architecture program report - university of...

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM REPORTOCTOBER 2008

PREFACE

This document was prepared in accordance with The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)

Conditions for Accreditation for Professional Degree Programs in Architecture, 2004 Edition. The front matter

of the report includes a Table of Contents and List of Tables and Figures. Sub-headings have been added to

most sections in order to fully address each question or topic.

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROGRAM 1.1 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTION 1-1

1.2 INSTITUTIONAL MISSION 1-4

1.3 PROGRAM HISTORY 1-5

1.4 PROGRAM MISSION 1-11

1.5 PROGRAM SELF-ASSESSMENT 1-24

2.0 PROGRESS SINCE PREVIOUS VISIT 2.1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE TEAM FINDINGS 2-1

2.2 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO CHANGES IN THE NAAB CONDITIONS 2-21

3.0 THE THIRTEEN CONDITIONS OF ACCREDITATION 3.1 PROGRAM RESPONSE TO THE NAAB PERSPECTIVES 3-1

3.1.1 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND THE ACADEMIC CONTEXT 3-1 3.1.2 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND THE STUDENTS 3-5 3.1.3 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION 3-7 3.1.4 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND THE PROFESSION 3-10 3.1.5 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND SOCIETY 3-12

3.2 PROGRAM SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES 3-15

3.3 PUBLIC INFORMATION 3-19

3.4 SOCIAL EQUITY 3-23

3.5 STUDIO CULTURE 3-27

3.6 HUMAN RESOURCES 3-29

3.7 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 3-35

3.8 PHYSICAL RESOURCES 3-49

3.9 INFORMATION RESOURCES 3-59

3.10 FINANCIAL RESOURCES 3-65

3.11 ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE 3-69

3.12 PROFESSIONAL DEGREES AND CURRICULUM 3-73

3.13 STUDENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 3-77

4.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 4.1 STUDENT PROGRESS EVALUATION PROCEDURES 4-1

4.2 STUDIO CULTURE POLICY 4-7

4.3 COURSE DESCRIPTIONS 4-11

4.4 FACULTY RESUMES 4-81

4.5 VISITING TEAM REPORT FROM THE PREVIOUS VISIT 4-151

4.6 ANNUAL REPORTS 4-153

4.7 SCHOOL CATALOG 4-157

5.0 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: A NEW CURRICULUM STRATEGY BOOKLET 5-1

APPENDIX B: AD-HOC CORE CURRICULUM REPORT 5-3

APPENDIX C: FACULTY WHITE PAPER ON DESIGN + TECHNOLOGY 5-13

APPENDIX D: MEMOS REGARDING THESIS CHANGES FOR 2009 5-17

APPENDIX F: 3 YEAR WORKPLAN FOR FACULTY 5-23

APPENDIX G: ALUMNI SURVEY 2008 5-25

APPENDIX H: TRANFORMING THE U AND COLLEGE OF DESIGN TASK FORCE 5-27

APPENDIX I: REVIT SUCCESS STORY FOR COMPREHENSIVE STUDIO 5-29

APPENDIX J: GRADUATE STUDENT HANDBOOK 5-31

APPENDIX L: ADJUNCT FACULTY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 5-33

APPENDIX M: M.ARCH ADMISSIONS STANDARDS 5-39

APPENDIX N: LIST OF PRACTITIONERS TEACHING COMPREHENSIVE STUDIO 5-41

APPENDIX O: DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO PROMOTION AND TENURE 5-43

APPENDIX P: FACULTY HANDBOOK INCLUDING STUDIO POLICIES 5-45

APPENDIX Q: GRADUATE ADVISORY CHARGE AND LIST OF STUDENTS 5-47

TABLE OF FIGURES PAGE

FIGURE 1-0 TIMELINE OF DEGREE PROGRAM CHANGE 1993-2008 1-9

FIGURE 1-1 TIMELINE OF CURRICULAR CHANGE 2005-2008 1-31

FIGURE 1-2 STORYBOARD OF CURRICULAR TRANSFORMATION 1-32

FIGURE 1-3 CHANGES TO ADVISING STRUCTURE 1-33

FIGURE 2-1 LEADERSHIP CHANGES 1999-PRESENT 2-5

FIGURE 2-2 GRADUATION STATISTICS ON MATRICULATION AND DEGREES CONFERRED 2-17

FIGURE 3-1 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE 3-71

FIGURE 3-2 PROGRAM PLAN 3-74

TABLE OF TABLES PAGE

TABLE 1-1 MECHANISMS FOR INPUT AND ASSESSMENT 1-25

TABLE 1-2 ASSESSMENTS OF STRENGTHS AND OPPORTUNITIES 1-26

TABLE 1-3 CURRICULAR CHANGE BASED ON ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS 1-28

TABLE 2-1 EFFECTS OF STRATEGIC POSITIONING ON THE COLLEGE AND SCHOOL 2-2

TABLE 2-2 COMPARISON OF COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE (CALA)

IN 2003 WITH CURRENT COLLEGE OF DESIGN 2-3

TABLE 2-3 SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE FACULTY DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES 2-6

TABLE 2-4 TENURE AND TENURE TRACK FACULTY CHANGES SINCE 2003 2-6

TABLE 2-5 CURRENT STUDENTS, PROFESSIONALS AND ALUMNI PARTICIPATION ON COMMITTEES2-13

TABLE 2-6 LENGTH OF TIME TO DEGREE 1999-2008 2-17

TABLE 3-1 LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE TO COLLEGE 3-2

TABLE OF TABLES (CONT.) PAGE

TABLE 3-2 FACULTY LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE TO THE UNIVERSITY 3-3

TABLE 3-3 STUDENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENT 3-5

TABLE 3-4 ARCHITECT REGISTRATION EXAMINATION PASS RATES FOR UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA 2005-2007 3-8

TABLE 3-5 GENDER AND ETHNICITY OF FULL TIME FACULTY 3-24

TABLE 3-6 STUDENT EQUITY 3-25

TABLE 3-7 DEMOGRAPHICS OF STUDENTS BY EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 2002-2007 3-26

