and raised questions about sealing the space so that moisture and humidity may not penetrate other spaces. Another repeated concern was the staircase. Mr T ri bbi a n il o o ke d a t a stu d e n t s d e si g n during the critiques at School B, which featured a grand staircase and asked if the narrow landing at the top of the stairs would meet code requirements. He immediately caught himself and said, Y o u don t w a n t to g o th e re . Mr. Greene a g re e d a n d sa i d , Y e s th a t i s a d a n g e ro u s th i n g to ta l k a b o u t. Professors and critics asked students about structure and materials but avoided topics related to building code requirements. While professors were trying to avoid the subject, students showed concerns about not being well-versed with building codes, materials and construction methods. Anna felt that although the program at School B is fairly comprehensive it needs greater focus on technical aspects. She sa i d , M a yb e like in (materials and methods) they might focus a little bit more on the technical stuff but I think the program is cool a s i ti s. All students at School B agreed that although all courses integrated in the program were very useful to them, they were dissatisfied with the order in which they took the courses. Luther felt that the courses related to construction technology should be moved to the forefront

110

of the program and introduced earlier in the program. Allen felt that structural design was not integrated into the program as much as it should be. A t S ch o o l A , i n a cco rd a n ce w i th P ro fe sso r K a re n s instructions, students talked about storm water retention and drainage as an important issue they were attempting to address in their designs. Other concerns they expressed included means of egress and circulation within the building and around the site. Some students were content with the amount of emphasis that the program laid on these aspects and when the professors introduced these concepts in the course of study. Others felt like they would have liked more information or would like to know about such regulations earlier in the program. Susan (School A) mentioned that in their earlier years they were allowed to let their concept and creativity drive their designs and professors integrated regulations to be addressed in the project only in the latter years. She said that because of the additional re g u l a ti o n s th i s se m e ste r, I h a ve ki n d o f g o tte n ca rri ed aw ay w i th m y d e si g n fo r this semester with concepts of fire stair and egress and you have to have so much parking and I have just been letting it drive my project and it is endangering m y re vi e w . Lisa said that in having completed the first two years of the program at community college, she was exposed to technical considerations, building codes and regulations earlier than other students at School A and is able to integrate these aspects more easily in her designs. Table 4.20 presents a frequency chart for students and faculty responses related to technical considerations architectural design. Table 4.20 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Technical Aspects Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 17 5 4 3 15 0 20 20 4

111

It was interesting that there were the same number of references to technical aspects by students and faculty. However while students talked, during the focus group interviews, about not being substantially familiar with these aspects; faculty and critics questioned students about technical considerations in their designs extensively during the critiques. Personal Experiences and Background How was it that even in our first semester one of my friends in architecture school knew a little more than me about architecture, design and construction? I remember looking at his first semester project and thinking what class he had attended that I had not. When I got to know him better, I knew the answer to my queries. Both his parents were architects and he had spent a large part of his life in their office or on construction sites with them. He had an advantage over the rest of the class when he started the program because his background and experiences had influenced his understanding of design and construction, which clearly showed in the design and presentation of his projects. When I started graduate school in the United States, my background reflected in my projects. I was born and brought up in India, had studied architecture in India and practiced there. I realized more than I had in the past 23 years, that I am an Indian, tied to my roots culturally, psychologically, spiritually, and architecturally. In th a t co n te xt, I fo u n d se ve ra l re fe re n ce s to stu d e n ts experiences in the field of architecture before they started the program and how that influenced their approach to their education. During latter stages of coding, I found that this theme could be divided into two categories. One was the background that students brought to the field of architecture and the other was the experiences they had with architectural spaces in the past which influenced their design decisions and orientation. Personal Background My classmate had gleaned a lot of insight into the field of architecture from hi s e xp e ri e n ce s i n hi s p a re n ts o ffi ce a n d o n co n stru cti o n si te s. His background brought him to the field of architecture and influenced his approach to design. Some students in my study had previous architecture or construction experience

112

and other students brought additional aspects from their life which had an affect on their understanding of the profession. During my interview at School B, Stanley talked about his experiences learning sign language for almost 10 years a n d sa i d , so m y w h o l e g o a l e ve r si n ce I ca m e to (S ch o o l B ) w a s to so rt o f combine sign language with architecture and it has been sort of hard to do but it has been easy to do since I studied architecture for the deaf as well as a rch i te ctu re fo r th o se w h o h a ve fi ve se n se s. Lisa (School A) talked about her experience at the community college and how that had affected her approach to design at the university. At the community college she was designing based on programmatic requirements and technical rules, whereas at School A conceptual design and creativity were at the forefront o f d e si g n . S h e sa i d , I th i n k I a m stru g g ling with the parts I missed in lower di vi si on w i th th e w h e re th e y w e re m o re co n ce p tu a l a n d m o re a b stra ct a n d j u st th i n ki n g a b o u t cre a ti n g sp a ce s Stanley (School B) a ttri b u te d stu d e n ts i deas about what architecture entails and represents to personal experiences and exposure. Referring to his classmates he mentioned that A l l en s co n stru cti on b a ckg ro u n d a n d S a m u e l s engi n e e ri n g b a ckgro u n d w o u l d b e th e fo u n d a ti ons of their ideas. S u sa n s e xp e ri e n ce s a s a te a ch i n g a ssi sta n t at School A influenced her understanding of the program and she talked about how it had been an eyeopener to see students go through the earlier stages of the program from the other side of the table. According to her, students come in with preconceived ideas of how a house should be and the goal of the program in the initial years w a s to b re a k yo u n g m i n d s o f th i s w a y th a t th e y h a ve b e e n tra i n e d to th i n k. S he attributed the preconceptions to the environments the students have been exposed to, homes they have lived in through their lives and building styles they are familiar with. Professor Roger mentioned that although School B does not necessarily encourage social, cultural or psychological concerns to be addressed in designs, few students are interested in applying their own cultural background to their interpretations of architecture. Table 4.21 presents frequency charts for students

113

and faculty responses related to the influence of personal background on architectural design. Table 4.21 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Personal Background Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 3 1 4 0 0 0 4 1 4

Experiences in Spaces Anna (School B) repeatedly talked about architecture being an expression of her self and how she feels. She mentioned that she was influenced by what she gathered from how she felt in spaces. She said that she looks at pictures of di ffe re n t sp a ce s a n d a sse sse s, how would I feel being within that space. And th e n I ta ke th a t fe e l i n g a n d th e n I try to tra n sl a te th a t i n to h o w I a m d e si gni n g . At School A, Susan talked about a similar concept and said that the professors encourage them to assess their feelings within the spaces they visit. Professor Karen (School A) was very encouraging of the concept of noting and assessing personal experiences in spaces and translating the same in projects. She said that this attitude was based on her own background in e d u ca ti o n a l th e o ry a n d su m m a ri ze d h e r b e l i e fs i n th e se sta te m e n ts: I a m a believer that one learns not just by reading books but also through embodied e xp e ri e n ce . S h e e n co u ra g e s h e r stu d e n ts a s p a rt o f th e i r re se a rch fo r a p ro j e ct to walk the city, to p l a ce th e m se l ve s a s a cti n g su b j e cts i n p ro j e cts a n d l e a rn th ro u g h th e i r w hol e b o d y. Table 4.22 presents frequency chart for students and faculty responses related to their experiences in spaces which influence their design.

114

Table 4.22 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding S tu d e n ts Experiences in Spaces Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 3 4 7 0 0 0 3 4 7

The only references made by students or faculty to personal background and experiences were during the interviews. They did not talk about any experiential influences on student designs during presentations, critiques or discussions. Site Context The design studios at School A as well as School B had one element that every student had contributed to, everyone referred to, and everyone worked around. This was the model of the site which the students had made together. The models represented the site with its surroundings using small scaled cardboard models of the buildings in the vicinity, the streets and other features nearby. All students were working on a scaled model of their own design which they could place on the large model and see their design in context. At School B, students had expressed concerns about the discrepancy in site dimensions that each of them had because of which they were unable to correctly fit their individual model on the large site model. Students indicated that site visits were an important aspect of the design process which gave them vital insights into the environment where their project was located. Several of them mentioned that the experience of walking through the site was an important part of envisioning the direction they wanted their designs to take. At School B, Anna summarized the importance of visiting and experiencing the site in the following statements,

115

 unl e ss yo u a ctu a l l y se e th e si te th e n u n d e rsta n d e xa ctl y w h a t s out th e re a n d w h a t s su rro u n d i ng i t ve rsu s l o o ki n g a t so m e p i ctu re s off the internet and look at the aerial that really is outdated by 3 or 4 years you don t re a l l y g e t a tru e se n se o f w h a t th e si te i s. Y o u ca n t, yo u ca n t fo r m e agai ni ts i t s a fe e l i n g , I h a ve to fe e l th e si te , i t h a s to sp e a k to m e i n order to be abl e to d e si g n a n d e xp re ss w h a t th e si te s te l l i ng m e.A nd not bei ng abl e to e xp e ri e n ce th a t fe e l i n g o f th e si te , i t s di ffi cu l t fo r m e to co m e up w i th a d e si g n . Its l i ke I a m , i t s al m o st l i ke I a m d e si gni ng i n a va cu u m with just a few little things floating around me. Comments about stu d e n ts visits to the site took me back to my undergraduate years in India, where professors would give us one to two weeks to visit, analyze and report every aspect of the site. I remember sitting on the pedestrian walkway for hours with my classmates studying the traffic pattern in the area. We would additionally visit the site at every time of the day to study sun movement, shadow patterns, and human as well as natural activity in and around the site. The observations from the site were integrated into the preliminary presentation of concepts to faculty members. The insights derived from the analysis of various elements, conditions and activities on site was the basis for the design. The participants of my study showed similar regard for the context in which their designs were located. Several elements contribute to the definition of site context which is very broad. The issues that students mentioned with respect to the site included pedestrian circulation, landscape, storm water drainage, parking, landscape and responding to the streetscape. At School A, Professor Karen placed considerable emphasis on responding to the storm water drainage issue and students repeatedly mentioned that issue when talking about site context. At School B, Professor Roger emphasized the historic surrounding in which the site was located and the river walk which is the main attraction of the area. During the coding of the data and calculating recurrence of references to site context, I found that the critiques were focused heavily on this category. In

116

order to better analyze the information from data coding, I separated the frequency count for students and faculty by interviews and critiques. The references to site context were more pronounced during the critiques for both faculty and students. Table 4.23 presents frequency charts for students and faculty responses related to site context. Table 4.23 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Site Context Category Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 10 3 13 8 17 25 18 20 38

Professors and visiting architects continually asked students to justify their designs in the context and made suggestions of the direction their designs may take in order to be more sensitive to the surrounding environment. The suggestions included but were not limited to ideas for basic concepts l i ke , I w oul d h a ve u se d a n a u ti ca l th e m e a n d sti l ll a n d e d a t a si mi l ar bui l di n g ; i d e a s fo r design process which were largely focused on making study models and showing the surroundings on plans and elevations to better understand the relationship; and materials and construction methods to respond to the existing environment. At School B, students were working in a historic community and professors presented two different approaches that students could take to the si te . P ro fe sso r R o g e r d e scri b e d th e se a p p ro a ch e s a s T h e p ro g ra m su g g e sts that the building can emphasize itself more in the fabric or can reinforce the fabric. Professor Cramer explained the concept with two statements that the building could make with respect to what was around it. The building, according to him, could either say, I w a n t to b e l i ke e ve ryth i ng el se or it could say, I w a n t to b re a k a w a y fro m th a t. M r. G re e n e s cri ti q u e o n a n o th e r stu d e n t s project was

117

o n th e sa m e l i n e s a n d h e e xp l ai ned i t a s, W e a re a rch i te cts, w e ca n n o t sa y w e don t h a ve a n e g o . Y o u ca n e i th e r m a ke th e sta te m e n t I w a s h e re o r I l o ve (city) and I want to give something to and add to the river walk and appreciate its activi ti e s. Student projects showed both approaches and professors appreciated the concepts. They complimented students when they had designed a building in contrast to everything else around it if they felt like it was done successfully and judiciously. At School B, P ro fe sso r C ra m e r l o o ke d a t S a m u e l s d e si g n a n d sa i d, In (th i s hi sto ri c ci ty) th e re i s a re a so n n o t to b re a k fro m th a t b u t th i s p ro g ra m h a s enough human activity to pose a convincing argument for breaking from that i d e a . H e sa i d th a t S a m u e l s d e s ign was sensitive to the surrounding fabric although it posed an opposition to the environment and complimented saying th a t, T h e re i sal i n k fro m th e sta n d p o i n t o f sca l e /m a te ri al /co n ti nued w al l surface/platform on which the building is established. When looking at the whole pi ctu re w i th si te co n te xt th e co n tra sti ng el e m e n t ca n su cce e d . S e ve ral p ro fe sso rs g a ve e xa m p l e s fro m o th e r a rch i te cts w o rk to e xp l ai n th e co n ce p t o f successfully making a contrasting statement in the urban fabric. Studio Culture Focus group interviews brought up studio culture as an important issue among students. This was another theme that I did not expect to find going into the interviews. Earlier in this chapter I discussed the culture of design studios in detail. Several scholars have talked about the stress that architecture education places on the design studio and the large percentage of time that students spend in the studio during their education (Akin, 2002; Nicol & Pilling, 2000). From my own experiences in the design studio, I believe the time spent in the design studio with my professors and peers had a vital role in shaping my personality as a designer and as a person. Student participants in my study presented similar emotions regarding their own experiences in their design studios. Several students talked about the design studio as the place where they learned important lessons from their peers and more importantly found an important social structure during the long hours spent in the studio. At School A, Lisa and

118

Joey mentioned that professors encourage students to work in the studio so that they can all help each other with projects. Lisa thought that it was a great learning experience for the future when they will be required to work on a team as professionals in architecture firms. Jo e y m e n ti o n e d th a t, i tw i l l ca rry o n i n to our next job opportunity or grad school wherever you go and it will enhance co m m u n i ca ti o n ski l l s and hel p u s b e co m e b e tte r p e o p l e . While several students said they had gleaned important insights from the culture of design studios, they also voiced their anxiety due to the stress, long hours, and late nights involved in the program. Summer (School A) said she had to leave after three years in the program to take a two year break because she was stressed out a n d co u l dn t ta ke i t a n y m o re . Lauren (School A) talked about a car accident when driving home after a late night in the studio because she fell asleep at the wheel. Lisa agreed with Lauren and remembered the time she got very sick because of the stress and emphasized that it is unhealthy for students to stay awake all night or through entire weekends to complete projects. She went on to say that the school may be using it as a means of testing stu d e n ts su rvi va l a b i l i ti e s a s a w e e d i n g o u t p ro ce ss. S h e sa i d , i ti sa su rvi va l o f th e fi tte st a n d i t d o e sn t m a tte r h o w g o o d yo u a re a t a rch i te ctu re . A s l o n g a s yo u ca n m a ke i t th ro u g h th e p ro g ra m yo u kn o w i f yo u ca n e n d u re i t th e n yo u a re i n . When I asked students to talk about their opinions of the requirements of NAAB from architecture programs, Stanley (School B) mentioned that there is probably a requirement related to studio culture which was incorporated because of an incident where a student committed suicide because of the stress of the program. Joey defended the professors during this discussion at School A, advocating the work load as a means of teaching students time management skills. Figure 4.6 is a picture that Lauren took in her design studio at School A which is an excellent depiction of the exhaustion in the design studio.

119

Figure 4.6 Students Catch a Nap after Burning Mid-night Oil Working on their Projects All the students are asleep at their desks possibly after a sleepless night spent completing their projects. This picture brought back several memories from my undergraduate and graduate years. This was a typical scene in the design studio the day we submitted our projects and was often followed by stories of missing a flight home, the dinner bell at the dormitory, even p a re n ts b i rth d a ys and anniversaries; and it was all because we were finally snuggled up in bed. There was only one mention of studio culture by faculty and it was during my interview with Professor Karen at School A. When asked about the important concerns she would like to see addressed in student projects, she said that co l l a b o ra ti on w as an i m p o rta n t i dea w hi ch sh e i s tryi n g to stre ss a n d i ti s al so a requirement for accreditation. She developed a project for the semester which requires students to work together, share ideas and exchange information. As

120

discussed earlier, each student had one of five blocks in downtown to design and effective completion of the project required all stu d e n ts w o rk to co m e to g e th e r o n the entire site. Table 4.24 presents frequencies in this category divided by students and faculty and further divided by frequencies from interview transcripts and field notes from critiques. Table 4.24 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Studio Culture Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 7 1 8 0 0 0 7 1 8

Presentation Techniques and Graphics An important aspect of architecture is the drafting and presentation of designs. This includes technical drawing standards in the field of architecture to effectively communicate design and construction ideas. Another aspect of presentation is graphic quality which includes organization of drawings, rendering, scale and the overall appearance of the design presentation. An interesting aspect of this theme during data coding was that it was added to the list only during the coding of field notes. More importantly, all references to technical as well as graphic aspects of presentations were made by faculty or visiting critics. Students did not mention either aspect of this theme during the interviews and the only comments by them during critiques were to answer faculty questions about their drawings. When asked why he had all drawings at different scales, one student replied it was because of the re q u i re m e n ts th a t w e re p ro vi d e d . Table 4.25 presents the frequency chart for this category. As mentioned earlier, the only references to this theme were made

121

by faculty and visiting architects during critiques. None of my participants talked about presentation and graphics during the interviews. Table 4.25 Frequency Chart for Comments Regarding Presentation Techniques and Graphics Interviews Critiques Total Students Faculty TOTAL 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 10

Faculty and critics repeatedly indicated to students what else they would have liked to see in the drawings or models, what was unsatisfactorily presented, or what the students work was lacking in graphic quality, technique or information. At School B, Professor Roger commented on one student s design d u ri n g a cri ti q u e a n d sa i d , The model shows some promise in terms of overall fo rm b u t i ti s h a rd to se e i t. M a yb e b e ca u se o f yo u r g ra p h i c qual i ty. Other comments in this theme included suggestions to students for making their drawings more graphically appealing and technically correct. One of the visiting critics pointed to a stu d e n t s fl oor pl a n a n d su g g e ste d , It w o u l d h a ve h e l ped m e to see the first floor with something around it and landscape etcetera. Since it is bel o w g ro u n d l e ve l yo u n e e d to sh o w w h e re th e g ro u n d i s. Critics were very clear in voicing their dissatisfaction with presentation qualities as well as the number of drawings that students were putting forth. Summary

This qualitative research utilized observations, individual interviews and focus group interviews to collect the data for examining the research questions set forth in this study. Coding of observation field notes and interview transcripts 122

led me to 14 significant themes including (1) Psychological concerns, (2) Social concerns, (3) Client needs, (4) Pro g ra m m a ti c re q u i re m e n ts, (5 ) S tu d e n ts personal design ideas, (6) Design process, (7) Creative aspects, (8) Professional practice, (9) Precedent studies, (10) Technical aspects, (11) Personal experiences and background, (12) Site context, (13) Studio culture, and (14) Presentation techniques and graphics. On further analysis some themes were divided into categories. In this chapter I defined each of the 14 themes and the categories associated with them. I presented frequency charts for each theme and category based on the comments from students, professors and visiting critics. I also divided the frequency counts by comments and references made during interviews with me and discussions between students and critics. I supported my definitions with quotes from situational data, field notes from critiques and interview transcripts. In addition I presented preliminary inferences from the frequency counts to identify attitudes of students and faculty toward each theme. Psychological and social concerns are the central concerns in this study and were categorically defined and analyzed to a sse ss p a rti ci p a n ts p e rce p ti on s. It was clear that there is a difference in the concerns that are important to students and ones that are important to faculty. There were several discrepancies in the frequency charts in the frequencies for students and faculty about all the themes and categories. There was also a large discrepancy in what the participants addressed during the interviews with me and what I heard them discuss and questions during the critiques of student projects. Based on these preliminary observations I will attempt to answer the primary and secondary questions for this research in the next chapter.

123

CHAPTER 5 INTERPRETATION AND INFERENCES Introduction

In order to effectively evaluate the findings of this study, the results are interpreted and presented in terms of the research question and supporting questions. The primary research question guiding this study is: What are the perceptions of students and faculty in selected National Architecture Accreditation Board accredited architecture programs regarding the psychological and social concerns related to architectural design as they are taught by the program? To answer the primary research question certain supporting questions were posed. These questions were formatted based on insights derived from the synthesis of a comprehensive literature review. As represented by student and faculty participants and interpreted by the researcher: 5. How does the faculty of two programs in Southeastern United States present each school s position on psychological and social aspects of architecture that are the central focus of this study? 6. W h a t a re stu d e n ts p e rce p ti o n s o f th e p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a l co n ce rn s related to architectural design? 7. W h a t a re fa cu l ty s p e rce p ti o n s o f th e p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a l co n ce rn s related to architectural design? 8. How do selected students and faculty in two selected programs in Southeastern United States i n te rp re t th e sch o o l s p o si ti on on psychological and social aspects in architecture as suggested by faculty members?

124

This study was designed as a qualitative research based on pragmatic philosophies exploring the way professors and students in architecture programs understand, interpret and respond to human concerns in architectural design. The data obtained from observation of project critiques in the fourth year design studio at two schools, interviews with the professors, and focus group interviews with students; provided important insights toward attaining the answers. Based on the data I attempt to answer the research question and supporting questions, and suggest implications for architecture education and future research. Data Interpretation and Inferences for Supporting Question 1 How does the faculty of two programs in Southeastern United States present each sch o o l s p o si ti o n o n p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a l a sp e cts o f architecture that are the central focus of this study? Data Interpretation In order to identify the concerns that the two schools emphasize in their curriculum, I interviewed professors teaching the fourth year design studio at each school. Professor Karen at School A and Professor Roger at School B provided important insights into the structure of their respective programs as well as the concerns that drive their curricula. Before visiting the schools I perused their websites to identify the schools missions. As part of this support question I compared the information from the websites and that from the professors. School of Architecture A, University X T h e sch o o l s website states that the most important aspect of their mission i n a rch i te ctu re p e d a g o g y i s to i n sti l li ni ts stu d e n ts a stro n g so ci a l co n sci o u sn e ss and a desire to be active participants in improving the quality of their co m m u n i ti e s. T h e sch o o l cl ai m s th a t d u ri n g th e p ro g ra m th e y e q u i p stu d e n ts with the capability and know-h o w to e n a b l e th e m to b e re sp o n si ve to h u m a n needs i n cre a ti n g th e b u i l t e n vi ro n m e n t. A m o n g te ch n i ca l a n d si te re l a te d aspects, the school acknowledges the role of human behavior in the development of form and function. Other important facets of architecture

125

education at School A are creativity, construction techniques and professionalism. During my interview with Professor Karen I asked her about the aspects that are emphasized most during the program. She summarized that the main foci of the architecture program are formal design strategies, phenomenological issues, and tectonics. Formal design strategies imply the design process, phenomenological issues include an inquiry based understanding of reality related to human consciousness, and tectonics refers to the study of buildings in relation to the earth. When asked about the role of psychological and social issues in architectural design, she explained that although she is personally interested in those aspects, they are not the primary focus of the program at S ch o o l A . L a te r i n th e i n te rvi e w , sh e sa i d th a t w i th re sp e ct to th e N A A B s re q u i re m e n ts, a t S ch o o l A stu d e n ts d o n t g e t a s m u ch o f a social science perspective as probably some schools do but I think that they learn early on to pl a ce th e m se l ve s a s, yo u kn o w , a cti n g su b j e cts i n p ro j e cts. It may be said that although the school does not essentially integrate psychological and social concerns in the program, there are attempts at e n co u ra g i n g stu d e n ts se n si ti vi ty toward human issues. While on one hand Professor Karen clearly stated that the school does not focus on psychological and social concerns, she made references to several human issues that may be categorized as subsets of these concerns. There is, however, no clear definition of human issues except certain references to client needs and the community which are not clearly articulated. The central focus of the program remains developing creative, professional individuals with an understanding of the architectural design process. In reading the information on the we b si te a n d a n a l yzi n g P ro fe sso r K a re n s interview, I was inclined to question if there may be a slight disconnect between th e sch o o l s stated focus and the actual taught curriculum. Is there a disparity b e tw e e n th e sch o o l s co n sci o u s d e ci si o n n o t to fo cu s o n p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci al concerns in architecture, and indirectly displaying sensitivity toward these concerns through different exercises? Will a clearer definition of human issues

126

lead to more effective incorporation of society, culture, psychology, behavior and spatial experiences into the curriculum? School of Architecture B, University Y The mission of School B is to develop leadership skills in students to make th e m ca p a b l e o f co n tri b u ti n g to th e e ve r-ch a n g i n g so ci e ty. A cco rd i n g to the website for School B, architecture education teaches students to effectively resolve complex situations, work in association with others, develop co m m u n i ca ti on abi l i ti e s, a n d h e l p o th e rs a rti cu l a te th e i r h o p e s a n d d re a m s. P ro fe sso r R o g e r su m m a ri ze d th e sch o o l s fo cu s a s a stro n g vi su a l o ri e n ta ti o n a n d e xp l ai n e d th a t th e p ro g ra m i s o rg a n i ze d a s a d e fi n e d d e si gn se q u e n ce . T h e program, he said, starts with extensive graphic studies and supporting courses feed into this concentration. The support courses comprise of history, theory, technical subjects and studies in professional practice. He mentioned that although these support courses get integrated into the design stu d i o , a l l th e w h i l e th e sp i ne i s sti l l th e re i n te rm s o f b a si ca l l y re p e a te d e xe rci se s i n d e si g n . H e e xp l ai n e d th a t d e si gn i s a m eans ofi n te g ra ti ng technical, functional and aesthetic aspects of architecture. Talking about cultural aspects of architecture he said that the attempt is to develop generic designs rather than culturally specific ones. When asked about the attitude toward psychological and social aspects of architecture, he discussed the design studio sta ti n g th a t th e re i s, e xce p t i n th e ca se o f so m e sp e ci fi c a n d fa i rl y ra re individual students, does it appear to make any difference at all in terms of qual i ty o f ch a ra cte r o f i m agi n a ti o n o r cre a ti vi ty i n th e d e si g n p ro ce ss. P ro fe sso r Roger felt that there are very few students who attempt to integrate their interpretations from their own cultural background in the design studios. In sum, architecture education at School B focuses on creativity and the design process with other courses feeding into enhan ci n g stu d e n ts d e si gn abilities and preparing them for professional practice. During my discussion with Professor Roger, it was further reinforced that there may be a lack of sensitivity toward society, culture, psychology and other human issues. The school is making a conscious decision to concentrate on technical and creative aspects of

127

design, under the rationale that students are encouraged to develop generic designs responsive to all cultures. Inferences Based on the data, it may be said that both schools selected for this study develop their curricula with the intention of concentrating on enhancing students creative, visual, technical and professional abilities. The design studio is the core of the undergraduate program and support courses are designed to assist students in their studio projects. Although the mission of School A, indicates the intention to foster an understanding of social considerations in their students, Professor Karen explained that other issues take precedence in the curriculum and design studios. Both schools are making a conscious decision to peripheralize psychological and social concerns in what is taught in the design studios, while concentrating on other aspects. However, I found certain indefinite references to human issues which, if further defined, may lead to a greater and more focused emphasis on psychological and social issues. The references to community, human needs, social consciousness and phenomenological issues may be inferred as an unconscious step toward introducing students to the implications of design decisions on society and human psyche. The question which was raised in analyzing the data was whether there is a possibility that a clearer definition of human issues might help to articulate the indefinite references which I found to some of these issues? Data Interpretation and Inferences for Supporting Question 2 W h a t a re stu d e n ts p e rce p ti o n s o f th e p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a l co n ce rn s related to architectural design? Data Interpretation During the focus group interviews at School A and School B, there were extensive discussions about psychological and social issues in architectural design. The discussions provided valuable data for this study, the analysis of w hi ch yi el ded i m p o rta n t i n si g h ts i n to stu d e n ts understanding of human issues in

128

a rch i te ctu re . In se e ki n g a n sw e rs to th i s su p p o rti n g q u e sti on,Ianal yze d stu d e n ts understanding of psychological and social issues, and how they incorporate these issues in their projects as presented to faculty and critics. I will discuss the tw o fo ca l co n ce rn s, e a ch w i th re sp e ct to stu d e n ts p e rce p ti ons and i n co rp o ra ti on in their projects separately and then derive inferences from both. Psychological Concerns In chapter 1, I defined that psychological concerns in architecture may i n cl u d e co n ce rn s re l a te d to th e w a y th e e n vi ro n m e n t a ffe cts o ccu p a n ts p sych e , emotional reactions, and behavior in the designed space. These concepts are largely based on the apparent interaction of occupants with the environment/space. I briefly explained this to students before the interviews but di d n o t ta l k a b o u t th e d e fi ni ti on i n d e ta i l so th a t I co u l d g e t stu d e n ts h o n e st opinions. During the focus group interview at School A I asked students to discuss what they felt were the most important psychological concerns in architectural design. It was interesting that in response students started talking about the psychological stress they undergo during the course of the program because of the demands that studio projects impose. They talked about late nights spent working on projects, and the resulting frustration. Summer talked about the am ountofi n fo rm a ti o n th a t th e y h a ve to a b so rb d u ri n g th e fi n a l ye a r a n d sa i d , i tj u st p u sh e s yo u to w h e re i f yo u d o n t kn o w h o w to d e a l w i th i t o n a p e rso n a l l e ve l yo u j u st g o o ve r th e e d g e . W h e n , a t th e e n d o f th e i n te rvi e w , I a ske d students if there is anything else they wished to discuss with me, they all talked about the stress of the program and their experiences as a result of the stress. During the data coding the above comments were categorized under studio culture but I found it interesting to note the initial response of students to a discussion about psychological facets of architectural design. My interpretation of these responses from students was that there is a possible lack of understanding about psychological concerns associated with architecture which should be addressed in designs. Why is it that students needed further explanation of the term psychological concerns in architectural design before they grasped that I

129

was referring to considerations in their design projects related to projected occupants of the spaces? Was this concept or term so unfamiliar to them that their responses steered away from the focus? Or should I just attribute it to the exhaustion on the day of the interview because of the late nights they had spent working on their projects before that day? After I briefly explained the concept to students they discussed psychological concerns with reference to architectural design. Several students at both schools were hesitant to talk about important psychological concerns that they should address in their designs and attributed it to the difficulty in generalizing the psychological associations between buildings and occupants. At School B, S ta n l e y d e scri b e d th i s h e si ta ti o n a s, S o p sych o l ogi ca l l yal o t o f th i ngs you have to just use a rule of thumb because everybody is different, their psyche a re d i ffe re n t. Y o u re a l l y ca n n o t h e l p th a t. S tu d e n ts sa i d th a t to o ve rco m e th i s hurdle th e y re l y o n co m m o n se n se to a sse ss h o w sp a ce s d e si gned w i th ce rta i n el e m e n ts w o u l d fe e l . S ta n l e y e xp l ai n e d , w e a l l kn o w th a t, yo u kn o w , th a t a five foot roof in a 20 foot long space does not feel good. And it is not just phenom enol ogi ca l b u t th a t s also in a sense common sense. You know like di m e n si o n s o f a sp a ce w i l ld i cta te th e p sych e to d o ce rta i n . H e g a ve fu rth e r sp e ci fi c e xa m p l e s a n d sa i d , R e d w i l l te l l th e p sych e to d o o n e th i n g. F l u o re sce n t light will tell the psyche to do one thing or artificial light or natural light. They all, yo u kn o w , h a ve d i ffe re n t a ffe cts o n th e p sych e , yo u kn o w . A n n a (School B) said that she relies on her own impressions and responses to spaces, and uses that as an understanding of how projected occupants will feel in similar spaces. Others felt that history serves as a very useful subject by helping them u n d e rsta n d p re vi o u sl y d e si g n e d sp a ce s a n d p e o p l e s re sp o n se s to th o se sp a ce s. In all the answers I heard from students regarding their qualms about generalizing psychological affects of the built environment, reading what people write about other buildings was the only reference to getting information from literature. None of the students mentioned any research journals or books they may reference to get answers, guidance or clarification.

130

Students mentioned several interesting concerns which they consider important psychological issues to address in their designs. As discussed in chapter 4, I found five categories which participants discussed with reference to psychological concerns; (1) Interaction with building, (2) Image of the building, (3) Affects on occupant behavior, (4) Feeling within the space, and (5) Other psychological concerns. Figure 5.1 presents the percentage distribution of student responses during observations and interviews categorized under p sych o l ogi ca l co n ce rn s i n a rch i te ctu ra l d e si gn.A l m o st 1 7 % o f stu d e n ts responses in this theme were categorized as other psychological concerns. I saw this as another indication of a probably unclear understanding of the concept. However, students talked about other concerns, especially the interaction between occupants and spaces, and the feelings and emotions in buildings. The image of the building was an aspect of psychological concerns which I was not expecting to see in the data but emerged as an important facet. Lastly I heard so m e re fe re n ce s to i n fl u e n ce s o f th e b u i l t e n vi ro n m e n t o n o ccu p a n ts b e h a vi o r.

