Show simple record

dc.contributor.authorPretty, Annabel
dc.contributor.authorMcPherson, Peter
dc.date.accessioned2018-05-04T00:50:00Z
dc.date.available2018-05-04T00:50:00Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.issn2206-9658
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10652/4221
dc.description.abstractThe ambiguous nature of the word “design” offers up a complex dialectic dialogue for the architectural studio lecturers to impart to their students. Discussing the “design”, more commonly referred to as the programme or scheme, is quite a different beast to the process or design methodologies the students use to create an architectural proposition or “design”. Clarity around this notion of design as both the process, in being design-led, and also as the end result, becomes a necessary task for studio lecturers to inculcate into the student body. This paper aims to navigate through the mire/path of the design methodologies as adopted within architecture studio teaching at second year level within the Bachelor of Architectural Studies, Unitec Department of Architecture – by way of using the tried and tested notions of First Insight / Empathy, Preparation, Incubation, Illumination, Verification, with the anticipation that these are the essential tools with which to interface teaching and practice, within the context of a “live build project”. Three years’ worth of case studies of large scale Interdisciplinary and collaborative “live build projects” in Christchurch in conjunction with the Festival of Transitional Architecture (FESTA) are used to demonstrate and investigate the heuristic design processes that are an integral part of a prospective architect’s arsenal of skills. These case studies offered a complex window of tasks, not least that the students were designing in Auckland 1000 km away from the Christchurch sites, and each year posed a different set of problems and clients-related issues. Luxcity 2012 / Canterbury Tales 2013 / CityUps 2014 were the students’ responses to FESTA’s call to rejuvenate the city centre after the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011, and all of which were assembled only for a 24-hour period over Labour Day Weekend.en_NZ
dc.language.isoenen_NZ
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial 4.0 International License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/en_NZ
dc.subjectlive build projectsen_NZ
dc.subjectstudio praxisen_NZ
dc.subjectdesign thinkingen_NZ
dc.subjectinterdisciplinarityen_NZ
dc.subjectcollaborative projectsen_NZ
dc.subjectUnitec coursesen_NZ
dc.subjectarchitecture educationen_NZ
dc.subjectdesignen_NZ
dc.subjectearthquakesen_NZ
dc.subjectChristchurch (N.Z.)en_NZ
dc.subjectChristchurch 2010-2011 earthquakesen_NZ
dc.subjectFestival of Transitional Architecture (FESTA)en_NZ
dc.subjectdesign processen_NZ
dc.subjectiterativeen_NZ
dc.titleDesign dialogues : ambiguity of “design” within Architectural Studioen_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
dc.date.updated2017-12-21T13:30:23Z
dc.rights.holder© Queensland University of Technologyen_NZ
dc.identifier.doiDOI: 10.5204/jps.v2i3.113en_NZ
dc.subject.marsden130299 Curriculum and Pedagogy not elsewhere classifieden_NZ
dc.subject.marsden120199 Architecture not elsewhere classifieden_NZ
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationPretty, A., McPherson, P. (2017). Design dialogues. Ambiguity of “Design” within Architectural Studio. The Journal of Public Space, 2(3), Special Issue, 53-62, DOI: 10.5204/jps.v2i3.113en_NZ
unitec.publication.spage53en_NZ
unitec.publication.lpage62en_NZ
unitec.publication.volumeCritical Thresholds: Traversing Architectural Pedagogy, Research, and Practiceen_NZ
unitec.publication.titleThe Journal of Public Spaceen_NZ
unitec.peerreviewedyesen_NZ
unitec.identifier.roms60109en_NZ
unitec.identifier.roms60168


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in

Show simple record