TABLE 3-8 ADMISSION SELECTIVITY AND RETENTION 3-30

TABLE 3-9 COURSE FORMATS, TYPES, AND RATIOS 3-32

TABLE 3-10 LIST OF VISITING LECTURERS AND EXHIBITS SINCE 2003 3-36

TABLE 3-11 STUDIO BASED FIELD TRIP ACTIVITIES 3-40

TABLE 3-12 FACULTY SABBATICALS AND LEAVES 3-42

TABLE 3-13 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR NEW SKILLS & KNOWLEDGE SINCE 2003 3-43

TABLE 3-14 FACULTY ROLES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS AND ORGANIZATIONS 3-45

TABLE 3-15 BUDGET FOR CDES WORKSHOP 3-53

TABLE 3-16 COMPUTER LAB HOURS 3-56

TABLE 3-17 COMPUTER LAB SPECIFICATIONS 3-56

TABLE 3-18 LIBRARY COLLECTION EXPENDITURES 3-61

TABLE 3-19 LIBRARY USAGE 2005-2008 3-62

TABLE 3-20 LIBRARY STAFF EXPENDITURES 3-63

TABLE 3-21 COMPARATIVE REVENUE AND EXPENSES BY UMN PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS 3-65

TABLE 3-22 COMPARATIVE TUITION BY UMN PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS FY2008 3-66

TABLE 3-23 SNAPSHOT OF SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE BUDGET FY2008 3-67

TABLE 3-24 COMPARATIVE REVENUE, EXPENSES, AND O&M BY UNITS IN CDES 3-68

TABLE 3-25 OFF CAMPUS PROGRAMS 3-75

TABLE 4-1 STUDENT DATA FROM ANNUAL STATISTICS 4-153

TABLE 4-2 FACILITIES DATA 4-154

TABLE 4-3 FACULTY DATA 4-154

TABLE 4-4 FACULTY SALARY DATA 4-155

TABLE 4-5 FACULTY EQUITY DATA 4-155

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO THE PROGRAM

INTRODUCTION TO THE PROGRAM

History and Description of the Institution

1-1

1.1 HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTION

This section should include a brief history and description of the institution.

Chartered in 1851, seven years before the Minnesota territory became a state, the University of Minnesota has

risen from its humble beginnings to become one of America’s pre-eminent research universities. The main

Twin Cities campus of the University is really two campuses approximately three miles distant from each

other. Twelve of the nineteen collegiate units of the Twin Cities campus are located on a site just east of

downtown Minneapolis. Overlooking the banks of the Mississippi, the Weisman Art Museum serves as the

gateway to this metropolitan campus.

The Saint Paul Campus, by contrast, adjoins a quiet residential area and the state fairgrounds, and is

considerably smaller in terms of its enrollment (approximately 3,500 students). It is the home for the

disciplines most often associated with a land grant university—agriculture, forestry, home economics,

biological sciences, and veterinary medicine. There are co-ordinate campuses in Duluth, Morris, and

Crookston.

At present, the College of Design (CDes) is split between the two campuses; housed in two buildings: Rapson

Hall, located on the East Bank of the Minneapolis, and McNeal Hall on the Saint Paul Campus. Along with

larger units like the college of Liberal Arts and the Institute of Technology, the classrooms and studios of the

School of Architecture and Department of Landscape Architecture in College of Design enjoy the more urban

location of the two campuses.

Today, after more than 150 years of contributions to higher education, Minnesota is one of the largest and most

respected land grant universities in the country. Approximately 59,000 students are enrolled statewide; of

these, 45,00 are pursuing degrees at the Twin Cities campus. System wide, 3,500 international students

represent about 130 different countries. Minority enrollment (Asian or Pacific Islander, African American,

Hispanic, and American Indian or Alaskan) accounts for approximately 11% of all students.

The Twin Cities campus ranks among the top three public research universities in the nation; only the

University of California, Berkeley and the University of Michigan achieve similar results in sponsored funding.

The University is governed by the Board of Regents, a 12-member body appointed by the State Legislature. The

Regents are responsible for the governance of the University as a whole. Current members are: Chair Patricia

Simmons, Vice Chair Clyde Allen, Anthony R. Baraga, Dallas Bohnsack, Linda Cohen, John Frobenius, Venora

Hung, Steve Hunter, Dean Johnson, David Larson, David Metzen, Maureen Ramirez. The President of the

University is Robert Brunicks, Provost is Tom Sullivan.


History and Description of the Institution

1-2

In 1997, former president Mark Yudof began several initiatives – five interdisciplinary areas were selected for

investment and development: digital technology, molecular and cellular biology, medical sciences, new media,

and design. Another initiative was the improvement of the University’s physical facilities. On the Twin Cities

campus alone more than 20 capital improvement projects were completed between 1997-2003. From the

School of Architecture’s perspective the most important of these was the construction of an addition,

completed in 2001, more than doubling Rapson Hall for the former College of Architecture and Landscape

Architecture. The most far-reaching change to the University’s academic life was implemented in 1996 when the Board of

Regents adopted standards for the conversion of the academic calendar from quarters to semesters. Every

department was required to convert its curriculum and degree requirements to their semester-based

equivalents by 1999. The process was time-consuming and comprehensive, and it involved decisions from

content and credit hours to course numbering.

Under President Brunicks, an ambitious strategic positioning process was launched in 2005. Extensive and

holistic, it examined every operation and function of the institution. The following statement, “Why Strategic

Positioning” conveys the essence of this new direction:

WHY STRATEGIC POSITIONING

The goal of strategic positioning is to make the University of Minnesota one of the top three public research universities in the world within a decade.

We must invest in core strengths of the University: Minnesota’s economy and quality of life are directly linked to the quality of its only research university.

The changes we make now and in the future will benefit the University’s students, faculty, stakeholders and the entire state by strengthening the quality of its education, research and public service.

In today’s competitive world, standing still means falling behind. We must:

• Keep the state’s only research university strong and of the highest quality as global competition for resources, high-ability students and top faculty grows.

• Respond to declining state funding. The University must make wise, but sometimes difficult choices in the face of declining state support. Dollars saved through academic redesign and administrative reform can be reinvested in improved education, research and outreach.

• Respond to changing demographics that will change the numbers, diversity, age and needs of the student population.

Source: http://www1.umn.edu/systemwide/strategic_positioning/why_sp.html.