Other Psychological Concerns 17%

Interaction with Building 27%

Feeling within the Space 29%

Image of the Building 17%

Affects on Occupant Behavior 10%

Figure 5.1 Percentage Distribution of Student Responses to Psychological Concerns Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses categorized under psychological concerns; 30 for observation and interview data combined.

131

Among the 14 themes I found through data coding, psychological concerns comprised of 14.7% of all categorized comments from students, the highest percentage among all themes closely followed by creative aspects. D e sp i te m y co n ce rn s a b o u t stu d e n ts u n d e rsta n d i n g o f th e co n ce p t b ased on their initial responses, they showed sensitivity to the relationship between architectural design and various facets of the human psyche. This result from the data analysis raised further questions about the reasons for the discrepancy in my interpretation of student responses at two stages during the interview. Why was it that I questio n e d stu d e n ts b a si c u n d e rsta n d i n g o f p sych o l ogi ca l co n ce rn s at one stage of the focus group interview, while data analysis revealed this to be the most important concern they address? Was it that there was a sub-conscious understanding of the importance of considering the human psyche during the design process, but it was not being nurtured or enhanced in the program? Could th e sch o o l s co n sci o u s d e ci si o n n o t to fo cu s o n p sych o l ogi ca l co n ce rn s i n architecture be the reason behind this discrepancy? In an attempt to answer so m e o f th e se q u e sti o n s, I co m p a re d stu d e n ts responses during the interviews with the concerns addressed during their design critiques. T h e o b se rva ti o n d a ta w a s b a se d o n stu d e n ts p re se n ta ti o n s o f th e i r projects to faculty and critics, as well as their answers to questions posed by the panel. Figure 5.2 presents the comparison between data from observation field notes and interview transcripts for each of the five categories associated with psychological concerns.

132

25

Percentage Responses

20 15 10 5 0 Interaction with Building Image of the Building 10 7

Affects on Occupant Behavior 10 0

Feeling within the Space 23 7

Other Concerns 17 0

Focus Group Interview Critiques

23 3

Figure 5.2 Percentage D i stri b u ti o n o f S tu d e n ts R e sp o n se s i n F o cu s G ro u p Interviews and Critiques for Psychological Concerns Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses categorized under psychological concerns; 30 for observation and interview data combined.

I found a large discrepancy between the two subsets of the data related to psychological concerns. The differences between percentage responses related to each category dropped dramatically for the observation data, except for one category image of the building. Interestingly, this was the category which I did not expect to see when I started analyzing the data but emerged during coding. There was no mention of occupant behavior or even general references to psychological concerns having been addressed in the designs. Some students talked about considering the feelings evoked by the spaces they designed. Samuel explained the glass wall around the swimming pool in his building, and said that the play of light and water will create a pleasant atmosphere. Presenting her design of the community center on the riverside in Georgia one student talked about the interaction between pedestrians and the activities in the building which would invite them into the community center. Other students made some comments while introducing their projects to the panel of faculty and critics but

133

not for all the categories and the comments were very limited as is evident from the percentages. Overall, among the 14 themes, psychological concerns received 15.5% responses in the student interview transcripts which was the highest percentage among all themes. However, analysis of student comments in data from design critiques, resulted in 11% total responses related to psychological concerns preceded by creative aspects with 22.2% of total responses, site context with 17.8% and social concerns with 13.3% of total responses. Programmatic requirements and stu d e n ts p e rso n a l co n ce p ts got the same frequency count as psychological concerns. I postulated that, although preceded by other concerns, students showed sensitivity toward the association between design and the human psyche. Their understanding of the issues related to psychological concerns was clear from the different categories that emerged under this theme. Social Concerns For the purpose of this study I defined social concerns in architecture as concerns related to the social structure, culture, life styles, and traditions specific to the society where the building or space will be located. How the building fosters interactions among occupants and how it affects levels of privacy are also parts of attending to social considerations in design development. In order to e n su re th a t I w a s n o t fe e d i ng i n to stu d e n ts a n sw e rs to m y q u e sti o n s, I o n l y briefly explained this definition to them before the interview. As with psychological concerns, I asked students about their impression of social concerns in architectural design and the first response I got from them was related to the social interaction in the design studios. At School A, Lisa noted that I th i n k a s fa r a s th e so ci a l a sp e ct o f i t I th i n k th e p ro fe sso rs try to e n co u ra g e u s to w o rk i n th e stu d i o a s m u ch a s p o ssi bl e so th a t w e ca n h e l p e a ch o th e r o u t. Summer (School A) continued with recalling her experience of leaving school for two years after completing her third year. She said that coming back to the fourth ye a r a fte r th e b re a k l e d h e r to l o se th e ca m a ra d e ri e sh e h a d d e ve l oped w i th h e r classmates and explained that th e re s a di ffe re n ce socially as far as starting ou t a n d g o i n g th ro u g h th a n sto p p i n g a n d co m i n g b a ck a n d co m i ng i n n e w .

134

In reading the data and analyzing these comments, I was inclined to question their understanding of society and culture as it corresponds to their design decisions. I factored these responses from students in the studio culture theme but they weighed on m y i n te rp re ta ti o n o f stu d e n ts p e rce p ti o n s of social concerns in architecture. I was inclined to ask the same questions which I asked for their initial responses to psychological concerns. Were the students so unfamiliar with the role of social concepts in design conceptualization and development that the term needed extensive clarification during the discussion? Why was it that their first reaction to the term social aspects of architectural design was to relate it to the environment in their design studio? I waited for some student to relate it to social interaction, talk about having developed an understanding of how the studio environment encourages interaction among students and that they had learned to attend to that aspect in their design decisions. I waited, heard more similar responses, and gave them further explanation. I explained that I was interested in their insights on social concerns in architectural design, and elaborated some more on the definition of the term being careful not to lead their responses to ensuing questions. As discussed in chapter 4, I found six categories which participants discussed with reference to social concerns; (1) Interaction among people, (2) Response to society, (3) Community, (4) Public versus private spaces, (5) Culture, and (6) Other general considerations. Figure 5.3 presents the percentage distribution of all responses related to social concerns in architecture among the six categories associated with this theme. As evident from the pie chart, students talked extensively about the interaction that their buildings generate among occupants.

135

Other General Considerations 19%

Interaction among People 30% Culture 12%

Public versus Private Spaces 12% Community 15%

Response to Society 12%

Figure 5.3 Percentage Distribution of Student Responses to Social Concerns Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses categorized under social concerns; 26 for observation and interview data combined.

Of all the responses in this theme 30% were related to considering how people interact in spaces. They talked about creating spaces that encourage people to gather and places for chance interactions. Luther (School B) explained hi s u n d e rsta n d i ng ofi n co rp o ra ti n g so ci a l co n ce rn s i n d e si g n s a s B u t w h e n yo u bring people into the equation you automatically begin to think about social intera cti o n . A n n a s (School B) complaint for the semester was that they were unable to visit the site where they were designing the community center. She voiced her concern as, i f w e w e re a b l e to h a ve th a t tri p al ong w i th a l l th e o th e r i n fo rm a ti o n th a t we ha ve . W e d h a ve a b e tte r se n se o f w h a t w e a re d o i n g b e ca u se w e have said that architecture is a social, has also a social impact and unless w e fe e l th e , yo u kn o w , w h a t s goi ng on i n th e so ci e ty th e re w e ca n t re a l l y design something that will be sensible for it. Interaction among people in the spaces was followed by other general considerations with 19% comments in this theme. Again, as with psychological concerns in architectural design, there were several references to social

136

considerations and society which were not clearly articulated. Students talked about the other four categories with almost equal frequency. In comparing responses related to social concerns I found that almost 13% of all categorized student responses from my observation and interview data were related to this theme. Social concerns were only behind psychological concerns and creative aspects at 14.7% and 14.1% respectively. I analyzed observation data and interview transcripts separately in order to further evaluate the depth of studen ts u n d e rsta n d i n g a b o u t so ci e ty a n d cu l tu re a s re l a te d to a rch i te ctu ra l d e si gn.Iw i sh e d to i d e n ti fy th e re a so n I q u e sti o n e d stu d e n ts understanding of these concerns based on their initial responses which were related to studio culture and the social interaction with their classmates. Clearly, the extensive unfamiliarity with social concerns which I first doubted was incorrect and students depicted an understanding of several different aspects associated with this theme. Figure 5.4 presents the distribution of percentages for the six categories in this theme to compare frequencies in focus group interview transcripts and observation field notes.
30 25

Percentage Responses

20 15 10 5 0 Interaction among People Response to Society 12 0 Community 15 0 Public versus Private Spaces 4 8 Culture 0 12 Other General Considerations 19 0

Focus Group Interview Critiques

27 4

Figure 5.4 P e rce n ta g e D i stri b u ti o n o f S tu d e n ts R e sp o n se s i n F o cu s G ro u p Interview and Critiques for Social Concerns Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses categorized under social concerns; 26 for observation and interview data combined.

137

I found a large discrepancy between the two subsets of the data related to social concerns. T h e o b se rva ti o n d a ta w a s b a se d o n stu d e n ts p re se n ta ti ons of their projects to faculty and critics, as well as their answers to questions posed by the panel. The differences between percentage responses related to each category dropped dramatically for interaction among people which was the most important concern expressed during interviews. There were no comments for response to society, community, and any general comments for this theme. Cultural concerns were added to the list of categories only during the analysis of observation field notes. Students did not talk about culture during the focus group interview. Luther, at School B, showed the most sensitivity toward ensuring that his design responded to the culture and life style of the people of the community. H e e xp l ai ned hi s b a si c co n ce p t a s, E ve ryth i ng i sj u st to b ri n g th e cu l tu re o f th e ri ve r w a l ki n to th e p ro j e ct w h i l e m e e ti n g p ro g ra m m a ti c re q u i re m e n ts. T h e o th e r social concern which received a larger percentage of references during the critiques was public versus private spaces. Most students talked about this category as being the basis of their space planning and organizational design decisions. They tried to ensure segregation of public areas, private spaces, service areas and administrative units. What could be the reason behind the inconsistency in the issues expressed as important during the focus group interviews and the issues addressed in designs? Overall, among the 14 themes, social concerns received 12.4% responses in student interview transcripts preceded only by psychological concerns with 15.5% responses. Analysis of student comments in data from design critiques, resulted in 13.3% total responses related to social concerns preceded by creative aspects at 22.2% of total responses and site context with 17.8% of total responses. Social concerns are clearly an important aspect of architectural design for students and they showed awareness of various issues associated with addressing these concerns in their designs. Inferences Although I q u e sti o n e d stu d e n ts u n d e rsta n d i n g o f p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci al concerns in architectural design toward the beginning of the focus group

138

interviews, later in the interview students discussed several facets of these concerns and showed extensive sensitivity toward them. Several questions were ra i se d i n th e a tte m p t to a n sw e r th i s su p p o rt qu e sti o n . O n e m a y d e fi n e stu d e n ts perceptions of psychological concerns in architectural design as the interactions that occur between the spaces and their occupants which generate certain emotional reactions from occupants, affect their behavioral patterns, and also i n fl u e n ce o ccu p a n ts p e rce p ti o n s o f th e b u i l di n g . S tu d e n ts p e rce p ti o n s o f so ci al concerns in architecture may be defined to include the influence of their design decisions on social interaction, society, community, culture and feelings of privacy. Figure 5.5 presents a comparative chart of the 14 themes indicating the relative percentage of psychological and social concerns calculated from the data analysis. Clearly psychological concerns were presented by students as the most important issues related to architectural design. Creative aspects emerged as the second most important issue followed by social concerns. The remaining themes followed on the list and presentation techniques and graphics did not get any responses from students.
16.0

14.5

PERCENTAGE RESPONSES

12.0 10.0
7.3 9.7

12.6

14.0

14.1

8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0

5.3 5.8

7.3

3.9

4.4

8.7

2.9

3.4

N ee ds

Figure 5.5 P e rce n ta g e D i stri b u ti o n o f S tu d e n ts R e sp o n se s for the 14 Themes Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses counted toward the 14 themes; 236 for observation and interview data combined.

139

Te di ch es ni er ca ie lA nc es sp ec an ts d B ac kg ro un d Pr Si es te en C on ta tio te xt n St Te ud ch io ni C qu ul tu es re an d G ra ph ic s

ct s

ce rn s

oc es s

ce rn

en t

ea s

A sp e

ra ct ic

Id

Co n

ir e m

on

Cl ie nt

gn

Pr

ci al C

na lP

Cr ea tiv

D es i

of es sio

So

at ic

lo

al

Ps yc ho

er so n

ra m

og

en t

s' P

Pr

Pr

ec ed en t

Re qu

gi

D es i

ca l

gn

St

Pe rs on

al Ex p

Pr

ud

St u

0.0

In d i vi di n g stu d e n ts re sp o n se s i nmyi n te rvi e w tra n scri p ts a n d fi el d n o te s, I found a discrepancy between the emphasis students placed on psychological and social issues during the focus group interview, and how they discussed these concerns with reference to their projects during the critiques. It was clear from the focus group interviews that students were inherently sensitive to human concerns in architectural design. The question I asked was whether students were not talking about psychological and social issues addressed in their designs during discussions of their projects because critics were not asking questions related to these concerns. I observed that during the critiques students only gave a very short introduction to their projects and the remaining time they answered questions posed by the panel. Could the reason for the low percentage of responses related to psychological and social concerns during the critiques be re l a te d to th e p a n e l s fo cu s o n o th e r i s sues? I looked at the answer to supporting q u e sti o n # 3 to e va l u a te fa cu l ty s p e rce p ti o n s o f th e se co n ce rn s i n a rch i te ctu ra l design. I will discuss the findings for this question in the next section and later attempt to answer the above questions based on those findings. Data Interpretation and Inferences for Supporting Question 3 W h a t a re fa cu l ty s p e rce p ti o n s o f th e p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a l co n ce rn s related to architectural design? Data Interpretation During my interview with the professors, I discussed their understanding, interpretation and incorporation of psychological and social concerns. After di scu ssi n g th e sch o o l s p o si ti o n o n th e se i ssu e s, I a tte m p te d to a sse ss w h a t concerns they encourage students to address in studio projects, and what emphasis they place on human psyche and societal concerns. In the answer to su p p o rti n g q u e sti o n # 1 , I a sse sse d th e p ro fe sso rs p re se n ta ti o n o f th e sch o o l s position on psychological and social issues in architecture. I inferred that both schools develop their curricula making a conscious decision not to emphasize psychological and social concerns. In this question I wished to understand

140

p ro fe sso rs p e rso n a l o p i ni o n o n th e se i ssu e s a n d th e i ri m p o rta n ce i n a rch i te ctu re education. I will discuss each of the two issues individually and then draw inferences from both. Psychological Concerns A fte r a n a l yzi n g th e p ro fe sso rs e xp l a n a ti o n o f th e i r re sp e cti ve sch o o l s position on psychological concerns, I analyzed their personal perspectives on these issues. Although their answers indicated that the schools make a conscious decision to peripheralize this facet of architectural design several interesting relationships and categories emerged when I analyzed the observation data and interview transcripts. During the interview, Professor Roger (School B) made no references to the human psyche, behavioral affects of design, or the interaction of occupants and the designed spaces. At School A, Professor Karen explained her own thesis work which was based on understanding how spaces help to choreograph different human actions and therefore understood how design affects human behavior. As discussed earlier, I found five categories associated with psychological concerns. F i g u re 5 .6 p re se n ts th e p e rce n ta g e d i stri b u ti o n o f fa cu l ty s co m ments on the five categories as calculated from analysis of observation and interview data.
Other Psychological Concerns 5%

Interaction with Building 32% Feeling within the Space 47% Image of the Building 0%

Affects on Occupant Behavior 16%

Figure 5.6 Percentage Distribution of Faculty Responses to Psychological Concerns Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses categorized under psychological concerns; 19 for observation and interview data combined.

141

Professors and critics showed immense sensitivity toward certain psychological aspects of architectural design. They addressed the interaction between occupants and spaces, and h o w th i si n te ra cti o n a ffe cts o ccu p a n ts emotional state as well as the feelings that spaces generate in people. I found references to human behavior and its importance in architectural design decisions. I discussed earlier that image of the building was a category that emerged only during student interviews which I was not expecting to find. Neither professors nor the critics discussing student designs talked about the image that the buildings portray to people. During my interview with the faculty members they did not express such extensive concern about the human psyche and its influences on design decisions. How was it that I found them to show such sensitivity to multiple aspects of the psychological connotations of architectural design? In order to better evaluate the understanding among faculty and critics about psychological concerns I divided the frequencies for observation and interview data. Figure 5.7 presents the percentage distribution of different categories associated with this theme divided by critiques and interviews.
45 40

Percentage Responses

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Interaction with Building Image of the Building 0 0 Affects on Feeling within the Occupant Behavior Space 11 5 5 42 Other Concerns 5 0

Interview Critiques

16 16

Figure 5.7 P e rce n ta g e D i stri b u ti o n o f F a cu l ty s R e sp o n se s i n In te rvi ew and Critiques for Psychological Concerns Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses categorized under psychological concerns; 19 for observation and interview data combined.

142

Clearly, the important factor in consideration is the feelings that spaces generate in their occupants. This issue was extensively addressed during the critiques and factored heavily in placing psychological concerns as the fifth most important concern addressed by faculty members among the 14 themes that were identified during data coding. I decided to calculate what percentage of the total responses by faculty during observations and interviews were categorized as feelings within the space and I found that to be almost 5% which contributed to the 10.7% which psychological concerns accounted for among all 14 themes. Professors explained design suggestions to students by asking them to consider the feelings that their designs will generate. One of the critics at School A e xp l ai n e d to S u m m e r th a t sh e sh o u l d d e si g n h e r p a rki n g su ch th a t p e o p l e don t park near inanimate objects which might be intimidating. At School B critics indicate d a re a s i n stu d e n ts d e si gns w hi ch th e y th o u g h t m i g h t fe e l d u n g e o n y. I heard this term on multiple occasions at School B. They warned students against designing spaces which were dark, gloomy, and cornered, explaining that people are not inclined to go into such areas. Professor R o g e r p o i n te d to S a m u e l s d e si g n o f th e g ym a n d sa i d , N o o n e w a n ts to b e e xe rci si n g o r sw i m mi ng i na d u n g e o n a re a . D u ri n g L u th e r s cri ti q u e h e m e n ti o n e d , n o t d i n g y, d u n g e o n y kind of spaces where you won d e r w h o m i g h t b e a ro u n d th e co rn e r. O th e r concerns about how people would feel were brought up by other critics. At School B, P ro fe sso r C ra m e r p o i n te d to A n n a s d e sign of an enclosed swimming pool and explained that the feelings that such areas generated are not pleasant and explained that it is because th e fi rst th i n g yo u e xp e ri e n ce i n an i ndoor pool i s th e sm e l l . H e su g g e ste d th a t A n n a re th i n k th a t d e si g n a n d fi n d so l u ti o n s to avoid such feelings. Interestingly, most of the comments by professors during the critiques were about the negative feelings associated with different design elements. This may be attributed to the fact that the data is from critiques where professors and critics are commenting but also making suggestions to students for how the design may be improved. They were probably therefore indicating to students all the facets of their designs which were unsatisfactory, needed more thought, or were not substantially resolved.

143

Social Concerns Although both professors told me at the beginning of the interview that their school does not overtly emphasize social concerns in architecture, I found interesting references to various concerns related to community, culture and society later in the interview and during critiques of student projects. Professor Karen (School A) introduced the project she assigned students for the semester a s m i xe d u se b u i l di n g s th a t re sp o n d to b ro a d so ci a li ssu e s a n d P ro fe sso r Roger (School B) explained that an important concern he would like addressed in stu d e n t d e si gns i s e xp re ssi n g th e p l a ce a s a ci vi c pl a ce i n the life of the people o f th e co m m u n i ty. T h e se co m m e n ts w e re a m o n g th e fi rst re sp o n se s fro m p ro fe sso rs w h e n I a ske d w h a t th e y w e re tryi n g to e n co u ra g e stu d e n ts to address. Another social issue that Professor Roger extensively emphasized in the project of the community center was public versus private spaces. Professor Karen emphasized that she would like students to address the needs of the pedestrians and design a building that serves toward developing the city as a walkable city. However, she also mentioned that a very important social facet of th e p ro j e ct fo r h e r w a s co l l a b o ra ti o n a m o n g stu d e n ts w h i l e w o rki n g o n th e project. This is something that students also talked about when asked about social concerns. They talked about social interaction with their peers in the design studio and how professors emphasize that. Another comment by Professor Roger which was not in keeping with the definitions I assigned to social concerns in architecture was about addressing cultural issues during the design process. H e ta l ke d a b o u t stu d e n ts a n d sa i d , T h e re a re so m e stu d e n ts th a t would come in and I should say that they are few and far between that will have an interest in trying to apply what they bring with them in terms of their own cu l tu ra l b a ckg ro u n d W h i l e Il o oked for references to addressing the cultural n e e d s o f th e p ro j e cte d u se rs o f th e sp a ce , h e ta l ke d a b o u t stu d e n ts p e rso n a l cultural background brought into their designs. Professor Karen expressed her concern about how architecture responds to society a n d sa i d , I d o n t th i n k th a t a rch i te cts, a rch i te ctu re p ro fe sso rs o r students fully understand how to communicate what we do to society. And I think

144

th a t th a t m e a n s th a t w e n e e d to b e m o re e n ga g e d w i th so ci e ty. P ro fe sso r R o g e r also expressed the importance of incorporating liberal arts education so that stu d e n ts a re m o re re sp o n si ve to h u m a n n e e d s a n d co n d i ti o n s a n d sa i d , W e cannot take the time to do that in the studio as an issue to take up and spend time on. I do take that it is an important aspect of w h a t a rch i te cts d o . H e fe l t th a t professors should expect students to make certain socio-cultural connections on their own while facilitating opportunities to do so through design projects. According to him the community center project on the river side of a historic district was an opportunity he was providing his students to understand historical contexts and feelings of community. He added that although it is not the focus of the program, he wants his students to be in a position to assess if their designs are appropriate for the community and setting. His suggestion for achieving this u n d e rsta n d i n g w a s su m m a ri ze d i n th e se sta te m e n ts; A n d to d o th a t w e l lI think they need to have that background. The general education to develop good judgment of how th a t sh o u l d b e d e ve l o p e d . Figure 5.8 presents the percentage distribution of faculty and critics comments categorized under the six subsets of social concerns. There was an extensive discussion of social issues except how student designs respond to society and cultural concerns in design which received much lower attention than other issues.
Other General Considerations 24% Interaction among People 28%

Culture 5%

Response to Society 0%

Public versus Private Spaces 29% Community 14%

Figure 5.8 Percentage Distribution of Faculty Responses to Social Concerns Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses categorized under social concerns; 24 for observation and interview data combined.

145

During the interview, professors repeatedly told me that the school did not make any extensive effort to incorporate social concerns in their curriculum. However, in assessing the observation and interview data I found that other than two concerns, response to society and culture, faculty and critics showed sensitivity toward social issues. Interaction among people, public versus private space, community and general considerations received a comparable frequency of responses. Overall among the 14 themes, social concerns received 13.6% responses among all categorized comments, preceded only by creative aspects which received 27.7% responses. In order to better understand faculty and cri ti cs a p proach to social concerns, I analyzed the data from observation field notes and interviews separately. Figure 5.9 presents a comparison of faculty responses related to social issues in architecture education during interviews and responses of faculty and critics during discussion of student projects.

30 25

Percentage Responses

20 15 10 5 0 Interaction among People Response to Society 0 0 Community 12.5 0 Public versus Private Spaces 12.5 25 Culture 0 4 Other General Considerations 12.5 8.5

Interview Critiques

0 25

Figure 5.9 P e rce n ta g e D i stri b u ti o n o f F a cu l ty s R e sp o n se s i n In te rvi ew and Critiques for Social Concerns Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses categorized under social concerns; 24 for observation and interview data combined.

146

Again, the discrepancy between observation and interview data was clear from the graph. Response to society was the only social concern which was not addressed during interviews or critiques, and cultural concerns were addressed only during critiques. During the interview Professor Roger mentioned that at School B, N o t m u ch tryi n g to n a rro w d o w n a cu l tu ra l e m p h a si s o f a n y ki nd and research that. We are looking at something that in the cultural sense is more gen e ri c ki n d o f so l u ti o n ra th e r th a n a cu l tu ra l l y sp e ci fi c o n e . A cco rd i n g to h i m, cultural considerations in design should be addressed in a manner that the d e si gn w i l l sa ti sfy d i ve rse i n te re sts. D u ri n g th e cri ti q u e s at School B, however, cultural concerns w e re b ro u g h t u p b y fa cu l ty a n d cri ti cs l a rg e l y d u ri n g L u th e r s presentation. His design was based entirely on addressing the cultural context in which the community center was located. When he introduced his concept, the first question from one of the cri ti cs w a s, C a n yo u d e fi n e cu l tu re fo r m e ? Several questions followed with critics assessing his design based on its authenticity to the context in which the project was located. The concern regularly addressed in critiques was the design of spaces which encourage interaction among occupants although this issue was not one that the two professors said they were encouraging students to address. Critics constantly questioned students about the places they h a d cre a te d fo r so ci al g a th e ri n g , d i ffe re n t p l a ce s fo r p e o p l e to b e o r so ci a l co n ta ct, a n d h o w th e y had integrated the spaces in their designs to invite people there. One student at School B took her inspiration from the Spanish steps and Mr. Tribbiani constantly expressed his displeasure with how she had integrated the concept in her design. He complained that he did not see the concept clearly articulated in her d e si g n a n d e xp l ai n e d th e i d e a o f th e ste p s a s, S p a n i sh ste p s a re n o t j u st ste p s. They are places where people could sit. They are meeting places. People have w eddi n g s th e re . It i s a n e ve n t p l a ce . H e w a s e m p h a si zi n g th e co n ce p t o f th e Spanish steps with reference to the social interaction and their importance in the community while the student had adopted only the visual form of the steps in her design.

147

Addressing public versus private spaces was a concept inherent in the title of the project at School B Public Space and Transparent Architecture. In keeping with that professors and critics extensively discussed how students responded to segregating public and private areas while maintaining the interaction between different areas. At School A this concept was emphasized with respect to the public space outside the building and the privacy of the building itself. Overall I found that in the analysis of interview transcripts social concerns accounted for 19.6% of all responses and was the highest among all 14 themes. In the analysis of the data from observation field notes, social concerns received 13.6% comments from faculty and critics preceded only by creative aspects which received 27.7% of all categorized comments. Inferences P ro fe sso rs p e rce p ti o n s o f p sych o l ogi ca l co n ce p ts i n a rch i te ctu ra l d e si gn may be considered to include an understanding of the interaction between spaces and their occupants with respect to the feelings that these spaces generate, and to some extent how they determine how people act in spaces. With respect to social concerns in architecture, it may be said, that professors encourage their students to design a building for the community and organize spaces to ensure segregation of public and private spaces while providing ample areas for projected users to meet, gather and interact. Figure 5.10 presents percentages for the 14 themes indicating the relative position of psychological and social concerns as calculated from observation and interview data for faculty and critics. Creative aspects emerged as the most important concern for faculty and critics accounting for 27.7% of all responses. Social concerns followed, although far behind, at 13.6%, followed by technical aspects and site context. Psychological concerns accounted for 10.7% of all responses from faculty and critics that were categorized in the 14 themes.

148

30.00

PERCENTAGE RESPONSES

25.00

20.00

11.30

6.78

10.00

10.73

11.30

15.00

13.56

27.68

2.82

2.82

1.69

0.56

1.69

5.00

2.82

0.00

Figure 5.10 P e rce n ta g e D i stri b u ti o n o f S tu d e n ts R e sponses to the 14 Themes Note: The percentages are out of the total number of responses counted toward the 14 themes; 158 for observation and interview data combined.

I asked both professors for their opinion on whether and how psychological and social concerns may be better emphasized in programs. P ro fe sso r K a re n s u n d e rsta n d i n g w a s th a t a rch i te cts a n d a rch i te ctu re stu d e n ts d o n t h a ve th e to o l s to m a ke su re th e sp a ce w o rks th e w a y th e y h o p e i tw i l l . A n d th e p e o p l e w h o stu d y th o se ki nd ofi ssu e s d o n t, a re n tabl e to b ri n g th e re se a rch to a p l a ce w h e re a rch i te cts g e t a n yth i ng outofi t. U n fo rtu n a te l y. S h e attributed the lack of sensitivity toward psychological and social issues among architecture students to their inability to access and interpret research. Professor Roger, on the other hand, felt that the school can only provide students with opportunities to seek out information on these facets of architectural design but constraints of time and curricula limit them from discussing these topics in greater detail. There were discrepancies between the data from the critiques and interviews in terms of the issues that were emphasized and the extent to which

Co nc er So ns ci al C on ce rn Pr s og Cl ra ie m n t m St N at ee ud ic ds en Re ts' qu Pe i r em rs on en al ts D es ig n Id ea D s es ig n Pr oc Cr es s ea tiv e Pr A sp of ec es sio ts na lP ra ct Pr ic ec e e de Pe nt rs on St al Te ud Ex ie ch s ni pe ca r ie lA nc sp es ec an ts d B ac kg ro un d Pr Si es te en C on ta tio te xt n St Te ud ch io ni C qu ul tu es re an d G ra ph ic s

Ps yc ho l

og

ic al

149

0.56

5.65

they were discussed. What may be the reason behind an increased sensitivity toward certain psychological and social issues during discussions of student projects as compared to the concerns professors addressed during my interview with them? Can this discrepancy be attributed to the fact that there are other professors and visiting architects on the panel during the critiques? I only interviewed the professors teaching the design studio and not everyone on the panel. I asked the professors their opinion of psychological and social issues, and what they would like students to address in their designs. Although at certain stages Professor Karen and Professor Roger provided clarifications to the panel about the requirements students were working with, they did not provide guidelines on what issues they may address other than technical concerns like storm water drainage and parking. Could the interviews have been governed m o re b y th e sch o o l s p o si ti o n w h e re a s p ro fe sso rs p e rso n a l vi ew poi n ts w e re m o re p ro m i n e n t d u ri ng di scu ssi o n s o f stu d e n ts p ro j e cts? Data Interpretation and Inferences for Supporting Question 4 How do selected students and faculty in two selected programs in Southeastern United States i n te rp re t th e sch o o l s p o si ti o n o n p sych o l ogi ca l a n d social aspects in architecture as suggested by faculty members? Data Interpretation In the answer to suppo rti n g q u e sti on #1 Ii d e n ti fi e d th e sch o o l s position on psychological and social concerns in architectural design and established that both schools are making a conscious decision to peripheralize these concerns in their curricula, while concentrating on other aspects. Although there were certain re fe re n ce s to so ci a l a n d cu l tu ra l co n ce rn s i n S ch o o l A smi ssi o n sta te m e n t, Professor Karen explained that these concerns were not the primary foci in the curriculum. Professors at both schools selected for this study indicated that the schools develop their curricula with the primary intention of enhancing students creative, visual, technical and professional abilities. Based on the information fro m th e sch o o l s w ebsites and insights from professors at each program I

150

concluded that the design studio is the core of the undergraduate program and support courses are designed to assist students in their studio projects. I further enquired into the personal perceptions of students and professors and attempt to identify the relationship b e tw e e n th e i r opi ni o n s a n d th e sch o o l s p o si ti on.Iw i l l di scu ss stu d e n ts a n d fa cu l ty s p o si ti on i ndi vi dual l y a n d th e n d ra w inferences based on both. S tu d en ts In terp retati ons During the focus group interview I asked students their opinion of what aspects of architectural design their respective schools emphasize during the co u rse o f th e p ro g ra m . A t S ch o o l B , S a m u e l sp o ke fo r e ve ryo n e a n d sa i d , I th i nk the absolutely greatest emphasis is, and I think everybody here will agree, is the cre a ti vi ty p a rt o f d e si g n s. T h ro u g h o u t th e ye a rs th e y ve b e e n p o u n d i ng us and poundi ng us w i th co m p o si ti o n a n d , yo u kn o w , so fo rth o f th e p ro j e cts. H e w e n t on to say that students do not get sufficient exposure to professional practices and expressed his disco n te n t a s, W e a re j u st i n th i s La La l a n d sch o o l h e re doing little fun projects that look nice and whatever sound nice. But it is not the re a l w o rl d . T h e y a re n o t p re p a ri n g u s fo r th e re a l w o rl d atal l . O th e r stu d e n ts a t both schools agreed with Samuel and I heard similar complaints about not feeling sufficiently prepared to enter the field. Students complained that if they entered the program with creative talents and an eye for aesthetics, they were not getting enough training from the program and Samuel even said that for such students, i ti s a h u g e w a ste o f ti m e . S ta n l e y a g re e d w i th h i m o n th e fo cu s o f th e p ro g ra m at School B but agreed with the school because according to him the creative aspect is what differentiates architects from others in the construction industry. Although students at School B w e re d i vi d e d o n w h e th e r th e sch o o l s fo cu s w a s correctly placed for their professional development, they all agreed that the emphasis throughout the program is on creative aspects. They all felt the need for more direction on courses which would help them in their professional practice, especially budgets and technical aspects. However, later in the interview students at School B mentioned that their studio professors encourage them to consider the affects of their designs on

151

projected users as well as the society. Others felt that at some level the professors encourage them to address the community and they also get important insights into the relationship between architectural design and society from subjects like history. Allen (School B) noted that their history professors encourage them to identify what impact previous buildings had on the society and understand those implications. Some students attributed their understanding of the field and its association with client needs to their past experiences in the industry. A t S ch o o l A , I fe l t th a t stu d e n ts a n sw e rs to w h a t a sp e cts th e i r sch o o l emphasizes during the course of the program were guided largely by the current project. They all talked about the emphasis that the professors were placing on storm water maintenance, parking and street edges with respect to the project they were working on. They mentioned that creative aspects are a major focus of the program but there is a gradual progression toward equipping them with the technical information they will need to design more judiciously and effectively. Some students felt that the emphasis on technical aspects was insufficient or that they would have liked professors to introduce them to such concepts earlier in the program. Lisa talked about her experience of transferring from a community college to School A and said that she was taught to design based on different technical considerations and constraints, and was struggling with the aesthetic focus at this school where her classmates had been trained in compositional and creative skills since they started the program. While some students felt that in introducing technical aspects of architecture the school was introducing them to the concerns they will have to address when they enter professional practice, others felt like they had not been sufficiently prepared by the program. Lisa expressed her concern as, I th i nk i n a w a y, th i s sch o o l , I fe e l th i s sch o o l d o e s th e stu d e n ts a disservice in the sen se th a t w h e n I g o t h e re a l o t o f I ke p t h e a ri ng a l o t, W el l , h a ve a s m u ch fu n w i th yo u r p ro j e cts n o w b e ca u se th i si s th e o n l y chance you are ever going to get to do it. So just go wild and push the e n ve l o p e a n d d o w h a te ve r yo u w a n t to d o .

