Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Reflections on the assessment, in S. Bader and A. Lepik (eds.), 'Experience in Action. DesignBuild in Architecture' (Munich: Edition Detail, 2020) pp. 62-67

62 | TOMÀ BERLANDA Reflections on the Assessment TOMÀ BERLANDA DesignBuild is here understood as a pedagogical project at architectural institutions in which, for the first time, students implement one of their own design and learn how the built result may influence the individuals and communities it is intended for. The built objects, so the thesis of this contribution, must be questioned in a self-reflective way. To this end, the evaluation of the results and their impact should become an intrinsic step of the entire design process, which could be described as “thinking while working.” If in principle this is a largely shared position, in reality, for most DesignBuild experiences the assessment is either the phase mostly left aside, or almost solely concerned with the ability to provide a positive learning experience to students. The growing dissatisfaction with the appropriateness of such evaluation methods has solicited reflections by some scholars, and attempts have been made to establish criteria which might help to overcome a piecemeal case-by-case approach. However, this is a process that is still underway. To mention but one example, faculty at the University of Ljubljana embarked on a comparative analysis of a series of projects, to show “the scope, engagement, and the achieved outcome of the action,”1 based on the following set of criteria: cooperation and involvement (with other higher education institutions, community, industry, nonprofit organizations); spatial level (local, regional, or international); project duration; the addressed issue (design problems, social issues, ecological aspect, multi-aspect approach); and the achieved outcome (valued, above all, on the basis of the achieved technical result). Even though the intention to identify a set of comparable criteria is undoubtedly positive, it is worth remarking that the achieved outcomes are assessed in terms of technical results of the architectural object, and not in terms of the impact on its users. In other words, “how architecture is” continues to be considered more relevant than “what architecture does”. Challenges and needs (or the argument for an assessment) Before offering some thoughts on what might be included in the assessment phase, a limited number of factual challenges are worth mentioning. If to determine and judge the value of something it is necessary to adopt objective, quantifiable, and comparable metrics, the evaluation of any architectural project is very difficult, since subjective criteria like the aesthetic appearance easily prevail. Programmatic limitations and distance Community workshop for the Tacloban DesignBuild project in Leyte, Philippines DesignBuild projects are prevalently concerned with themes and sectors, such as health, education, and shelter, which are not interesting to the real estate market. The DesignBuilders thus end up replacing what in a less unjustly structured society should be taken care of by the public REFLECTIONS ON THE ASSESSMENT | 63 sector. It is true that universities are public institutions to a varying degree, but the independence with which they are allowed to operate, particularly far away from their home country, in support of communities in distress, can sometimes be harmful, since there might be no regulatory system in place to control their operations. This condition would suggest making even more stringent the need of focusing the assessment on the effects that the existence of the built work and the activities to be housed will have on the living conditions of its users, rather than on the aesthetic qualities of the architectural piece. Need to move beyond rhetorical language It’s hard not to notice how DesignBuild is a type of intervention increasingly becoming a field of privileged interest for academic institutions competing with one another, as evidenced by the self-celebrative language used to magnify their good intentions. Statements such as “the initiative continues to serve the poor in Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the USA and improve the lives of communities worldwide typically underserved”2 and descriptions of “students, under the guidance of mentors, plan and build schools, kindergartens, and other social institutions in economically neglected countries, helping to address the spatial and life hardships of the population”3 sound like hollow descriptors of what could be easily perceived as a missionary approach. Thanks to the growing circulation of interventions of so-called humanitarian architecture, and of networks that join together practitioners and educators who share a belief that “we can create better environmental, social, and economic outcomes for all through the power of design,” teachers and universities gain popularity and visibility, their projects capture the attention of magazines and media, and publications and awards specifically aimed at DesignBuild projects keep growing. The website ArchDaily now organizes the competitions for the best student’s DesignBuild projects worldwide, and in 2012 ACSA, the American Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture established the Design-Build Award. This new attention has two sides. On the one hand, it certainly serves to convince students and sponsors for the projects, but also the universities, since the teaching method is by no means self-evident and the teachers are usually in more precarious employment conditions. On the other hand, one must be careful that attention through various public media and awards does not contribute to an unreflective display of DesignBuild projects, where they are portrayed as “exquisite”4 or “poetic”5 structures. Taking this skewed situation into consideration, it should not come as a surprise that the majority of the assessments end up being made up of cursory compliments stemming from the idea that a “good architecture for the poor” entails building quickly, using available and inexpensive 64 | TOMÀ BERLANDA Safe Haven Library, Ban Tha Song Yang, Thailand materials, and the use of local low-cost labour,6 and potentially offering an interpretation of the lessons of vernacular architecture. Authors as assessors, no post-occupancy evaluation A third challenge stems from the fact that the judgement on the project is expressed immediately after the completion of the works, and hence not much can be said on how much the needs that the design intended to address were indeed satisfied. The lack of any medium or long-term post-occupancy assessment is detrimental to the critical reflection on what did in fact work. This hurdle is compounded by the fact that the assessment is carried out by the same designers and authors. However animated by good intentions they might be, it is understandable that they are prone to positively evaluate their experience, resulting in the role of the beneficiaries of the schemes becoming inexistent in the assessment. Positive experiences Not all operate in the same way. Some faculty involved in the DesignBuild experiences are well aware of the reasons that make it difficult to develop adequate assessment procedures and have addressed this both from a theoretical point of view and by elaborating and experimenting with a range of different criteria. Perhaps for this reason the most convincing attempts are the ones by institutions who have engaged with DesignBuild courses over multiple iterations and have chosen to operate in close proximity to their premises. The ensuing projects are therefore not isolated initiatives but part of a consolidated relationship between the university and a community. One such instance is that of Rural Studio at the University of Alabama, where old projects are evaluated with the beginning of each new semester, and only after considering the feedback from the individuals using the building, a new initiative is launched. It is an attitude that is possibly conceptually tied to the ethical approach described by the founder of the studio Samule Mockbee, who theorized the “leadership of the architect”and stated how the architectural profession had “an ethical responsibility to help improve living conditions for the poor”.7 A tentative list In order to bring the discussion full circle, what follows is a sequence of points that should be kept in mind when establishing both a baseline for evaluation and a lens through which to look at the results. 