The University strategic positioning offered opportunities for the School of Architecture, most significantly

with the changes at the college level, as the College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture was

transformed to the College of Design in 2006. More information on specific impact of the new college and

other strategic planning affects are described in section 2.0


Institutional Mission

1-3

1.2 INSTITUTIONAL MISSION

This section should include the institution’s mission statement and the date of its adoption or last revision.

MISSION STATEMENT

Subd. 1. Mission. The University of Minnesota (University), founded in the belief that all people are enriched by understanding, is dedicated to the advancement of learning and the search for truth; to the sharing of this knowledge through education for a diverse community; and to the application of this knowledge to benefit the people of the state, the nation, and the world.

The University's mission, carried out on multiple campuses and throughout the state, is threefold:

• Research and Discovery - To generate and preserve knowledge, understanding, and creativity by conducting high-quality research, scholarship, and artistic activity that benefit students, scholars, and communities across the state, the nation, and the world.

• Teaching and Learning - To share that knowledge, understanding, and creativity by providing a broad range of educational programs in a strong and diverse community of learners and teachers, and prepare graduate, professional, and undergraduate students, as well as non-degree seeking students interested in continuing education and lifelong learning, for active roles in a multiracial and multicultural world.

• Outreach and Public Service - To extend, apply, and exchange knowledge between the University and society by applying scholarly expertise to community problems, by helping organizations and individuals respond to their changing environments, and by making the knowledge and resources created and preserved at the University accessible to the citizens of the state, the nation, and the world.

Subd. 2. Guiding Principles. In all of its activities, the University strives to sustain an open exchange of ideas in an environment that:

• embodies the values of academic freedom, responsibility, integrity, and cooperation;

• provides an atmosphere of mutual respect, free from racism, sexism, and other forms of prejudice and intolerance;

• assists individuals, institutions, and communities in responding to a continuously changing world;

• is conscious of and responsive to the needs of the many communities it is committed to serving;

• creates and supports partnerships within the University, with other educational systems and institutions, and with communities to achieve common goals; and

• inspires, sets high expectations for, and empowers the individuals within its community.

Adopted by the Board of Regents: January 14, 1994 Amended: February 8, 2008

Source:http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/boardoperations/Mission_Statement.pdf


Program History

1-5

1.3 PROGRAM HISTORY

This section should contain a brief history of the existing accredited degree program or, in the case of a candidacy visit, a history of the planning for

the proposed program.

In 1877, the University of Minnesota awarded its first professional degree in architecture. Thirty-five years later,

the University constituted a Department of Architecture within the College of Engineering and Architecture.

Under the leadership of Frederick Mann (1913- 1937) and Roy Jones (1937-1954), an era that saw the acceptance

of the Ecole des Beaux-Arts and then of the Modern movement, Minnesota’s reputation as one of the strongest

architectural schools in the United States was established.

In 1954 the University of Minnesota appointed Ralph Rapson, who had studied at Cranbrook, worked with Eero

Saarinen, and taught at the New Bauhaus in Chicago, as Head of what had by then become the School of

Architecture. During his thirty years of leadership, the School acquired a reputation for graduates with

outstanding skills in architectural drawing and design and a commitment to professional practice. In addition

to Rapson’s international reputation as an architect and an educator, esteem for the School was measured by

the numerous faculty and students who became fellows in the AIA and who earned local and national design

awards, the Rotch Traveling Fellowship, and American Academy in Rome Fellowships.

The School of Architecture took a visible step toward the independence accorded other professional schools

when, in 1961, it moved into its own building. It became the School of Architecture and Landscape (SALA) in

1966; and in 1967-68 it began granting a degree in landscape architecture (in conjunction with the Department

of Horticulture).

After Ralph Rapson retired in 1984, Harrison Fraker succeeded him as Head of SALA. Fraker maintained the

school’s commitment to design excellence while also strengthening its support architectural research and

scholarship. Several new faculty appointments enhanced the school’s capacities in building technology,

architectural history, and computer-aided design, adding vigor to design studio instruction.

In 1989, there were significant modifications to SALA’s administrative structure and governance. Up to this

time, the school had retained its affiliation with the Institute of Technology (IT), where it was the smallest

element in a large collegiate unit composed of scientific and engineering disciplines. As Head and the school’s

chief academic officer, Harrison Fraker reported to IT’s Dean. But with a newly revitalized faculty and

curriculum, the school was ready to assume a greater, more visible, and more independent leadership role

within the University, the State, and the region. To this end, the School of Architecture and Landscape decided


Program History

1-6

to separate from IT to form an independent college similar to other professional schools in the university, and

to many peer schools elsewhere.

On July 1, 1989, SALA became a collegiate unit with a new name, the College of Architecture and Landscape

Architecture (CALA). Harrison Fraker was appointed its first Dean, and Roger Clemence its Associate Dean, a

position primarily concerned with faculty matters and academic affairs. The College established its own

constitution and bylaws, a specificity statement on promotion and tenure, and a College Assembly. CALA has

had two deans and one interim dean. In 1995, when Harrison Fraker left to become Dean of the College of

Environmental Design at U.C. Berkeley, Professor Roger Clemence became Interim Dean while a national

search was conducted through the winter and spring of 1996 for Fraker’s replacement. In July, Tom Fisher,

former editor or Progressive Architecture, became CALA’s new dean.

When CALA was established, Architecture and Landscape Architecture became separate departments with

their own heads and their own governance structures. From 1989 to 1991, Associate Professor Gunter Dittmar

was appointed interim Head and a national search was conducted. In the summer of 1991, Professor Garth

Rockcastle was appointed Head of Architecture by Dean Fraker for a three-year term and was re-appointed after

an internal search for an additional three years. When he stepped down in 1997, Lee Anderson was appointed

by Dean Tom Fisher to serve as interim head through Spring Semester 1999, during which the Department

held discussions about alternative leadership and governance policies. Subsequently, in Fall 1999, William

Conway became the Department’s new Head following a national search.