152

Although students at both schools were divided on the emphasis on technical aspects they all agreed that creativity was the central concern which their professors continually emphasized and a skill that was diligently nurtured during the course of the program. However, with respect to the current projects they felt that certain social concerns like attending to interaction among the occupants in the space and attending to community needs were encouraged. F acu ltys In terp retati ons Some students gave their professors credit for encouraging their understanding of psychological and social concerns in architecture. I asked P ro fe sso r K a re n h o w sh e fe l t a b o u t th e p ro g ra m sl i mi te d fo cu s o n p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a li ssu e s. S h e re sp o n d e d , I w o u l dl i ke to se e a l l a rch i te ctu ra l e ducation a cro ss th e co u n try fo cu s m o re o n th e m . S h e fe l t th a t th e re stra i ni n g fa cto r i s th e inability of architects and architecture students to access, understand and translate the way information is provided about these issues. She explained that, I find that my own research, my own learning style do not easily make the translation between kind of statistical, you know, that kind of information and how d o yo u d e si gn a bui l di n g th a t re a l l y re sp o n d s to h u m a n co n d i ti o n s. H e r o w n research was based on understanding how the built environment contributes toward choreographing human actions which include shelter, eating, courting and w o rki n g . S h e e xp l ai n e d th a t h e r i n te rp re ta ti on i s th a t su p p o rti n g th e se a cti ons i s the most important human role of architecture . In the project Professor Karen assigned to students she was emphasizing the need to attend to the community and its needs, as well as to understand the p ro j e cte d i m pl i ca ti o n s o f stu d e n ts d e si g n s o n th e l i fe styl e o f th e p e o p l e o f th e community. She asked students to interview members of the community to identify the programmatic requirements for their project, and emphasized the need to address the relationship between the building and pedestrians on the street. She encouraged students to adopt healing practices and incorporate areas for facilitating these practices in their designs. The fourth year design project for the semester was, therefore, titled Healthy Body, Healthy City. In

153

keeping with the program objectives she mentioned that the important things she wanted students to address in their designs are the design process, collaboration to prepare them for professional practice, technical considerations learned in other classes, form and massing of the building, and spatial composition. She also included that she reinforced the concept of walkable streets and other pedestrian parameters. P ro fe sso r R o g e r si n te rp re ta ti on w as i n ke e p i ng w i th th e a sp e cts h e i d e n ti fi e d a s th e sch o o l s obj e cti ve s. H e focused on the creative and technical aspects of design and reinforced the need to prepare students to take on leadership roles in professional practice. His response to the incorporation of p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a li ssu e s i n a rch i te ctu re sta rte d a s, In th e d e si g n stu d i o and in other courses as well it is very interesting because there is, except in the case of some specific and fairly rare individual students, does it appear to make any difference at all in terms of quality of character of imagination or creativity in th e d e si g n p ro ce ss. T o m e , th i s co m m e nt was very interesting in that it indicated the extent to which creative aspects govern the program objectives. He went on to say that a few students bring their own cultural background to their designs but su ch stu d e n ts a re fe w a n d fa r b e tw e e n . It d o e sn t h a p p e n m u ch . It i s n o t th a t they cannot do it. But if they just open up and come in and do architecture. It is ve ry i n te re sti n g to m e th a t th e y d o . In the project assigned for the semester, Professor Roger encouraged students to attend to the community they were designing for and to identify the need for transparency in their designs, movement through adjacent spaces, and identification of outdoor and indoor spaces. He mentioned that an important aspect he would like students to explore was the structural considerations involved in the design of the spaces. Inferences In sum, it may be said that students at both schools agree that the central focus of the program is to nurture creative skills. Students were divided on the appropriateness of this focus and also on the amount of emphasis the schools place on technical aspects and on other facets of professional practice in

154

architecture. While some agreed that creativity is the skill that separates them from others in the construction industry and therefore the focus is correct, others were afraid they were unprepared for the challenges awaiting them after graduation. At both schools students mentioned social issues addressed in their design studios with reference to the current project and how the professors were encouraging them to consider the community needs and the interaction among occupants. My data coding did not reveal any references to psychological concerns with reference to what the program emphasizes. Where then were students getting the sensitivity that they showed when I analyzed their perceptions of psychological and social issues in architectural design? It was evident in the answer to supporting question #2 that students had an understanding of the importance of these aspects in architecture and also identified different facets associated with them. I asked students the reason behind this discrepancy. What would they attribute the difference between their personal views about architecture and its responsibilities versus the emphasis in the program? A few students attributed it to their background and experiences in the field, or to their personal concepts. Luther expressed that according to him these concerns are inherent in the profession and he did not feel that it is the responsibility of the program to encourage students to address them. Others agreed and said that their professors facilitate opportunities for them to identify these issues. P ro fe sso rs a t b o th sch o o l si d e n ti fi ed w i th th e sch o o l s p o si ti o n s a s th e y had described to me. At both sch o o l s th e p ri m a ry fo cu s w a s to n u rtu re stu d e n ts creative skills while providing them the technical know-how to assist them in the p ro fe ssi o n . H o w e ve r, d u ri ng di scu ssi o n s o f th e se m e ste r s p ro j e ct th e p ro fe sso rs talked about some social concerns which they were encouraging students to address in their designs. This was more evident for Professor Karen who based p ro g ra m m a ti c re q u i re m e n ts a n d se ve ra l d e si gn i ssu e s o n stu d e n ts u n d e rsta n d i n g o f th e co m m u n i ty a n d i ts n e e d s. C a n I a ttri b u te P ro fe sso r R o g e r s e xte n si ve co m p l i a n ce to th e sch o o l s p o si ti o n to th e fa ct th a t h e h a d se rve d a s Dean for the School of Architecture B for eight years before he started full time

155

te a ch i n g ? C a n th e re a so n b e h i n d P ro fe sso r K a re n s fo cu s o n co m m u n i ty i ssu e s be the result of her involvement in research of archetypal human actions which increased her sensitivity toward the behavioral affects of design? Answering the Research Question What are the perceptions of students and faculty in selected National Architecture Accreditation Board accredited architecture programs regarding the psychological and social concerns related to architectural design as they are taught by the program? Discussion Having answered the supporting questions, I can now draw inferences for the guiding question in this study. The inferences drawn for the supporting questions as well as questions that were raised in the answers form the foundation for the answer to this question. I p o stu l a te d stu d e n ts a n d fa cu l ty s definitions of psychological and social aspects in architectural design and will reiterate these definitions below: S tu d e n ts d e fi ni ti o n o f p sych o l ogi ca l co n ce rn s may be articulated as the interactions that occur between the spaces and their occupants which generate certain emotional reactions from occupants, affect their behavioral patterns, and al so i n fl u e n ce o ccu p a n ts p e rce p ti o n s o f th e b u i l di ng. F a cu l ty s perceptions of psychological concerns in architectural design may be considered to include an understanding of the interaction between spaces and their occupants with respect to the feelings that these spaces generate, and to some extent how they determine the way people act in spaces. S tu d e n ts p e rce p ti o n s o f so ci a l co n ce rn s in architecture may be defined to include the influence of their design decisions on social interaction, society, community, culture and feelings of privacy. F a cu l ty si n te rp re ta ti o n o f so ci a l co n ce rn s in architecture may be defined as designing buildings for the community and organizing spaces to ensure

156

segregation of public and private spaces while providing ample areas for projected users to meet, gather and interact. Several questions were raised in analyzing the data to answer the supporting questions, important among which were the reasons for the discrepancy between the results from the analysis of interview data and data from project critiques. One reason for this discrepancy may be the presence of visiting professors and architects during the critiques while I only interviewed professors teaching the studio. I proposed that the reason for differences in the concerns students emphasized during interview and during critiques may be due to the fact that students are essentially answering questions posed by the panel during the critiques while during interviews they may have been expressing their personal opinions more freely. Table 5.1 presents the comparison of percentages fo r stu d e n ts a n d fa cu l ty s re sp o n se s to th e 1 4 th e m e s. Table 5.1 Percentage Distribution of Students and Faculty s R e sp o n se s fo r th e 1 4 T h e m e s

Theme

Psychological Concerns Social Concerns Client Needs Programmatic Requirements S tu d e n ts P e rso n a l D e si g n Ideas Design Process Creative Aspects Professional Practice Precedent Studies Technical Aspects Personal Experiences and 1.6 1.3 0.0 0.0 Background Site Context 2.6 0.8 2.1 4.4 Studio Culture 1.8 0.3 0.0 0.0 Presentation Techniques and 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Graphics Note: The percentages were calculated based on the total number of categorized responses from interview transcripts and observation field notes, which was 383.

Student Faculty Interviews Interviews 6.5 1.8 5.2 2.3 2.9 0.8 1.8 0.5 2.6 0.3 1.6 0.3 5.0 1.3 3.9 1.0 2.1 0.0 4.4 1.3

Student Critiques 1.3 1.6 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.5 2.6 0.0 0.3 0.8

Faculty Critiques 3.1 3.9 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.0 11.5 0.3 0.8 3.9

157

I tried to find answers to several questions in the above table especially in te rm s o f th e re l a ti o n sh i p b e tw e e n p e rce n ta g e s fo r stu d e n ts a n d fa cu l ty s responses related to different themes from observation data collected during critiques of stu d e n ts w o rk. T h e i n cre a se d a tte n ti o n to creative aspects related to architectural design during evaluation, discussion and critique of student projects is clearly evident for faculty and critics. A similar, though less pronounced, increase may be seen for programmatic requirements and site context. It was interesting that although psychological and social concerns were the most important concerns addressed by students during interviews, this percentage dropped during the critiques. While the percentage responses to these concerns increased for faculty and critics, other concerns took precedence in evaluation and critique of student projects including creative aspects, site context and technical aspects. T h e se a sp e cts a re i n ke e p i ng w i th th e sch o o l s o b j e ctives outlined on their websites and by faculty during the interviews. Both schools sta te d th a t th e i r p ro g ra m a n d cu rri cu l um i s d ri ve n b y n u rtu ri n g stu d e n ts cre a ti ve skills while providing them the technical knowledge in preparation for them to enter the profession. In that regard, the focus on creative aspects and technical co n ce rn s co m p l i es w i th th e sch o o l s o b j e cti ve s. I q u e sti oned i f I co u l d a ttri b u te th e i n cre a se i n fa cu l ty a n d cri ti cs re sp o n se s to p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci al concerns during critiques not only to the presence of visiting architects but also to th e fa ct th a t d u ri ng i n te rvi e w s th e tw o p ro fe sso rs a n sw e rs w e re g u i d e d b y th e sch o o l s o b j e cti ve s w h e re a s d u ri n g th e cri ti q u e s th e i r q u e sti o n s a n d co m m e n ts may be influenced more by their personal sensibilities as architects. Social concerns took precedence over psychological concerns and this may be attributed to the fact that the current project at both schools was the design of a community space supporting various social activities. In dividing the responses to social concerns among the six categories associated with this theme, the interaction among occupants of the space was the most important social concern addressed by faculty and critics, along with the consideration of public and private spaces. This may also be associated with the assigned project being located on a site which was central to the community. I questioned if I

158

would have found different relationships and got different responses from participants if they were working on a different project. A t th e o n se t o f th e i n te rvi e w s I q u e sti o n e d stu d e n ts u n d e rsta n d i ng of psychological and social concerns related to architectural design, because their initial responses were to discuss the psychological stress associated with the work load in their design studios and the social interaction encouraged by faculty while they work on their projects. It was only after I explained that I was interested in the role of these human issues in design conceptualization and development as related to the projected occupants of the space, did they discuss several aspects of psychological and social concerns. In analyzing the data I found several categories associated with the two concerns central to this study, which, to me, was an indication of an elaborate understanding of the concepts. W hi l e I d o u b te d stu d e n ts fa m i l i a ri ty w i th th e se fa ce ts o f a rch i te ctu ra l d e si g n e a rl y in the interview I was impressed by the understanding they displayed in their responses to ensuing questions. I questioned if I may attribute this discrepancy to the fact that although students are sensitive to these aspects and professors encourage them to attend to human issues, this sensibility remains o ve rsh a d o w e d b y o th e r co n ce rn s b e ca u se o f th e sch o o l s o ve rt e m p h a si s on creativity and technical aspects. There were some references to human issues in the mission statements o f th e tw o sch o o l s p re se n te d o n th e i r w e b si te s a s w e l la s i n th e p ro fe sso rs di scu ssi o n o f th e sch o o l s o b j e cti ve s. H o w e ve r, th e se re fe re n ce s w e re n o t cl e a rl y articu l a te d a n d I e xtra p o l a te d th a t th e re i s a p o ssi bi l i ty o f i n cre a si n g stu d e n ts understanding of psychological and social issues in architectural design if the schools clarify their position on human issues and provide a clearer definition. Inferences Stu d e n ts a n d fa cu l ty s p e rce p ti o n s o f p sych o l ogi ca l a n d so ci a li ssu e s i n architectural design encompass various facets of these human issues, although there are other concerns which take precedence in design studios. These concerns are primarily creative and technical aspects, which are the main foci d e fi ni n g th e sch o o l s o b j e cti ve s. B o th sch o o l si n th i s stu d y i ndi ca te d a co n sci ous

159

decision to base their curricula on creative aspects of design supported by technical and professional concerns, while peripheralizing human issues. In sum, Ibel i e ve th e re i s a p o te n ti a l to h a rn e ss stu d e n ts a n d p ro fe sso rs i n n a te u n d e rsta n d i n g o f a rch i te ctu re s re sp o n si bi l i ti e s to w a rd so ci e ty a n d h u m a n p sych e if professors were to get more encouragement to do so in that direction in terms of the objectives set by the school. Synthesis of Findings

This study answered questions about the perceptions of students and faculty regarding psychological and social issues in architectural design, and raised several new questions. A comprehensive review of literature at the begi nni n g o f th i s stu d y i ndi ca te d a cl e a r n e e d fo r e n h a n ci n g stu d e n ts understanding of human issues in the conceptualization and development of their designs (Gifford, 2002; Holgate, 1992; Rapoport, 1987; Schermer, 2001; Waxman, 2003). Professors at the two selected schools implied that both schools primarily emphasize creative and technical aspects of architectural design in their programs. Although School A refers to social and cultural concerns in the mission statement on its website, Professor Karen mentioned that there are other concerns that take precedence in the design of their curriculum. Analysis of observation and interview data indicated that professors and students at the two selected schools have an intrinsic understanding of the psychological and social impact of architecture, which, I believe, may be fostered if the schools were to explicitly integrate these concerns in their conscious program decisions. I repeatedly found evidence of awareness among students about psychological and social concerns in architectural design, their responsibilities toward the projected users of the spaces they design, and various other human concerns. Students indicated to me that their professors encourage them to attend to human psyche, society and community in their designs or that they provide opportunities for them to explore these aspects. At School A, Professor Karen showed sensitivity toward behavioral responses to architectural

160

d e si g n b a se d o n h e r o w n m a ste r s th e si s work. At School B, Professor Roger repeatedly mentioned that the focus is not on socio-cultural or psychological concerns, but the critiques brought forth several facets of designing for the community and enhanced social activities. In a way, both professors encouraged students to respond to the community where the project was located and identify the interaction between occupants and spaces. The question I have continually a ske d i n th i s stu d y i s h o w m u ch fu rth e r stu d e n ts u n d e rsta n d i n g a n d se n si ti vi ty woul d go i f b o th p ro fe sso rs w e re co n sci o u sl y and w i th th e sch o o l s su p p o rt discussing these issues. I constantly found several discrepancies in p a rti ci p a n ts responses during interviews with me and during the critiques of student projects. For example, students showed sensitivity to psychological and social issues during the interviews but this dropped dramatically during the critiques. I questioned the reasons behind these discrepancies. Were the critics expressing concerns that were personally important to them w h i l e di scu ssi n g stu d e n ts p ro j e cts and were students only attending to these issues in answering questions posed by the panel? Why was there a discrepancy between the issues that professors brought up during the interview and the issues they expected to see i n stu d e n ts p ro j e cts? Was the discrepancy because the panel comprised of professors and visiting architects other than the professor I interviewed? Can I attribute this discrepancy to the fact that there is an inconsistency in what the program requires the professors to emphasize and the concerns that drive their design consciousness as architects? Professor Karen suggested that the peripheralization of psychological and social concerns in architecture may be attributed to the lack of knowledge among architects and architecture students to access, interpret and apply the available information about psychological and social concerns. In chapter 2, I discussed various theories associated with the influence of the built environment on human psyche. I discussed that color is an important facet and its behavioral connotations influence o ccu p a n ts states of mind as well as the perception of physical qualities of the immediate environment (Portillo & Dohr, 1993; Wells,

161

Need & Crowell, 1979-1980). Students indicated color as an important psychological concern which they addressed in their designs. Some also talked about feelings of safety and comfort in the spaces. However, they mentioned that their hesitation with attending to different psychological issues is due to their i nabi l i ty to g e n e ra l i ze p e o p l e s re sp o n se s to th e b u i l t e n vi ro n m e n t. I re fe re n ce d several scholars in the literature review to identify the psychological influences of different aspects of architectural design like color and lighting. Students, however, mentioned that they relied on their own experiences in different spaces to identify how projected users may respond to the spaces they design. Some of th e m ta l ke d a b o u t re a d i ng peopl e s opi ni o n s a b o u t o th e r sp a ce s to i d e n ti fy th e i r responses to the environments. They did not talk about any research literature in the field to derive information to guide their design decisions. I discussed literature related to the idea of aesthetics in architecture, the debate associated with function versus beauty, and the idea of aesthetics as a to o l to w a rd fu l fi l l m e n t o f a rch i te ctu re s p ra g m a ti c m a xi m (C h e rryh o l m e s, 1994; Fitch, 1972; Fitch, 1988). The most important concern addressed by critics, and one that drives the development of the program emerged as creative aspects w hi ch i n cl u d e d co m p o si ti o n a n d fo rm , a s w e l l a s stu d e n ts cre a ti ve ta l e n ts. C ri ti cs co m m e n te d o n stu d e n ts d e si gns w i th re fe re n ce to g e o m e tri c fo rm a n d cre a ti ve aspects, encouraging students at several points to make their buildings more i n te re sti n g . The idea of aesthetics in built forms as addressed in the critiques was in keeping with the concern raised by some scholars about it being restricted to visual stimuli (Fitch, 1972; Holgate, 1992). In the literature review, I described the structure of architecture programs a n d sch o l a rs o p i ni o n s o f th i s stru ctu re . T h e d e si g n stu d i o w a s p re se n te d a s th e core of architecture programs by several scholars (Akin, 2002; Correa, 1997) and all participants in my study agreed with this focus. Jarrett (2000) stated that the d e si g n stu d i o w o rks a s a l a b o ra to ry w h e re d e si g n m e th o d o l ogy i s co n ta i ned, a rti fi ci al l y co n tro l l e d a n d fre q u e n tl y p re scri bed w i th g u a ra n te e d su cce ss (p . 5 9 ). He attributed this situation to the confinement of the design process within the studio such that students are often isolated from real life. Some students were

162

satisfied with the focus on creative aspects in design while others argued that the program needs more emphasis on technical aspects and the different challenges associ a te d w i th w o rki ng i n th e fi el d . H o w e ve r, P ro fe sso r K a re n s p ro j e ct fo r h e r students required them to meet with members of the community in order to identify the programmatic requirements for their project based on the needs expressed by projected users of the space. One may associate this exercise with the concept of social design and community architecture which involves projected users of the space in the design and program development (Gifford, 2002; Wates and Knevitt, 1987). Both professors mentioned that an important aspect of their respective programs is to develop professional skills among their students to prepare them to enter the field and take on leadership roles. Students at both schools were anxious about their preparedness to work in the field. In this re g a rd , I fo u n d a d i scre p a n cy a m o n g stu d e n ts a n d p ro fe sso rs vi e w s a b o u t th e p ro g ra m s e m p h a si s on i ssu e s re l a te d to p ro fe ssi o n a l p ra cti ce . Professional practice emerged as a theme I did not expect to find at the onset of the study. Another important emergent theme in this study was studio culture, and students repeatedly narrated stories about their experiences. They talked about the team working abilities they learned from the associations their professors encourage in the studios. Several students, however, showed immense concern about the physical and mental stress associated with late nights and the work l o a d o f p ro j e cts. It w a s i n te re sti n g th a t w h e n a ske d a b o u t th e i r sch o o l s p o si ti on on psychological and social concerns in architecture, the initial responses of students at School A were about the social interaction encouraged in the design studios and the psychological stress associated with the studio environment. Although not one of the central concerns of this study, studio culture emerged as an important aspect of architecture pedagogy and the experience of architecture students. In sum, the key finding in this study was the inherent understanding that students and professors possess about psychological and social concerns related to architectural design, which is not optimally harnessed due to a lack of focus on these issues by the program objectives set by the schools. The findings

163

revealed other issues like professional practice and studio culture, which are important to students and therefore need to be addressed in the assessment of the structure of architecture programs. Implications for Architecture Education

The inferences I derived from the analysis of the data and answers to the questions which drove this study, implied certain consequences for architecture pedagogy. It appeared to me that although professors and students showed sensitivity toward psychological and social concerns in architecture, they are p ro b a b l y re stra i n e d to so m e e xte n t b y th e sch o o l s d e ci si o n to co n ce n tra te on creative and technical facets in the program. A reevaluation of the objectives set by the schools, and clearer definition of human issues in the goals they set for their students may be an important step in harnessing their intrinsic understanding of psychological and social concerns. Professor Karen mentioned that according to her the reason for the peripheralization of psychological and social concerns in architectural design is because the literature on these topics is inaccessible and unfamiliar to students and architects. There is a need for architecture education to study the means of overcoming this handicap, which restricts students from expressing and incorporating the psychological and social concerns they appear to consider intrinsic to the profession. Architecture education may incorporate a component in design studios which encourages students to explore, understand and reference the available literature on different facets of human issues and the built environment. Students may be encouraged to support their design decisions with concepts from different studies, reports and discussions. Students mentioned that they derive ideas about how occupants may feel in a space they design by reflecting on the feelings similar spaces evoke in them. This concept may be further developed to encourage extensive reflective inquiry among students (Dewey, 1970; Livingston, 2000).

164

A greater understanding of aesthetics and the different senses, ideas and concepts it can encompass will be an important step toward ensuring that student designs respond to the projected users and the community to which they will cater. Architectural theory courses normally revolve around different architectural styles and eras. It may be beneficial to include the philosophies associated with architectural design to introduce discussions such as the extended definition of aesthetics. Several students talked about their history classes as instrumental in enhancing their understanding of the way the built environment affects the society which it serves. Social and cultural context are important aspects of understanding and analyzing history of societies and architectural practices (Bandini, 1997; West, 1991). In that regard, architecture pedagogy may utilize history and integrate it wi th d e si g n stu d i o p ro j e cts to fu rth e r stu d e n ts re sp o n se to society and culture in the development of their designs. Students indicated concerns about how the program prepared them for practicing in the field of architecture. Several of them were dissatisfied with the training they had received in terms of the concerns associated with practicing in the field as well as communicating with other trades in the industry. There may be a need to reevaluate design studios to acquaint students with a better understanding of their role in the profession and the responsibilities associated with working in the construction industry. The culture of the design studios emerged as a concern important to students in terms of the mental and physical stress associated with the projects. The importance of the design studio and the amount of time spent in the studio were briefly discussed in the literature review but appear to be a topic which needs attention in the evaluation of the structure of design studios. In sum, this study further reinforced the need projected by the literature review for an increased emphasis on psychological and social issues. I found th a t th e n e e d i s to i n tro d u ce co u rse s a n d e xe rci se s w h i ch w i l l h a rn e ss stu d e n ts concepts related to these issues by encouraging professors to incorporate the concerns that they find inherently important to architectural design. Students and

165

professors acknowledged various human issues, and I inferred that the need is to provide clarity of definition and implementation to ensure that the designs they produce respond to the greater good of the people and society where their buildings are located. The Researcher in Context

I embarked on this research as a former architecture and interior design student with an experiential understanding of practice and pedagogy in the field. I set out on this journey remembering the peripheralization of human issues in architecture as I had seen them in India. I remembered how my mother su ccu m b e d to th e a rch i te ct s d e ci si o n s in the design of her home after trying, on multiple occasions, to voice concerns about the lifestyle that she would like the design to support and enhance. In India, I saw architects ignore the needs of the women of the house, who, in the end, based on the social structure in the country, were the ones to spend a majority of time at home. I saw my mother struggle with mental and physical comfort in the house which was demanding th a t sh e ch a n g e h e r w a ys o f l i fe to re sp o n d to th e a rch i te ct s d e si g n . In d e fi ni ng architecture as a social art I redefined the responsibility of architects. I q u e sti oned i fi ti sn t th e re sp o n si bi l i ty o f d e si g n e rs o f th e e n vi ro n m e n ts th a t nurture society to respond to the needs of that society. In chapter four I presented the data in a narrative format and recalled anecdotes from my past with reference to my participants, their comments and the setting. I went back, at different stages in data collection and analysis, to my first encounter with an architecture student, myself in the design studio and experiences in the profession. I brought to the study my upbringing and education in India as well as my experiences and study in the United States. My sensibility and sensitivity about architecture and interior design in two countries weighed heavily in my assessment and interpretation of what I saw and heard from the participants in my study.

166

While I saw several things that were similar or comparable to my preconceived ideas about architecture education and the design studio based on my past experiences, there were a few surprises that emerged in the form of unexpected themes. Were these differences because of changes in architecture pedagogy over the past six years since I graduated from architecture school? Or were the differences because my perceptions of architecture come largely from my education in India and this research was conducted in the United States? I conclude this study with great enthusiasm for continuing the search for these and other questions to further explore the themes that emerged in my data coding and analysis. I believe that a continuation of similar research in architecture education will yield important insights and guidelines for the betterment of the field to make it more responsible and successful in serving the needs of the students and the people for whom they will eventually design. Limitations of this Research

This study answered the questions I had posed at the onset but also raised several other questions some of which I could answer and others remained unanswered. I went back to the methodology I had used for data collection to identify what I could have done to enable myself to answer the questions more effectively. I was able to identify certain data collection techniques that I would modify if I were to conduct this research again. Student participants in my study were vocal about the late nights spent working on their projects and the mental stress associated with it. I questioned whether this was because I interviewed the students immediately after their project critiques, which was also after they had spent the previous one of more nights awake completing their projects. I believe that the students might have been more attentive about the focal issues of this study if they were more alert and less tired. Possibly, I should have conducted the interviews the day after the critiques or a few days before.

167

I also questioned whether certain discrepancies in the data from interviews and critiques were because the panel of critics included other professors from the school and visiting architects. I only interviewed the professors teaching the fourth year design studio to identify what aspects they were encouraging students to address in their projects. I may have been able to better identify the reasons for the discrepancies I found in my data, if I interviewed other professors and architects on the panel. I would have got more insight into the information they received from the professors teaching the studio regarding the project, and the concerns that influenced their evaluation and critique of student designs. For this study I observed student presentations to their professors and visiting critics. There are several stages during the design process when stu d e n ts w o rk i s e va l u a te d i n cl udi n g cri ti q u e s w h e n p ro fessors discuss work with students individually at their desks, usually referred to as desk critiques. During d e sk cri ti q u e s, i ti s co m m o n to se e th e cri ti c d ra w o ve r stu d e n ts d ra w i n g s, discuss more intricate details of the design, and give suggestions which are more specific than during presentations. Students also receive feedback in the form of e va l u a ti o n sh e e ts w h i ch sp e ci fy th e cri ti cs co m m e n ts a n d co n ce rn s. In th i s stu d y I did not include observation and evaluation of these other modes of feedback. Including desk critiques and feedback sheets in the data may raise other interesting themes and patterns. During my interview with the professors I asked them about the concerns they wished to see addressed in student designs. I conducted both interviews before my visit to the design studios. I felt during data analysis that I might have been able to answer several of the emerging questions if I had interviewed professors again after the critiques to identify their opinions of student projects and how well students were able to incorporate the concerns they were emphasizing. Follow-up interviews with professors may also have helped me identify if they were satisfied with the questions raised by invited critics during discussions of student work. This may have eventually helped identify the reason behind differences in the concerns professors said they were encouraging

168

students to address and the concerns that were raised during critiques of student work. By raising additional questions in response to the research questions and supporting questions, I identified the limitations of the methodology I used for this study. I was able to identify certain measures I could have used during the collection of data for this study to enable me to answer the questions more effectively. Recommendations for Future Research

Several important themes, concerns and questions emerged during this research which indicated a need for further study. One important theme that emerged during data coding was the concern that students continually expressed about the culture of their design studios. They talked about the social interaction in the studios and how that forms a support structure for them. They also discussed the psychological stress associated with the long nights and work load from studio projects. Having burned the midnight oil on several occasions myself, I empathized with the students but their concerns raise the need for architecture education to identify why late nights and excessive work loads are now identified as inherent in the culture of architecture education. Further research can identify the reasons behind the stress and also suggest solutions to relieve the stress that students seem to experience. An interesting finding in this study was how Professor Karen s b a ckg ro u n d may have influenced her sensitivity toward behavioral influences of architecture. I questioned if this was the reason she developed a project including exercises to a cce n tu a te stu d e n ts u n d e rsta n d i n g o f th e co m m u n i ty fo r w h i ch th e y w e re designing. This finding could be further explored to identify the influence of p ro fe sso rs p e rso n a l b a ckg ro u n d a n d re se a rch o n th e p ro j e cts th e y d e ve l op,and how they incorporate psychological and social issues. Both projects at the schools selected for this study were based on designing a community space. For the purpose of this study, this helped to make

169

the association between results from the two schools more authentic. However, I attributed the sensitivity toward social issues, to some extent, to the needs of the project. It will be interesting to study how the guidelines, requirements and location for a project influence the relative importance of different concerns in architectural design. In this regard, it will also be extremely beneficial to understand the thought process of professors in designing projects for students, selecting locations, and evaluating projects. At various points in this study, I identified my cultural background, and how my education and experiences in India influenced my interpretation of several situations I observed during the study. This research could be diversified to include a compare and contrast study of architecture education in the United States and in India. Based on my experiences I was able to identify certain similarities in the format and focus of the curriculum and my inferences could form the basis of a study which explores these aspects further. Again, based on my personal background in architecture and interior design, I wish to identify the commonalities and differences between the two programs with respect to the focus on psychological and social issues. It will be interesting to replicate this study for interior design schools and draw inferences from both studies. As someone entering the education realm, I am also interested in identifying different means of integrating the study of psychological and social issues related to architectural design in the architecture design curriculum. I wish to explore exercises, projects, and student research ideas that may be developed to e n h a n ce stu d e n ts u n d e rsta n d i n g o f h o w va ri o u s h u m a n co n ce rn s ca n b e incorporated in their designs.

