Course Information
48-410F Advanced Synthesis Options Studio (18 Units)
Carnegie Mellon University School of Architecture
Class Times: MWF 01:30PM - 04:20PM SP15
Class Room: CFA 200
Instructor: Eddy Man Kim
Office Hours: By Appointment
Office Location: MMCH 309
Teaching Assistant: Tom Shen
Office Hours: TBA
*Corequisite to 48-548 Design Communication strongly recommended
Course Schedule (Updated Regularly)
inter(x)change Workshops & Events
Course Links
Reading Guide
Presentation Archive
Conversation between Olafur Eliasson and Kevin Kelly
Olafur Eliasson talks about his River Bed installation
Studio Description
Liminal Interventions: Hybrid Interface Design Build Studio is an attempt at addressing the need for architects to become more versatile in traversing and integrating the physical and digital domains. In this studio, students will work in groups to design, procure, build, and deploy installations that explore the ambiguities of architectural materiality and scale as manifested by the trending culture of Big Data and the increasingly quantifiable universe. The goal of the studio is for every student to experience the full spectrum of design project delivery process, from predesign to deployment, but through the medium of physical and digital constructs.
Studio Structure
In order to accomplish the ambitiously compressed task, the studio will work in following phases:
Phase 1: Research Issue & Determine Client Base (2 weeks)
Who and what is this for? Research an issue and determine a need based on conversations with the selected client base.
Phase 2: Material Study Prototype & Software Prototype (3 weeks)
What is it? Not necessarily reflecting any particular context, develop a hybrid physical/digital prototype.
Phase 3: Site-specific Prototype (3 weeks)
Where is it? Delve into more spatial and contextual explorations of the prototype. Finalize installation proposal.
Phase 4: Planning & Procurement (2 weeks)
Finalize design and logistics. Prepare final production.
Phase 5: Final Production & Marketing (2 weeks)
Complete final production of the installation and promote project for unveiling.
Phase 6: Fine Tuning & Deployment (3 weeks)
Deploy project in situ. Complete final adjustments and troubleshoot.
Studio Themes
Big Data and its trends. The quantifiable self and the world.
Architectural design practice. Current state of affairs. Technological lag.
Issues in urban living: Mobility, Environment, & Community.
Crossfading of new media tools and techniques from other disciplines.
User-centric design. Trends in UX / UI Design.
Objectives
Develop a critical understanding of media, technology, design, and the practice of architecture, engineering, and construction.
Gain an opportunistic attitude towards the future of architectural design profession.
Interface with a client base and establish the necessary feedback loops for the project at hand.
Acquire new skills or knowledge of new media tools and workflows.
Apply the new skills or knowledge to a solving a design problem.
Familiarize with workflows to gather, analyze, and visualize/project/interact with data.
Design and build a full scale interactive installation.
Test ideas using models and other prototyping techniques.
Technical Workshops
You are expected to be proactive in managing the learning curve for any technical skills necessary to execute your project. You are be responsible for attending any critical technical workshops offered both in and outside studio times. There’s also a myriad of online resources that may serve your needs.
Readings
- Artificial Hells: Participatory Art and the Politics of Spectatorship by Claire Bishop. Verso Books, 2012.
- The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012 by Mario Carpo. Wiley & Sons, 2013.
- The Information: A History, A Theory, A Flood by James Gleick. Vintage Books, 2012.
- Ambient Commons: Attention in the Age of Embodied Information by Malcolm McCullough. MIT Press, 2013.
- Sentient City: Ubiquitous Computing, Architecture, and the Future of Urban Space by Mark Shepard. MIT Press, 2011.
- Architecture In Formation by Pablo Lorenzo-Eiroa & Aaron Sprecher. Routledge, 2013.
- Theories of the Digital in Architecture by Rivka Oxman & Robert Oxman. Routledge, 2014.
- Digital Culture in Architecture: An Introduction for the Design Professions by Antoine Picon. Birkhauser, 2010.
- Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia by Anthony M. Townsend. W. W. Norton & Company, 2013.
- Sense of the City: An Alternate Approach to Urbanism by Mirko Zardini and Wolfgang Zchivelbusch. Birkhauser, 2010.
Studio Policies
adopted from “Timber: Augmented Wood Construction,” taught by Joshua Bard
Technology should be used to inspire and execute your work in studio. Please do not graze on social media or stream content during studio. Texting during lectures – no. Looking up a quick image of an architect whose name is dropped during a review – yes
Attendance is essential to your development in studio. More than three unexcused absences will lower your final grade. Missing a review could result in a failing grade for that project. Disappearing for a few weeks while you pledge – no. Bringing a signed doctor’s note regarding a recent absence – yes
As architects we invest quite a bit of energy in the built environment. That ambition should be reflected in the way you maintain your studio space. Pushing last week’s lunch under last month’s site model – no. Hanging precedent and inspiration by your desk – yes.