During the 2000-2001 academic year the faculty explored new options for governance, with an emphasis on

shared governance and leadership. The result was the appointment of four co-Heads with Garth Rockcastle,

William Conway, Katherine Solomonson, and Stephen Weeks sharing the duties of Head — an arrangement

that provided leadership for the 2001-2002 academic year while further options were evaluated. The

department simplified its administrative structure by designating to two co-Heads: Katherine Solomonson,

Head of Faculty and Academic Affairs, and Stephen Weeks, Head of Operations. In Fall 2002 the Department

also created the position of Director of Design, served by Renee Cheng, to develop greater coherence and

integration in the design curriculum. In 2004 the Department chose to return to a single Head model and

after an internal search, Renee Cheng was appointed to the position of Head.

In 2006 the new College of Design was created by joining the former CALA with a department from the

College of Human Ecology, Design, Housing and Apparel (DHA). In this new context, it was appropriate for

the Department of Architecture to revert back to its previous name, School of Architecture. The Board of

Regents approved this request in 2006.


Program History

1-7

PROGRAM CHANGES

For decades, the principal professional degree in architecture was the Bachelor of Architecture (B.Arch.),

typically a five-year undergraduate degree providing a broad foundation required for architectural practice.

More recently, many schools have developed Master of Architecture (M.Arch.) programs phased out the

B.Arch. The degree program at the University of Minnesota had granted the B.Arch degree since 1887. It was a

momentous decision in 1992 when faculty voted to move to a professional degree at the graduate level. The

discussion focused on which type of program would best capture the School’s traditional strengths and offer

the most promising trajectory for the future. The three-year M.Arch. was established in 1998 as the only

professional degree. The B.Arch was phased out with the last degrees granted in 1998. The undergraduate

degree program of the Bachelor of Science with a major in Architecture (B.S.) was added in 1999, creating a

degree housed within the CALA as an alternative to the established Bachelor of Arts with a major in

Architecture (B.A.) housed in the College of Liberal Arts. These changes required major restructuring of both

undergraduate degrees and creation of a new graduate level degree. Change was more difficult as a result of the

concurrent University-wide shift from quarter to semesters mentioned above.

Some six years later, architecture as a discipline expanded into significant new areas of research and the

knowledge base grew rapidly. Throughout the United States, numerous architecture programs responded to

the need for specialization by establishing research-oriented degree programs – and in 2004 the School created

a new Masters of Science (M.S.) degrees in Architecture with two topic areas: Sustainable Design Track and

Heritage Preservation Concentration.

Later in 2004, School faculty were ready to examine the delivery of both undergraduate and graduate programs

along with support for the new M.S programs. Considering broadly the transformations in practice and society,

it was evident that changes were needed in the demand for professionally trained architects. The School

assessed that the traditional path to a mainstream practice would always have value, but there was likely to be a

significant shift in market demands. While a traditional stream may be greatly reduced, there appeared to be a

simultaneous increase in the value of “design thinking” in the “design economy”. Books like Daniel Pink’s A

Whole New Mind, discussed the importance of open-ended creative thinking typically found in design training.

While there are many vehicles for design education, architecture was seen to be uniquely positioned to address

a wide range of scales, social/human dimensions, technical and philosophical issues.

Reflecting on these broader issues in the context of undergraduate architectural education, the faculty at the

School valued two approaches: pre-professional and liberal-arts based. Assessment in 2004 led to several

undergraduate program changes; a new four-course foundation design sequence was created for all degree

paths; three building technology courses were added to the B.S. to create a more focused pre-professional track;

architecture requirements were reduced for the B.A. to allow for fully rounded liberal arts study; and Bachelor


Program History

1-8

of Design in Architecture BDA was created as a broad interdisciplinary design-based education. The school

believed that all three types of preparation are well suited to the traditional definition of the architect as “master

builder.” Notably, the BDA introduced a new course type to the program, the BDA Workshop, a 2-credit half-

semester course that would be offered in a “hot-seat” studio setting (shared desks with storage space). The

flexibility and variety that this half-semester format offered became a topic of interest as the graduate curricular

discussions unfolded.

After the undergraduate programs were clarified and student advising and support systems were greatly

improved with the new college system, focus shifted to the graduate program in 2005-8. These discussions

evolved from an understanding of the need for new skills to address pressing issues of society and the

profession. The faculty were also cognizant of the potential for expanding the range of roles for professionally

trained architects. Ironically, to prepare graduates for this new and unfamiliar future, long-established

architectural principles seemed more important than ever. Architecture and buildings needed to be understood

from their social and historical context as well as aesthetic and technical issues. Teaching the maddeningly

slow-to-learn process of design – resolving seemingly contradictory demands – was seen as essential. The

School projected that successful professional program in the future would offer a fundamentally sound

architectural education yet prepare graduates with design skills that might be applied to fields outside those

traditionally defined as architecture. Two faculty members wrote in 2007 ACSA White Papers (prepared for the

NAAB Accreditation Review Conference):

Architects in the 21st century will be expected take a leadership role in stewardship of our global environment. To accomplish this goal students of architecture should find, infused through their education, a philosophy that acknowledges the connected principles of ecology, social justice, and economics. This philosophy should be substantiated by providing future architects with the technical knowledge necessary for precise, expert, and wise architectural action.

-Mary Guzowski

Traditional systems of higher education, those determined by old notions of disciplines or driven by the utility of specialized knowledge, fail when confronted with the dynamic character of changes triggered by globalization and new technologies. A few years ago, the New York Times published an article exploring a growing trend—the fact that the most successful corporations employ people with advanced degrees in fields such as cultural or political studies because they are trained to understand difficult non-quantitative issues. These individuals were shown to be more productive than those who come with the specialized expertise of business or production. These apparent outsiders, the article suggested, come with intellectual attitude and skills that are essential for shaping the global economy and responding to change.

-Andrzej Piotrowski These discussions and writings eventually led to the graduate program changes in place for the Fall 2008.

Since the previous site visit in 2003, curriculum development has been at the forefront of our aim to make

continuous and incremental quality improvements to our program. A more in-depth discussion of the strides

taken in curriculum development is provided in Section 1.5 Self Assessment. Additionally, Appendix A contains

text, student work and brief descriptions illustrating major themes in the curriculum.


Program History

1-9

FIGURE 1-0 TIMELINE OF DEGREE PROGRAM CHANGE 1993-2008

Current degrees at Minnesota: B.A., B.S., M.Arch, M.S.