170

APPENDIX A INTERNAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL LETTER

171

APPENDIX B CONSENT FORM FOR STUDENT PARTICIPANTS

172

APPENDIX C INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR PROFESSORS

1. 2.

What studios and other subjects do you teach in this program? What aspects of architecture are emphasized most during the specified

course of study? 3. 4. 5. What project(s) are your fourth year students are working on this semester? What concerns would you like to see addressed in students' designs? In your experience how well have students been able to incorporate the

concerns that you have just mentioned? 6. Describe your interpretation of the objectives set by this program related to

social and psychological aspects of architecture. 7. What in your opinion are the most important psychological aspects of

architecture that you would hope to see in your student projects? 8. What in your opinion are the most important social aspects of architecture

that you would hope to see in your student projects? 9. Are these social and psychological concepts integrated in the program of

study and design studios? If yes, how? 10. How does the department interpret and incorporate the National Architecture Accreditation Board's requirement for an understanding of social and psychological contexts from all graduates? 11. Please discuss any other issues you would like to address which are not

covered here.

173

APPENDIX D INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEWS

1. What is your opinion of architecture as a profession? How would you define the responsibilities associated with being an architect? 2. What aspects of architecture are emphasized most during the course of the study in this program? 3. Describe your interpretation of the objectives set by this program related to social and psychological aspects of architecture. 4. What in your opinion are the most important psychological aspects of architecture? 5. What in your opinion are the most important social aspects of architecture? 6. How do you think social and psychological concerns manifest themselves in the program of study? 7. Which subjects did you take which were most beneficial in your studio projects? 8. What other subjects would you like to see integrated into the program which will be beneficial to you? 9. Describe briefly the design project you are working on this semester. 10. Describe your design concept for this semester's project. 11. What are the major concerns you addressed during the design process? 12. What information were you provided when the project was introduced? 10. Is there other information that would have been helpful, that you wish had been provided? 11. Are there any other issues related to the program that you would like to discuss that have not been covered in this discussion? Please discuss.

174

APPENDIX E OBSERVATION FIELD NOTES FROM SCHOOL A School of Architecture A, University X Field Notes Set 1 March 8th, 2006 S tu d e n ts d ra w i n g b o a rd s w e re a rra n g e d a ro u n d th e stu d i oi n n o p a rti cu l ar pattern. Each drawing board looked different because of the way students had arranged and personalized shelves or partitions around their space. Some of them had personal photographs and notes from loved ones pinned close to their space. Drawing equipment and model making tools were omnipresent. Several students had their previous projects near their seats or pinned up on the wall or partitions near them. Several students were busy working on last minute finishing touches to their drawings or models and three students volunteered to start the critiques with the visiting faculty. Some students were talking with each other, discussing their projects or other matters. I stood beside one student listening to her discussion with the critic about the project. Professor Karen walked around the studio occa si onal l y sto p p i n g a t a stu d e n t s d e sk to d i scu ss th e i r w o rk a n d p ro g re ss. S h e would stop to listen to the critiques and provide any background information the cri ti cs re q u i re d to b e tte r a sse ss stu d e n ts d e si g n s. S h e a l so g a ve h e r co m m e n ts on the designs being discussed but for the most part she let students discuss with the visitors. I stayed in the design studio listening to other critiques and taking notes. Six students volunteered to participate in the focus group interview after their critiques.

175

Critique 1 S u m m e r s C ri ti que

Student: After spending hours in a conference room/classroom, you want to step outside outdoor spaces.

Critic: Program and location Relationship between spaces Reference to street It is unfriendly to park cars at the very end. It is nicer to have activities and

functions at the edge of parking. Not have parking next to an inanimate object instead have commercial areas like shops and such. L o ca te re sta u ra n t u n d e r th e b u i l di n g a n d n o t n e xt to i t so th a t p e o p l e don t

look down at it from higher floors

Professor Karen: Encourage storm water drainage and parking issues to be addressed

Student: Articulate facades after spatial organization of spaces Make use of north light treating facades differently Direction of sun and rays addressed extensively especially for the

meditation area Critique 2 S u sa n s C ri ti que

Form

176

Light and view, air and social contact Articulation of walls and surfaces Scale relevant to houses, business and parking Storm water with respect to the complete site P ro j e ct i s m o re th a n ca rs e tc i t n e e d s m o re a rch i te ctu ra l a m b i ti on Critic plopping pieces of paper suggesting articulation of landscape

around the site How close or far is the building from the street. Drawing in people from the

street or keeping the building and its premises private How the residences and their balconies at upper levels overlook the street

and interact with the activities on the street Variety of spaces and shapes between building blocks Zones of social gathering and interaction in the retail areas coffee

shops, etc. Critique 3 L a u re n s C ri ti que

Public and semi-private areas with no disturbance Placement of buildings is more important than individual buildings Most people may not get a chance to experience the open plaza Get away from the heat Sitting outside. Social areas how they are integrated with the other areas

so that people can get the most out of them Residential areas have high balconies overhanging to form shaded

corridors in front of stores Courtyard is a nice visual. How do you want people to move alongside or

through it? Is it completely/visually public? Equal status to the strangers and residents in the corridors is not a good thing

177

What areas are public and what are private or what should be made so Long corridors are very deadly in residential areas. Need to consider open You are a designer make it interesting There has to be something that says I want to live here it has everything: Idon t w a n t to g e t o ff a n e l e va to r a n d l ook ata l o n g n a rro w co rri dor Compared her other design much more loose in design on one as

light wells in grouping it is harder to change light bulbs

starbucks, gallery, place to park my porche.

everyday

opposed to another If it is not interesting it does not matter how efficient it is Critique 4 N el so n s C ri ti que

Student: Redirect pedestrian traffic Green space as separation between pedestrians and motorists Active and energizing place for faculty and students from the business

school open space to make the outdoor plaza more open. Not a little courtyard surrounded by buildings Busy streets response to that and relation to the street

Critic: Make one big bookstore which has everything and relates to the plaza Be a little more deliberate with form Shelter the courtyard from street You are the designer. That is why I put

the building there but it definitely takes away from the courtyard Every open space in the vicinity is institutional Worried about the design of all ground spaces 178

D o e sn t h a ve e n o u g h w o rk Play around with it and make it interesting

179

APPENDIX F OBSERVATION FIELD NOTES FROM SCHOOL B School of Architecture B, University Y Field Notes Set 1 March 15th, 2006

Professor Roger walked me into the fourth year design studio of School B after we talked for a few minutes in his office. The large studio was divided into sm a l l cu b i cl e s a b o u t 8 w i d e b y 1 0 d e e p a n d e a ch cu b i cl e w a s h o m e to th re e students. Students set up their drafting boards and personalized their space by pinning drawings, photographs, notes and calendars on the partitions. One cubicle had an old couch and students told me that some of them fall asleep on the couch when they are tired after long hours on the drafting board. One girl had a small potted plant on a filing cabinet behind her. There were drawing sheets, small models and all types of drafting and model making tools scattered around the studio. The cubicles in the studio were flanked on either side of a long hallway and several projects were pinned on the partition walls of the cubicles. Professor Roger pointed out certain projects to me and explained what students had worked on earlier in the semester. Students had sketched skeletons of different animals and developed them into the design of a recreation structure constructed with solar panels. There were several computer generated three-dimensional i m a g e s o f stu d e n ts d e si gns pi n n e d o n th e p a rti ti ons on ei th e r si d e o f th e h a l l w a y. Professor Roger walked into one of the cubicles to check if his students were ready to pin their drawings for critiques. He tried to get all his students together while the students complained about not having completed substantial work on their projects. They asked if they may get an extension and hold the

180

critique another day. Professor Roger told the students to display whatever work they had so far and that the critiques scheduled for the day were essentially preliminary discussions of their designs. Some students volunteered to start and walked out to the corridor to get ready for the presentations. I attended five critiques and the same students volunteered for the focus group interview.

The site lies between historic and industrial area in Georgia. There is a power plant across the site but the class is assuming it is not there or is being relocated. S am u el s Critique

Interior areas like pool determine the shape of the outside of the building. Wants people to be able to see the activities inside the building from outside. Seeing people swimming from outside was compared to the experience of watching fish swimming in water while passing through the glass tunnel at Sea World. Samuel mentioned that he thought the play of light and water will create an atmosphere that feels pleasant.

He proposed a road through the building to disconnect areas of activity and nonactivity separating fitness and leisure. It would also provide quicker access to medical aid since the vehicles could drive in to the building.

The jogging/walking track overlooks the pool and the river-walk.

Question: What is the structure made of? B u i l di ng openi n g o u t to th e ri ve rw a l k

Mentionables:

N o o n e w a n ts to b e e xe rci si n g o r sw i mmi ng i n a d u n g e o n a re a P o rti o n o f g re e n sp a ce w i l lb e a n i n te re sti n g e n tra n ce a re a M a ke so m e th i n g o f th a t sp a ce th e re th e re i s n o th i n g o n th a t si de

181

Faculty insisted that students make their plans in site context and work with the surroundings in mind. Professor Roger mentioned that the scale of the building does not seem to upset anything and does not look like it will be out of touch with the surroundi n g s. Y o u r e d g e cu ts o f fl o w fro m th e l i n e a r g re e n sp a ce b u t th e re i s a fl ow w i th th e cu rve a t th e co rn e r

Professor Cramer.: How do you reconcile the radial form to a sloping site? The slope has a linearity to it and the building form is radial? The program suggests that the building can emphasize itself more in the fabric or ca n re i n fo rce th e fa b ri c (I w a n t to b e l i ke e ve ryth i ng el se ) O r I w a n t to b re a k from that. In Savannah there is a reason not to break from that but this program has enough human activity to pose a convincing argument for breaking from that idea. Eg. Guggenheim museum, NY. It is sensitive to the fabric even though there is an opposition to it. There is a link from the standpoint of scale/material/continued wall surface/platform on which the building is established. When looking at the whole picture with site context the contrasting element can succeed. C o n ce rn e d a b o u t th e ve rti ca l p l a n e e xte n d i n g p a st th e h o ri zo n ta l p l ane P ro fe sso r C ra m e r.: I d o n t kn o w i f yo u a re a fa n o f F ra n k Gehry or not. I like him. Hi s bui l di n g s a re d yn a m i c. I th i n k yo u r 3 D fo rm i s so d yn a m i c th a t yo u d o n tneed any embellishment. Existing context forms the backdrop for this contrasting structure. You can simplify the skin. Samuel: So the form is the ornam e n t i n th i s ca se th e re i s n o o rn a m e n ta ti on necessary?

Professor Cramer: Manipulating the form itself will provide ornamentation. There are 2 major questions conceptually:

182

1.

This is a central community building and has a special place in a special

community. It needs to celebrate that. It is not a background building. It has a landmark status because of the nature of its junction and centrality. 2. T h e q u e sti o n to a sk yo u rse l fi s sh o u l d I o r ca n I th i s bui l di n g co u l d be

nowhere in the world except Savannah, GA. What is something about this that m a ke s i t sp e ci fi c to S a va n n a h , G A ? F o r e xa m p l e , th e S yd n e y O p ra h H o u se i t is in Sydney because it is the only one of its kind. It is about adding something new to the identity of Savannah. Or expanding on what is already there. A llen s C ritiq u e

Want to keep it at one storey. 1 building is for public activity and one facilitated building for special activities. He said he did not know where to put the food court but liked the view from one end. He just realized that it would help to reverse his building based on the composition. The more public spaces are located on the more pedestrian side. He mentioned the concern regarding cleaning and supervision of locker rooms. He also mentioned that his idea was to do some more site analysis before jumping into the floor plans. He felt like the form works not with respect to what is inside but being catchy to the eye. P ro fe sso r C ra m e r: C a n ti t b e b o th ?

Professor Roger: I am not picking on the design but look at the edges. I think in this very public facility it is important to get things worked out in terms of the edges. The edge has a strong connection to the historic aspect of this site. The degree of porosity of the edges is important. Something is better about the experience of the building inside and outside if there is communication between the inside and outside. It is an unpleasant urban experience if there is a wall and you have no idea what is going on inside. Put the building in context of the city and surrounding.

183

Professor Cramer: Questioned the symmetrical roof form on a site which is anything but symmetric.

Allen: Argues against the notion of the site being symmetric.

Professor Cramer: What are people looking down on - The back of a roof? He suggested that Eric mass it so it takes advantage of the view. Those roof slopes have nothing to do with the urban context or the sloping site. S tan leys C ritiq u e

Stanley: Main problem is the form of the building and getting the roof to work. It is not coming out the way I want it. Want to provide access to cage to relate to the water. So that people are sitting up higher looking out to the water instead of being water side. The pool area is designed such that it appears to flow into the river. Want to figure out the best way to put the roof and make it make sense.

Professor Roger: See what this roof form is going to do on the side of the site. The roof may end up being so high above the street that it wont have as much of an impact as the face of the building. Is there a solid wall towards the river side?

Professor Cramer: Is it a large clear span truss? How far is that spanning? S ta n l e y: 2 2 5 (stru g g l e s fo r th e a n sw e r a n d th e n e sti m a te s)

Professor Cramer: That is a pretty substantial structure. Can it be done? Yes. Look at and talk about the relationship of bridge construction with arches in relationship to the river. Why are you doing what you are doing?

184

S ta n l e y: T h e b u i l di n g a cro ss i s co n cre te co l o r a n d a si mi l a r sh a p e

Professor Roger: It has nothing to do with the historic site.

Professor Cramer: If it does not relate to the history what does it relate to?

Stanley: The industrial part of (city)

Professor Roger: Need to see this in context and in terms of the interiors. Make a model to see what impact it has on the outside. Also think about the span and the structure. Visual impact in reference to the context and how it fits. Professor Cramer: The arch is a wonderful idea it is very graceful. Relate it to the industrial bridge or port architecture. Reconcile with the contours on site.

Professor Roger: You wont see the arch from below. You will only see the wall.

Professor Cramer: Offers several suggestions for form.

Professor Roger: Insists the student start with a model. L u th ers C ritiq u e

Luther: Studied the average widths of historic buildings and try to get all dimensions to conform to the historic dimensions. The lower part has large programmatic functions and in the upper levels the program gets less condensed and more spacious. The idea is circulation driven for the public. All perimeters are shops and leaseable spaces. The core is the actual program. This way the building extends the culture of the river walk which is predominantly shops. The desire to generate public appeal and site contours are driving the design. You

185

would know where to go inside the building. If you did not know that it was a gym yo u w o u l dn t kn o w fro m th e o u tsi de. Explains the structure. Conforms with context.

Professor Cramer: Can you walk on the terrace of the building?

Luther: No

Professor Roger: Do you have any traffic going across?

Luther: Not changing anything on the street from the way it is now. Continuing the green belt in the back also.

Professor Roger: Not dingy dungeony kind of spaces where you wonder who might be around the corner.

Professor Cramer: What was the site going to be?

Luther: Park

Professor Roger: Outdoor vendor people and possibility for future program expansion.

Professor Cramer: Go the direction you are going on and look at future use. Tell the client we can squeeze the building into this sliver and have the rest of the site to sell for $8 million and give you some of it! Or build another building and commission you to do it. If you use it as a public space the building blocks the view of the river from the public space. Being there and not being able to see the river. The public space may come to the roof top such that the terrace can be walked on and insert some

186

of the building underground. Link the areas with bridges. Maybe all of these areas (points) are not so high) and one side of the building is higher than the other.

Professor Roger: Since there is a pass through between elements of the building it should be more pronounced.

Professor Cramer: Open it more. Connect public space with the river. Where are you thinking of the location of stairs and elevators? P ro fe sso r R o g e r: H e i s w o rki ng i n co n te xt A n n as C ritiq u e

Anna: Opened up an area to relate to the park. Stay at the street level. She d o e sn t kn o w w h a t fo rm i tw i l l ta ke u p . She wants people to be able to see th ro u g h . W a n ts to p ro vi d e a m o n u m e n ta l sta i r o f so m e so rt. W a n ts to ce l e b ra te the special something that is happening below. Does not want to mimic the context but wants to address it. Whatever special things happen need to be addressed. The dynamic part of the building is growing out of the historic context.

Professor Roger: There is a tendency here to end up with a number of pieces that might fall apart. You need to get in control of making sure they all hold together.

Professor Cramer: The plan organization hangs together but there are too many different roof forms.

Professor Roger: Be careful of roof forms such that they are interconnected and relating to each other.

187

Anna: Shows a picture of something like what she wants to try and do.

Professor Cramer: Pool has specific ventilation requirements. There is chlorine build up and moisture. Need to be careful about how it connects to the rest of the building. You can have visual connection but need to seal it such that moisture and humidity does not permeate to other spaces. The first thing you experience in an indoor pool is the smell. There is a huge expense involved in doing it and it is not a good strategy. Simplify the roofs and address the pool issue.

Professor Roger: Take care of the entry point and circulation.

Anna: I am trying to create access to each auditorium from outside.

Discussion about diving board height and space dimensions.

188

APPENDIX G SECOND SET OF OBSERVATION FIELD NOTES FROM SCHOOL B School of Architecture B, University Y Field Notes Set 2 March 21st, 2006 Critique #1

Student Services Center at University 1

Student: Segregating places that share one interest versus their individual interests. Several massing studies to study the relationship between structure and program. Explained the relationships between spaces with respect to proximity. Believed that he was successful in creating links between buildings and a dialogue between columns and walls and in creating interesting spaces.

Mr. Tribbiani: Can see the systematic and pragmatic process in the project that led to the final design. Where you fall back is the presentation. The simple glass panel and the butterfly roof in elevation do not speak to the floor plans. How much of the perimeter is glass and how much is solid? More comments on the presentation. Elevation is not nearly as interesting as the plan. In plan you have all these interesting spaces and the elevation is just a grid. There is not a lot of depth in the elevation.

189

Critique # 2

Multi-use Community center in __, Georgia

Mr. Tribbiani: What is the nature of the buildings around yours? Your architecture is very unlike the area around. What kind of impact does your design have on the area and the district?

Student: The idea was to make a statement. There is no building like this in the city. This will also appreciate the historic district in contrast. Put black against white the white will stand out more.

Mr. Greene: I am somewhat troubled that you made such a bold statement in such a historic area. I like that you were bold but I am bothered that it is almost l i ke yo u a re tryi n g to d ra w a l l th e a cti vi ty th e re

Mr. Tribbiani: It is not (city)-esque.

Professor Roger: Explained that it was a challenge especially with the intended function of the building in the historic environment. Could choose to make it a landmark. It is at the juncture of the industrial and historic districts.

Mr. Tribbiani: I would have used a nautical theme and still landed at a similar building.

Mr. Greene: Even with the bold theme that you are doing here but it would have been more successful with a nautical theme. Reminds me of Gehry and him doing things irrespective of the context. He is just making a mark and creating and icon. We are arch i te cts, w e ca n n o t sa y w e d o n t h a ve a n e g o . Y o u ca n e i th e r m a ke th e sta te m e n t I w a s h e re o r I l o ve S a va n n a h a n d I w a n t to g i ve something to and add to the riverwalk and appreciate its activities.

190

Student: So you think it is not good to have an icon?

Mr. Greene: What do you think?

Student: I see it as a focal point and a center of attraction. This becomes the point of rest and acts as the turning point.

Professor Roger: You have people discussing your design so that is a good thing.

Mr. Tribbiani: I think it is very interesting and well done. We are just throwing ideas here. I can accept the argument of the need for a landmark building. P eopl e don t th i n k a b o u t th e w a te rfro n t th a t m u ch a n d n o w th e y m i ghtw i th th a t building there.

Mr. Tribbiani: What material is your building and does that in any way respond to the materials in that area?

Student: It is a concrete mass. Sort of steel like. There will be translucent glass on the river side. Mr. Tribbiani: I am sure that you put a lot of thought into th i s. B u t w e ca n tgi ve yo u a n y fe e d b a ck b e ca u se w e ca n t se e . I l i ke th a t yo u d o n t d e si gn i n pl an. People work in plan and then put walls around it. You work in 3 dimensions. Critique 3

Student Activity Center, University __

Mr. Tribbiani: What are all your drawings different scales in your presentation?

191

Student: That is the requirements that were provided.

Mr. Tribbiani: Where can I see where this building is located on campus?

Mr. Greene: You have more of a steel and glass type feel. How does it fit into the context of U of M?

Student: The whole idea here was transparency. Since this side is open I made that transparent.

Professor Roger: The model shows some promise in terms of overall form but it is hard to see it. Maybe because of your graphic quality.

Mr. Greene: You are doing such a modern building. I like how you have paid attention to transparency. It would have helped to get the neo-classical feel of the rest of the university, maybe just if the columns were in front of the glass wall instead of behind it. They tend to generate informal gathering spaces and activity areas. And makes the passers-b y w o n d e r, If th e re i s so m u ch g o i n g o n o u tsi de h o w m u ch m o re ca n b e g o i ng on i n si d e .

Mr. Tribbiani: The column grid does not seem to be in harmony with the floor plans. Did the grid come first or the plan?

Student: The grid.

Mr. Greene: Suggestions on the column grid and room conflicts. Either outside the wall or engaged more with the wall. If I were working in there I would be ticked. There would be so much dead space because of the columns in the middle of my office.

192

Mr. Tribbiani: Ground floor doors should swing out. Stairs are enormously wide but lead to a minute landing. Code requirements yo u d o n t w a n t to b ri n g th a t up! Mr. Greene: T h a t s a d a n g e ro u s th i n g to ta l k a b o u t.

Mr. Tribbiani: L-shaped movie theatre does not work.

Mr. Greene: Should be either fan-shaped or ___________ M r. T ri bbi ani :Y ou don t h a ve e n o u g h e xi t fro m th e m o vi e th e a tre . T h e re a re some questions about code but that is common sense safety. Ground floor is probably the most successful in terms of spatial configuration. Upper level needs work especially with the convoluted corridors. You have to imagine yourself walking through the building and how you feel.

Professor Roger: How do you get food to the kitchen and the garbage out? Are you cooking in that area near the ball-room or just heating. You need to get the groceries up there.

Mr. Tribbiani: Maybe some improvements that you can try to make in the zoning of the building. Service area, private area, public area.

Mr. Greene: You had this great idea and concept on the ground floor and the third floor does what it needs to. And the second floor just has everything else.

Mr. Tribbiani: You show a section but should show where it is cut from. This does not show the structure. The model does a lot.

193

Critique 4

Multi-use Community center, (city), Georgia

Student: Studied two figure-ground images of two structures and found an interesting figure. I like the idea of having a central access going to the riverwalk.

Mr. Tribbiani: I like the idea of putting it all down to the ground and I think Savannah will appreciate it. I like the playfulness of the structure and how decorative it is. It would be significant to the design of riverwalk. That is the only elevation that the people on the riverwalk can see.

Mr. Greene: I like that you put everything underground and more that you made all the roof surfaces accessible and walkable. The central access is the ramp coming down. See a lot of different levels of access and different places for people to be. Lot of change of levels like the other things in Savannah with a different concept. Being a part of it without taking too much away from it.

Mr. Tribbiani: It would have helped me to see the first floor with something around it and landscape etc. since it is below ground level you need to show where the ground is. Critique 5

Multi-use Community Center, (city), Georgia

Student: Tried to derive from the Spanish steps because of the history. Through it would be a good idea. Wanted to create a plaza surrounded by buildings so that it can be an indoor space even when it is outdoors.

194

Mr. Tribbiani: Tell us about the structure.

Mr. Greene: Tell us about the elevations.

Student: It is a glass faade exterior. Open glass to provide transparency because of the program fitness and recreation areas need daylight.

Professor Roger: The program wants to minimize walls.

Mr. Tribbiani: What is the standard height for basketball courts? How do you do that structurally?

Mr. Greene: Is the ground plan mostly below grade?

Student: Yes

Professor Roger: To the food service with the river walk.

Student: Walking down river walk you see the food court and entrance to the theatre. Mr. T ri bbi ani :Idon t se e th e S p a n i sh ste p s.

Student: Shows on her drawings.

Mr. Tribbiani: Does not seem convinced.

Professor Roger: Steps in effect from the entrance to the lobby.

All Critics: Not happy with the clarity of the presentation.

195

Mr. Greene: Would have helped to see a section through the steps to see the different levels.

Mr. Tribbiani: What is the administration a separate block? S tu d e n t: It i s notpubl i c sp a ce e xp l ai n s.

Mr. Tribbiani: Seems like a tiny fragment like something that could not fit into the building. So you put it there. Form itself does not have any relation to anything el se . G e o m e try i s di ffe re n t. D o e sn tl i ke u p w i th a n yth i ng el se . It l o o ks l i ke a foreign object. I like the compactness and the layering. It is modest but with a richness. D on t se e th e S p a n i sh ste p s. T h e re i s n o ca th e d ra l o n to p . N o t B e rn i ni s b o a ts and the bottom. Spanish steps are not just steps. They are places where people could sit. They are meeting places. People have weddings there. It is an event place. Critique 6 L u th e r s C ri ti que M ul ti -use Community Center, (City), Georgia

Luther: My design is totally contextual. I chose to use just a third of the site to conform to the scale and latitude of the other historic buildings in the area. Form was driven by context. I used a large part of the site to pull the green belt in to the site. The main idea was capturing culture of (city) and have accesses going through the building. There are shops and areas so people done feel like it is private property. C a l l s th e m sti m ul a n t sp a ce s. Because of a clash in two different types of uses w a n te d to e n su re p e o p l e don t wind up where they are not supposed to be. Revenue general and retail are at the periphery and the second level is the riverwalk level. Everything is just to bring the culture of the river walk into the

196

project while meeting programmatic requirements. It was a way of bringing forth the culture into the project that is what it was all about to me.

Mr. Gueller: Can you define culture for me? Luther: For me it was the experience of walking around shops and restaurants people walking around. It has been there for a very long time. It did not change.

Mr. Gueller: Pragmatically you are bringing that into your activity.

Mr. Tribbiani: Did you set out to create a building that looks old?

Luther: Yes.

Mr. Gueller: Construction technique is what gives the old buildings their ch a ra cte r. M a ki n g re fe re n ce to w h a t s th e re ve rsu s co p yi n g w h a t s th e re ve rsu s g e tti n g a fl a vo r o f w h a t s th e re . T h i si s n o t copying. I see and agree with what you are doing. But maybe there are key issues. Contemporary construction techniques somehow bleed through. It is a public building which I will never guess looking at it.

Mr. Tribbiani: Maybe you could have achieved it more honestly by putting the smaller spaces in the front instead of the swimming pool so that windows would honestly have reflected the store fronts on the other buildings around.

Mr. Gueller: Or integrate the expression of long spans and smaller spaces. Like the way you have split the building and dealt with the scale of the edge. This building would not do any harm here. Refers to the Hippocratic oath do no harm. In terms of architecture maybe that is the first thing d o n t d o a n y h a rd .

197

Mr. Tribbiani : You need to complete the presentation with more sections and elevations.

198

APPENDIX H INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS FOR PROFESSOR KAREN AT SCHOOL A P ro fesso r K aren s In terview March 8th, 2006 School of Architecture A, University X

Researcher: I wanted to ask you about human issues in architecture and as you know my primary focus is social and psychological aspects of architecture. What I would like to know is what are the main aspects that are emphasized in the program? What does the program focus on during the specified course of study for the students? P ro fe sso r K a re n : I d sa y o u r p ri m a ry e m p h a si s a cro ss th e cu rri cu l um i s o n th e re l a ti o n sh i p b e tw e e n fo rm a l d e si g n stra te g i es um m phenom enol ogi ca l i ssu e s and tectonics those three things. I would say there is, although I myself am very interested and my background is in the issues that you are talking about, I w oul dn t sa y th a t th e y a re th e p ri m a ry fo cu s o f th e p ro g ra m .

Researcher: A little bit about the project that the students are working on right now. Is it just one project that everyone is working on or are there individual projects that they chose on their own?

Professor Karen: Well! Students are developing their own program and they are working on different sites. They are making mixed use buildings that respond to broad social issues here in (city). The common program that I identified for them was the relationship between healthy body and healthy cities. And I put forward th e h yp o th e si s th a t w h a t th e sa m e p re m i se th a t o n e w o u l d u se i n d e ve loping

199

personal health practices could also be folded out into making a healthy city. So the students began by adopting a health practice for the city for the semester. So we have students doing judo, running, belly dancing, changing your diet, yoga, things of that sort. They design a space for that action, the activity and they are now incorporating that in a mixed use building. And so the students have i ndi vi dual l y d e ve l o p e d w h a t si n th e i r bui l di n g a n d w e h a ve ki n d a co l l e cte d th e schematic proposals for the city. So they are both individual and one project at the same time.

Researcher: What are the concerns you would like to see addressed in their design? Is there a specific list you have when you evaluate the designs?

Professor Karen: This particular semester is a pretty flexible semester. So there are very broad curricular requirements for the semester. Aside from collaboration which is one of our requirements for accreditation that the students work together o n p ro j e cts. A n d th a t th e y I th i n k p ro b a b ly everyone is working to develop architectural leadership skills. In my own case in this class I am asking them to work with members of the community so that they can recognize that people who might be future clients and users of their building can also have excellent ideas sometimes so that they will be kind of tuned to hearing those ideas if they come fro m so m e o n e w h o d o e sn t h a ve a rch i te ctu ra l b a ckg ro u n d . S o I sa y l i ste n i n g to and developing programs based on non-a rch i te cts i deas i s a ke y i ssu e fo r m e . In addition at the scale of the buildings, I am reinforcing things I am hoping they learned in other semesters such as the creation of walkable streets which has ce rta i n p e d e stri a n p a ra m e te rs so m e d e ve l o p , so m e m o re p l e a si n g to a n d better contributors to a walkable city. So there are you know like 5 or 6 subcriteria that I can talk about there. Reinforcing what they are learning in their m a te ri al s a n d m e th o d s cl a ss l i ke sa fe ty i ssu e s. S o w e ve l o o ke d a t a n d a re j u st beginning to look at you know circulation, finding ways in and out of the building, m a ki ng i t a cce ssi bl e.W e re l o o ki n g a t si te d e si gn i ssu e s l i ke sto rm w a te r retention and parking, on site parking. So you know there are kind of clusters of

200

issues of that sort that we are looking at as well. A n d re st o f th e se m e ste r, I l l have them look in more detail at the development of the skin. What the skin of th e b u i l di ng l i ke T h e y ve l o o ke d a t m a ssi ng i ssu e s (i n te rru p te d b y a vi si to r). So basically there are all of those kinda sub-categories that I l o o k a t, th a t w e ve been discussing in class. And when I grade their projects, the grade that I will give them will be for design quality, concept and things like that. But within design quality, I am looking for pedestrian response, massing issues, site design issues, again the things that I mentioned.

Researcher: Do the students actually go out and do some kind of research in order to conceptualize how they are going to deal with these issues? P ro fe sso r K a re n : W e l l th e th i n g s th a t I j u st m e n ti o n e d th e kinda specific, very ki n d a a rch i te ctu ra l i ssu e s a re th i n g s th e y ve l e a rn e d i n p re vi o u s cl a sse s a n d I a m fo r th e m o st p a rt re i n fo rci n g T h e re se a rch th a t th e y ve d o n e h a s b e e n m o stl y walking in the city itself. I am a believer that one learns not just by reading books but also through embodied experience. My own background is in dance and movement theory. So I think that we learn with our feet and as well as with our, you know, eyes and our brains. I mean our brain is connected to our feet as it is to our rea d i n g ski l l s. S o th e y ve d o n e re se a rch i n th e ci ty a n d th e n e a ch stu d e n t has interviewed a person in the community- total of 15 and we share that information. So we built a kind of knowledge base of what the community is hopi n g to se e h a p p e n . A n d th e n I m giving them readings. There are three books th a t th e y h a ve b e e n re a d i n g fro m . O n e i s (T h e e ye s a n d th e ski n ), a n e xce rp t fro m T h e B o d y i n P ai n a n d to d a y I m ,gi vi n g th e m a co u p l e o f ch a p te rs fro m --metaphor------. And then they try to incorporate ideas and interpretations from these books in the designs.

