See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/335502258

Architecture + Structures: Ethics and Responsibilities in Academic Design/Build

Studios

Conference Paper · August 2019

CITATION READS

1 426

1 author:

Ahmed Kamal Ali

Texas A&M University
39 PUBLICATIONS 155 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Defining the role of design and architecture in the circular economy paradigm View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ahmed Kamal Ali on 30 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ARCHITECTURE + STRUCTURES

Architecture + Structures: Ethics and Responsibilities in

Academic Design/Build Studios
Ahmed K. Ali, Ph.D.
Texas A&M University

Introduction Construction embodies materials and its use according to

its properties, that is to say, stone imposes a different
In a recent interview with Fred Bernstein for Architectural method of construction from iron or concrete." One year
Record, published on February 2014, Rafael Viñoly, one later, in 1965, Edward Sekler, a renowned Austrian
of the most prolific architects of the modern age, made architectural historian, published his foundational essay
the following remark: "It’s a crisis for the profession. In the entitled: Structure, Construction, Tectonics where he
last twenty years, people have come into the field without stated that “through tectonics the architect may make
knowing what construction is. In architecture, visible, in a strong statement, that intensified kind of
construction is the medium." Viñoly later admitted that he experience of reality which is the artist’s domain – in our
recently "made a lot of mistakes" with his buildings in case the experience of forces related to forms in a
London, Vegas, and Manhattan and consequently building. Thus ‘structure,' the intangible concept is
criticized the current status of architectural education in realized through construction and given visual expression
falling behind the inquiry of constructive knowledge. through tectonic." Konstantinidis affirmed the impossible
Viñoly recalled that as a young architect he did rebar existence of architecture without constructive knowledge,
drawings. A notion that Chad Schwartz, in his book, citing while Sekler emphasized the role of the structure as the
Marco Frascari and Juhani Pallasmaa, pointed out to the intangible concept in architecture where expressions
disappearance of construction site apprenticeship in become a product of understanding the relationship
today's' architectural education which possibly resulted in between forms and forces.
the current crisis (Schwartz and Ford 2017). A year later,
Piet Hein Eek, a famous Dutch designer, in an interview The Disconnect Between Structure, Construction,
and the Design Studio
with Emma Tucker during the Dutch Design Week
published in Dezeen on October 2015, said: “Most If Viñoly’s remarks are true, and probably they are, a set
architects are "not interested" in construction, most of questions should be asked; what causes that
buildings are drawings filled in by engineers.” Eek added; disconnect between durable knowledge of construction
“many architects do little more than produce drawings and the design studio? How design educators overcome
and leave others to work out how to build them.” the reluctance and hesitation that still exists in students
regarding constructive knowledge? Where does the
Viñoly and Eek’s recent remarks are a reminder to similar question of constructive inquiry fall within performance-
discourse, almost fifty years ago, that established a based architecture? With the ever-increasing
foundation for modern architectural education in the specialization in performative demands, how do
realm of construction. In 1964 Aris Konstantinidis said, educators address construction as the art of building
“Good architecture always starts with construction. within today’s design studio? And finally, does academic
Without construction, there is no architecture. design/build studios address such disconnect?
 ARCHITECTURE + STRUCTURES