• Professional degree in architecture awarded since 1877

• 1877-1997: B.Arch professional degree (5 year undergraduate degree)

• 1998-present: M.Arch professional degree (3 year graduate degree)

The current B.A. curriculum objectives were initiated in fall 1993 as part of the shift to the Master of

Architecture as our primary professional program. All programs underwent significant revisions with the

University-wide conversion to semesters in fall 1999.

• 1974 M.Arch created for students with undergrad degrees in fields other than architecture. Program ran parallel to B.Arch degree.

• 1993-1994: B.A. curriculum revision, adjustments for addition of M.Arch as sole professional degree

• 1999-2000: B.A. curriculum revision, adjustments for the addition of the B.S.

• 2000-2001: B.S. degree added, B.A. curriculum enriched with study abroad (Oaxaca program), honors seminars, studio teaching seminars

• 2005: formalization of summer intensive program to create 3+ path to M.Arch degree for students with non-architecture undergraduate degrees

• 2003-4: Analysis of undergrad programs leads to discussion on a broad design-based undergraduate program that would complement the B.S.

• 2004: Four-course design foundation formalized, Bachelor of Design in Architecture (BDA) created, B.S. enriched with more building technology and architectural electives, B.A. clarified as a liberal arts degree.

• 2004: creation of M.S. in Architecture. One track (Sustainable Design) and four concentrations (Heritage Preservation, Digital Design, Metropolitan Design, History/Theory/Culture) created.

• 2005 first class of M.S. students admitted to Sustainable Design track.

• 2008 first class of M.S. students admitted to Heritage Preservation concentration

• 2005-8: major revisions to the M.Arch program as discussed throughout this report.


Program Mission

1-11

1.4 PROGRAM MISSION

This section should include the accredited degree program’s mission statement, the date of its adoption or revision, and the

date of its endorsement by the institution.

This section contains the School of Architecture’s strategic plan. It was first adopted by a vote of the faculty on

December 2, 2002, and subsequently updated in September 2008.

S T R A T E G I C P L A N

Building a Community of Learning/Inquiry/Practice

Composed by Strategic Planning Committee, incorporating ideas and contributions from School of

Architecture faculty, staff, and students.

PART 1. INTRODUCTION

The School of Architecture flourishes within a dynamic physical, social, and cultural context. As an academic

unit within the College of Design, it benefits from the activity generated by the College’s research activities in

its Center for Sustainable Building Research, the Metropolitan Design Center, the Center for Rural Design, as

well as the Department of Landscape Architecture, Department of Design Housing and Apparel (DHA). As

part of a major research university, the School also benefits from association with highly ranked colleges,

departments, and programs outside the College of Design which conduct work related to architectural design

and research, such as the Humphrey Institute, Civil Engineering, Computer Science, Cultural Studies,

Geography, American Studies,. And as part of a land-grant University, the School of Architecture receives

support for the strong tradition of community and regional outreach and service that has long been at the core

of its mission. Its Twin Cities location anchors the School in a thriving architecture and arts community, a

complex and expansive metropolitan environment, and a region offering many economic and ecological assets

and challenges.

Over the past several years the faculty and students of the School of Architecture have met to assess the

School’s programs as they stand and explore possibilities for the future. In large and small groups under a

variety of circumstances, these ongoing discussions have considered how the School can amplify its existing

strengths, develop new initiatives, establish partnerships beyond College of Design, address ongoing concerns,

and above all, support and prepare students for a changing profession by building a stronger community of

inquiry, learning, and creative practice.


Program Mission

1-12

These discussions have occurred during a period of transition. The School of Architecture has seen growth and

change in its faculty and its academic programs, an increase in the number and diversity of its students,

transformations in technology, the completion of its building addition, shifts in administrative structure and

personnel, and the expansion and increased complexity of the College. In the context of the University, the

School has dealt with administrative and structural changes, and a difficult fiscal climate. Regionally, the

School operates within the context of explosive metropolitan growth and ecological vulnerability, shifting

demographics, and increasing interconnectedness with a global economy — all of which have a considerable

impact on architectural education and practice.

Within these changing conditions, the School of Architecture has maintained its ongoing mission, defined new

goals, assessed the challenges and opportunities we face, and shaped new strategies to make the most of them.

COLLEGE OF DESIGN MISSION

Discussed in 2007-8, awaiting 2008-9 discussion and vote by the newly created faculty assembly.

The College of Design is a new, multidisciplinary college incorporating the departments of architecture,

landscape architecture, and design, housing and apparel, and associated research and outreach units. The new

college aspires to be an international and national leader in multidisciplinary research, creative production,

teaching, and public engagement in a wide variety of design-related fields.

The School of Architecture’s Strategic Plan is consistent with the College of Design’s broader mission and

goals.

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE MISSION

The School of Architecture’s central mission is the education of professional architects and the advancement of

architectural knowledge and creative practice through design-centered teaching and research. It addresses this

mission through:

• The education of students at all levels through effective and innovative teaching.

• The pursuit of new knowledge through the production and publication of research.

• The creative design, planning, and construction of buildings and environments.

• Service to the School, the University, national organizations, and related disciplines.

• Service to and linkages with professional practice and communities beyond the university.

The School’s mission needs to be understood within the context of several significant factors: the University of

Minnesota’s overall mission of research, teaching and service, and its status as a land-grant institution; the

School’s role as the only accredited program of architecture in the state of Minnesota; and the composition of


Program Mission

1-13

the School’s faculty of both academics and practicing members of the profession. All of these have a bearing on

how we approach the dual nature of architecture as both a profession and a discipline.

The discipline. The School of Architecture recognizes that as a discipline, architecture draws heavily from the

thought, ideas and findings of the other arts, the humanities, science, and engineering to guide its theoretical

explorations, education, and practice. But, more than an amalgam of other fields, architecture is a discipline in

its own right, with its own modes of thought, knowledge base, and operation. The complex task of planning

and creating environments of cultural, historic, artistic and sustainable, technological integrity demands modes

of thinking and reasoning that transcend the mere synthesis of diverse sources of knowledge. As a holistic and

heuristic process, it fuses imagination and logic, creative exploration and systematic inquiry.