Context matters in architectural education. Spending time working in studio with your colleagues is invaluable. Mumbling “see you Monday” as you slip out of studio Friday afternoon – no. Encouraging a classmate who has been drooling on his / her desk for the last hour to go home and get some rest – yes.
Computers are really helpful. Until they’re not. Back up your work! If your computer crashes the night before a review you cannot have it present in your place. So have a backup plan. Did I mention to back up your work? Better yet, work in the cloud.
Documentation
Students are expected to thoroughly document the final product and all process work.
A complete documentation and narrative of the project should be both submitted as a single pdf and showcased online.
Evaluation Criteria
adopted from “Timber: Augmented Wood Construction,” taught by Joshua Bard
Critical Inquiry
+ Syntheses of intensive and extensive thinking. Making connections outside the given scope.
/ Work sacrifices breadth or depth. Takes project as given.
- Fragmented work. Inattentive to project aims.
Communication
+ Strong verbal and visual communication.
/ Work sacrifices breadth or depth. Takes project as given.
- Fragmented work. Inattentive to project aims.
Creativity
+ Imaginative and risk taking.
/ Inventive.
- Normative.
Craft
+ High level of craft validates and extends impact of the work.
/ Work is well-made.
- Lack of attention to details compromises the work’s impact.
Motivation
+ Self-Motivated.
/ Needs faculty motivation.
- Lacks motivation.
Voice
+ Voice of individual apparent.
/ Developing a personal voice.
- Little personal voice.
Editing / Process
+ Learns from critique. Develops through iteration.
/ Develops work under the pressure of deadlines.
- Inability to respond to critique. Little development of initial ideas.
Grading Rubric
adopted from “Timber: Augmented Wood Construction,” taught by Joshua Bard
A – Excellent
Work reflects outstanding achievement in content and execution. Work far exceeds given requirements. Students in this category demonstrate: High self motivation, Independent thinking and expression, Use precedent as a catalyst, Highly disciplined, Willingness to take risks, High ability to focus, Systemic questioning, Self critique and editing, Highest qualities of representation.
B – Good
Work reflects high achievement in content and execution. Work exceeds given requirements. Students in this category demonstrate: Some external motivation, Periodic independent thinking, Good discipline, Beginning to take risks, Good qualities of representation, Periods of focus, Closed-ended questioning, Open to suggested critique and editing.
C – Satisfactory
Work fulfills given requirements. Students in this category demonstrate: External motivation, Cannot extend precedent, Low discipline, Conformity, Short periods of focus, Average qualities of representation, Limited questioning, Dependent on external critique and editing.
D – Poor
Work is less than satisfactory. Work minimally or incompletely fulfills given requirements. Students in this category demonstrate: Lack of motivation, Ignore precedent, Lack discipline, Duplication, Few periods of focus, Low qualities of representation, Little questioning, Non-responsive to external critique and editing.
R – Inadequate
Work fulfills few or none of the given requirements. Work is substantially incomplete. Student missed one or more scheduled reviews.
I – Incomplete
Given only for emergency or medical reasons. Contact coordinator as early in the semester as possible regarding an incomplete.
Grade Distribution
Phase 1: 10%
Phase 2: 15%
Phase 3: 20%
Phase 4: 10%
Phase 5: 15%
Phase 6: 20%
Participation: 10%
Student Concerns
A hallmark of the collaborative design environment is the desire to address student concerns directly and resolve disagreements quickly. Occasionally members of the class may have concerns regarding the course schedule, expectations, project evaluations, and related issues. In those instances, please bring concerns to the attention of the instructor. In the event that the response from the instructor is unsatisfactory, present the concerns to Heather Workinger.
School of Architecture Handbook
Each student (both graduate and undergraduate) is responsible for conducting his or her self in compliance with the Undergraduate Handbook & Graduate Handbook. See the School of Architecture website to download this document.
( http://www.cmu.edu/architecture/handbooks/index.html )
Accomodation / Disability Resources
Students who may need assistance should contact Disability Resources to discuss accessing any unique accommodations. It is your responsibility to share any relevant documentation at the start of the semester with your instructor.
( http://www.cmu.edu/hr/eos/disability/students/index.html )
Academic Integrity
All students are responsible in conducting all coursework following Carnegie Mellon University Policy on Academic Integrity. This policy was approved by the President’s Council on April 11, 2013 and replaces the University Policy on Cheating and Plagiarism, which was originally issued to campus on June 16, 1980 as Organization Announcement #297, and then revised in 1990.
(http://www.cmu.edu/policies/documents/Academic%20Integrity.htm )