To begin addressing those inquiries, it is necessary to profession (Wetzel 2012). Bruce Wrightsman also
return again to Eduard Sekler, who in 1965 distinguished emphasized the importance of integrating structural
between three critical terms that are still somewhat knowledge in design/build studio by referring to it as
misplaced today; structure, construction, and tectonics. “durable knowledge” which students gain by departing
In his foundational article, Sekler elaborated on the from the traditional pen and paper structural education
relationship between the three terms as they referred to curriculum (Wrightsman 2014). As design/build education
ultimately reaching an expressive “truth” in the making of began to take a critical part in architectural education, the
architecture. A truth that demonstrates the architect’s role of structural knowledge integration, simulation, and
ethical imperative and is equally concerned with the testing to academic design/build are of vital importance
relationship between forces, forms, and materials (Sekler in order to address two fundamental outcomes; the first
1965). The relationship between structure, construction is balancing the deliverables between the physical
and tectonics are indeed critical to achieving true product (project) and the academic learning objectives
expressive and timeless work of architecture. The (process), the second is related to assurance in safety,
relationship between architecture and structure in liabilities, and responsibilities. Students, faculty,
particular was noted by Don Watson, who stated that university administrators, and beneficiary community
Louis Kahn would often refer to his colleague, the members demand a form of safety and risk mitigation that
structural engineer, August Komendant, as an “equal no matter how elaborate and expressive a design/build
partner” (Watson 1997). Theirs was an exemplary project is, no one (student) will get hurt. It only takes one
relationship that began in 1956 and lasted nearly two accident in a design/build studio to shut down the entire
decades, Komendant at that time was known for his initiative, thereby resulting in the loss of a tremendous
outstanding pre-stressed concrete work, which Kahn educational opportunity for an architecture school.
found a good fit for his architectural forms and ideas.
Collaboration between architects and engineers resulting In light of Sekler’s work and under the shadow of Kahn
in masterpieces of architecture in the twentieth century and Komendant’s relationship, the presented
dates back at least to the 1950s, In his book, 18 Years design/build case studies have attempted to investigate
with Architect Louis I. Kahn, Komendant reproduced a the relationship between structure, construction, and
letter that Kahn wrote to the American Institute of tectonics. That is through two projects in design/build
Architects in 1973, recommending that Komendant be studios within the academic context which focused
honored with the AIA's Allied Professions Medal for extensively on collaborating with structural engineers. In
“inspiring and influencing the architectural profession” the following section, a critical description of the
(letter from Louis Kahn to Eero Saarinen, March 23, experiments in the two design/build studios, which were
1959) (Komendant 1975). That relationship is one conceived at non-NAAB, accredited undergraduate four-
example of how closely architects and engineers should year programs in architecture in two different countries
work, and how the design process can be inspired by (Turkey and the United States respectively) is presented.
both disciplines. The first is an academic-based collaboration and the
More recently, Catherine Wetzel reiterated that when second is a practice-based collaboration. Both studios
architecture schools integrate design and structures in engaged students in designing and building projects from
their curriculums, they increase the working vocabulary conception to realization, working with real clients, city
and expertise of students, as well as the potential for officials and industry consultants.
innovative collaborations in the academy and the
 ARCHITECTURE + STRUCTURES

Fig. 1: Physical Models and computer simulation were used in the coordination sessions with structural engineers

‘Academic-based’ Structural Knowledge Integration in seismically active regions such as Central Turkey is
crucial (Ünay and Özmen 2006).
The first design/build studio led by the author at one of
the top-ranked Turkish universities was conceived as an
The setting of the design/build studio was conceived as a
experimental study that implemented careful observation
hybrid environment that was constructed from a building
and recording, followed by a qualitative opinion
technology laboratory, an indoor fabricating facility (wood
solicitation from the project participants to document their
shop), and an outdoor assembly/testing yard. Although
lived experiences. The physical product (The Kilim
the workload was divided among students’ groups, team
Project) and the process were compared to both
leaders, and project managers, everyone was involved in
historical and modern precedents. The project followed a
every aspect of the project at some point. Since the
traditional design process, starting with schematic
project started with nearly no funding, students were
design, refinement, and modification, and finally
asked to seek sponsorships and to raise funds and in-
construction. Emphasis on collaborating with structural
kind donations of discarded materials from vendors.
engineers was implemented throughout the process, and
Wooden shipping pallets were among the only materials
a faculty member from the structural engineering
donated, and a strategy for disassembling and sourcing
department collaborated with the studio from the
structural members was developed. However, after
beginning (figure1). Moreover, the project site happened
consulting with the academic structural engineer, it
to be in a seismic zone and therefore required a close
became apparent that continuous framing members were
consideration of issues related to stability and lateral
essential to the structural stability and integrity of the
forces. Literature suggests that the role of structural
project. At this point, the university provided a small
design integration in architectural education, specifically
amount of funding to purchase the appropriate structural
 ARCHITECTURE + STRUCTURES