The profession. The School also recognizes that as a profession, architecture has a responsibility to serve

society. It requires a well-rounded, comprehensive education, and a thorough understanding of the natural,

social, cultural, political, economic and technological forces that shape the environments within which we

work. Above all, it requires the capacity to find a constructive balance and creative synthesis in the discourse

between the individual and the community, between private economic interests and the public good, and

between nature, technology, and humanity. Implicit in this is the ethical obligation to respect our heritage from

the past (architectural, cultural, and environmental), to foster a better quality of life in the present, and to

develop sustainable possibilities for the future.

SUMMARY OF GOALS

The Strategic Plan, outlined on the pages that follow, is organized around these goals:

• Academic Programs. Reinforce excellence in design-centered education by fostering effective teaching;

curricular clarity and interconnection; specialization and experimentation.

• Research. Promote inquiry by fostering innovative research, scholarship, and creative work.

• Faculty, Staff, and Student Development. Support and develop the strengths of our diverse faculty,

staff, and student body.

• Community. Cultivate an inclusive, sustaining, and collegial community united in common values

while affirming diversity.

• Outreach. Build upon our long-standing tradition of creative partnerships, collaboration, and service

beyond the School and University.

• Resources. Ensure that the School has the resources, both financial and physical, that it needs to attain

its goals and sustain its mission.

• Sustaining Practices


Program Mission

1-14

As we pursue these goals, we will sustain our commitment to the following:

• Recognizing and enhancing the vital role of the architectural profession in the design and care of the

physical environment.

• Promoting design excellence, high standards, and leadership in practice, through professional

education.

• Supporting academic inquiry and social responsibility within both the discipline and the profession of

architecture.

• Ensuring that students are prepared to meet the challenges of a changing profession within our global

society.

• Facilitating interconnections between: architecture and other disciplines, research and teaching,

academics and practice, the university and the community, the local and the global.

• Cultivating diversity in the broadest sense (e.g., ideological, ethnic, gender, cultural).

• Developing an inclusive, stimulating, respectful, and supportive environment for faculty, staff, and

students.

• Accepting and embracing change by defining and expanding the terrain for innovation.

PART 2. THE PLAN

The material that follows amplifies on the goals and values outlined above. Although this section is organized

according to our goals, the values that sustain the School thread through each section.

1 . ACADEMIC PROGRAMS

Reinforce excellence in design-centered education by fostering effective teaching; curricular balance, clarity and

interconnection; specialization and experimentation.

T E A C H I N G

• Recognize the centrality of effective teaching in achieving our mission.

• Promote excellence in teaching and take action where it is not occurring.

• Cultivate a challenging and supportive learning environment.

• Encourage and reward experimentation and innovation.

C L A R I T Y, B A L A N C E, A N D I N T E G R A T I O N

• Refine the objectives and requirements of the B.A., B.S., and M.Arch. Programs, and the knowledge

areas and skills that students are expected to master in each.

• Re-examine and elucidate the relationship between graduate and undergraduate programs.

• Encourage and facilitate integration and collaboration across the curriculum.


Program Mission

1-15

• Enhance connections between research and teaching.

• Develop a School plan for digital media addressing present and future teaching, research, and

communication needs of School faculty, students, and staff.

I N T E R D I S C I P L I N A R I T Y

• Sustain the School’s tradition of interdisciplinarity.

• Strengthen links between the School’s academic programs and the College’s research centers (e.g.,

Design Center for American Urban Landscape, Design Institute, Center for Sustainable Building

Research, Center for Rural Design).

• Encourage collaboration between Architecture’s programs and other Schools and programs in College

of Design and the University (e.g., Landscape Architecture, Geography, and Planning).

F L E X I B I L I T Y , D I V E R S I T Y, A N D C H O I C E

• Develop greater flexibility in course offerings and the times when they can be taken.

• Expand and diversify elective offerings in architecture and in related disciplines, especially in areas

that enhance cultural diversity.

• Support varying points of view and modes of inquiry and design.

• Capitalize on the School’s ability, through its use of Cass Gilbert funds, to invite distinguished guests

who bring new dimensions to the program.

S P E C I A L I Z A T I O N

• Facilitate specialization, to contribute to the changing profession and discipline, and to prepare

students for a range of career paths.

• Continue to develop and implement a Master of Science degree program that builds on the School’s

and College’s current and emerging strengths in digital design, urban design, sustainable design,

professional practice, and cultural criticism.

• Establish and conduct searches for new tenure-track or tenured positions to support development of

these areas.

• Explore the viability of developing a Ph.D. program in Architecture.

2 . RESEARCH, SCHOLARSHIP, AND CREATIVE W ORK

Promote inquiry by fostering innovative and interdisciplinary research, scholarship, and creative work.

I N T E R C O N N E C T I O N

• Facilitate the integration of teaching, research, and creative work.


Program Mission

1-16

• Sustain student involvement in faculty research and creative work through seminars and research

assistantships.

• Create new opportunities for faculty and student research, scholarship, and creative work through a

variety of means, including the Master of Science program (see above).

• Continue to use case studies involving local environments, engaging professionals and community

members in various kinds of projects.

• Promote connections between faculty research, scholarship, and creative work and the work of College

of Design’s centers for research and design.

R E S O U R C E S

• Commit organizational effort and financial resources to support those areas that will attract, support,

and retain the best faculty and the most diverse students.

• Improve and expand facilities and equipment for research, scholarship, and creative work.

• Enhance financial support for research, scholarship, and creative work, and for participation in

conferences and related events for regular and term faculty, as well as for students.

• Encourage, promote, and expand our strong working relationship with University Libraries to

strengthen the identity and effectiveness of the only dedicated architecture library in the region, for the

use of the profession as well as the academy.

• Develop resources to fund publications and exhibitions arising from within the School.

D I S S E M I N A T I O N

• Continue to seek and develop opportunities for the dissemination of faculty and student research

within and beyond the university (see Outreach, below).


Program Mission

1-17

3 . FACULTY, STAFF, AND STUDENT DEVELOPMENT.

Support and develop the strengths of our diverse faculty, staff, and student body.

F A C U L T Y D E V E L O P M E N T

R O L E S , R E S P O N S I B I L I T I E S , A N D P R O C E D U R E S

• Clarify roles, responsibilities and expectations for all faculty members, and continue developing

avenues for communicating them (e.g., through annual meeting; orientation; publications; teaching

workshops; coordination of design studio and drawing courses).