Researcher: In your experience so far how well have students really been able to incorporate these concepts of going out and interpreting what they experience

201

and incorporate those ideas into their designs? Have they been successful in te rm s o f stu d e n ts u n d e rsta n d i ng w hati ti s yo u a re e xp e cti n g o f th e m P ro fe sso r K a re n : I th i n k I sh o u l d sa y I a l so h a ve b i t o f a b a ckg ro u n d i n educational theory from my own undergraduate degree. So I believe in my experience that they learn ----- they learn through their whole body from when th e y j u st yo u kn o w re a d tw o p a ra g ra p h s fro m a b o o k th a t m i g h t a t a ce rta i n l e ve l . I th i nk i t s b e e n e xtre m e l yi m p o rta n t i n th e w a y I d e ve l o p e d m y te a ch i ng career.

Researcher: How does the department and its interpretation of the requirements o f th e N A A B th e y h a ve th e i rl i st o f re q u i re m e n ts th a t i n cl u d e th e i d e a th a t students should be well-versed with attention to social aspects of architecture and psychological aspects of architectu re . Is i t th e d e p a rtm e n t s phi l o so p h y th a t does not really focus on those aspects and if yes how does it translate the a ccre d i ta ti o n b o a rd s re q u i re m e n ts o f th e p ro g ra m ? P ro fe sso r K a re n : I w o u l d sa y th a t i t s n o t o u r p ri m a ry fo cu s b u t w e d o a tte m p t to m eetal l o f th e re q u i re m e n ts a n d i n so m e w a ys o u r stu d e n ts e sp e ci al l y e a rl yi n their career are introduced to the idea of experience, the personal experience of architecture and of spaces that one person walks through or something like that. S o I d sa y th e y d o n t g e t a s m u ch o f a so ci a l sci e n ce p e rsp e cti ve a s p ro b a b l y some schools do but I think that they learn early on to place themselves as you know acting subjects in projects. I guess as it relates to the accrediting sta n d a rd s yo u kn o w I d o n t se e th o se as I mean I think that they in some cases hom ogeni ze p ro g ra m s a cro ss th e co u n try p e rh a p s m o re th a n i t s u se fu l .A nd they tend to do that but I think that when standards were met, the criteria, they set minimum standards but schools are good in whatever aspects that they are good i n . a n d o u r sch o o l I d sa y i t d o e s e m p h a si ze th o se a s m u ch a s so m e o th e r th i n g s b u t th a t s w h a t m a ke s o u r sch o o l d i sti n cti ve .

202

Researcher: Asking you personally, would you like to see more focus on these aspects?

Professor Karen: I would like to see all architectural education across the country focus more on them. And I think part of the problem has been that they the way they are often presented in architectural discourse is in a very dry social scientific way 22% of responden ts l i ke x ki n d o f th i n g . A n d th a t si n a w a y n o t th a t hel p fu l a n d i t s al so ce rta i nl y noti n te re sti n g . A n d I m e a n I ki n d a re a d th a t stu ff and one of my professors was involved in setting up the address --------. S o I ve read a fair amount of that and I do kind of glance through it. But I find that my own research, my own learning style do not easily make the translation between kinda statistical, you know that kinda information and how do you design a building that really responds to human conditions.

Researcher: What according to you would be the most important human centered issues?

Professor Karen: Well! I think, my own thesis looked at archetypal actions, human actions and the way the space helps to choreograph those actions or support those actions. And those actions are things like shelter, work/play, co m p e ti ti o n , e a ti n g , yo u kn o w co u rti n g , th i ngs l i ke th a t e ve ryb o d y d o e s. A n d I think that supporting those actions well is the most important human role of architecture.

Researcher: Do you think that a fair number of schools across the country think about and emphasize the social, cultural, psychological issues in architecture?

Professor Karen: I think probably in intuitive ways but I think there is a gap between the research that is out there and what architects really think is important. And so I think often times architects or architecture students are trying to w o rk o n a n i ssu e th a t si m p o rta n t b u t th e y d o n t h a ve th e to o l s to m a ke su re

203

that the space works the way they hope it will. And the people who study those ki nd ofi ssu e s d o n t, a re n tabl e to b ri n g th e re se a rch to a p l a ce w h e re a rch i te cts get anything out of it. Unfortunately. R e se a rch e r: S o th e re i s a g a p b e tw e e n th e re se a rch a n d i tbei n g tra n sl a te d Are there any ideas you have in terms of how it could be achieved?

Professor Karen: I think the people who are doing work in performance in architecture are trying to bridge the gap. So I have a friend at the university of --------, (name) who is working literally on performance and collaborate with dancers o n h o w th e sp a ce i s di vi d e d I h a ve a n o th e r fri e n d (n a m e s) w h o d o e s u rb a n ki nd ofi n sta l l a ti o n s th a t ki n d o f d e m o n stra te h o w p e o p l e a ct i n sp a ce . T h e re s an upcoming issue of our national journal journal of architecture education that really focus on installation architecture which is the way I think and people who do this work think that one can study an issue kind of in a more immediate sense than building a building. You know. If you build a 5 or 20 million dollar building and you get something wrong stays wrong for a long time. Whereas if you do an i n sta l l a ti o n p ro b a b l yi n th e co u rse o f a ye a r a n d fi n d th a t p e o p l e don t u se th a t way or that this idea is really provocative it does create a space for social change or whatever you can do it fairly quickly to an installation. So I think those a re yo u kn o w tw o w a ys w o rki ng i n co l l a b o ra ti on w i th p e o p l e w h o a re u se d to thinking of human actions such as dancers and working on projects, kind a doing design and research on projects that have a limited scope, limited budget that (helps you to get the most out of it). Researcher: Is there anything else that you would like to discuss program specific or just related to architecture education in general? P ro fe sso r K a re n : I d o n t th i n k th a t architects, architecture professors or students fully understand how to communicate what we do to society. And I think that that means that we need to be more engaged with society. For instance (--------)

204

started a design center in downtown (city) so that our students can work in the community and the community can understand what architects do. And I think that whatever mechanisms we can incorporate in the university are good in setting up that kinda dialogue. Also I think it is important that our students realize that part of their job is to communicate with the rest of the world the value of thoughtful architecture. Because I think a lot of discussions and a lot of decisions a re m a d e b y p e o p l e w ho don t kn o w ve ry m u ch yo u kn o w a b o u t q u a l i ty b u i l t environments but they are the ones with city pockets or you know running social institutions and stuff. So I think we need to do a better job of communicating and I think that we should introduce that idea to our students while they are in school.

205

APPENDIX I INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS FOR PROFESSOR ROGER AT SCHOOL B P ro fesso r R o g ers In terview March 15th, 2006 School of Architecture B, University Y

Researcher: What aspects of architecture does the program focus on during the specified course of study for the students? P ro fe sso r R o g e r: A ctu a l l y th e re i s th ro u g h th e cu rri cu l u m . D e fi n e d d e si gn sequence. Starts out in the 1st year with a very sort of graphic a very 3 di m e n si onal ,2 di m e n si o n a l vi su a l stu d i e s so th e re i s b a se d o n th a t a fa i rl y strong visual orientation. But feeding into it then of course in addition to the general education courses the general education requirements are everything from history which is one way of focusing on theory specific theory the technical support courses that have to do with structure and environmental control systems and other related aspects. And then a series of courses to do with professional practice. But all the while the spine is still there in terms of basically repeated exercises in design and advances as they are able to do more in terms of the other course work that they have that is associated with architecture including structure and mechanical systems and materials and methods of construction. Primarily those are the ones that get picked up and then developed in the design studio but with the branch coming from history and th e o ry a s w e l l . S o th a t s b a si ca l l y so rt o f th e ve ry, ve ry ske tch y o u tl i ne ofw hat that is. So there is a strong design orientation with design as a means of integrating both technical, functional and then in addition of course the aesthetic aspects of architecture

206

Researcher: What specific concerns you would like to see students address in their designs this semester?

Professor Roger: Well yes! There are several. One of them is designing a thing that is appropriate for its place. The context of (city) was chosen because its critical its adjacent to historic waterfront. It is on the waterfront itself. And so there are several kinds of conditions there that they should be paying attention to in terms of that. And they will link that as a pilot building one that is important as sort of a civic place in life of the people of the community but also important in terms of its location and the physical characteristics historical characteristics. So that as well as dealing with a program that requires longer spans rather than short spans in the multiple modular type buildings. So it is more into dealing with more clear span type spaces. So the combination of that challenge the larger spaces with sensitive aspects of the site is what we are trying to work with. Another general issue in terms of design concept I guess would be talk about transparency which has to do with the internal and external and implied and explicit transparency- glass but also moving through to adjacent spaces o u td o o r i n d o o r so o n . S o th a t s a n o th e r i ssu e th a t I a sk th e m to p a y a tte n ti o n to .

Researcher: Is this the first time you have assigned this project?

Professor Roger: First time that I have assigned this project.

Researcher: Are the other projects you have done in the fourth year studio comparable to this one?

Professor Roger: They have done a composite material research laboratory. They have done a theatre design competition. And these are some previous fourth year design projects n o t th i s o n e . T h e y h a ve d o n e a co n ve n ti o n ce n te r Idon t th i n k th a t I h a ve e ve r d o n e th e sa m e p ro j e ct tw i ce .

207

Researcher: Are the students able to integrate the ideas that you expect your e xp e cta ti o n s Professor Roger: Some of the m a re p a rti cu l a rl y th o se stu d e n ts w h o te n d to have a very strong pragmatic orientation as we call it who look at conventional ways of doing things as the way of solving problems of being a professional. You kn o w T h o se a re h a rd e r to cra ck th ro u g h th a t shell sometimes because what we try to do is stimulate creativity and imagination. And I am pointing out this is th e p l a ce w h e re th a t sta rts re a l l y. It s b e e n sta rti ng al la l ong butnow i s th e ti me to bring it in focus and to bring all these pragmatic aspects of architecture into pl ay butal so ke e p th e cre a ti ve . S o th i ngs l i ke ta ki n g th i s u rb a n si te the existing urban site a n d a n a l yzi n g th a t (In te rru p te d b y a vi si to r). B u t m o st stu d e n ts d o g e t i t a n d w e e ve n su cce e d i n g e tti n g so m e o f th o se h a rd sh e ll students too. I hate to see it otherwise. But I should say the urban site idea follows on one earlier which has to do with taking an animal skeleton, analyzing that and translating the concept of what the animal skeleton represented into a structural recre a ti o n a l sh e l te r w i th so l ar panel s i ti s tryi n g to tri g g e r th e imagination. At the same time the urban site the idea of doing that is that the urban site pre-exists. So basically look at it on top of your site and think of that as having some kind of potential for suggesting how spaces may relate to each other. So its looking outside of the project, outside of any precedents for a specific project to other sources that trigger their imagination.

Researcher: What do you think are the aspects that the department emphasizes in terms of what you want the students to leave with? P ro fe sso r R o g e r: W e l li f yo u w a n t to g e t ri g h t d o w n to th e co re o f th a t w e h a ve just been through an accreditation review. You might look at the NAAB gui del i n e s w h e n i t co m e s d o w n to th e sch o o l th a t s ki n d o f fu n d a m e n ta l ,I guess. So there has been over the years a strong orientation to professional

208

practice so the aspects of that. And also the idea that you know creative forces and in terms of hoping that our graduates play into the more leadership roles in professional practice. Some have to say the leading practitioners not just ordinary practitioners wherever that is possible. And of course this means also taking into light here the representation of diverse populations and bringing it into th e p ro g ra m . S o i ts so rt o f a m u l ti p u rp o se

Researcher: Are aspects like social and psychological concerns related to architectural design emphasized in the program or the design studio? Professor Roger: In the design studio and in other cou rse s a s w e l li t s ve ry interesting because there is except in the case of some specific and fairly rare individual students does it appear to make any difference at all in terms of quality of character of imagination or creativity in the design process. To me th a t sj u st re a l l y b e e n ve ry i n te re sti n g . T h e re a re so m e stu d e n ts th a t w o u l d co m e in and I should say they are few and far between that will have an interest in trying to apply what they bring with them in terms of their own cultural background and ideas into this and make some interpretation on the architecture. It d o e sn t h a p p e n ve ry m u ch . Its n o t th a t th e y ca n tdo i t. B u t i f th e y j u st o p e n u p and come in and do architecture. It is very interesting to me that they do. Researcher: What about soci a l a n d p sych o l ogi ca l a sp e cts o f d e si g n a s su ch how buildings affect people?

Professor Roger: Well we deal with that. Its part of the design process. But we d e a lw i th i t n o t so m u ch i n te rm s o f p a rti cu l a ri zi n g a cu l tu ra l b a ckg ro u n d th a t s represented there. I mean it looks like what you see in design studio typically would be that we all work towards finding solutions that would work in any case. But you know what would probably change that in any given circumstance might be that the program is more culturally oriented. If we said to do something for this

209

culture and then that will encourage of course focus on that and making interpretations on that relationship. But I cant think that they assume that.

Researcher: What is your opinion about integrating research about such subjects and readings being integrated in the program?

Professor Roger: Graduate level not at the undergraduate level. There just d o e sn t se e m to b e ti m e to fo cu s o r to g e t o u t i n to a n y ki n d o f so rt o f re se a rch in terms of developing program. In the 5th year where students have some control over what project and program they do, there can be that. And also on the graduate level for the thesis work they can do that. And maybe there some instances where they have done that. They may take a particular location and they will study the background history and so on of that and apply that to the program. Researcher: So students choose their own projects in 5th year? Is there a focused research aspect to it? P ro fe sso r R o g e r: W e l li t s p a rt o f i t s o n e o f th e i d e a s th a t th e y w i l lg o i n to some background into the program when developing it and study it at the fifth year level more so on the graduate level.

Researcher: Is there some suggested reading for students? Professor Roger: Some people d o th a t. I d o n t d o m u ch o f th a t. T h e th i n g s th a t w e d o so m e ti m es i s goi ng di re ctl y to l o o k u p m a yb e ce rta i n a rch i te cts w o rk b u t i t will be for looking up precedents for that kind of building or that kind of construction technique. We did that as a additional part of the ------------ to look at the range of possibilities for steel construction and glass enclosure systems and so o n . B u t th a t s n o t th e cu l tu ra l b a se th a t yo u a re ta l ki n g a b o u t. T h a t s re a l l y

210

particularly looking at what kinds of building techniques might be available to use and work with. R e se a rch e r: S o i ts m o re th e stru ctu ra l a sp e cts a n d m a te ri al P ro fe sso r R o g e r: N o t so m u ch to d o . N o t m u ch tryi n g to n a rro w d o w n a cu l tu ra l emphasis of any kind and research that. We are looking at something that in the cultural sense is more generic kind of solution rather than a culturally specific one. So I mean in case of (city) for example th a t s a co m m u n i ty w i d e p ro j e ct and al th o u g h w e d o n tdi scu ss i tas bei n g so m e th i n g th a t i s cu l tu ra l l y re sp o n si ve because of the variety of the themes to satisfy diverse interests as a central co m m u n i ty w i d e fa ci l i ty w e j u st d o n tgeti n to th a t. S o w e d e ve l o p so m e th i ng th a t s o ri e n te d to w a rd s e ve ryb o d y co m i ng and deal i ng w i th th e ki nd of stru ctu re . It s cu l tu ra l i n the sense that its generic contemporary American culture. R e se a rch e r: T h a t s b ro a d . P ro fe sso r R o g e r: Y e s th a t s b ro a d a n d w e d o n t g e t a n y m o re n a rro w th a n th a t.

Researcher: Anything else you want to add in terms of architecture or architecture education. P ro fe sso r R o g e r: T h a t s a ve ry g e n e ra l q u e sti o n a n d m y o w n fe e l i ng abouti t comes from my own educational background and experience. It seems to me that it is important for architects to have a more general education liberal arts education. Because you know a discussion going on now about science and math but then we have this critical disastrous things happening in the world of b u si n e ss. S o m e th i ng smi ssi n g . T h e o ri e n ta ti o n to sci e n ce a n d m a th w i l ln o t solve that problem. We need to now humanities that are history, you know the so ci a l sci e n ce s a n d h u m a n i ti es as w el l . I th i n k th a t s p a rti cu l a rl yi m p o rta n t fo r

211

a rch i te cts i n o rd e r to b e a b l e to d e ve l o p a n a rch i te ctu re th a t s re sp o n si bl e to human needs and conditions. Otherwise we are just putting up machinery and people you know take it or leave it. Are they forced into it or what. I mean what d o w e d o ? W e n e e d to d o so m e th i ng and i ti si n te re sti n g th a t th i s _ _ _ _ yo u question about culture. Well! We cant take the time to do that in the studio as an issue to take up and spend time on. I do take that its an important aspect of what architects do.

Researcher: How do you think it can be done and incorporated in the program? P ro fe sso r R o g e r: W e l l I th i n k th a t I th i nk i ts i m p o rta n t to e xp e ct stu d e n ts to make certain important connections themselves. What you have to do is you put them in a position to have the opportunity to do that. And I think that design is one of those opportunities. And we might discuss that in class or in you know --------. In case of savannah you know in the context of its history for example. How does i t re l a te to i s th i s a p p ro p ri a te to th o se m a yb e th e p e o p l ei n (ci ty) h a ve a feeling about the community. So the building in there is going to be something that does or does not work. So it comes out in different ways like that although I w oul d n o t sa y i t s th e fo cu s a s su ch , I w a n t th e m to b e i n a p o si ti o n to fe e l i f th e y __________ might be appropriate. And to do that well I think they need to have that background. The general education to develop good judgment of how that should be developed.

Researcher: In some programs the liberal arts get restricted to math and science. P ro fe sso r R o g e r: W e l l th a t s th e ch a l l e n g e o f a rch i te ctu re o f co u rse th a t yo u need the sciences and the arts to su cce e d . T h a t s th e ch a l l e n g e b u t th a t s al so the exciting thing about it because its so all encompassing.

Researcher: Have the students visited the site for this project in (City)?

212

Professor Roger: They did not. A few did. A few did and they came back and reported basically to the class. Under former circumstances of better budgets we would have not only encouraged that we would have done it. And we would have just taken the class, gone over there and spent some time and looked at, walked the site and ta l ke d a b o u t i t. B u t th e m o n e y s g o n e . S o th e vo l u n te e rs th a t ca n d o it, we encourage them to do that and then to come back and report back to the class. So we had several that went over and did some photography and studied the site and looked at the context and brought back the photography and shared that with the class-mates.

(Interrupted) . D e ve l op gui del i n e s th a t w i l l m a ke a n y g i ve n ----------- work with community and this is an issue. We might be more successful working with some of the design features that have sort of a play in that. So things like you now u n d e si g n a te d ca rri a g e w a y th a t n o b o d y kn o w s w h o i s ta ki n g ca re o f th a t s g a rb a g e a n d n o b o d y cl eans i t u p b u t cre a te s a n a u ra a b o u t u s th a t s n o t g o o d fo r us. So things like that as well as you know a clear sense of arrival and community space, private space. How these things relate to each other p h ysi ca l l y a n d so th a t s a n e xa m p l e o f p ro j e cts

Researcher: Are there are lot of students wanting to go to graduate school?

Professor Roger: There are quite a few. And we have got returning students that have done undergraduate and are coming back to do graduate study. And there are quite a few graduate students.

Researcher: How do you feel about students leaving at the end of the fourth year and not continuing to complete the professional degree?

213

Professor Roger: 4th year with Bachelor of Science in architecture. That does not qualify you to get licensed. You have to take the 5th year to get the bachelor of architecture to qualify you for a license. Researcher: Do many students come back to the 5th year?

Professor Roger: No. I mean its been about an even split lately. We have other stu d e n ts. W e h a ve re tu rn i n g stu d e n ts . I ca n t ke e p u p w i th th e n u m b e rs. Researcher: Students tell me they get tired a n d th a t i s w h y th e y d o n t co m e b a ck and i ti s su rp ri si n g th a t th e y w o n t w a n t to sp e n d a n o th e r ye a r a n d q u a l i fy to g e t licensed. P ro fe sso r R o g e r: Y o u ca n g o a n d w o rk w i th a n a rch i te ct b u t ca n t sta n d fo r th e exam unless you have completed the fifth year of a 5 year program and on top of th a t yo u n e e d a n i n te rn sh i p fo r th e m a ste r s p ro g ra m i s 2 ye a rs

Researcher: Are a lot of students not looking towards getting licensed?

Professor Roger: I am not sure why. R e se a rch e r: W h y d o yo u th i n k th e y d o n t co m e back?

Professor Roger: I think they have decided that they are basically, as you were saying, maybe they are tired of it. Maybe they know it well enough now to do w h a t th e y w a n t to d o . A n d so m e h o w th e y e n d u p d o i n g th i n g s th a t th e y .. and that is an educational thing. They can go into selling building materials, they ca n g o a s a co n tra cto r, o r a l o t o f o th e r p o ssi bi l i ti e s w i th o u t a ctu a l l y h a vi ng to be a licensed architect. So they do go into other related activities. Some may g o ..

214

APPENDIX J INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS FOR FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW AT SCHOOLA Focus Group Interview March 8th, 2006 School of Architecture B, University Y

Researcher: What is your opinion, definition, description of architecture as a profession and the responsibilities that it entails? S u m m e r: O u r p ro fe sso rs h a ve ta l ke d to u s a l o t a b o u t h o w th e re a so n th a t architects get licensed is because they are responsible for the safety of the people within the building. So I would say that would be one major thing of what architects should or will be required to do. S u sa n : I th i n k p a rt o f w h a t w e ve b e e n stu d yi n g th e ti m e th a t w e ve b e e n h e re a t (University Y) is how to create beautiful spaces that people want to inhabit, people should enjoy inhabiting these spaces. Not just for the safety of the person but for the development of themselves whether it be you know a spiritual sort of connection with their surroundings or if its just an area of comfort. It is more than sh e l te r. Its d e si gni n g sp a ce s th a t p e o p l e a re h a p p y i n

Joey: To add to Susan and Summer, the main reasons I took a liking in architecture is to kind of experience what spaces are and how they developed throughout architecture school. We were taught back in D1 or so the concept of space as kind of how does one enter, how does arrive into space, how does one move, how does one kind of feel in that space. So our professors try to engrave

215

in our minds how to view conceptually than in the literal sense how spaces are developed and their _______ architecture.

Lauren: One of the main reasons that I became an architect, well not an architect yet, an architecture student, is because I really like to create things with my hands. My background is mainly artistic. I was going to become an artist but then I decided to study architecture. But one thing that I always discovered is that when I making a model or when I am trying something I feel almost like a potter th a t s h o w yo u sa y th a t like you know when you are molding something. You a re cre a ti ng i tw i th yo u r h a n d s. It sl i ke it becomes your masterpiece and you begin to understand that you know you are molding it. You understand its base----. So one of the things that I really like is that idea of creating you know my own space. And obviously you want to make the space so that you would like it and if you like it you will make it so that people will like it too. Not just to put something to make it efficient. One of the things that Prof. Karen was saying that we make our buildings and they make us and I think in the process you know you begin to understand your own technique on how you make a space and you begin to just perfect them how to you know react to people.

Mike: To me I guess architecture I guess as a broad definition is basically like a style of art that is like an innovative process of thinking that tries to incorporate th e i ssu e s o f d e si g n a n d h o w o n e e sta b l i sh e s a sp a ce s u se a n d p u rp o se . A n d also it facilitates----------as a people dealing with how it is in a specific area but also like an aspects of basically getting to a point of how you express what you want to do within the actual art of the building-----------

Lisa: I think the reason why I mainly went into architecture is because of the mere fact that in this country it seems like a lot of the architecture that we have i sn t re p re se n ti n g w h o w e a re . A l otofi ti smi mi cke d fro m yo u kn o w h i sto ri ca l architecture from other countries. Just about every place you go in Florida you see something that looks like a Tuscan Villa. And I feel like you know anybody

216

can repl i ca te so m e th i n g b u t I th i nk i t ta ke s i t s m o re o f a ch a l l e n g e to a n d i f yo u like that particular style to not replicate it but to make it new because with a program you kind of have to design for a function and the way people live in other countries is not necessarily going to reflect the way we live here. And I think that you kinda have to design for design to make it livable to make it a comfortable space. S u sa n : I a g re e w i th e ve ryo n e S u m m e r: I th i n k a s a co n se n su s w h a t w e ve b e e n ta u g h t i s w e v e all been here for a while, learned the same things is that you design for the people who will be in it and then you design what it looks like.

Lisa: And I guess for the most part people that hire architects maybe uneducated in architecture. They figure it out the other way around. They drive down streets a n d th e y se e so m e th i n g th e y l i ke a n d th e n th e y sa y o k I w a n t i t to l ook l i ke th a t b u t th e y d o n t re a l l y th i n k a b o u t, o r th e y m a y n o t th i n k a b o u t th e fa ct th a t i tm ay not be functional for them. And th a t s w h e re w e co m e i n a s p ro fe ssi onal s to sa y yo u kn o w , to w o rk w i th th e m to sa y o k w e l l , h a ve yo u sp e n d yo u r d a y w h a t s th e p ro ce ss o f yo u g e tti ng up and goi n g th ro u g h yo u r d a y. A n d h o w d o you interact with your children and your company and things like th a t. A n d yo u know and try to help them make decisions to make that space comfortable for them to live in rather than to just design it for an aesthetic purpose. R e se a rch e r: I h e a rd 2 d i ffe re n t va ri a ti o n s o f th e a n sw e rs so m e th i n g yo u ca m e with and som e th i n g th e sch o o l a d d e d to C o rre ct?

All: Yes

Researcher: If you look at particular aspects of architecture (examples) that in your past four years that have been emphasized the most in the program?

217

Joey: Well! As our years progress in architecture we start going from conceptual literal things and this is actually our third or fourth attempt at I guess city edges a n d stu ff l i ke th a t. H o w w e w o u l d re l a te o u r b u i l di n g s to th a t . B e fo re w e j u st had here make a model and make some plans and sections. But no w w e re actually dealing with real life situations and trying how to make that better for pedestrians on the street, how that affects traffic. How does that try to how do you get storm water into an area without affecting surrounding areas about it. Lisa: M y e xp e ri e n ce h a s b e e n a l i ttl e di ffe re n t b e ca u se I d i dn t g o h e re fo r l ow er division. I went to a community college. This school I went to catered to a university that was in the same building with us. And they actually are more literal than abstract. And so what I started out with was literal. And since I have been h e re th o u g h th e re I sta rte d o u t w o rki n g fro m th e i n si d e o u t I ve b e e n w o rki ng wi th p ro g ra m s si n ce D e si g n I a n d si n ce I ve b e e n h e re , I a m tryi n g to fo cu s o n the things that I missed out on and that I lost in lower division here. And I found th a t n o w I m w o rki ng a l o t m o re fro m th e o u tsi de i n and j u st th e tri p s th a t w e ve ta ke n l i ke N e w Y o rk a n d S a va n n a h a n d C h a rl e sto n j u st ------------ learning more about how the pedestrian approaches the building and you know just deal i ng w i th a l l th e o th e r i ssu e s l i ke sto rm w a te r a n d th i ngs l i ke th a t. It s di ffe re n t coming from two different perspectives and you know different types of schools.

Susan: As Joey was saying our education here has definitely been a progression since we started we began just kinda analyzing space. In the way spaces interact and it is very theoretical and then we might we may spend an entire semester working on just the issue of door-window-stair and how those interact how somebody inhabits. Just a simple space that cant even really be defined as a building and just how they work through the space with doors with windows and wi th sta i rs a n d n o w th a t w e a re i n o u r fi n a l ye a r o f u n d e rg ra d u a te h e re w e ve definitely been involved a lot more in the urban fabric of the city. We did take a tri p to N e w Y o rk ci ty th o se o f u s w h o d i d.S om e peopl e a ctu a l l y w e n t to

218

Vi ce n za , Ita l y. A n d re a l l y w e ve b e e n tra i n e d th a t a n yw h e re w e g o w e n e e d to watch and learn and understand what is that people need in a space, maybe what they are missing, maybe what it is that they are enjoying in the space. And we learn to kinda catalogue those things in our brains and learn from them and so particularly our project now we are working in (city) and the issue of sto rm w a te r co m e s fro m a h u g e n e e d fo r p l a ce s to sto re sto rm w a te r. T h a t sj u st something that comes directly from the site that we are working on. And we are tra i n e d to l o o k a t th e si te a n d re a l l y u n d e rsta n d th e si te th a t w e re o n to fi g u re o u t what it is all the small elements that need to be addressed whether it be stormwater or issues of pedestrian walkway and landscape or is it something like circulation within a vertical space. It could be different depending on whatever your site is and the context of the site.

Mike: I think like as a whole like within progression of actual----- seems like dealing with all the conceptual ideas it helps an individual develop a style and when they start to give us the actual requirements and dealing with pedestrian i ssu e s a n d sto rm w a te r a n d ci rcu l a ti on i t se e m s l i ke i t h a s u s i t m a ke s u s embody the structure having unique, individual, having basically unique approaches to how they would design and cater to the needs of how the requirements within the structure are or dealing with like issues of the context and when you go to specific areas, visiting different cities or working with different sites you start to embody them but having the unique touch within yo u rse l f a n d h o w yo u a p p ro a ch i t. A l th o u g h e ve ryo n e s deal i n g with those same issues, the conceptual ideas that you develop within like our lower division years you start to have your approach to how want to see this project and it basically gives a broad spectrum of different aspects and different views of how the students would see how the same program would incorporate this one space but you see all different aspects and realms and different strategies as to how they would model the use of that space and how it caters to the requirements of pedestrians, stormwater drainage circulation and different types of structures ------things of that sort.

219

Summer: I agree with Joey and Susan both on how they discuss the conceptual to logistic I guess progression. I would say that with each step it usually poses a difficulty. Our first building per se took place in like in D4 and I remember it being a struggle a very big struggle to get it to work like it should. And even at that point we were not concerned about stormwater, we were not concerned about two ways of egress, we w e re n o t I m e a n so I j u st w o n d e r i fw e had been i n tro d u ce d to th a t so o n e r i f th a t w o u l d h a ve b e e n e a si er or i f th a t w a s th e w a y i t s supposed to but I just think that with each additional thing that they kinda dumped at us it gets extremely challenging a n d so m e ti m es i t d o e sn t w o rk a n d i ts ve ry d i sa p p o i n ti ng w hen i t d o e sn t w o rk b u t i ts j u st th a t s th e w a y I fe e l th a t wi th e a ch ste p i t s a ve ry h u g e ch a l l enge. S u sa n : I fe e l l i ke w e a re a l w a ys b u i l di n g o n w h a t w e h a ve b e e n l e a rn i n g so i t s just a constant progression and now you know door, window, stairs comes to us wi th m u ch g re a te r e a se a n d w i th m u ch m o re i n te re st a n d w e re a b l e to ki nd of work with things in a better way than we would be have when we were still in d e si g n III. S o i t sj u st l i ke p ra c tice makes perfect I guess or at least closer to perfect.

Lisa: I think I am struggling with the parts that I missed in lower division with th e w h e re th e y w e re m o re co n ce p tu a l a n d m o re a b stra ct a n d j u st th i n ki ng about creating spaces and not really thinki ng Idon t kn o w n e ce ssa ri l y th a t th e y were thinking about proportions to be able to fit in two sets of stairs into an area and something like that. So I am kind of actually. I am struggling with the opposite that what they are struggling with because I already start thinking ahead about stairs because now I am having to design more abstractly or am trying to design more abstractly rather than just programmatically.

Lauren: One of the things that I think is very wise with the program here in the (University Y) F is the way that everything is set up. You know like babies they

220

ca n n o t l i ke w a l k yo u kn o w u n ti l th e y b e g i n to cra w l fi rst . Y o u j u st g o t to g o a t a p a ce a n d so w h a t I th i nk i s th a t th a t s ve ry w i se th a t w e sta rt g e tti ng i d e a s th a t are very conceptual such as breaking out you know the stages of a cube you know. Everything in lower division is about like decomposition and trying to break e ve ryth i n g d o w n . W h e re a s l a st se m e ste r sh e w a s l o o ki n g fro m o u tsi de i n i ts yo u ve se e n th a t d e co m p o si ti o n fro m b e fore but now its trying to reach towards the edge. So its how everybody was saying about the integrating the urban fa b ri c. A n d w h a t I ve se e n th a t i s ve ry i n te re sti ng aboutl ow er di vi si o n , I th i nk i ts phenomenology and you have to kind of like start tying i n th i n g s th a t l i ke i n th e _______ project. I think light is one of the things that a lot of people use and it can be one of the you can call it you know a part of the program that a lot of lower division is about because it starts to break down the space and light really is very interesting because you can have a very dark space and you can barely l i ke se e w h a t si ni t. S o yo u ki nd ofl i ke d i m m e d o u t th e d i m e n si ons and i t m a ke s it you know way sublime or bigger. You cant really tell what ---- it almost feels like a void. And in the other you know when you start providing like through it you know you start breaking down the space and giving it dimensions. So I think th a t s o n e o f th e th i n g s th a t w e h a ve --------- in lower division that gets us into the architecture. R e se a rch e r: W h a t a cco rd i n g to yo u m i g h t b e th e d e p a rtm e n t s obj e cti ve s th a t they set especially with respect to social and psychological issues and how they progress across the curriculum? What do you think they are thinking you should leave here with?