framing members. After the completion of the project, a development phase of the project to determine the
reflection phase consisted of two stages was performed. stability of the proposed structure and to understand its
First, the students visited the Finnish pavilion at the performance under its weight, seismic, and wind loads.
Venice Biennale in 2014, which to their surprise shared While the proposed framing and skin systems were
similar aspects of their project. Second, a post-project initially found to be acceptable, the connections between
questionnaire was administered to collect and record the upper and lower modules and the whole structure to
their lived experience. the ground were critical (figure 2). A permanent
foundation was not suitable, since the two observation
towers of twenty-five feet high each needed to be
dismantled and relocated to different locations. A
temporary foundation base larger than each tower's
footprint was required to overcome the overturning effect
of the structure. The exterior wooden skin attached to the
structural frame could only carry its weight. The wooden
frame, therefore, was subject to deformation, and steel
connectors were needed to ensure stability. Also, a
cross-bracing steel wire was determined to be sufficient
Self-weight deformation Wind load deformation (X Wind load deformation (Y
Δzmax=0.023 mm axis) Δxmax=142.38mm axis) Δzmax=089.79mm for establishing rigidity, and only the sides of the structure
subject to torsion needed additional bracing. Knee-
bracing for the modules were recommended for providing
rigid connections but couldn’t be justified to the historical
precedents that inspired the project. Continuous framing
members were required, but the use of spliced short
members salvaged from the shipping pallets was not
suitable. In addition to scaled physical models, computer
simulations of the towers’ behavior were conducted. The
structural analysis of the “Kilim Towers” was performed
using SAP2000 software that considered the closest real
dimensions and material characteristics. There were two
load conditions: the self-weight of the frame and wind
Fig. 2: Displacement Analysis for the Kilim project and a view
from inside one of the two observation towers forces (considered according to Turkish Structural
Analysis Codes). As revealed by the initial results, no
Since the design/build studio was the first of its kind to be critical conditions were found. Two overlapping timber
established at the Turkish university, concerns regarding members (50x100mm) were suitable for the main
students’ safety were raised by the university framework, but they had to be held firmly by steel
administrators, who required a detailed assessment of connectors. The simulation models revealed deformation
the project’s structural integrity. Demands were made of the shape of the frame due to gravity and wind forces,
clear that the studio must test the proposed design before respectively, as seen in (Figure 3). Additional details
the actual construction began. Computer simulated about the inaugural design/build studio were elaborated
structural analyses were performed at the design in details in a previous publication (Ali 2016).
 ARCHITECTURE + STRUCTURES

bring additional economic activities to the community as

well as provide ecological and social benefits. The
selected project site remained undeveloped for fourteen
years except for some public parking, which was used by
nearby churches. Development on this site needed to
consider the site’s history, culture, and its impact on the
community. The design/build studio proposed developing
a permanent farmers’ market structure on the site to
replace a temporary weekend farmer’s market, which
was held every Saturday in a parking lot. Temporary
tables and tents made up the farmers’ market, which is
why a permanent, functional, and an aesthetically
appealing structure was proposed. It was agreed that
both the sellers from the current farmers’ market and new
vendors would move to the new location if an appropriate,
functional, and attractive structure were built. Also, a
Fig. 3. The Design/Build Lab Assembly Yard with the steel
visitor’s center for the city was proposed for the eastern
Bracing Diagram
side of the site (Dvorak and Ali 2016).
‘Practice-based’ Structural Knowledge Integration

The site for the design/build project was gifted by a

The second design/build studio also led by the author private foundation to the city in 2001 under the condition,
was conceived at a large state university in the United that it must be developed for the benefit of the public. The
States and was part of a high-impact interdisciplinary site included two of the oldest and historical buildings in
service-learning initiative that focused on community the city, a house originally built in 1872 and a separate
projects. The interdisciplinary studio involved faculty and carriage house. The project was selected for funding by
students from architecture, landscape architecture, and the University’s College of Architecture’s real projects
construction science who collaboratively developed initiative and achieved three major goals: First, a student
projects from conception to realization, demonstrating the design competition was offered to design a visitor center;
impact of design on their immediate local community. second, a masterplan for the entire historic site was
Students were immersed in an in-depth, hands-on, developed by the students; and third, a modular farmers’
learning experience that was based on active market was designed and built for the city’s Farmers
participation from students and the peer-learning Association. During the Fall 2015 semester, the first two
principals of funding, design, engineering, management, phases of the project were launched: a student’s design
fabrication, production planning and construction. The competition for a visitor’s center was announced and
overarching goal was for the students to be able to funded by the private foundation who gifted the site to the
understand the value that other disciplines bring to the city. Next, graduate-level landscape architecture
teamwork and learn to think as collaborators. The students conducted research and data collection through
selected site which was located in the neighboring city of numerous meetings with the city and the private
the University which included several properties that foundation members. During Spring 2016, and while the
remained underdeveloped or in need of rehabilitation. masterplan document was refined by the landscape
The reclamation of these properties could potentially
 ARCHITECTURE + STRUCTURES