• Pursue clear and fair procedures and standards for hiring, assignment, review, and promotion of term

faculty, bringing our practices into alignment with the University’s policies and personnel plan, while

recognizing our School’s own distinctive culture.

• Assess faculty workload and establish guidelines that ensure equity while providing flexibility in the

proportion of teaching, research and service.

• Refine hiring practices for term faculty by bringing positions into alignment with the University

personnel plan, while recognizing our School’s own distinctive culture; and by clarifying and

improving hiring procedures.

E X C E L L E N C E I N R E S E A R C H A N D T E A C H I N G

• Offer opportunities for development of teaching and research through seminars, workshops, etc., and

encourage use of existing resources on campus.

• Provide opportunities and support for development of new skills and knowledge, especially in digital

technology.

• Augment financial support through faculty development funds, information about grants and

fellowships, and funding for necessary equipment, training, and software.

N E W T E N U R E - T R A C K P O S I T I O N S

• Establish new tenure-track positions in designated areas of strength (see above)

• Continue to build up the School’s junior faculty.

• Continue to increase diversity among the regular faculty.

E V A L U A T I O N

• Follow our criteria and procedures for evaluating and rewarding performance in teaching, scholarship,

and service, for both regular and term faculty.

• Follow our defined criteria and procedures for term faculty promotion.


Program Mission

1-18

S T A F F D E V E L O P M E N T

• Roles, responsibilities, and procedures.

• Clarify responsibilities and expectations for all staff.

• Maintain effective coordination.

• Encourage teamwork.

• Facilitate cross training.

C A R E E R A N D S K I L L S D E V E L O P M E N T

• Support participation in workshops and courses to develop skills and knowledge base.

• Encourage the pursuit of other educational opportunities within and outside the university.

P E R F O R M A N C E E V A L U A T I O N

• Continue to Implement, assess and refine criteria and procedures for evaluating and rewarding

performance.

ST U D E N T D E V E L O P M E N T

A D V I S I N G

• Distribute graduate program advising more broadly by formalizing faculty advising, and establishing

advanced graduate students as mentors.

• Expand career services activities through advising, service learning, and internships at both the

graduate and undergraduate levels.

S T U D E N T L I F E A N D C U L T U R E

• Enrich student life and culture by continuing to support community-building efforts such as Design at

Noon talks, and by encouraging new initiatives.

• Support student leadership positions and develop more effective student participation in Schoolal

decision-making processes

• Maintain or establish funding of student efforts such as T/here, exhibitions, Greenlight, Search for

Shelter, and Freedom by Design .

• Develop effective mechanisms through which student concerns can be conveyed, heard, and

addressed. R E C R U I T I N G

• Increase diversity in our student body by developing a recruiting plan that targets groups under-

represented in the field of architecture.


Program Mission

1-19

• Facilitate recruitment of students from liberal arts backgrounds by strengthening programmatic

connections with regional liberal arts colleges and by continuing to develop the summer 3+ Program

(for students without a background in architecture).

• Amplify marketing and communication efforts with redesign of admission materials and processes

including web-based resources

• Continue to improve campus visits by encouraging interviews with faculty, facilities tours, and time

with graduate student “ambassadors.”

A D M I S S I O N S A N D S C H O L A R S H I P S

• Clarify admissions procedures for the different “streams” entering our M.Arch. Programs (students

from B.S. in Architecture programs, liberal arts programs, our accelerated program, and our summer

3+ program).

• Continue to expand scholarship support.

4 . COMMUNITY

Cultivate an inclusive, sustaining, and collegial community united in common values while affirming diversity.

AD M I N I S T R A T I V E S T R U C T U R E, G O V E R N A N C E A N D D E C I S I O N-M A K I N G P R O C E S S E S

• Clarify procedures and policies for School administration, deliberation, decision-making,

implementation, and assessment to ensure fair process and accountability.

• Ensure appropriate representation and participation in deliberation and decision making for all

faculty, staff, and students.

• Ensure open and effective communication, with respect for voices in all dimensions of the School:

staff, students, term faculty, regular faculty.

• Establish a well-developed School governance document.

• Expand opportunities for student participation in School discussions, deliberations, committees, etc.

relative to academic, physical, and social environment of the School and college.

D I V E R S I T Y

• Foster a community that embraces diversity and respects differences in culture and point of view.

• Establish, disseminate, and enforce a code of conduct for School faculty, students, and staff.

• Celebrate the creative tension born of the varying perspectives of our diverse faculty (academic,

research, and practicing), staff, and students.

CO M M U N I T Y I D E N T I T Y

• Enhance, develop, and/or resurrect practices that reinforce our identity as a community.


Program Mission

1-20

• Maintain and enhance annual beginning-of-the-year meetings.

• Expand and enrich orientations for new faculty and students.

• Magnify celebratory occasions such as awards ceremonies and receptions to welcome new faculty,

staff, and students.

CO M M U N I C A T I O N A N D E X C H A N G E

• Improve communication through development of an effective information distribution system

(bulletin board, kiosk, listserv, , CDESMemo RSS feed, website) to inform faculty, staff, and students

about activities, deliberations, and decisions.

• Expand opportunities to share research and exchange ideas within the School and college through

workshops, lectures, informal presentations, exhibitions, and symposia.

• Provide social and bread-breaking spaces in Rapson Hall for interaction of faculty, staff, students, and

visitors.

5 . OUTREACH

Build upon our long-standing tradition of creative partnerships, collaboration, and service reaching beyond the

School and University.

D I S S E M I N A T I O N O F R E S E A R C H, T E A C H I N G, A N D C R E A T I V E W O R K

• Recognize existing opportunities and develop new initiatives to communicate work within and beyond

the university (lectures, informal talks, symposia, conferences, publications, exhibitions).

• Continually update School website to reflect ongoing activities and recent initiatives by the School and

its faculty, staff, and students.

• Continue to encourage and support faculty, student, and staff involvement in conferences and other

activities outside the University.

PR O F E S S I O N A L P R A C T I C E

• Continue to capitalize fully on our location within a thriving community of outstanding practitioners

by strengthening connections with practice.