1. Include from the beginning The first suggestion is to include the evaluation procedure as part of the initial briefing, together with a clear framing of needs, interests, and expectations. This would mitigate the risk that an ex-post assessment might end up privileging a choice of vague criteria and result in approximate measures. The final report should further respond to the initial framing of the pedagogical assignment, and extend the observations beyond the qualities of the architectural object as such, by taking into consideration procedures and outcomes. Construction of counter for the restaurant, Østmarkneset, Trondheim, Norway, 2015 2. How does the encounter between the designers and the client take place “Who chooses whom” is a question that cannot be left unanswered in a historical moment where organizations specializing in the choice REFLECTIONS ON THE ASSESSMENT | 65 of communities “eligible” to receive help appear to be growing. Today the promoters of the initiatives are not alone in establishing precise selection criteria. Indeed, there are networks of Western architectural faculties purposely created for the construction of public buildings in developing countries and institutions today that are specialized in project management. 3. Who decides the brief and who chooses the project conformance to specification of the brief In the reports from DesignBuild activities, rhetorical echoes of participation and inclusion of the local population abound, even though this involvement pivots around an uneven relation between creator and fabricator. Indeed, it is no longer possible to shy away from contributing to the conversation on how, in practice, to apply the overarching criterion demanding that the community affected by our work must participate in the planning of the intervention and not be left to be consulted in the ex-post evaluation. 4. Who decides the financial allocation Besides the financial contributions of donors and sponsors it should be clearly indicated how the labor of local inhabitants is valued and quantified, in order to avoid conveying a message of simply extracting wealth from communities. 5. Time From a temporal point of view, it would be beneficial to identify for each group the immediate short-term outcomes, which generally are the most well-documented and publicized, intermediate outcomes, such as challenges in the maintenance and running of the facility, and ultimate longer-term outcomes, such as use of the structure, potential changes and modifications brought to the building, as well as replicability. 6. Context Concerning location, the assessment should be understood in terms of the site and the context where the project is implemented, making a distinction between designs built in places and for users close to the academic institutions, or in underprivileged settings, and between episodic projects and those which are part of a lasting relationship between universities and local communities. 7. Users’ satisfaction The satisfaction of the users’ needs, besides being difficult to measure, is easily manipulated, and even more so in the case of projects carried out in distant locations and across varying conditions of social and economic discomfort. 8. Specific skills or knowledge transfer On this point, designers generally do not shy away from the myth of knowledge exchange and tend to underline as a positive result that of having taught the locals how to build in an appropriate way. Clear, measurable parameters should be developed to mitigate the onedirectionality of the approach. 66 | TOMÀ BERLANDA 9. Changed attitudes or values about specific issues and modified behavior All designers agree on the idea that the experience of building a project in a foreign context by one’s own hand not only broadened their cultural horizon but increased their professional competence. The impact of their activities on the behavior and positions of the inhabitants of the Global South is a theme rarely taken into consideration. Greater attention to the changes that the designs have brought to the local population is possible in the case of projects realized in close proximity to the initiating universities. The goal of “engaging with people as equals” and promoting “new forms of coexistence” is explicit in designs where, besides academia, also citizens, the administration, and notprofit organizations are involved in the construction. The challenge in this approach is to emphasize a communicative learning model that both draws on the local context and empowers its population. Conversion of a building dating back to World War II into a restaurant. The project originates from the Østmarkneset workshop by NTNU Live Studio, Trondheim Norway, 2015 1 Branislav Folić, Saja Kosanović, Tadej Glažar, Alenka Fikfak, “Design-Build Concept In Architectural Education,” 2016. https://www.academia. edu/32503899/Design-Build_Concept_In_Architectural_Education (accessed 30 November 2019). 2 http://www. centerforpublicinterestdesign.org/ people (accessed 30 November 2019) 3 http://www.ugm.si/en/stara-stran/ news-4/?tx_news_pi1%5Bnews%5D= 3321&tx_news_pi1%5Bcontroller%5D= News&tx_news_pi1%5Baction%5D= detail&cHash=5900a5b77e7c2464287 c1f35ea8b77ab (accessed 30 November 2019). 4 https://design-build.space/awards (accessed 30 November 2019). 5 https://www.scandinaviandesign.com/ the-erskine-award-2017/ (accessed 30 November 2019). 6 https://www.uni-lj.si/news/news/5213/ (accessed 30 November 2019) 7 Michael Hensel, “Rural Studio: Incarnations of a Design and Build Programme,” 2015. https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ad.1875 n (accessed 30 November 2019). Tomà Berlanda is Professor of Architecture at the School of Architecture, Planning and Geomatics at the University of Cape Town. His research interests focus on the implications that can be drawn from a non-stereotypical reading of the African city and the practice of architecture in non-Western urban settings and landscapes. He co-founded asa studio and astudio. space, two practices that have produced internationally recognized design work. His collaborative projects are the result of an engagement with the role of quality design for underprivileged communities and includes school buildings, early childhood development centers, and health facilities. He is the author of Architectural Topographies (Routledge, Abington 2014), and Interpreting Kigali (University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, AR 2018) and served as Technical Reviewer for the Aga Khan Award for Architecture in 2016 and 2019. REFLECTIONS ON THE ASSESSMENT | 67