architecture students, the design/build studio launched approved by the city, and a building permit was filed and
the design and construction of the modular farmers’ obtained. The modular farmers’ market was named “The
market. The spring semester was divided into six weeks Tree,” which was described as an autonomous shading
of design and six weeks of building. Architecture and structure with a multilayered roof that stemmed from a
construction students worked together in collaboration cluster of four columns. It is the prototype for a proposed
with the landscape architecture students in designing, series of identical sections that, when placed side by
scheduling, budgeting, and constructing the modular side, create a row of farmers’ market stalls. Each section,
market at the University’s fabrication facility. Input from or “tree,” provides approximately one hundred square
landscape architecture students, faculty, city officials, foot of shaded stall (8x12 feet of vendor space) supported
and a local engineering firm was coordinated throughout by four 6x6 inch posts (Figure 4).
the twelve weeks. Construction documents were

Figure 2: Farmers Market Structural Framing Plan, and a view after the prototype completion

Since the design/build studio acted as the ‘project inform their design decisions (figure 5). Contrary to the
architect,' the city required a licensed engineer to Turkish design/build experiment, no computer
approve and stamp the drawings to move forward with simulations were performed to determine the appropriate
the plan’s approval and the building permit process. sizing and connection methods of the structure. Instead,
Through the efforts of the author, a local engineering firm simple calculations and practical experience of the
agreed to provide sealed structural drawings and structural engineers informed the design of the pavilion
consultation as ‘pro-bono’ service. The studio’s students units’ structural members. As a result, a slightly higher
collaborated with the structural engineering firm from the factor of safety was apparent in the sizing of the structural
beginning, and several charettes were conducted to members. For example, each cluster of columns
 ARCHITECTURE + STRUCTURES

contained 4 members that were specified as 6”x6” training was performed according to the required
instead of 4”x4”. The students, however, redesigned the University standards before using the fabrication
ultimate height of the market roof and the layering logic facilities. In the latter case, students were insured as long
of the roofing elements, so that the overall proportions as the work proceeded on the University’s property, but
remained elegant and harmonized the transition from once the assembly of the project started off-campus,
column to roof despite the relative bulkiness of materials. additional insurance was required.

In the two experiments, both the structural engineering

collaborators had a Professional Engineers license
(P.E.s). Although all licensed Structural Engineers
(S.E.s) are also licensed Professional Engineers, all
Professional Engineers are not licensed Structural
Engineers. In fact, only a small fraction of Professional
Engineers passes the state requirements that allow
Professional Engineers to be licensed Structural
Engineers. Both experiments were effective regarding
learning and goals achieved, and it’s difficult to suggest
one model over to the other. However, exposing students
to real-world coordination with consultants to produce a
Fig. 3: Students in Collaborative Session with the practicing
set of construction documents and obtaining a building
structural Engineer
permit was daunting, but nevertheless provided an
The Design/Build Studio and the University
unmatched learning opportunity. Both projects offered an

The two models presented in this paper offer two distinct added-value to the typical design/build studios by

perspectives on balancing both the product and the allowing architecture students to move from ‘engineers

process deliverables. Also, issues related to risk and will figure out how the project will stand for us’ to ‘the

legal responsibilities that exist in the majority of dialogue with engineers enhanced our design decisions.'

design/build studios today drastically influence the mode As stated by Ted Cavanagh, the transformation of

of collaboration between architecture students and design/build pedagogy from learning by doing to learning

engineers. In the ‘academic-based’ case, a safety by experimenting increases the research agenda, and

protocol was established with the University based on therefore closes the gap between abstract and reality

computer modeling and simulations, which were (Cavanagh 2012). In addition, the understanding of the

performed in collaboration with a faculty member in relationship between structure, construction, and

structural engineering, while safety training was delivered tectonics is expressed through making. Wither

to students both before and during construction. The collaborating with an academic or professional

‘practice-based’ case, however, relied on the knowledge consultant, a raised level of responsibility is instilled in the

and the practical experience of a licensed structural students of architecture. From the presented models,

engineer. For example, the foundation and members structural integration professionally enhanced the

connections were determined and drawn according to the experimenting process and added an ethical dimension

engineer’s experience as seen in (figure 6). Safety to the design process.