Mike: What I think is that basically I guess they have a mind-track of trying to basically push out or to generate basically a cluster or a class-size however you say it or basically more innovative architects who try to push the envelope within design to focus more on something new not to try to issues of recreating. B a si ca l l yi f yo u to o k so m e e xa m p l e s fro m so m e b o d y s w o rk yo u try to m a ke i t to an extent where its something that gets recognized as a piece of architecture not

221

just a building that has to be made to the requirements and the mind set, I think the process of how they give us the design studios is to try to basically making us think of new designs and then you follow rules. Instead of following rules and trying to design because within that it seems like you have constrictions and you focus on the rules so much they may take away from the designs. But the process they have done and given to us it makes us design to our fullest potential I would say and then we incorporate the rules. But within the rules, we design the rules not to just put them within place but that they work. We design them so that they work with the building but also work with the requirements of how they are in the specific building to make it seem like its basically a new type of way to design stairs or a new way that you see a elevator because it was d e si g n e d . It w a sn tj u st a b o x th a t w a s p l a ce d i n th e b u i l di n g b e ca u se w e n e e d e d an elevator and that aspect I think.

Lisa: I think as far as the social aspect of it I think the professors try to encourage us to work in the studio as much as possible so that we can help each other out. You know when you come across a problem that you are trying to solve and if you are not sure that something is work for you, or something you can ask others and say what do you think about this and then help out each other. Which I think is good because when you get into an office as a peer and you are working on a te a m yo u h a ve to w o rk th a t w a y. B u t th e sch o o l th a t I ca m e fro m yo u d i dn t work in studios. We worked at home and so I was used to working alone but I think to an extent there should be some balance there because I think sometimes when you are working too closely with other people I noticed when I came here for pin-ups that the aesthetic that the school produces the work that they produce i s ve ry si mi l a r l i ke a l o t o f th e w o rk. I ca m e i n wi th th e l ow er di vi si on l o o ki ng at th e w o rk th e y w e re p ro d u ci ng i t se e m e d l i ke e ve ryb o d y s w o rk h a d a n aesthetic that was similar and it seemed like everybody was kind of influenced by each other. Whereas where I went to school we went and worked at home and when we came in to present projects everybody had something completely di ffe re n t. S o I th i nk i t ca n g o e i th e r w a y I th i nk i ti s g o o d to be able to work with

222

peopl e to b e a b l e to b o u n ce i d e a s o ff o f e a ch o th e r. B u t I a l so th i n k th e o th e r thing is good to so that you actually come up with something fresh because yo u re n o t b e i ng i n fl u e n ce d b y so m e o n e e l se . Lauren: One of the things that I think they start to push a lot here once you get to w a rd s yo u r e n d i n g ye a rs i s th e re a l i ty a n d i t s th e re a l w o rl d o u t th e re i s notas pretty as design one b re a k u p th e cu b e u se yo u r co n ce p ts yo u kn o w beautiful things that in a way would not work in a building you know. So I think the issue of budget comes a lot in mind and how you make your program work you know around the budget and how do you deal with clients and stuff. And I think they start to already start to already help us through this process with classes like materials and methods of construction which we have to pretty much design to a budget you know with a certain square footage and with materials th a t th e y a re n o t l i mi te d b u t so m e th i ng s a re l i ke to o e xp e n si ve so re a l i ty yo u know kicks in. But one of the things that we also have to keep in mind is our p ro g re ss th a t w e h a ve th ro u g h d e si g n I to d e si g n 8 th a t w e sta rt w i th a co n ce p t and then you go as far as your program and the real things. So we always need to remember that when we connect projects o u r co n ce p ts d ri ve o u r p ro j e cts not the other way around.

Summer: I think that my experience here has also been different from most of the other sitting around here at this table. I went through the program until my third year until D 7 a n d th e n I g o t so stre sse d o u t I co u l dn t ta ke i t a n y m o re . I l e ft fo r a b o u t 2 ye a rs a n d so I a m co m i n g b a ck a n d fi ni sh i ng up m y l a st ye a r. A n d I d o n t kn o w a n yb o d y o r I d i dn t kn o w a n yb o d y co m i ng i n , e ve ryb o d y w a s yo u n g e r th a n m e a n d yo u d o n t h a ve th e camaraderie that you did when you started out because I know that when I started out I had a handful of hard friends that we made it through D1 together, we made it all the way and you know they went on and they graduated and you know I am back again and its different. Because when I had those friends even if they were not in my studio they were in the studio next door down the hallway you go and visit them and so studio was a

223

m o re p l e a sa n t p l a ce to b e b u t i ts d i ffe re n t w h e n yo u kn o w th a t yo u ca n tru st so m e o n e e l se s d e si gn opi ni o n . W h e n yo u kn o w when you can almost predict w h a t th e y l l sa y w h e n yo u sh o w th e m yo u r p ro j e ct a n d yo u kn o w w h a t th e y a re goi n g to sa y a n d yo u kn o w h o w th e y th i nk behi n d w h a t th e y te l l yo u . S o I m j u st sa yi n g th a t th e re s a different socially as far as starting out and going through than stopping and coming back and coming in new. I imagine that it was somewhat similar for Lisa as far as coming in from a community college. And th e n . A l so a s fa r a s p sych o l ogi ca l l y I sp e n t m y first year and a half here co m p l e te l y co n fu se d I h a d n o i dea w hatw as goi n g o n . It w a s so m y fi rst ye a r (EVERYBODY LAUGHS) I was just completely and utterly confused and fru stra te d b e ca u se yo u co m e h e re a n d i t w a s e ve ryb o d y . I re m e m b e r discussing with fe l l o w stu d e n ts a t th a t ti m e and l i ke D o yo u w h a t s goi ng on? I h a ve n o i d e a so yo u sp e n d yo u r fi rst a t l e a st yo u r fi rst ye a r h e re g e tti ng everything you knew or thought you knew completely broken to pieces. I mean i t b a si ca l l y th e y b re a k d o w n p re j udi ce s o r p re co n ce p ti ons and i t s a ve ry di ffi cu l t p ro ce ss to g o th ro u g h . I th i nk i ts a n i m p o rta n t ste p b u t i ti s ve ry h a rd o n the students. But once you reach the level we are at now the senior year level they dump so much other information on you that it just pushes you to where if yo u d o n t kn o w h o w to d e a l w i th i t o n a p e rso n a l l e ve l yo u j u st g o o ve r th e e d g e . I would like to take any extra classes that everybody else in this room is taking and th e y w o rk p ro b a b l y 2 3 h o u rs o u t o f a d a y l a u g h so I j u st.. th e y j u st a t th i s time they just put so much on the seniors that it is just so hard to make it through.

Susan: I have had the opportunity to do some TAing since I have been here and it is really interesting to watch some other students in lower divisions go through th e p ro ce ss th a t w e w e n t th ro u g h fro m ki n d o f th e o th e r si d e . A n d I th i nk looking back at it I have realized why we did the things that we did. You really try to get those freshmen into a new way of thinking. Just seeing with their own e ye s se e i ng fresh with guidance from the professors. Because people come in with this idea of a house which is you know 2 stories pitch roof or whatever it is that they grew up in is their idea of a house and lower division is kind of the

224

process of trying to break yo u n g m i n d s o u t o f th i s w a y th a t th e y ve b e e n tra i ned to th i n k. B e ca u se u n fo rtu n a te l yal o t o f th e b u i l di n g s th a t th e y ve g ro w n u p w i th o r are familiar with are not good buildings but its just what they are used to. And maybe they are used to everything be i ng i n co n cre te th e re s a ctu a l l ya concrete disease at this school now. People are always designing buildings in concrete because our building is made of concrete and you do what you know. So the first year is to kind of get you out of what you know. And teach you more g e t yo u to u n d e rsta n d th a t th e re s a h u g e w o rl d wi th a l l ki nds ofdi ffe re n t d e si gns out there. And then once you get into your upper divisions things change and they start becoming more realistic. You are supposed to still use those core concepts from your first year but you get more realistic and this semester a lot of us are starting to look for jobs and are starting to get introduced to the idea that we are going to be out in the real world and that maybe well probably its not going to be as fun as it is here and I think that a lot of us are kind of concerned a b o u t th a t. A n d yo u kn o w I ve ki n d o f g o tte n ca rri ed aw ay w i th m y d e si g n fo r th i s semester with concepts of fire stairs and egress and you have to have so much parking and I have just been letting it drive my project and its endangering my re vi e w . T h e p ro fe sso r sa i d w h a t a re yo u d o i n g yo u a re n o t a d e ve l o p e r i ts really good that you have all of these things but what about all the things that yo u ve b e e n l e a rn i n g b e fo re . W h e re a re a l l th e i n te re sti n g sp a ce s w h e re a re people meeting. Where are all these cracks and crevices in your design that serve as interesting spaces that serve as people to kind of socialize and gather together. And having this conversation now it does make me realize that they try to engrain in us this idea of beautiful inhabitation of buildings and once we get i n to th e re a l w o rl di t se e m s l i ke w e d o n t h a ve th a t o p p o rtu n i ty a n d w e h a ve to really make those opportunities for ourselves. Joey: Just to continue off o f S u sa n , th e i d e a s a re b e i ng i n a sch o o l su ch a s (U n i ve rsi ty Y ), th e i d e a s a re co n ce p tu a l i d e a s H o w yo u sti l l h a ve yo u r concepts, your creative ideas and things like egress and fire stairs can really m a yb e l i ke ru i n yo u r p ro j e ct to a n e xte n t w e l l w h a t I was wanting to hear was

225

re a l l y don tl e t th i ngs l i ke th a t d ri ve yo u r p ro j e cts b e ca u se th a t w o u l d re a l l y not have your I guess you are taking out your really innovative creativity from your project. If you have stairs you are focusing everything on stai rs a n d th a t s not what your idea is it could be something completely different. To branch off from what Summer was saying, I think that socially and psychologically, I think (U n i ve rsi ty Y ) i s a g re a t sch o o l fo r a rch i te ctu re i ts ta u g h t m e to b e m o re so c ial wi th e ve ryb o d y. T h a t s w h y I th i n k th e y e n co u ra g e u s to b e i n th e stu d i oa l o t th e y ki n d o f e n co u ra g e u s to h e l p peopl e outw i th e a ch o th e rs w o rk. I m a big joker.. I love to just make jokes about people and stuff and without that kind of atmosphere in the studio I think it would be kind of boring. If you are working on projects are not communicating with each other, are not having fun. If you are i n th e stu d i o atl i ke 4 o cl o ck i n th e m o rn i n g , yo u e n j o y yo u rse l f i ti s fri g h te n i ng to be in the last semester going into the real world but I think what we learned fro m o u r p a st ye a rs th a t w e ve b e e n h e re , i tw i l l ca rry o n i n to o u r n e xt j ob opportunity or grad school wherever you go and it will enhance communication skills and help us become better people.

Lisa: I think basing off of what Susan was talking about going into the real world, I think in a way this school I feel this school does the students a disservice in the se n se th a t w h e n I g o t h e re , a l o t o f I ke p t h e a ri ng a l o t W e l l h a ve a s m u ch fu n with your projects now because this is the only chance you are ever going to get to d o i t. S o j u st g o w i l d a n d p u sh th e e n ve l o p e a n d d o w h a te ve r yo u w a n n a d o . A nd w hi ch i s w o n d e rfu l b e ca u se w e a re cre a ti ve p e o p l e a n d th a t s w hatw e enj oy doing and waiting until senior year to introduce stairs and circulation and such th i n g s I th i nk w el l g ra n te d i tw as l a st ye a r a n d I w a sn t h e re th ro u g h l ow er di vi si o n so I d o n t kn o w w h a t yo u a l ld i di n fi rst a n d se co n d ye a r b u t I j u st th i n k when I design I try to think about where to fit stairs and things. And even if its not concrete where I would put it, but I try to kind of have an idea of it and I work in a n o ffi ce to o so I ki n d o f se e th e re a l w o rl di sal otdi ffe re n t th a n w h a t w e h a ve i n sch o o l a n d I th i nk i ts I th ink they should probably start preparing students a lot sooner than what they do.

226

Susan: I think what you are talking about is maybe Codes would be the correct w a y to sa y i t b e ca u se w e ve b e e n ta u g h t a b o u t ci rcu l a ti o n a n d sta i rs b u t th e y ve kept it really si m pl e.T he di ffi cu l t p a rt i s yo u kn o w th a t th e y h a ve n t ta u g h t u s about building codes and you know where you have this footprint and you actually need to have a 10 foot hallway and it needs to have stairs on either end a n d m a yb e th a t s w h a t I th i n k th a t m o re th a n a n yth i ng i s w h a t th e y ve b e e n w ai ti n g to g i ve u s ti l l th e e n d d o e s th a t m a ke se n se ?

Lisa: I think they should have you start thinking about it.

Susan: Yeah and that often depends on your professor. Sometimes your professor like my professor i n d e si g n 5 w a s te l l i n g u s yo u kn o w th a t s notgoi ng to w o rk b e ca u se th a t s to o n a rro w o r th a t s notgoi n g to w o rk b e ca u se i ts to o h i gh up in the air. But other professors will or wont depending on their own beliefs of when that sort of idea should be introduced. Mi ke : I th i n k th e w a y th e y ve d o n e i t I th i nk i s so m e th i n g th a t w i l l w o rk b e ca u se when you start to consider building codes and building ordinances its something th a t i f yo u l e a rn e a rl yi t s so m e th i n g th a t o ve rw h e l m s yo u r p ro j e ct. B e ca u se I think like all of us can say, taking M&M we are not designing the best buildings or th e b e st a rch i te ctu re b e ca u se w e re so fo cu se d o n zo n i n g co d e s a n d S o I th i nk if they would have introduced that to us earlier it just takes away from how you would design as a whole and you would be so focused on trying to make sure it meets the standards and my footprint is so perfect for this that you wont design to the best potential or to the capacity and I mean they took into consideration l i ke w e ve a l w a ys kn o w n th a t th e se things existed but they have not told us in detail what is there. And it allows you to in some ways you have to consider them to where you might be 10% right with the building code where somewhat its there. And introducing those issues to us later lets us know that you are going to have to deal with this in the real world but we still have time to get that focus on.

227

Li ke d o n t th i nk l i ke yo u r fi rst p ro j e ct l i ke w h e re yo u a re w o rki n g yo u re j u st g o i ng to b e l i ke o h I ca n t d e si g n th i s b e ca u se I d o n t kn o w that building code. Its just something that they let us know that this is something you are going to have to deal with but your design is still something that we want you to drive what you build for a structure. Not focusing on I have to make sure its building code because if that comes afterwards you will get to the point where it will be successful with everything. Researcher: One of the objectives that the program sets for you initially it is creativity and innovative designs and later they introduce building codes and programmatic requirements. (Explain social and psychological aspects) What would you say are the most important social aspects of architecture?

Lauren: As far as social aspects, I am thinking in terms of privacy and public vs private spaces. One of my main concerns is how many spaces do you have in th e b u i l di n g fo r m a yb e a cci d e n ta l o r I d o n t kn o w l i ke p l a ce s fo r p e o p l e to j u st g o and i n te ra ct j u st m a yb e fo r p e o p l e to j u st si t d o w n a n d ta l k or i n te ra ct. S o to g o to those places there has got to be a level of welcome you know in the place and things like materiality play a lot into it, height of elements in that space, how warm or how cold is the building material. Like to me, I relate a lot to warm materials they are very welcoming like w o o d a n d su rfa ce fi ni sh e s a n d th a t s just welcoming. And maybe the use of trees and courtyard spaces that let a lot of light inside and spaces that have something close to your height something th a t i ts n o t ve ry fri g h te n i n g fo r th e p e rso n to b e i n unless it is you know a skyscra p e r w i th a b i g a tri u m o r so m e th i n g th a t s w h a t I th i nk abouta l o t what drove me into that space. Summer: I think going along with that you also something that we really talked about this semester and our last semester was the urban need to have people on stre e ts. In a ci ty yo u w o n t re a l l y h a ve a su cce ssfu l b u i l di ng unl e ss yo u h a ve people there to enjoy it or occupy it. So along with what Lauren was saying in

228

order to allow for chance meetings and stuff you also want to allow for comfortable occupation. You want an interesting sidewalk. You want shops to go into and parks to sit in and places to have lunch and stuff like that. S u sa n : I dl i ke to m e n ti o n a p ro j e ct th a t w e w o rke d o n l a st se m e ste r. W e h a d a site in New York City in the meat packing district. Basically our professor gave us zoning of the district and she said Well now pick your site and so we had to pick yo u r p ro g ra m . S h e d i dn tgi ve u s a n y g u i del i n e . A n d sh e sa i d,l o o k a t th e nei g h b o rh o o d a n d se e w h a t smi s sing and put it in there. So basically what we had to do was analyze the neighborhood and definitely analyze the people on the streets and talk to them about what they needed what they thought their neighborhood was missing and what would make them come together as a community. And from there we had to develop the site that we chose in any manner that we chose based on what these people were telling us and what we viewed from the neighborhood and create something that would get back to the community.

Researcher: What would you say are the most important Psychological aspects of architectural design?

Mike: I think within the psychological aspects basically when you consider a person in the space, does the person in the space has a feel for what it was used for. If you are in a hallway, does it feel like the hallway feel like its supposed to be here and whatever the hallway sends me to. Like if it sends me to a conference room, do I feel like this is where the conference room is supposed to be in the building or if I am in the conference room do I feel like this is the conference room. Or just the simple stuff like if I am in the building can I just walk and find where the bathroom is. If they told me Oh its down the hall will I be able to go down the hall and say no I have to turn right instead of left basically by how the space is within the hall or within the area or to how the people react to the specific things would you necessarily feel like I know where to go if they told me

229

Oh its on the 4th floor, you cant miss it. Would I necessarily be able to go to the 4th floor and find the conference room because the architecture thought about how a person would inhabit the space in the sense of the type of feel they would have within the space or the type of feel they would have to the material as L a u re n m e n ti o n e d e a rl i er w i th th e w a rm m a te ri al s a n d h o w yo u fe e l th a t s w el co m i ng.A nd how l i ke i f yo u h a ve a m e ch a n i ca l sp a ce th a t s so m e th i n g yo u don t w a n t so m e b o d y to i nhabi t. Y o u w o u l d d e si gn i ti n a sp e ci fi c w a y so the p e rso n w o u l d g e t a se n se o f th a t i t s nota pl a ce I ca n i nhabi t. I w o u l dn t kn o w o n th a t d o o r. T h a t s nota pl a ce w h e re I w o u l d sa y I co u l d go i n to . Lauren: To add to that, I think details specifically for me have a lot play a major role psychological role in the person inhabiting the space. I think as an architect not only do you have to design you know like as a whole you also have to take into consideration details small things that happen in your building that make people experience something. The details like people will experience something w h a t yo u w a n t th e m to e xp e ri e n ce i s to ta l l y u p to th e m . It i s so m e th i n g th a t s tri g g e re d i n th e i rm i n d s th a t m a yb e to m e i thas a l o t to d o w i th m e m o ry. Y o u go to a building you find maybe a door knob that reminds you of your old house or what you used to do when you were a little kid or something like that. So I think details can impact people.

Joey: Going off what Lauren was talking about details, color also has a lot to do with psychological aspects of having in the building the whole atmosphere and th e m o o d . It s b a si ca l l y w h a t co l or i n g e n e ra l

Lisa: I think as far as psychology goes, I think peeking curiosity a lot of times is i m p o rta n t i n a rch i te ctu re . I d sa y a l o t o f m y e a rl i e r p ro j e cts e ve ry thing I did was very literal and it was kind of like you walk into a space and Boom everything was ri g h t th e re a n d yo u co u l d se e i t a n d yo u re a l l y don t n e e d to se e e ve ryth i ng ata first glance. Sometimes you need to be able to travel through a space and wind in and out. And we watched a video in our class last semester after we came

230

back from NY and they did studies on how people in NY interact in plazas and with stairs and things like that. And it seems like every time there was a set of stairs somewhere people were drawn to walk up them especially if they were like tighter the better. You know it seemed like there is some tight little steps somewhere you know there might be some light at the top somewhere and you ki n d o f h a ve to g o se e w h a t s u p th e re a n d you go check it out. So I think its good to have like an element of surprise in the architecture so that people will want to go i n th e re a n d e xp l o re w h a t s goi ng on i n th e re .

Researcher: How has the program helped you figure out the specific way of design o r w h a t co l o r d o e s S u sa n : T h e p ro g ra m h a sn t ta u g h t u s p e r se h o w to d o th a t b u t th e y ve ta u g h t u s to learn from other good examples. They are always telling us to look at p re ce d e n ts a n d se e w h a t w o rks a n d w h a t d o e sn t a n d se e h o w i t m a ke s yo u fe e l and how it makes other people feel. And take it and interpret it and work with it and kind of massage it into a new context and try something a little bit different. And to keep on looking until something works right.

Mike: I a little bit disagree with her. I think the program has taught it to us. It d o e sn t n e ce ssa ri l y a s a w ri tte n sta te m e n t w h e n th e y g i ve u s o u r p ro g ra m b u t when you have like small crits or when you have like a desk crit when a professor may talk to you sometimes they mention Oh think about how this caters to a person or try to look at this on a pedestrian scale and with that you have those type of intentions of considering those type of aspects of how a person may psychologically inhabit a space, how different types of materials may influence th i s p e rso n s p e rsu a si on or how i n fl u e n ce i n h o w th e y w o u l d b a si ca l l y w al k th ro u g h a sp a ce . T h e y d o n t n e ce ssa ri l y sa y I w a n t yo u to d o th i s buti n w a ys they seem like they hint towards it and have some type of influence in how they talk to us on like an individual basis.

231

Li sa : I th i n k fo r m e th e tri p s th a t w e ve ta ke n h a ve b e e n th e m o st b e n e fi ci al because actually experiencing a space as opposed to looking at a picture in a book about it really makes a difference. Because when you are in it you can get a se n se o f h o w i t fe e l s a n d th a t s w h a t yo u w a n t to d e si g n what it feels like not what it necessarily looks like. I think the professors here look like their interest is that kind of play on your intuition a little bit. Like they see what you are designing and I think intuitively we all have some idea of what we are doing but it needs tweaking and the professors will say well it kind of reminds me of this project so look at that and they will lead us to architects that have already done that or they kind o f h a ve m a yb e a ki nd ofan i d e a th a t th e y l e a d u s to a n d I th i n k th a t s how th e y ki nd ofhel p u s fi gu re o u t w h a t i ti s w e re d o i ng by gi vi n g u s th i n g s to stu d y b a se d o n w h a t w e re a l re a d y d o i ng.

Summer: How are you defining the term Program because for us program is also the description of the project we are working on? R e se a rch e r: E xp l ai n s

Researcher: What subjects have you had so far that have been most beneficial to you in your projects? Any other subjects that you would have liked to see incorporated in the curriculum? S u sa n : W e ve h a d a l o t o f cl a sse s th a t I fo u n d ve ry b e n e fi ci al . E n vi ro n m e n ta l te ch n o l ogy has had a huge i n fl u e n ce o n m y d e si g n s si n ce I ve ta ke n th a t cl a ss. And I am very interested in becoming LEED certified after graduation at some poi n t. A l so m a te ri al s a n d m e th o d s w h i ch I h a ve a l re a d y ta ke n l a st ye a r m o st people take it in their 4th year but I took it last year. Has been extremely helpful in kind of getting you into that shift into the real world. In preparing for that shift I also wish that we would have had a class on the business of architecture and how you are going to be interacting with people in the future like contractors and d e ve l o p e rs. I m e a n w e ve o fte n ta l ke d a b o u t re l a ti o n sh i ps w i th th e cl i entbut

232

th a t s been i t. A n d I would have liked to have had a I think I would be more comfortable going forward and maybe would have a door way into another kind of dealing with architecture that could maybe be more lucrative. I mean I just feel l i ke I d b e m o re co m fo rta b l ei n th e re al world and would be able to get a job where I could maybe make better money with if I was more affiliated with the business of architecture. R e se a rch e r: H a ve n t yo u h a d a p ro fe ssi o n a l p ra cti ce co u rse ? S u sa n : T h a t si n g ra d sch o o l Researcher: When you sa y yo u ve h a d co u rse s o n h o w to d e a l w i th cl i e n ts what is that?

Susan: It was never a course. It was just like through our design classes they are te l l i n g u s yo u kn o w . W e ve b a si ca l l y w e gi ve p re se n ta ti o n o f o u r p ro j e cts w h e re our professor is the client. You know the critics or the clients and we need to try a n d se l l th e p ro j e cts to th e m . I th i n k th a t i s a g o o d e xp e ri e n ce b u t w e d o n t kn o w how to talk to anyone else other than that.

Lauren: Would it help if we had more presentations to the real world people? Not like p e o p l e fro m th e co m m u n i ty S u sa n : N o t th e co m m u n i ty b u t a ctu a l p ro fe ssi o n a ll i ke co n tra cto rs L a u re n : D i ffe re n t va ri e ty o f p e o p l e

Susan: Different kinds of professionals that work with architects. I would like to speak with them about what they need from the architect, how they work with architects.

233

Lauren: I would agree with you on that point but I think there needs to be a balance. Like it would be nice to have a class that would have people from the community, people like professionals, because professionals are always _______ on the schedule, not schedule but requirements and things that they should do because they are working with clients they are working with the p ro g ra m . B u t p e o p l e th e y d o n t h a ve th e se re stri cti o n s, th e y d o n t have limits so its kind of a balance. I mean if you would just work with engineers what they are going to look for like professor Karen was talking about running crits through e ve ry fi el d and j u st b e ca u se . T h e y w o u l d th i n k a b o u t p u tti n g a w a te r re te n ti on a re a i n ste a d o f ru n n i n g cre e ks j u st th ro w a l o t o f ca l cu l a ti ons and do i t a n d yo u kn o w l i ke e n g i n e e rs. S o I th i nk i t s a ni ce b a l a n ce b u t w e d e fi ni te l y n e e d m o re experience talking with more people. S u m m e r: I dj u st l i ke to m e n ti o n th a t I g o t a l o t o u t of architectural history personally. When I first started this I was very interested in becoming a a rch i te ctu ra l h i sto ri a n . It d i dn t w o rk o u t b e ca u se (U n i ve rsi ty Y ) d o e sn t h a ve a n architectural history program. I find it helpful when a professor says you should l o o k a t K yl e . T h a t yo u kn o w w h o K yl e i s a n d th a t yo u h a ve so m e va g u e recollection of his work and why you want to look at that. So just having sort of a base knowledge has I think been very helpful.

Lisa: I think materials and methods of construction has been the most beneficial to me because it has been the most practical application I think as far as working i n th e re a l w o rl d . I d o w o rk i n a n a rch i te ct s o ffi ce a n d I a m th e se cre ta ry I am interning. So I deal with a lot of the business aspect of it doing contracts and doing that kind of stuff. I am working on a project with my boss. A personal project of his. And so I am interning as well and I feel like. And I know its not just this school its every architecture school. There is so much to learn in a rch i te ctu re th a t a l o t o f th e re sp o n si bi l i ty o f w h a t w e l e a rn fo r th e re a l w o rl di s I feel like its an imposition on employers to have to pay us to teach us things. And I feel like. I feel incompetent going to an architect and saying Oh well I am

234

looking for an internship and you have to pay me to teach me something that I should have learned in school because I have a degree, you know. I feel like in school we should learn a lot more of what we really need to be doing in an office as well as design. The design obviously is the most important part otherwise anybody could do it. But I feel like the technical aspect of it I get very frustrated w h e n yo u kn o w m y b o ss i s ve ry b u sy, h e s o n th e p h o n e a n d I g e t stu ck b e ca u se I am not sure how to draw something and I have to wait 15 minutes on the clock to wait for him to get off the phone to have him answer a question and so I feel l i ke i fw e l e a rn e d a l o t m o re o f th a t i n sch o o l I g u e ss I d o n tl i ke to b e a t w o rk and not know what I am doing. I like to just go and clock in, do my work and go hom e.Idon t w a n t to fe e l l i ke I h a ve n o i dea w hatIam doi ng and Idon t fe e l valuable in an office to an employer when I have no idea what I am really supposed to be doing.

Summer: I agree with Lisa on not knowing what we are doing but when we g ra d u a te , w e g ra d u a te w i th a b a ch e l o rs o f d e si gn.W e don t g ra d u a te w i th a bachelors of architecture. So I would say that that is actually quite a vast di ffe re n ce . W e d o n t h a ve we have the design experience but we do n t necessarily have the architectural experience. So I would say that would be the difference between as we do here at (University Y) with a bachelor of design rather than at a 5 year where you graduate with a bachelors of architecture. Researcher: Proje ct yo u a re w o rki n g o n te l l m e b ri e fl y w hati ti s. W h a t w e re you given in terms of the information when you started the project? Any more information you would have liked to get?

Joey: The concept of our program is Healthy Body, healthy city. Professor Karen has allowed us to pick a healing practice that each of us are supposed to be doi n g e ve ry d a y. T h e ki n d o f a d a p t to w h a t w e re g o i n g to d o d o w n to w n . Basically we have 5 blocks (d e scri bes l o ca ti o n s) w e a re d e a l i ng w i th massing. That was one of our first ideas with the project. How would buildings sit

235

i n to th e ci ty. H o w w o u l d b e p u t th e m to g e th e r to fo rm ci ty e d g e s, p e d e stri an l i fe and basically how to make (city) a more modern urban city waking city. A 15 minute walk to anywhere. We have these 5 blocks where we are putting our healing practices.

Mike: We are also thinking about issues like basic aspects of what is necessary within the city like incorporating parking, residential spaces, office spaces and commercial uses within the actual block that w e ve b a si ca l l y ch o se n fro m th e aspects that you gain from your actual healing practice that helps you design the actual block and how you construct the massing and what would take up space. And within that we took issues and characteristics of sustainability like dealing with the sewer and water retention and also having aspects of making sure we have a substantial amount of parking. But also taking into consideration the relationships with the surroundings and the precedents of what type of street this is either busy or quiet or less traffic or more pedestrian friendly. Those types of aspects. S u m m e r: S o m e th i n g th a t th e se tw o h a ve n t to u ch e d o n q u i te ye t i s th a t w e h a d a m e e ti ng i n th e d e si g n ce n te r w h i ch i s d o w n to w n a n d w i th I b e l i e ve i tw as someone from the university and someone from the community and they discussed what they wanted down there. So we kind of got a client. It was suggested that we include tech transfer in this area. It was suggested that building heights and masses become larger, pedestrian 15 minute walk was something that they requested. Also the president of the university visited our studio last week and for the site that I am working on he suggested the program of the business school the graduate business school which is now a part of our required program. So we also each individual in the class has interviewed a member of the community to discuss specific issues. And each time an interview is done they will the student comes back we discuss and we inform the class. So we are still receiving information. So we started out with the basics and then we have been continuing to gather information.

236

As far as what else we might have needed or wanted at the beginning, I am not su re th e re s re a l l y any i n fo rm a ti o n th a t w e w e re n o t p ro vided with on this one. I had some experiences in the past Yeah! I have had some past experiences where that is definitely not true.

Researcher: What were some of those? Summer: Well a big one is last semester that semester was so much fun (sarcastic). L a st se m e ste r w e w e re a l l a ssi gned or pi cke d I d o n t kn o w w h i ch . B u t we got a building or space to analyze. There was definitely not enough information provided on those spaces and besides the one I did was impossible to a n a l yze b e ca u se w e j u st d i dn t h a ve any information. It would have been nice i f th e p ro fe sso r h a d kn o w th a t b u t j u st a n yw a y, j u st stu ff l i ke th a t. A n d I kn o w o n th e a ctu a l b u i l di n g th a t w e d i dl a st se m e ste r i tj u st se e m e d l i ke w e d i dn t h a ve enough information to be able to make the buildin g i n te re sti n g . T h a t s m y cl a ss specifically.

