Paul Dustrud, AIA, makes a point about Dylan Garza's terminal studio project as Dylan (standing, left) looks on. (All photos by me).
The University
of Oregon’s Department of Architecture requires its professional degree program candidates to complete a
two-term advanced studio during their final year of studies. Two academic quarters
in duration, the generous timeframe lets each student develop a comprehensive,
complex, and creative architectural design, wide-ranging in its execution. The
terminal studio project is the student’s best and last opportunity to demonstrate
his or her mastery of fundamental design and presentation skills before moving
on to face the exigencies and realities of professional life.
Professor Michael Fifield,
FAIA, has regularly asked me to be a reviewer for his studio classes. Whenever
possible, I enthusiastically respond by saying “yes!” I not only enjoy the
reviews but also attach great seriousness to the responsibility of providing
constructive feedback for the students. Some of the best and most helpful
critiques I received when I was in school came from practicing architects; I’m
hopeful my words, now founded on more than three decades of professional experience,
are equally useful to students whose work I review.
In addition to Michael, other members of the Department
of Architecture faculty who have invited me to participate in their studio
reviews include Virginia Cartwright, Nancy Cheng, Don Corner, Mark Gillem, Jim
Givens, Otto Poticha, Michael Pyatok, Rob Thallon, Glenda Utsey, and Jenny
Young (I know I’m probably forgetting several others). I’m grateful to all of
them for the chance to do so because every review is truly a pleasure.
Michael’s Housing
Innovations Project (HIP) provided his students with the flexibility to
explore the design of housing with sites and programs of their own choosing.
All of the students enrolled in his studio brought with them some prior knowledge
with multifamily housing, either through Michael’s Housing Prototypes course or
the equivalent offered by another instructor. The entire studio also traveled
to San Francisco prior to the Winter Term to visit several firms noted for
their work on multifamily housing projects, and also to tour notable built examples.
I was impressed by the variety of the projects generated
by Michael’s studio. This mixture included dense, affordable housing solutions in major
urban centers (Chicago, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle, among them) as well
as townhouses, an extended stay hotel, and market rate apartments for senior
living. Michael directed his students to work within existing zoning bylaws and
applicable building codes for the locales in which their projects were
situated. They also developed their respective functional programs on density
expectations and analyses of the specific community needs and/or market demands.
Lauren Rice listens as Juli Brode comments on Lauren's design for a "New Occidental Hotel" in Seattle.
A unique aspect of the University of Oregon’s Department
of Architecture is its long custom (established by W.R.B. Wilcox nearly a
century ago) of eschewing a competitive learning environment and letter grades
in favor of a supportive studio culture and individual evaluation through
discussion and written assessments. The intent is to avoid the risk of
arbitrarily fixing a standard of excellence; instead, the goal is to encourage
each student to constantly question and learn, to acquire a broad understanding of culture and society, and, beyond this,
to be an influence in forging those values, aspirations and character. This approach encourages open-mindedness, critical
inquiry, collaboration, and risk taking, all necessary qualities for creative
achievement.
The school likewise employs “reviews” as opposed to
“juries.” In practice, the distinction between the two isn’t that marked but
the words themselves signify a meaningful difference. We regard “reviews” as evaluations.
On the other hand, we think of “juries” as judgmental. Simply being
characterized as a reviewer rather than as a member of a jury profoundly casts
one in a different role.
Taken together, Oregon’s emphasis on student development
rather than competition, and the avoidance of hypercritical or condemnatory
evaluations has fostered a setting most conducive to learning and exploration.
ZGF Architects Design Partner Larry Bruton, FAIA, holds the floor as he engages Saya Shimada in a conversation regarding her "Rainier Beach Townhomes" project.
In a brilliant piece for the website Section Cut entitled “The Final Review: Negaters Gonna Negate,” Mark Stanley—a
Lecturer and Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of Tennessee’s
College of Architecture and Design—discussed the challenges facing reviewers.
He also described the practice of reviews as a microcosm of everything about
the process of architecture that make it such an enthralling pursuit:
“In many ways architecture
review culture mirrors the discipline itself—it sits somewhere between the unconstrained,
wildly productive studio art review where students say nothing and the work
speaks for itself, and the controlled, disciplinary thesis defense where the
saying of things is as important as anything. It’s somewhere between being
creative and discursive, between intuition and method, between beautiful and
substantial. I revel in the potential of this weird moment. It is the most
exciting, most valuable, most vibrant moment in design education, and many of
the reasons that make it bad are precisely the reasons that make it good.”
At their best, the students’ final reviews are fertile
with epiphanies and leaps of understanding. The students naturally seek
validation for their design concepts and execution, but they should first and
foremost embrace the process of intellectual exchange and discourse with the
reviewers. They should learn everything they can from the experience. I’m also
quick to remind them to take my comments and those of my fellow reviewers with
a grain of salt. After all, the students know their projects better than anyone
else.
My goal is to elicit from the student
whether he or she framed the design problem clearly and then did their best to
come up with a solution that is as thoughtful as it should be. This is
particularly the case for terminal studio project reviews because the
expectation is the students have acquired the aptitude and skills necessary to
be effective designers and communicators. In the best Oregon tradition, I want
each review to be exciting, valuable, and vibrant for the student, not because
it is filled with drama and grandstanding, but instead because real learning is
taking place.
Final review presentation materials by Saya Shimada: drawings, physical models at varying scales, and a bound report documenting her program, project goals, design assumptions, and the concept.
Big thanks
to Michael for inviting me to his studio’s final review. It was the de facto culmination of the architecture school experience for his students, certainly a proud and exciting moment for them. I heartily congratulate all of the studio members for achieving this significant milestone, and look forward to their future contributions toward the betterment of architecture and our world. My parting words to them now: Get some sleep, you've earned it!
2 comments:
LOG! They're sensitive in choosing "review" instead of "jury" but use "terminal." I recall a couple of juries that had a terminal feeling. :)
Sheldon: Hmmm . . . Let's see; what would we use as an alternative for "terminal?" The dictionary defines one meaning as "leading to death, especially slowly; incurable, untreatable, inoperable; More fatal, mortal, deadly; immedicable."
Yep. Sounds about right! :)
Post a Comment