 ARCHITECTURE + STRUCTURES

Fig. 4: The Modular Farmers Market Structural Framing Connection and Details

Conclusion The collaborative experiments with both academic-based

and practice-based structural engineers challenged
There exist a complex renegotiation of constructive issues of liability, shared risk, and accountability in real
relationships surrounding structure, enclosure, and projects built by unlicensed and inexperienced college
performance that are reshaping the role that construction students. However, the value of collaborating with
plays in the making of architecture. It could be argued that structural engineers at the early stages of both projects
the structural and formal expression that articulated the differs from academic to practice settings. While the
regulating lines and tectonic expression of a work of academic collaborative case allowed a substantial room
architecture has steadily given way to performance- for unconventional discoveries and further design
driven demands emerging from evolving codes and exploration, the practice-based collaborative case
regulations. Balancing the need for delivering a involved real-world problems and liability requirements
completed design/build project and the forms of learning associated with licensure. Structural simulations were
exploration within the academic design/build process utilized within the academic setting, and design decisions
requires orchestration and careful coordination between mostly were based on computer programs and physical
the different project stakeholders. Based on the two- modeling. In the practice-based settings, intuition
presented experiments, the balance is highly achievable coupled with experience mainly influenced the major
when paying careful attention to the fundamental architectural and structural design decisions. The
relationship between structure and architecture. In both impacts of the two different collaborative models
models, the integration of either the academic or the confronted both students and educators with the critical
practicing engineer assured the clients regarding issues knowledge needed to further their efficiency and
of risk, safety, and responsibility. Although that effectiveness in the practice. While the interdisciplinary
assurance may seem to be prioritized over the learning nature of collaboration with structural engineers
objectives, the reality is that it also allowed the students enhanced both models, challenges in addressing the
to gain substantial knowledge in coordination, refining relationship between structure and construction were
and constructing with a focus on tectonic expressions. expressed differently through the final built work. Here
the question of tectonic expressions was distinctly
explored through each model.
 ARCHITECTURE + STRUCTURES

Acknowledgements Wrightsman, Bruce. 2014. "Building a Structural Knowledge."

ACSA Fall Conference, WORKING OUT: thinking while
The author would like to thank both Bilkent University building, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Department of Architecture, and the Texas A&M University
College of Architecture’s real projects initiative for their support
throughout the projects. Special thanks also to professor Ali
Ihsan Unay, Middle East Technical University, Ankara. and
Thomas Gessner, Gessner Engineering, Bryan College
Station, Texas.

Notes or References:

Ali, Ahmed K. 2016. "Transforming Architectural Education at

the Cross Roads of the World." Proceedings of the EAAE
ARCC 10th International Conference: Architectural
Research Addressing Societal Challenges, Lisbon,
Portugal.
Cavanagh, T. 2012. "Innovative Structures and the Design-
Build Model of Teaching." International symposium for
cross-cultural, practice-oriented projects in teaching and
research, TU Berlin.
Dvorak, Bruce D., and Ahmed K. Ali. 2016. "Urban Agriculture
Case Studies in Central Texas: From the Ground to the
Rooftop." In Urban Agriculture, edited by Mohamed Samer,
20. InTech.
Komendant, August E. 1975. 18 years with architect Louis I.
Kahn. Englewood, N.J.: Aloray.
Schwartz, Chad, and Edward R. Ford. 2017. Introducing
architectural tectonics : exploring the intersection of design
and construction. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group.
Sekler, Eduard F. 1965. Structure, Constrction, Tectonics.
Edited by Gyorgy Kepes, Structure in Art and and Science.
New York,: G. Braziller.
Ünay, Ali İhsan, and Cengiz Özmen. 2006. "Building Structure
Design as an Integral Part of Architecture: A Teaching
Model for Students of Architecture." International Journal
of Technology and Design Education 16 (3):253-271. doi:
10.1007/s10798-005-5241-z.
Watson, Donald. 1997. "Architecture, Technology, and
Environment." Journal of Architectural Education:119-126.
Wetzel, Catherine. 2012. "Integrating Structures and Design in
the First-Year Studio." Journal of Architectural Education
66 (1):107-114. doi: 10.1080/10464883.2012.715980.

View publication stats