Susan: I think basing off of what Summer was saying, we had the NY project last semester and it was a really difficult project to do because it was such a large scale project. We had basically an entire neighborhood to redevelop on our own. A n d w e h a d w h e n w e w e n t to N Y w e d i dn t h a ve a n y w e d i d so m e stu d i es about different buildings, about major buildings there that we were going to go se e . B u t w e d i dn t h a ve a n y i n fo rm a ti o n a b o u t th e si te b e fo re w e w e n t. W e d i dn t h a ve a si te m a p o r a si te p l a n so w e d i dn t re a l l y stu d y th a t a re a a t a l l b e fo re w e l e ft a n d w h e n w e g o t th e re i t w a s yo u kn o w I m e a n i tj u st se e m e d ve ry ch a o ti c and by the time we got back and we had to go back and do the research after we got home. And it would have been beneficial I think if we had that information before we went so we could have zeroed in on the specific things. And then when we got back the project was so overwhelming because we were dealing with the urban landscape, the social aspects of the community, landscaping, the city planning w e h a d to p i ck o u r o w n p ro g ra m I m e a n i tw as l i ke a n e n ti re

237

neighborhood and to go from designing one building to designing an entire nei g h b o rh o o d i sj u st w a y to o i ts j u st w a y to o m u ch w o rk fo r you to do in one semester.

Summer: If we had known ahead of time what we need to be studying I think we would have got a lot more out of it.

Susan: I agree.

Researcher: Did you all write any design concept statements? Can some of you share your concepts for the current project?

Joey: We all start with a concept and then we all start evolving that concept into so m e th i n g m o re a n d I g u e ss i ts a l l w ri tte n i n o u r h ea d .W e ve a l ld o n e i ta l oti n lower division I guess. Like a professor would make us write up statement of what your project is. In our lower division it takes us a while to get things together. But as you start growing things start to get easier, things start to make more sense, things start to click in your mind.

Lisa: I think the concepts start showing up more in like sketch diagrams, sketch models and stuff more than written. I guess the things that we are doing now are p ro b a b l y m o re co m p l e x th a n i nl ow er di vi si o n a n d th e re p ro b a b l yj u st i sn t th e time to write up a paper and we just start doing sketches right after that and we sta rt d o i ng m odel s. In th i s se m e ste r, w e a re g o i n g fro m w e sta rte d fro m massing in this project. Rather than having a specific program that we were given to design we just started to design the outside of the building not knowing really I mean maybe we knew zoning wise what we were doing in the building but not sp e ci fi cs. I m e a n w e sti l ld o n t h a ve a w h o l el o t o f sp e ci fi cs a n d so n o w w e a re ki n d o f d e si gni ng i t fro m th e i n si d e o u t. S o i ts m o re yo u ki nd ofl i ke yo u know like you go downtown and you rent retail space, most of the spaces are pretty much standard so professor Karen told us to design because 15 years from now

238

whatever we design it for it may not be used for that function any more. So it may need to turn over at some point.

Researcher: Can some of you discuss the design concept for your designs of this project?

Lisa: My project is based on the pedestrian experience. Its not really about the building itself. Its more about what happens on the street level and actually creating different ground planes. I actually have some planes that are elevated above the building. I might have some rooftop gardens where you know you just th e g ro u n d p l a n e sta rts yo u sta rt w o rki n g yo u r w a y u p so th a t yo u g e t u p to th e next level so that you can actually enter the building at the second level. And I have incorporated my healing practice is productive meditation and I created a p ro a n d S u m m e r w a s d o i n g T a i C h i a n d so I i n co rp o ra te d b o th o f th o se projects into kind of like a m e d i ta ti on heal i n g g a rd e n a n d th e th i n g s a n d so h a l f of my block is actually... And I am on a site with the Shands hospital so half of my site is dedicated towards the specific program we started out in the beginning wi th th e h e a l i n g p ra cti ce so th a t s the whole green space issue and on the other hand the project is zoned for commercial on the ground floor. Second floor is office for doctors and then the upper levels are residential. And it also supports the hospital so that patients or staff or visitors, any of them can use the space on th e g ro u n d l e ve l yo u kn o w l i ke w i th re sta u ra n t, sh o p s a n d th i ngs l i ke th a t. A n d th e n i f d o cto rs w a n t to h a ve p ri va te p ra cti ce s th e re s d o cto r s o w n sta ff th e y ca n be adjacent to the hospital and live upstairs. Mike: My basic design concept is I have a focal point of dealing with the aspect of performance. And with my block I tried to basically centralize it within a central plaza in my block dealing with aspects of green space. But I also have issues dealing with back and forth movement within zones. Going on a horizontal scale but also dealing within the spaces of levels vertically and separated zones in higher levels that are inhabitable and also lower levels. But having the

239

relationship in how what its use is in the building is connected with the. I guess what is portrays within the actual block and the plaza that centralized within the middle. And the interior aspects of having connections to the green space which is in the center of my block.

Summer: My design concept has been mostly about relief from the city. I have created a rhythm of indoor and outdoor spaces. This mostly developed from my program of having a business school on the site because business school classes are all in conference rooms and classrooms where you are enclosed or can be enclosed for a long period of time. So you very much want relief from that when you leave from the classroom and to get to the next space, you go outside. So you come from the hotel room and you go outside and then you go back inside again to go to a meeting. Its been my main design concept it has been sort of relief from inside.

Researcher: How familiar are you with the requirements of the NAAB? Do you know what their basic requirements are of architecture programs?

Lisa: I know that you have to have so many hours of internship in each category and I guess some of it is dealing with clients and contracts and site visits. So m a n y h o u rs I g u e ss d ra w i ng al l th e a sp e cts o f e ve ryth i n g yo u d o . R e se a rch e r: E xp l ai n s Various: Th e o ry, h i sto ry, e n vi ro n m e n t te ch n o l o g y, w o rki ng i n g ro u p s Mi ke : I d o n t kn o w w h a t i ti s sp e ci fi ca l l y b u t I kn o w th e y a re w a n ti n g to kn o w th a t the school is teaching you skills and aspects that allows you to go up to graduate level or to basically be able to be an architect and know specific things l i ke . R e so u rce s a n d sp e ci fi c th i n g s so th a t w h e n yo u g o o u t a n d sta rt

240

w o rki n g yo u a re g o i n g to kn o w sp e ci fi c th i n g s d i gi ta l m e d i a sch o o l h a s sp e ci fi c th i n g s th a t th e y h a ve to te a ch I d o n t kn o w th e sp e ci fications.

Researcher: Is there anything else that you all want to discuss about architecture, project or program?

Lisa: Prof. Karen has stressed the importance this semester of taking care our selves because the project this semester is about Healthy body, healthy city. But I th i n k th e y n e e d to sta rt stre ssi n g th a t fro m d e si gn 1.Idon t th i n k th a t i ti s healthy to spend an entire night awake or an entire weekend awake working on a project. I got very sick last year from just from the stress of working that way. My d o cto r b a si ca l l y to l d m e th a t I h a d to re st m o re , I d o n t h a ve a ch o i ce o th e rw i se I w oul dj u st ke e p g e tti n g si cke r. A n d th ro u g h th a t I fo u n d a w a y w h a t I e n d e d u p doing was working at home was part of my problem was I was allergic to chemicals in the building. so what I found was that I found it easier to just bal a n ce m y ti m e b e tte r to b e a n d I fo u n d th a t I w o rke d m o re e ffi ci e n tl y w hen I slept or when I took the time to go spend time with my friends. You know just to get away from architecture a l i ttl e bi t. A n d I fo u n d th a t I d i d pul l a co u p l e ofal l nighters last semester but it was very few compared to what I had done in the p a st. I kn o w th a t th a t sj u st a cu l tu re o f a rch i te ctu re sch o o l s e ve ryw h e re a n d I think that needs to change because that s notheal th y. A n d I se e I th i n k I se e a l o t m o re j u st fro m ta l ki n g to o th e r p e o p l e I se e h o w i t a ffe cts p e o p l e s heal th a l o t m o re th a t I a m a w a re o f i t n o w th a t I h a ve b e e n th ro u g h i tand Idon t kn o w how much the professors are really aware of what the students might be going th ro u g h I kn o w th e y ve b e e n th ro u g h i t to o a n d I fe e l l i ke th e re i s al m o st a n i n se n si ti vi ty to i tal m o st. It sj u st a cu l tu re a n d yo u j u st h a ve to l e a rn to d e a l w i th i t ki n d o f th i ng and Idon t th i n k th a t s ri g h t a n d I th i n k th ere should be a way to bal a n ce th a t . S o th a t yo u ca n b e h e a l th y a n d sti l l g o th ro u g h th e p ro g ra m . S o m e ti m e s I fe e l l i ke i tm i g h t e ve n b e a w e e d i n g o u t p ro ce ss i t s a su rvi va l o f th e fi tte st a n d i t d o e sn t m a tte r h o w g o o d yo u a re a t a rch i te ctu re . A s l o n g as you

241

ca n m a ke i t th ro u g h th e p ro g ra m yo u kn o w i f yo u ca n e n d u re i t th e n yo u a re i n I th i n k th a t s so m e th i n g th a t sh o u l d b e a d d re sse d .

Joey: It also has to do with work ethic and how you set your time.. your time management. Professors give us certain projects that are due certain day so you h a ve to yo u kn o w se t ti m e s to d o th a t yo u kn o w a s co l l e g e ki ds w e l i ke to l e a ve i t fo r th e l a st m i n u te . T h a t s notgood.B utl i ke i f w e a re I m e a n th a t s w hatI th i n k P ro f. K a re n i s tryi n g to stre ss i f yo u h a ve g ood time management and g o o d w o rk e th i c yo u ca n d o a l l yo u r p ro j e cts o n ti m e th a t s w h a t e ve ry p ro fe sso r h a s to l d m e si n ce I ve b e e n h e re . L i ke e ve ryo n e l i ke s to I m e a n I g u e ss I d e a l w i th i t b e ca u se i ts fi ne w i th m e I d o n tm i nd i t. I l i ke sta yi ng up late. I guess its different from every person.

Researcher: (Relates an experience) L a u re n : I th i nk i ts ve ry i m p o rta n t to b e h e a l th y a n d yo u d o n t re a l i ze i t u n ti l something really happens to you. And my first year it was really rough and I would stay up every other night in the studio. And what happened to me I fell asleep when I was driving. I have to say it was a miracle that I came out alive. I run a red light and I only had time just to wake up and see that crash in front of m e so i ts l i ke . I h a d n o thing I had like just a scratch on my body. I have to say that it is really important to sleep and right now like I even work home. I go back and forth. I love working in the studio but sometimes I have to push myself to work at home because I know I work next to my bed and when I do that I just fall a sl e e p . A n d a n o th e r th i n g I kn o w o n e o f th e p ro fe sso rs I d o n t kn o w h i s n a m e b u t I h a ve h e a rd o f h i m th a t h e w o rks i n th e stu d i o s a n d h e ki cks everybody out. At midnight he kicks all the students out. In a way to help them because you are not going to get anything done.. whatever you do after 12 you know you are just going to make something in the model not really thought out and you are just losing your time.

242

APPENDIX K INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS FOR FOCUS GROUP INTERVIEW AT SCHOOLB Focus Group Interview March 15th, 2006 School of Architecture B, University Y

Researcher: Describe to me your idea of architecture as a profession.

Samuel: That is a huge question.

Luther: I guess to me, as I progress in my education, I find that architecture is you know more like you know really complicated, especially the social part of it. I think that architecture is definitely sensitive to the social considerations in their buildings and how people interact with them. So as a professional, yeah I believe that it is very important. Social interaction between people and architecture is very important.

Samuel: What I think architecture is, is the coming forth of a fascination or an illusion of something perfect that you want you know the optimal thing. And we stri ve to g e t i tand Idon t th i n k a n yb o d y a ctu a l l y e ve r a ch i e ve s i t. It s th a t stri ve for the perfect whatever the client needs or whoever needs. But architecture is n o t re a l l yj u st b u i l di n g . It s n o t re a l l y a n yth i n g . It s ki nd ofi t s o w n se n se o f something a stri ve fo r p e rfe cti o n o f w h a te ve r a n d w e re j u st tryi n g to g e t m o re a n d m o re o f i t. If th a t m a ke s a n y se n se In te rm s o f p sych o l ogi ca l l y, I th i nk i t has a huge impact psychologically. I mean that I think is a given when you walk u p to w a rd s b u i l di n g s a n d th e y p re se n t th e m se l ve s a s yo u kn o w h o w e ve r. A church usually would present itself in a very elegant way or whatever and give

243

you a feeling a psychological feeling of you know righteousness of some sort. Whereas you know a prison will give you that psychological feeling of Ooh! I don t w a n t to b e h e re . S o th e re i s d e fi ni te l y d e fi ni te l y a stro n g se n se o f psychology I think within architecture.

Stanley: I do agree with Samuel when he says that architecture does have a lot to do with psychologically but I think architecture goes a little bit further than that. It a ffe cts yo u r p sych e n u m b e r o n e b u t yo u r p h ysi ca l b e i ng as w el l .U m m m because each building has its own tone, each building sort of has its own atmosphere, its own ambiance about it. When he says prison has a gloomy atmosphere. So therefore physically you know you would sort of you know tend to like alter your behavior physically. You know because of the environment. And then you go to a park and the landscape a rch i te ct d e si gned dependi ng i fi t s an amusement park or if its just relaxation set as a --------- of the city, you actions you know physically became changed. Sometimes the color can alter your activity. You know bright color would sort of you know blind you in a sense depending on the way that somebody hits it. Or if I were in a dark room your retinas tend to expand you know. So physically you know architecture -------p h ysi ca l l y as w el l a s p sych o l ogi ca l l y th a t s w hati ti s to m e .

Allen: Kind of like these two were saying about the psychological aspects, when yo u a p p ro a ch a b u i l di n g yo u a u to m a ti ca l l y g e t a fe e l i n g o f w h a t th a t b u i l di ng i s m a yb e n o t th e fo l ks i ni tbuthow i t p re se n ts i tse l f. B u t yo u kn o w si n ce I ve b e e n in school, architecture is more or less setting a boundary. More and more cities as well as counties they are going off of a, they are putting a pretty stiff brim on a rch i te ctu re a n d h o w fa r i t ca n g o . S o I th i nk i t s a p re tty g o o d i d e a yo u kn o w to push it as far as we can now because in the years to come its going to be limited to a certain extent. So as far as the sociological aspect of you know or just the psychological communication from people to people or people to buildings. And th a t s h o w a rch i te cts co m m u n i ca te th e m se l ve s. I think its not just about what the bui l di ng i s o r w h a t si n si d e th e b u i l di ng butal so a b o u t th e p e rso n w h o d e si gned

244

i t. Y o u kn o w i t te l l s th e i r sto ri es as w el l a s th e b u i l di ng s sto ry. T h a t s w h a t I h a ve to say.

Anna: For me architecture is like an expression of myself and how I feel when I am designing the building and I want the building to express how I am feeling at that time. So I guess it does have some sort of psychological and social effect but its not necessarily and external thing. Its more like an external aspect for me. Its how I am feeling at this point and how I feel that whatever the project is, whatever that society is how I would want to respond to that society. And the design would come out of how I feel about that society. So to me its not necessarily so much of an external you know how other people would view it but how I feel and how I want to be or within that space how I would want to see, how Iw oul d w a n t to i n te ra ct w i th th a t b u i l di n g . S o to m e th a t s a rch i te ctu re .

Researcher: What do you think are the aspects that the program is emphasizing?

Samuel: I think the absolutely greatest emphasis is and I think everybody here will agree is the creativity part of designs. Throughout the years, they have just been pounding us and pounding us with composition and you know so forth of th e p ro j e cts. B u t w h a t w e h a ve n t b e e n g e tti ng i n to i s th e d e ta i l i n g a n d th e re a l life situations b u d g e ts a n d so fo rth . W e re j u st i n th i sl al al a n d sch o o l h e re doing little fun projects that look nice and wha te ve r so u n d n i ce . B u t i t s n o t th e real world. They are not preparing us for the real world at all. I worked at an engineering firm. And through the engineering firms worked with architects and so forth and the real world is nothing like this. I mean. And and they spend ye a rs I m e a n th e fi rst tw o ye a rs i s onl y co m p o si ti on.Y ou don tdo any architecture work for the first two years of the school of architecture. And some students may need that if they have had no prior experience in the past of ever being creative. But I think those students that come into this school with already a natural creativity and a natural composition that are already able to draw, that are already able to think creatively th e y a re , i t s a h u g e w a ste o f ti m e h e re . I

245

mean you spend a good portion of these 4 year, I would say 3.5 of these 4 years working on aesthetic appeal and if you already kind of have that as a person co m i ng i n to th i s sch o o l , yo u a re re a l l y h a vi n g yo u r ti m e w a ste d . T h a t s h o w I fe e l . Luther: I believe that not u n ti l , th a t s w h a t I n o ti ce d not until maybe the second ye a r i s u m m m m a re th o se th i n g s a n d co n si d e ra ti o n b ro u g h t i n to th e e q u a ti on by means of actually considering people at that point. In the first two years, people or clients hypothetical clients are not a part of the equation. But then after second year, 3rd year, 4th year they become more and more critical in terms of taking them into consideration and incorporating them into the design. R e se a rch e r: D o yo u th i n k th a t sl a te o r o n ti m e? Luther: I d o n t th i nk Iam atl i b e rty to sa y w h e th e r i t sl a te o r i n ti m e o r n o t. U m m m . T h e re a re so m e I m i ghtbe i n cl i n e d to sa y th a t su re p e o p l e sh o u l d be a part of the equation you know from the onset as soon as you get in the door. But like Samuel said sometimes coming into architecture you might need a grace period or a type of conditioning to get you to think in terms of spatial co m p o si ti o n s. B u t ye a h th e y d o g e t i n to i t a n d th a t s a g o o d th i n g . B u t w h e n yo u bring people into the equation you automatically begin to think about social interaction.

Stanley: I do agree with Samuel that a school is a little bit more focused on the aesthetic quality when it comes to architecture. But at the same time the way I feel is that architecture is problem solving. Anybody can problem solve. However the one thing that makes architects different than engineers is that architecture speaks of problem solving gracefully, elegantly and actually thinks outside the box and designs curves or pitches or different things that an engineer would not take into consideration. However I do feel that where we lack is is in physical details of our buildings. You have the building that may look you know the most beautiful building on the face of the earth. However you know the program might

246

not make sense. The program might not be clear. And to me I think that we put more emphasis on the aesthetic qualities instead of the detailing that the affects require fo r th e i m a g e s o f th e b u i l di n g o r w h a te ve r w e a re d e si gni n g . T h a t s al lI have to say.

Allen: My view is that pretty much since day one since we have been here its all about aesthetics. We doing abstract studies in first year and only in the second year a lot of us maybe with a not necessarily a background for design. But we get construction based background or maybe even an art based background but you know we are already in that mode. And you pretty much back track start it over at the end. But they taught us the aesthetics and they taught us how to make it look good and left out the ke y i n g re d i entw hi ch i s m o n e y. A n d i t s a bi g d e a lb u t th e y d o n t se e i t th a t w a y. I m e a n th e y w a n t u s to j u st b re a k th e i ce its basically w h a t w e a re d o i ng.W e don t, w e d o n t n e ve r h a ve e n o u g h ti m e to co m p l e te a design project. We are in the schematic phase. Even in our finals we are still in the schematic phase. A good design project would take us a full semester. In turn we do 2 and 3 a semester which is not the way it really should be. Maybe as its gets on in the 4th and 5th year they should really start to think about I know they do it in the 5th year but maybe in the 4th year they should really start to think about giving us one dominant design project. But not just breaking the ice and designing a building in a floor plan but actually making us put together a set of pl a n s. T h e y re a l l yl i ke th a t h e re w e ve n e ve r h a d to p u t m e a su re m e n ts o n a n yth i ng.W e ve n e ve r h a d to si ze w i n d o w s d o o rs. Y o u kn o w w h e n yo u a re g e tti n g o n to th e j o b fi el d th a t s goi n g to b e th e fi rst th i n g yo u d o i n a n a rch i te ct s office. You are going to put measurements on the drawings. You are going to be responsible for details when in school you never even had to do details. You had to do the overall big picture. Yeah we do sections, we do elAnnations and the occasional perspecti ve . B u t th a t s fo r p re se n ta ti o n p u rp o se s. A fi rm w o u l d d o th a t if they were trying to place a bid on a job. What do you do after you get that job? We never really get into it. And I am speaking from working in a firm myself you kn o w i t s a bi g sl ap i n th e face. The first 6 months is straight over your head. It

247

takes you just as much to get a grip and I think they are you know. The teaching i s n o t th a t b a d b u t i tj u st d o e sn t g o fa r e n o u gh . I th i n k th e y re a l l y n e e d to re g ro u p with the program. A couple of the teachers work in the field so they know what it ta ke s b u t th e y sti l ld o n t p u sh u s th a t fa r. T h e y d o n tal l o w th a t m u ch ti m e . T h a t s it.

Anna: I think I agree with just about everything everybody said about the emphasis is purely on on aesthetics and d e si g n p ro ce ss a n d o n th i s b u t th e n for me when you when you to understand and appreciate a work of architecture and not just something that someone threw together you have to understand all these principles that we are being taught. The development of partee and your big idea and all that stuff. And I think it takes more time for a person to understand how to develop that big idea versus how to put a section together because you can always go in a book, find a section and say Oh! This is what I need. I can trace this or redraw that. But to me, I think the focus here is correct. I think especially from my perspective. I came in, I came in know something about about how a building is put together, knowing how to draw plans understanding all that. So it was a little different for me. But the emphasis on understanding how Frank Gehry came up with his you know crazy looking building. Now I can appreciate that and I can understand that better than when, when I went to another school where the focus was purely preparing me for going out in the job field. And when you are out in the job you have to conform to whoever the employer is, you have to conform to their standards. You have to learn how they do things. So no matter where you go you will have to relearn how they, how they prepare certain things, how they prepare their deals, how they prepare their sheets. How they prepare their, how they put their sections together. In the begi nni n g yo u a re p re tty m u ch cu tti n g a n d p a sti n g ... th a t s th e b a si s o f w h a t yo u do in an architectural firm when you start there but to progress from being just someone who knows how to put pieces together to someone who will eventually d e si gn a bui l di n g fo r a co m p a n y o r fo r a p e rso n o r w h a te ve r i f yo u d o n t h a ve th a t knowledge of how to develop your big idea from a scratch on a napkin to this

248

b e a u ti fu l th i n g th a t F ra n k G e h ry o r B a rt .. yo u yo u w i l ln o t b e a b l e to m a ke that transition. So I think that the program is is pretty good as it is. Maybe a little bi t m o re te ch n i ca l stu ff te ch n i ca l te ch n i ca l kn o w l e d g e . M a yb e l i ke i n M &M they might focus a little bit more on the technical stuff but I think the program is cool as it is.

Researcher: What you are saying you feel about architecture does not match with what the program is doing? Your opinions include society, psychology but th e p ro g ra m i s sa yi n g cre a ti ve te ch n i ca l W h e re a re yo u g e tti n g yo u r i d e a s? S ta n l e y: I th i nk now l i ste n i n g to e ve ryb o d y s a n sw e rs, o u r i deas m ai nl y ca m e from the design studio. And how we feel the design studio is being run. But I guess we never put an____________ into a way we came in on tech, or environmental technology or history of architecture or any of our other outside courses. Because I know some people take a construction of fabric construction, am I correct. And I take up urban design. Other people take up furniture design. Other people have taken construction documents. So there are other areas within the program where we all get our ideas from as well as personal experiences and personal exposure. Like I guess my main thoughts and feelings of how the architecture has come from is because I have been studying sign language for almost 10 years now and so my whole goal ever since I got here to (University Y) was to sort of combine sign language with architecture. And its been sort of hard to do but its been easy to do since I studied architecture for the deafas w el l a s a rch i te ctu re fo r th o se w h o h a ve 5 se n se s. S o th a t s how m y i deas ch a n g e d . A n d A l l e n h a s co m e fro m a co n stru cti o n b a ckg ro u n d so th a t s how hi s i dea i s ch a n g i ng i n a rch i te ctu re a s w e l l S a m u e li s co m i n g fro m a n e n g i n e e ri ng b a ckg ro u n d so h i si dea as w el li s ch a n g i n g . S o th a t s w h y I th i nk um m m m m m our ideas, how we feel the program is, is sort of different than how we feel architecture is.

249

Allen: Some what like Stanley said, I think mostly probably the biggest emphasis on why and how we feel about architecture, I think comes from architectural history. We, the history teachers put a strong emphasis on historic buildings done by other architects and what kind of impact they had on society, what kind of i m p a ct th e y h a d o n th e a ctu a l d e si g n e r. A n d I th i n k th a t s w h e re a l otofm y opi ni o n s a re co m i n g fro m a n d th e p ro g ra m re a l l y d o e sn t i t s goi ng buti t re a l l y d o e sn t fi t a s cl o se l y as i t n e e d s to b e w ith the history class. I think should be more compact, more one and the same and it would really impact the program. I will agree with Anna too you know to an extant, but like she said it needs to go far. You know you really cant start off with just doing a set of plans, you got to know where it came from, you got to figure your big idea. But we learn more so about the big ideas and how they were incorporated in the buildings in the history m o re th a n w e d o i n d e si g n a n d . Y o u kn o w a n d I th i n k th a t s w h e re o ur opinions are coming from.

Samuel: Now on this point I strongly disagree with Allen. It may be true for him and for some others but every project I work on I try to ignore every sense of architecture I have and start fresh. That and like you know everything that I do, if th e q u e sti o n w a s w h e re d o e s o u r cre a ti vi ty co m e fro m R e se a rch e r: E xp l ai n s q u e sti ons agai n

Samuel: Ohhhhhhh ! Wow! Definitely not from history class. You know its kind of a n o ti o n I g u e ss th a t a rch i te ctu re i s e ve ryth i n g a rch i te ctu re is music, architecture is art, architecture is engineering, architecture is psychology and so ci ol o g y th e re s al l o f th i si n a rch i te ctu re so w h e n i t co m e s d o w n to a ctu a l l y start doing architecture, architecture is not what I look at. Or architectural history. I actually like did some heavy drug usage and come up with some inspirational stu ff

250

L u th e r: I d o n t th i n k th e p ro g ra m th e p ro g ra m d o e sn t h a ve to u m m m encourage those type of considerations. They are inherent in the profession. I mean we are designi ng i n fo r p e o p l e yo u kn o w so ci e ty, w e ca n n o t h e l p b u t to you cant help but to engage it. Whether you feel that the studio is encouraging it or not, like I said the minute that once you get over that you know 2 nd or 3rd year hump, then people start to become a part of the equation, its automatic - every d a y, e ve ry p ro j e ct w e g e t w h e n i ts p u t i n a,i n a e ve n i fi t s a h yp o th e ti ca l se tti ng,i ts i n te n d e d to b e ta ke n a s i fi t w a s a n a tu ra l se tti n g . Its u n a vo i dabl e i ts in the profession I think.

Anna: Where do I get my inspiration from for architecture and design. I think my p re vi o u s sta te m e n t sa i d th a t I th o u g h t u m m m a rch i te ctu re ca m e fro m .. h o w d i d I put it. I am not sure how I put it.

Researcher: (Reminds her of her answer) A n n a : Y e a h ! It s a b o u t, i t s about how I feel. I get my inspiration for how I design basically from how I feel about other things that I see. So I would take example fro m u n fo rtu n a te l y I ca n t tra ve l th ro u g h a l l th e se sp a ce s so I try to i m agi ne myself, myself within those pictures that I look at on the internet or in the book and how would I feel being within that space. And then I take that feeling and th e n I try to tra n sl a te th a t i n to h o w I a m d e si gni n g . S o I th i n k th a t s w h e re m y inspiration would come from is from from other you know looking at other stuff. And seeing and reading what people have said about spaces that they have visited and then I try to create create that same sense of feeling. The reason why I sa i di t, i t co m e s fro m m e i s b e ca u se I d o n t kn o w fo r su re h o w w h o e v er is going to use that space is going to feel in that space. I can only tell by how I feel and if I feel happy with with a curved wall then I am just going to assume that everybody else is going to be happy with this curved red wall.

251

Researcher: These fe e l i n g s o f h o w yo u fe e l i n th a t sp a ce h o w d i d yo u re a ch the idea of incorporating these in design concepts? A n n a : It s m e . It s a n a tu ra l fe e l i n g . It co m e s fro m w i th i n m e.Idon t th i n k a n yb o d y can teach us how to feel about a building. they can tell us their opinion but you know the bottom line is how I feel about it.

Researcher: How did you figure that what you feel is what should translate into your design? Was it you or the department? A n n a : I th i nk i t s a co n ce p t th a t co m e s fro m w i th i n m e a n d n o t n ecessarily from from any other source.

Stanley: I guess as we study history and we study other things outside of architecture, we all know that you know that a 5 foot roof in a 20 foot long space does not feel good. And its not just phenomenological but t h a t s al so i n th e se n se common sense. You know like dimensions of a space will dictate the psyche to do certain. Red will tell the psyche to do one thing. Fluorescent light will tell the psyche to do one thing or artificial light or natural lighting. They all you know have different affects on the psyche you know. And so we sort of learn that. Basic p sych o l o g y te a ch e s th a t. T h e y a l so e xp e ri e n ce d th e se n se yo u kn o w I kn o w I am not the only one who also feels this. You know its almost like a consistence among others to say that you know this lighting is good but this lighting is bad. B u t yo u kn o w yo u sti l la l l b a se d o n yo u r p e rso n a l o p i ni on ca u se yo u might come over the next day and say that this space is the worst space on the face of the earth and we are still saying oh well this spaces is like the best space. It s sti l l b a se d o n a p e rso n a l e xp e ri e n ce .

Allen: Earlier I said you know about architectural history and Samuel said that he di sa g re e d w i th m e b u t I d o n t kn o w i f h e u n d e rsto o d w h e re I w a s co m i n g from. U m m so m e b o d y h a d to te a ch yo u h o w to fe e l a n d w h e re to sta rt i n d e si gn.

252

B e ca u se i f yo u a l re a d y kn e w i t yo u w o u l dn t b e co m i n g to sch o o l . S o yo u kn o w th a t s th a t s w h a t I a m re l a ti n g to . N o t th a t I u se i t o r n o t th a t I th i nk i t n e e d s to b e incorpora te d b u t th a t s w h e re th a t s w h a t o ri gi nal l y g o t m e sta rte d w a s l o o ki ng at th e h i sto ry a n d a t w h a t w o rk p re vi ous peopl e di d to u s Y e a h ! T h e o ry th e o ry i s th e sa m e w a y yo u kn o w . T h a t s w h e re I a m co m i n g fro m .

Researcher: What subjects have been the most beneficial in your design studio and designs? Al l e n : U m m A ctu a l l y al l th e su b j e cts th a t w e h a ve ta ke n . W e h a ve ta ke n history, we have taken environmental technology, materials and methods, stru ctu re s. I d o n t th i n k stru ctu re s h a d a s m u ch to d o w i th o u r d e s igns as it sh o u l d h a ve . B e ca u se w e ve l e a rn e d , m e a n d S a m u e l h a ve yo u kn o w th e mathematics is something that is overlooked in the designs. We are not ready for it.

Researcher: What other subjects should have been part of the program that would have been helpful? Al l en:Idon t th i nk i t s w h a t th e y sh o u l d h a ve b e e n o ffe ri n g . I th i nk i t s th e o rd e r th a t w e l e a rn e d i t. L i ke ri g h t n o w w e a re i n fo u rth ye a r d e si g n . I kn o w w e w e re n t ready for environmental technology maybe in 1st and 2nd year but it helps me design more know. Like our ET class that we are having now, I wish I had it going in 3rd year ET 1 and 2. you know it helps you better design spaces. It hel p s yo u th a t s our bi g th i ng i s sp a ti a l co n ce p ts a n d p re l i mi n a ry si te m o d e l s, partee studies its all about spatial concepts. And we learned a lot about that in our environmental classes. The materials and methods class deals with the m a te ri al s o f th e b u i l di n g , th a t s sh o u l d h a ve b e e n l i ke I ca n t I th i nk i t sa 3rd i ts a n u p p e r d i vi si o n cl a ss. It s hould have been a 2nd year class. We were getting into building then. We should have started learning about the materials and Idon t th i nk i t s w h a t cl a sse s th e y sh o u l d o ffe r m o re , I th i nk i t s th e o rd e r. It

253

d o e sn thi tqui te ri g h t, m a yb e i t s th e w a y I h a ve ta ke n th e m . T h a t sj u st m y opinion.

Stanley: I do agree with Allen when he says the order. Because we are currently i n d e si gn anal ysi s a n d th a t s o n e cl a ss I re a l l y th i n k th a t I sh o u l d h a d b a ck i n 2 nd year or 3rd ye a r l i ke e i th e r o n e o f th o se ye a r b e cause that class teaches you so many ways of approaching design. I mean like theory taught us like different types of approaches of approaching design but design analysis took another di re cti o n a n d h e re s th e p ro g ra m p a rt o f d e si g n a n d th a t th a t sl i ke a m ore of a depending on person to person they just have this arbitrary hypothetical situation and design analysis is to me is the most important classes that I have now that I feel like probably I should have had when I was a sophomore. Because it would have taken me much further in my design I feel than I have gone. L u th e r: I w i l la l so a d d th a t I a g re e w i th th e o rd e r m a yb e so m e o f th e te ch n i ca l classes could be advanced to the forward, to the fore front of the program. But also I think it would be nice if the curriculum included more construction te ch n o l o g y co u rse s i n addi ti o n Y e a h ! C o n stru cti o n te ch n o l o g y co u rse s. A l l th a t stu ff u p , a l l th a t stu ff u p fro n t I m e a n , w e ta l k a b o u t fo u n d a ti on bui l di n g , th a t s where it should be. And then you know you kind of get into aesthetics. Learn how th e a n i m a l w o rks a n d th e n yo u ca n l e a rn h o w to m a n i pul a te th e a n i m a l so R e se a rch e r: T h e re s re a l l y n o t o n e co u rse th a t i s m o re b e n e fi ci a l o ve r a n o th e r?

Samuel: I think that what everybody here has said is correct so far. I agree with th e o rd e r i t sh o u l d go and al so th e re i s n o t o n e cl a ss th a t s m o re i m p o rta n t th a n any other. They are all very important. What I find most important I get where it comes from my values, my theory, myself as an architect where I stand. And some of the professors have their own views aside from what we are learning in class. When they speak out and they start talking about something at the site and th e p o i n t, th a t s w h e re I cl i ck a n d I g e t m y tru e l e a rn i n g fro m . W h e re th e y a re

254

giving us a piece of i n fo rm a ti o n th a t i sn t a n o u tl i n e o f so m e th i n g th a t th e y g i ve n us but from their own past, from their own experience which is priceless if you ask me. And they have some really good ways of making you see things in a di ffe re n t l i g h t a n d th e re s n o t a cl a s s out there that says here this is how you look at things differently. But the teachers will infer that into us slowly just by remarks th a t th e y m a ke h e re a n d th e re o f h o w w e sh o u l d b e a s a n a rch i te ct. A n d th a t s why we all have the kind of same value I think. You know aspiration of the certain ki n d o f a rch i te ct. S o th a t s re a l l y w h a t I va l ue i s th o se m o m e n ts i n w hi ch th e instructor says his own little personal something in addition to the class.

Anna: For me the most valuable part of the program is the juries. I know a lot of people go into juries thinking that they are going to be chewed up for something th a t th e y d i d o r so m e th i n g th e y d e si g n e d . F o r m e I th i n k I d b e o ka y i f th e y ch e w up my design. I want to know what they think about it and how they thin k i ts . Its like a different viewpoint because like I said before my design is coming from me and its coming from within me. I can only put down so much on paper. I can only say so much about the design but in them asking me questions to justify what it is I did, I am better able to express how I am feeling, you know about what I did. So to me that is the most, the most valuable thing that the program does offer, is that opportunity for you to have 5 or 6 people you know see your project and see it from different from different aspects and be able to tell you, what they think about it. Not necessarily whether or not its good or not but what they you know how they see it. So maybe I might find someone who sees it like I see it you know or they might just all to ta l l y notgeti t b u t th a t s th e va l uabl e poi n t to m e . It teaches me to learn how to express that feeling that I am trying to portray in my design.

Researcher: Is there any more information you would have liked to receive when you started the project?

255

Sta n l e y: T h i si s so rt o f p e rso n a l th o u g h O u r cu rre n t p ro j e ct, I th i n k th e di m e n si o n s o f th e si te a re n o t u m m a re m a d e kn o w n to e ve ryo n e b e ca u se I have dimensions, somebody else has dimensions. I mean they are all relatively the same however when you come to the site model, your model has to fit in the site model and I may have built my site different than somebody else may have bui l t th e i r si te . T h a t s m y onl y co m p l ai n t a b o u t th i s p ro j e ct i s th a t th e si te dimensions, when it comes to design or how we are designing it I want sort of desire a little bit more freedom and I approach to it. For this project I think that they sort of dictated the approach that we should have thought it in and I sort of wish that this being our 4th year and we have been up here for years or more depending on who you are, you know we should have a choice, you know how how we want to design our project. Everybody knows that you have got to do the figure ground void approach. More people may do more of a you know model just phenomenolo g i ca l a p p ro a ch j u st h o w th e y fe e l i t sh o u l d b e th e a p p ro a ch . A n d somebody else may do a spatial theme type of approach. I just feel that for this project we should have been given a little more freedom to decide what approach we were able to use. Allen: T h e o rd e r th a t w e g o t th e m a te ri a l fo r th e p ro j e ct, I d o n t re a l l y h a ve a n y arguments with the order. What I do have an argument with is that I think we are forced to a speed in design. I mean we got it kind of late in the semester. And it really helps if you can go visit the site I mean especially if its in a historic district l i ke th i s p a rti cu l a r th i n g. It w o u l d I kn o w i tw oul d a ffe ct m a j o ri ty o f th e cl a ss designs if they can actually go and visit the site. And we are forced you know in this tight time fra m e th e re s re a l l y n o ti m e to g o 5 h o u rs to vi si t th e si te b e ca u se every every day that we are in class or whatever is valuable time when it comes to th e e n d o f th e se m e ste r. T h a t s m y onl y re g re t yo u kn o w . L i ke S ta n l e y sa i d,w e go into the project and nobody knows the true dimensions of the site, nobody a ctu a l l y kn o w s th e try b o u n d a ri e s o f th e si te . T h e y w e re i n Im ean j u st j u st j u st stuff like that. I mean the way we actually got all the material was fine you kn o w h e g a ve u s a p ro j e ct, ki n d o f to l d u s what he was looking for, he gave us

256

a program and then you know we went along, we got square footages and then yo u kn o w w e fi g u re d th a t o u t b u t th e si te a l la l o n e w e w e re l a cki n g p a rts o f th e and even now people are still lacking parts of the site. And I b e l i e ve th a t s a bi g a sp e ct a n d I d o n t kn o w h o w o th e r p e o p l e fe e l b u t th a t s th e w a y I fe e l .

Anna: For me, I echo what Allen says about the site visits. I would have liked to have visited the site. We are talking, they are talking about two different approaches to the design on this site. To either to do something to stick out and be its own thing in (city) and make its own place or be something that is sensitive to (city) and somewhat reflect the historic nature of the site. But unless you actually see th e si te th e n u n d e rsta n d e xa ctl y w h a t s o u t th e re a n d w h a t s surrounding it versus looking at some pictures off the internet and look at the a e ri a l th a t re a l l yi s o u td a te d b y 3 o r 4 ye a rs yo u d o n t re a l l y g e t a tru e se n se o f w h a t th e si te i s. Y o u ca n t, yo u ca n t fo r m e a g a i ni ts i t s a fe e l i n g , I h a ve to fe e l the site, it has to speak to me in order to be able to design and express what the si te s te l l i ng m e.A nd notbei ng abl e to e xp e ri e n ce th a t fe e l i n g o f th e si te , i ts difficult for me to come up with a design. Its like I am, its almost like I am d e si gni ng i n a va cu u m w i th j u st a fe w l i ttl e th i n g s fl o a ti n g a ro u n d m e . A n d th a t s the one thing that I thought that would have been better is if we were able to have that trip along with all the other informati o n th a t w e h a ve . W e d h a ve a better sense of what we are doing because we have said that architecture is a so ci a lh a s a l so a so ci a li m p a ct a n d u n l e ss w e fe e l th e yo u kn o w w h a t s goi ng on i n th e so ci e ty th e re w e ca n t re a l l y d e si g n so m e th i n g th a t w i l l b e s ensible for it.

Researcher: How well do you think you have been able to incorporate your ideas about social, psychological, building interaction in your designs?

Samuel: Yeah! We are kind of expected to anyway. But I wanted to add that most of our projects we go and visit the site. This is one of the first one that I have w o rke d o n th a t w e h a ve n t vi si te d th e si te . In th e p a st I ve a l w a ys vi si te d th e si te .

257

Anna: We try.

Samuel: Yeah you know and they will pick sites in the South East region of the United States so that you know that we are able to go you know. For example, w hati si t A tl a n ta ye a h w e w o rke d a n A tl a n ta si te . W e h a ve a l so , fe w ye a rs back when I was in whatever studio Bainbridge n o n o t B a i n b ri d ge , w h a t s th e capital of Georgia?

Others: Atlanta. S am uel : T h e re s o n e w e st o f a n yw a y, b u t a l so w e g o t yo u kn o w O l d S ai nt A u g u sti n e b y yo u kn o w I kn o w th e y w o rk o n p ro j e cts i n Ja ckso n vi l l e a n d so forth. So they will try to make these projects they have for us in the vicinity most of the time. And this one, the (city) project is in the vicinity but most of the stu d e n ts d o n t h a ve th i s ti m e atl e a st th e o p p o rtu n i ty to g o a n d vi si t th e si te .

Researcher: Are you familiar with the NAAB? What do you know about their requirements stated by them?

Luther: I know you have to complete IDP credits in several related subjects in a rch i te ctu re a n d th e n yo u ta ke th e e xa m i n a ti on R e se a rch e r: E xp l ai ns agai n L u th e r: I d o n t kn o w th a t ve rb a ti m

Stanley: Actually I do not know the actual requirements but I used to be the opened American Institute of Architecture Students chapter here and there the president also sat on for the National council ________ and the one thing they kept reiterating to us was studio culture, studio culture and I know that new rules from NCARB came because a student committed suicide because the

258

environment of architecture programs can be very stressful. And sometimes we as architecture students, we tend to work work work work and not take a break. T h a t s al l th e re q u i re m e n ts th a t I d o know that the studio culture of architecture programs sort of sort of and cater to sort of encourage you to sort of step out the bui l di ng and j u st re l ax and enj o y yo u rse l f e ve ry yo u kn o w so o fte n . I m e a n th a t s n o t th e o n l y o n e b u t th a t sl i ke th e n u m b e r 1 3 . T h e re sl i ke 1 2 b e fo re th a t th a t I d o not know, I just know this by chance. I do have the print out (from the website) but we never really strictly focused on the 12, we only paid attention to number 13 about the studio culture.

Samuel: I have heard a little bit of what the requirements are and as an example o n e o f th e re q u i re m e n ts h e re i s to b e to h a ve a co m p re h e n si on ofl e t s sa y u rb a n design or something like that. But what they will do is they will change it to be able to do urban design of some sort or something specific like that. But what they are messing up with is that they will make these decisions on what we should be able to comprehend or should be able to do which is a big difference. Mi d poi n t th ro u g h i t, l e t s sa y i f w e h a d th e a ccre d i ta tion this year they made one of those requirements such 2 years ago mid point between the accreditation p ro ce sse s. S o h o w ca n th e y h o l d u s a cco u n ta b l e fo r so m e th i n g th a t w a sn t p a rt of the accreditation requirements four years ago when they approved us in. and now they come back around and they say well now we have revised one and you g u ys sh o u l d be abl e to d o th i s. A n d i f th e y h a d to l d u s fo u r ye a rs a g o th a t w a sn t the case. I know they are changing it not in accordance to when they are visiting the schools. S o th a t s n o t fa i r fo r u s stu d e n ts o r fo r th e fa cu l ty. It l o o ks b a d o n them too.

Stanley: When they make changes they are supposed to send the changes to every school of architecture. They are supposed to send the changes and it goes straight to the dean . It s u p to th e d e a n to g e t th i ngs i nl i n e o r to g e t th e b a l l rolling. So by the time the next accreditation visit comes we all might not have made the requirements but at least they can see that we have been working on

259

them for a certain period of time. But the dean is supposed to be on top of them changes. So whenever they make a change which is not too often but whenever they make a change, they send it out to every school. And the dean or whoever is in-charge of the program is supposed to start the ball rolling. You know write to the chair and inform the faculty and the faculty is supposed to t_____ it down to students and as well as to their curriculum.

Researcher: Most important social concerns in architecture and psychological concerns in architecture.

Stanley: When it comes to the design socially I think the building is supposed to fi ti ts u se rs. If i t s su p p o se d to b e a co m m u n i ty ce n te r yo u a re n o t j u st su p p o se d to look at the immediate community but you have to look at the next community o ve r y ou know the projected users of this space. And sometimes the builder knows how to reflect the economic level of the community but yet it can improve the economic situation of the community. Psychologically, because every body is different, I think you just use wisdom in a sense you know because certain things ______ certain people. You know most people do not like being in closed spaces and some people do. And sometimes you just say well you know this is an office or this is a gym, how far should the walls be away from the sides. How close should they be to the sides? Or how close should the pathway be to the pi ctu re s a l o t o f th i si s so rt o f l i ke co m m o n , w e l l n o t co m m o n se n se b u t so rt o f like a basic type of rule of thumb I th i n k th a t s w h a t I a m tryi n g to think of. So psychologically a lot of things you have to just use a rule of thumb because everybody is different, their psyche are different. You really cant help that. A n n a : I th i n k th e b i g g e st th i n g th a t w e n e e d to b e a w a re o f a s d e si g n e rs i s th e I g u e ss i t ca n b e b o th so ci a l a n d p sych o l ogi ca l a sp e cts i n te rm s o f h o w w e a re creating a community and each building is supposed to to to relate to another and create some sort of community. Besides now a lot of architecture is is is inwardly focused in that in order to experience a building you have to be within it.

260

The buildings do not, do not address the environment, the buildings do not address outdoors. Its like they are creating, they are creating bubbles within you know their own little bubbles within the social network and each community. And to m e a d e si g n e r h a s to b e a b l e to d e si g n su ch th a t th e y i ts n o t se p a ra te d a p a rt fro m w h a t s happeni n g o u tsi d e a n d a ro u n d i t i t h a s to b e , th e re h a s to b e some free flow of indoor and outdoor sort of we are not i ts l i ke w e a re cre a ti ng a society that is centered on everybody being within their own little house and not not stepping outside and not knowing their neighbor. To me if you are designing you have to design in such a way that you are within your house but yet you can sti l l e xp e ri e n ce yo u r n e i g h b o r. Y o u yo u yo u d o n t fe e l l i ke yo u h a ve to b e stu ck i n si de Idon t kn o w i f I a m e xp l ai ni n g w h a t I a m tryi n g to sa y. B u t to m e i t h a s to create a sense of union in that you are not in a separate, in a separate space. You know the only common area that you have is the street. But yet when you are on the street, you are in your car, and you are separate from your neighbor w ho i si n th e o th e r ca r. T h a t s w h a t I th i nk a bui l di n g sh o u l d n o t d o , sh o u l d not enclose people, should not envelop them and keep them away from everything else that surrounds them.

Allen: Kind of like Anna said, I think both aspects reside on the building and how i t re l a te s to th e p e o p l e a n d e n vi ro n m e n t a ro u n d i t. T h a t s re a l l y th e b i g pi ctu re . I m e a n th a t s w h a t w e stu d y. T h a t s w h y w e a re i n sch o o l . I th i n k th a t s th e m a j or a sp e ct o f th e te a ch e rs to try a n d g e t u s to I g u e ss fe e l ,i t s a fe e l i ng.

Luther: I think that one it should, architecture should be sensitive to its context and _______. And to the second part of your question, I think that it should mix th i n g s a n d w h a t I m e a n b y th a t i s th a t i t sh o u l d be w el l cra fte r. I th i n k th a t i t s really important for people to see the craftsmanship.

Samuel: In terms of the most important psychological and sociological aspects to a rch i te ctu re , I th i n k th a t s so rt o f l i ke sa yi n g w h a t s yo u r fa vo ri te sh a d e o f g ra y. It s to o b ro a d o f a q u e sti o n . A rch i te ctu re e n co m p a sse s so m u ch th a t e ve ry

261

architecture project is unique and any one can have more importance for psychology or less or social. You could be designing a day care center for little kids which has huge sociological and psychological impact. Or you could be designing a warehouse. They are both architecture, both completely different. And in terms of yo u kn o w w h a t s m o st i m p o rta n t w e l l th a t d e p e n d s o n th e p ro j e ct you are working on and I think it varies from every single project to project.

Researcher: Anything else you want to discuss.

Luther: I just want to say that one thing in the sense of the program for some of the issues that it may have. A really big part of any educational experience is p e rso n a l i ni ti a ti ve . S o i n th a t se n se i n m y opi ni o n th e p ro g ra m h a s i sn t p e rfe ct but nothing in life should ever be expected as such.

Stanley: In response to that, I do agree that in the sense that this is almost personal driven. You know, you have to be driven yourself and that will only take the school further. And I have actually been to another school of architecture not studied but I experienced that in the environment. I have actually been in there. And for the size of the school we have and the size of university we have compared to that architecture school and there architecture school is smaller but their university size is 3 times larger than ours. And after I looked at that university and that school of architecture I hated it. Like they ___________________________ they are probably like among the best, I am not sure. Its just that the environment that it was in it was not conducive and to me like all the environment depends on who you are and I think that (University Y) personally, this school of architecture is pretty good. And the one thing that I think holds it back is the fact that we are not in a big metropolis, a big metropolitan area or metropolis such as Atlanta or Jacksonville and this other school of architecture that I visited. This other school of architecture that I have been to was outside of DC. So therefore their level when it comes to benefits of the program like funding etc was better than ours. But when it comes to the skill

262

level I personally thought we were better than them. And then it came to facilities, I thought our facility was better than theirs. And I think our program has a lot to offer, you know creatively. But many times it is personally driven. You know everybody has defined that thing that drive themselves and it only takes their e xp o su re a n d th e i r e xp e ri e n ce to g e t th ro u g h th e a rch i te ctu re . S o I th i n k th a t s how i ti s .

263

APPENDIX L RESULTS FROM PILOT STUDY

Categories from Literature Behavior Psychology Culture Social Research Environmental responsibilities Professional experience Design process Case-based instruction

Opinion of Architecture Behavioral Spatial experience

Concerns Addressed in Projects

Concerns Addressed in Critiques Behavior Spatial experience

Culture Social Environmental responsibilities Business, Clients Design process Reference to architects (cases) Financial Fire safety Skills Site context Form of building Personal preferences

Technical Skills Site context Form of building Form of building Personal preferences Note: Table reproduced from Bhatia (2005).

264

APPENDIX M SAMPLE FOR COLOR CODING OF DATA

265

APPENDIX N SAMPLE FOR COLOR ASSOCIATION OF THEMES

266

APPENDIX O SAMPLE FOR ENTERING DESCRIPTORS FOR THEMES AND CATEGORIES

267

APPENDIX P SAMPLE FOR FREQUENCY CALCULATION FOR THEMES AND CATEGORIES

268

APPENDIX Q PROGRAMMATIC REQUIREMENTS HANDOUT AT SCHOOL B

269

REFERENCES Akin, . (2002). Case-based instruction strategies in architecture. Design Studies, 23, 407-431. Anderson, T. (2000). Real Lives: Art Teachers and the Cultures of School. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Anderson, R. (2003). C a l l i ope s Si ste rs: A C o m p a ra ti ve Study of Philosophies of Art. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.). (2000). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. Archeworks (2005). Archeworks: Design Approach. Retrieved September 10, 2005 from http://www.archeworks.org/prog_designapprch.cfm Ashbaugh, C. R., & Kasten, K. L. (1991). Educational Leadership: Case Studies for Reflective Practice. New York: Longman. Bandini, M. (1997). The conditions of criticism. In M. Pollak (Ed.), The Education of the Architect: Historiography, Urbanism, and the Growth of Architectural Knowledge (pp. 425-437). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Baxandall, M. (1972). Painting and Experience in Fifteenth Century Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bearn, G.C.F. (1997). Aestheticide: Architecture and the death of art. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 31(1), 87-94. Bhatia, A. (February, 2005). Reflective inquiry in architecture: The place to begin. Paper presented at the 21st National Beginning Design Conference, San Antonio, TX. Bhatt, R. (2000). The significance of the aesthetic in postmodern architectural theory. Journal of Architecture Education, 53(4), 229-238. Brown, R., & Yates, D. M. (2000 ). S e e i n g th e w o rl d th ro u g h a n o th e r p e rso n s eyes. In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism (pp. 1-26). New York, NY: Spon Press.

270

Cherryholmes, C.H. (1994). More notes on pragmatism. Educational Researcher, 23(1), 16-18. Correa, C. (1997). Learning from Ekalavya. In M. Pollak (Ed.), The Education of the Architect: Historiography, Urbanism, and the Growth of Architectural Knowledge (pp. 445-452). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Creswell, J. W. (2005). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education. Deasy, C.M. (1974). Design for Human Affairs. New York, NY: Halsted Press. De Long, A. J. (1991). Rethinking proxemic zones for microspatial analysis. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 17(1), 19-28. Demirbas, O.O., & Demirkan, H. (2000). Privacy dimensions: A case study in the interior architecture design studio, Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 53-64. Dewey, J. (1958). Art as Experience. Capricorn. Dewey, J. (1970). Experience and thinking. In J. Pappas (Ed.), Concepts in Art and Education: An Anthology of Current Issues (pp.62-71). New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. Dewey, J. (1981). Experience and nature, In J.A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The Later Works, 1925-1953, Vol. 1 (pp. 1-326). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. (Original work published 1925) Eisenman, P. (1996). Post-functionalism. In K. Nesbitt (Ed.), Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995 (pp. 78-83). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. (Original work published 1976) Eisner, E. (1998). The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Ertmer, P. A., & Russell, J. D. (1995). Using case studies to enhance instructional design education. Educational Technology, July-August, 2331.

271

Escherick, J. (1984). Verbalization and visualization: A need in architecture education. Journal of Architecture Education, 38(1), 26-28 Evans, G. W., Lepore, S. J., & Schroeder, A. (1996). The role of interior design elements in mitigating the negative relationship between residential crowding and psychological health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 41-46. Festinger, L. (1972). Architecture and group membership. In R. Gutman (Ed.), People and Buildings (pp. 120-34). New York, NY: Basic Books Publishing, Inc. Findeli, A. (2001). Rethinking design education for the 21st century: Theoretical, methodological, and ethical discussion. Design Issues, 17(1), 5-17. Fitch, J.M. (1972). The aesthetics of function. In R. Gutman (Ed.), People and Buildings (pp. 3-16). New York, NY: Basic Books Publishing, Inc. Fitch, J.M. (1988). Experiential context of the aesthetic process. Journal of Architecture Education, 41(2), 4-9. Forester, J. (1985). Designing: Making sense together in practical conversations. Journal of Architecture Education, 38(3), 14-19. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2003). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 5th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gaardner, J. (1994). S o p h i e s W o rl d . New York, NY: Berkley books. Garrison, J. (1994). Realism, Deweyan pragmatism, and educational research. Educational Researcher, 23(1), 5-14. Gelernter, M. (1988). Reconciling lectures and studios. Journal of Architecture Education, 41(2), 46-52. Gifford, R. (2002). Environmental Psychology: Principles and Practice. Canada: Optimal Books. Gifford, R., & Ng, C. F. (1982). The relative contribution of visual and auditory cues to environmental perception. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 2, 275-284. Gilmore, S. (1990). Art worlds: Developing an interactionist approach to social organization. In H.S. Becker & M.M. McCall (Eds.), Symbolic Interaction and Cultural Studies (pp. 148-178). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

272

Gommel, J. (October, 1995). Wayfinding: You are here/you are there. In Eyes on the Future: Converging Images, Ideas, and Instruction. Selected readings from the 27th Annual Conference of the International Visual Literacy Association, Chicago, IL. Great Buildings (2005). The Great Buildings Collection. Retrieved May, 2006 from www.greatbuildings.com Greenbaum, T. L. (1993). The handbook for focus group research. NY: Lexington Books. Gutman, R. (1972). People and Buildings. New York, NY: Basic Books Publishing, Inc. Hall, E. T. (1968). Proxemics. Current Anthropology, 9(2-3), 83-108. H em phi l l , (1 9 9 6 ). A n o te o n a d u l ts co l o r-emotion associations. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 153(3), 275-280. Heylighen, A., & Vertijnen, I.M. (2003). Close encounters of the architectural kind. Design Studies, 24, 313-326. Hicks, (1992/1993). Designing nature: A process of cultural interpretation. Journal of Multicultural and Cross-cultural Research in Art Education, 10/11(Fall), 73-88. Hill, R. (1999). Designs and Their Consequences: Architecture and Aesthetics. New Haven: Yale University Press. Hogg, J., Goodman, S., Porter, T., Mikellides, B., & Preddy, D. E. (1979). Dimensions and determinants of judgments of colour samples and a simulated interior space by architects and non-architects. British Journal of Psychology, 70, 231-242. Holahan, C. J. (1976). Environmental change in a psychiatric setting: A social system analysis. Human Relations, 29, 153-166. Holgate, A. (1992). Aesthetics of Built Form. Oxford University Press. Honikman, B. (1975). Toward a new history of architecture. Design and Environment, 6(2), 25-27. James, W. (1907). What Pragmatism Means. L e ctu re tw o fro m P ra g m a ti sm a series of eight lectures delivered at Columbia University in New York, NY.

273

Jarrett, C. (2000). Social practice: Design education and everyday life. In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism (pp. 1-26). New York, NY: Spon Press. Kaupinnen, H. (1989). Architecture as design study. Art Education,42 (5), 46-52. Kay, J.H. (1975). Architecture education: Needs a new blueprint. Change, 7(5), 34-38. Kent, E. (2006). Hall of Shame. Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Retrieved May 2006 from www.pps.org Kosidowski, P. (March, 1996). Building a foundation: Architecture education and writing pedagogy. Presented at the 47th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Milwaukee, WI. Kowalski, T. J. (1991). Case Studies on Educational Administration. New York: Longman. Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of di scu ssi o n a n d e xp e ri e n ce i n te a ch e rs th i n ki n g a b o u t ca se s. Teacher and Teacher Education, 11, 63-79. Lippard, L. (1997). The Lure of the Local: Senses of Place in a Multicentered Society. New Press. Livingston, K. (2000). When architecture disables: Teaching undergraduates to perceive ableism in the built environment. Teaching Sociology, 28(3), 182191. Marmot, A., & Symes, M. (1985). The social context of design: A case problem approach. Journal of Architecture Education, 38(4), 27-31. McCarthy, D., & Saegert, S. (1979). Residential density, social overload and social withdrawal. In J. R. Aiello & A. Baum (Eds.), Residential Crowding and Design. New York: Plenum Press. McFee, J.K. (1970). Society, art, and education. In J. Pappas (Ed.), Concepts in Art and Education: An Anthology of Current Issues (pp.71-90). New York, NY: The Macmillan Company. McFee, J.K. (1986). Cross-cultural inquiry into the social meaning of art: Implications for art education. Journal of Multi-cultural and Cross-cultural Research in Art Education, 4(1), 6-16.

274

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Michl, J. (1995). Form follows what? The modernist notion of function as a carte blanche. Magazine of the Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning, 10(Winter). 31-20 [sic]. NAAB (2005). National Architecture Accreditation Board. Retrieved on June 6, 2005 from www.naab.org Nicol, D., & Pilling, S. (2000). Architecture education and the profession: Preparing for the future. In D. Nicol & S. Pilling (Eds.), Changing Architectural Education: Towards a New Professionalism (pp. 1-26). New York, NY: Spon Press. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1988). Architecture: Meaning and Place, Selected Essays. New York, NY: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation Methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pelli, C. (1999). Observations for Young Architects. New York, NY: The Monacelli Press. Pevsner, N. (1961). An Outline of European Architecture. New York, NY: Penguin. Portillo, M., & Dohr, J.H. (1993). A study of color planning criteria used by noted designers. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 18(1&2), 17-24. Quayle, M., & Paterson, D. (1989). Techniques for encouraging reflection in design. Journal of Architecture Education, 42(2), 30-42. R a m b o w , R ., & B ro m m e , R . (1 9 9 5 ). Im p l i ci t p sych o l ogi ca l co n ce p ts i n a rch i te cts knowledge How large is a large room? Learning and Instruction, 5, 337355. Rapoport, A. (1987). On the cultural responsiveness of architecture. Journal of Architecture Education, 41(1), 10-14. Robson, S. A. (1999). Turning the tables: The psychology of design for highvolume restaurants. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 56-63. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

275

Rosenman, M.A., & Gero, J.S. (1998). Purpose and function in design: From socio-cultural to the techno-physical. Design Studies, 19, 161-186. Rossman, G. B., & Rallis, S. F. (2002). Learning in the Field: And Introduction to Qualitative Research. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Rowe, P.G. (1987). Design Thinking. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Rudd, W. (1985). Architecture and ideas: A phenomenology of interpretation. Journal of Architecture Education, 38(2), 9-12. Rudd, W.J. (1989). Architecture education: the profundity of edifice. Integrated Liberal Learning and Professional Education (New Directions for Teaching and Learning), 40, 21-29. Sancar, F.H. (1996). Behavioral knowledge integration in the design studio: An experimental of three strategies. Design Studies, 17(2), 131-163. Schermer, B. (2001). Client-situated architectural practice: Implications for architectural education. Journal of Architecture Education, 55(1), 31-42. Scruton, R. (1995). A Short History of Modern Philosophy: From Descartes to Wittgenstein. New York, NY: Routledge Classics. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as Qualitative Research: A Guide for Researchers in Education and the Social Sciences. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Skirvin, W.J., & Berman, M.L. (1973). Architecture and education: The behavioral psychological approach. Educational Technology, 13, 29-37. Sommer, R. (1983). Social Design. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sorcar, P. C. (1987). Architectural Lighting for Commercial Interiors. New York: Wiley-Interscience Publications. Spiegel, L. (1998). Theories of art. Retrieved March 4, 2004 from http://retiary.org/art_theories/theories_of_art.html Stokols, D. (1978). A typology of crowding experiences. In A. Baum & Y. M. Epstein (Eds.), Human Response to Crowding. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum. Sullivan, L. (1947). The tall office building artistically considered. In I. Athey (Ed.) Kindergarten Chats and Other Writings (pp. 202-13). New York.

276

Sundstrom, E. (1978). Crowding as a sequential process: Review of research on the effects of population density on humans. In I. Altman & J. F. Wohlwill (Eds.), Environment and Culture. New York: Plenum. Tschumi, B. (1996a). Architecture and limits I. In K. Nesbitt (Ed.). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 19651995 (pp. 150-5). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. (Original work published 1980) Tschumi, B. (1996b). The pleasure of architecture. In K. Nesbitt (Ed.). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995 (pp. 530-40). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. (Original work published 1977) Tschumi, B. (1996c). Architecture and limits III. In K. Nesbitt (Ed.). Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 19651995 (pp. 162-7). New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press. (Original work published 1981) Tsow, D., & Beamer, L. (1985). Verbalization and visualization: A need in architecture education. Journal of Architecture Education, 38(2), 80-81. Verma, N. (1997). Design theory education: How useful is previous design experience? Design Studies, 18, 89-99. Vinsel, A., Brown, B. B., Altman, L., & Foss, C. (1980). Privacy regulation, territorial displays and effectiveness of individual functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1104-1115. Vitruvius, M. (1960). The Ten Books on Architecture (M. H. Morgan, Trans.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1st century B.C.) Wates, N., & Knevitt, C. (1987). Community Architecture: How People are Creating Their Own Environment. London: Penguin Books. Waxman, L. (2003). Place experiences: The built environment as social capital. Journal of Cultural Research in Art Education, 21(Spring 2003), 19-26. Wells, W. V., Need, A. L., & Crowell, N. (1979-1980). Color connotations: A study of color block testing. Journal of Interior Design Education and Research, 5(2) 6(1), 56-59. West, C. (1991). On Architecture? Lecture delivered at the Harvard Graduate School of Design. Retrieved March 5, 2004 from http://projects.gsd.harvard.edu/appendx/dev/issue2/west/index.htm

277

White, J. H. (1998). Pragmatism and art: Tools for change. Studies in Art Education, 39(3), 215-229. Wittman, F. D., & Wittman, M. (1976). Architecture and social work: Some impressions about educational issues facing both professions. Journal of Education for Social Work, 12(2), 51-58. Wright, S. (1996). Case-based instruction: Linking theory to practice. Physical Educator, 53(4), 190-197. Ziff, M. (2000). Exploring pragmatics and aesthetics in design education. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(2), 27-36.

278

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Anubhuti Bhatia is an assistant professor at California State University, Northridge. Her areas of interest include psychological and social concerns related to architectural and interior design, multicultural issues in design pedagogy and pragmatic theories in design. She completed her Masters degree i ni n te ri o r d e si gn atF l o ri d a S ta te U n i ve rsi ty a n d B a ch e l o r s d e g re e i n a rch i te ctu re at Maharaja SayajiRao University of Baroda in India. She was born and brought up in India and currently lives with her husband, Vikram Thakur in Los Angeles, California.

279