• Continue to enhance practitioners’ involvement in the program by the Professor in Practice advisors

• Sustain our mentorship program, which counts among the largest in the University.

• Expand internship opportunities for students.

• Strengthen career-related advising to prepare students for diverse career paths.


Program Mission

1-21

CO M M U N I T Y A N D C I V I C E N G A G E M E N T

• Sustain our long-standing tradition of community outreach in teaching and research.

• Explore additional educational opportunities offered by our location in the Twin Cities metropolitan

area.

• Develop service learning opportunities.

IN T E R N A T I O N A L E X C H A N G E

• Maintain and enhance current programs that facilitate international exchange and increase

understanding of and engagement with architectural practice in a global context.

• Sustain and extend the School’s commitment to international education by sustaining and

strengthening our study-abroad and exchange programs (the Port Cities, Netherlands, and Mexico

Programs) and by exploring additional options.

• Encourage continued innovation in programs such as the Port Cities program, which provides

students and faculty with the experience of working with local practitioners/educators in developing

design research into common issues.

• Enhance courses currently offered at the Twin Cities campus by incorporating more material and

discussion devoted to cross-cultural and global issues.

6 . RESOURCES

Ensure that the School has the resources, both financial and physical, it needs to attain its goals and sustain its

mission.

FI N A N C I A L E Q U I L I B R I U M

• Enhance financial equilibrium by managing growth in relation to resources.

• Develop an enrollment plan for both undergraduate and graduate programs informed by faculty

teaching load, availability of space, and tuition revenues.

• Increase faculty compensation and pursue salary equity adjustments to establish parity with

institutional peers.

• Facilitate appropriate allocation of College of Design resources to the School especially in proportion to

tuition generated and per capita spending for students and faculty


Program Mission

1-22

D I G I T A L T E C H N O L O G Y R E S O U R C E S

• Review current digital technology capability (hardware, software, protocols, capability) in relation to the

School’s technology needs (for teaching, research and administration) and work with College to

achieve them.

SP A C E F O R SC H O O L O P E R A T I O N S, P R O G R A M S, A N D R E S E A R C H

• Establish and implement a plan that defines space needs for undergraduate and graduate programs in

relation to design pedagogies and enrollments, projected growth, enrollment management. Effectively

explain the space needs for studio teaching to University scheduling and room assignment entities.

• Assess and address space needs for faculty offices, research, and meetings so that all have appropriate

spaces for their work.

• Define a vision for the College of Design buildings and grounds that expresses the School’s and

College’s consistent values and aspirations.


Program Self-assessment

1-23

1.5 PROGRAM SELF-ASSESSMENT

This section should briefly outline the program’s strengths and challenges and include a plan to address those challenges. Candor in conducting and

reporting the self-assessment increases its value to the accredited degree program and to the NAAB.

Comments from previous site visits (most recently 2003) and our own self-assessment processes have been key

to improving the quality and effectiveness of our program. We measure our progress and assess goals for the

future based on continuous feedback from students, faculty, program administrators, and professionals. We

are particularly cognizant of the changing demands of the profession, and the pressure for architects to reduce

the negative impact of the built environment in the world.

Over the course of the past several years, we recognized the potential to achieve new and higher goals in

architectural education while responding to the need to leverage the strengths of our program more effectively.

This led to a thorough examination of the graduate curriculum beginning in 2005. Faculty members engaged

in a myriad of strategies and venues that required self-reflection and input from a wide range of stake-holders

internally, locally and nationally. The outcome was a curriculum that has since won the 2008 American

Institute of Architects (AIA) Education Honor Award, deemed worthy of recognition based on the “holistic

goals of the program—collaboration with professionals, coordinated design studios, infusion of workshops,

and focus on critical thinking.”

from: http: //www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek08/0314/0314n_edawards.cfm

1.5.1 PROGRAM STRENGTHS AND CHALLENGES

The following is an overview of the processes that led to development of the new curriculum. This

curriculum—in an illustrated overview—is provided in Appendix A.



1-24

TABLE 1-1 MECHANISMS FOR INPUT AND ASSESSMENT

MECHANISM RESPONSIBILITY

OF… AUDIENCE RECORDING ACTIONS TAKEN FREQUENCY

Alumni survey on line with letter invitation

College Alumni Director Lori Mollberg

alumni On-line data Tracking Completed Sept 2008

Student exit interviews

School Director of Admissions and student services (Terry Rafferty)

Non-matriculating students - all are tracked

Notes

Input to strategic planning for recruiting, plan for curriculum marketing potential

Annual

Student panels Terry Rafftery Prospective students Verbal recruitment Annual open house

events

Design Review (described in text below)

Head with CTL if appropriate

Faculty, Students, Outside guests Notes

Feedback to curricular dev’t, CTL followup

Annually each spring

Faculty interviews (9)

UMN HR organizational effectiveness consultant

Advisory to Head Holistic verbal feedback

Shift in communication style & method of communication

Spring 2008

Annual evaluation of Head

CDes HR director (Jan Batt) Advisory to Dean Written annual

review

Strategies developed for moving School and College agendas forward

Annual

Faculty annual review

Faculty Committee and Head

Advisory to Dean Written evaluations Merit increase Annual

Curriculum presentations Head and faculty varies notes feedback See timeline

The recent alumni survey was first extensive survey done since a series of major changes during 1996-2006

time period. Profound changes (described in more detail in the 1.3 history and 2.0 progress) included the

discontinuation of the B.Arch degree and introduction of the M.Arch degree, shift from quarter system to

semesters system, introduction of the BS degree, change to the College of Design.

The Director of Admissions and Graduate Student Services, Terry Rafferty, has implemented a number of

effective feedback venues since he arrived in 2004. Among those are panels of current students to directly give

assessment to prospective students, exit interviews to track those students who were admitted and declined to

enroll.

The School has a tradition of spring Design Review with outside guests, faculty and students discussing one

slice of the curriculum. Spring 2008 Design Review was held with the usual audience in addition to Center for

Teaching consultants. It provided encouraging evidence that we have achieved several of our goals for the



1-25

spring modules – opening up new venues of work, taking advantage of the contrasting the pace of work

between fall and spring, shifting responsibility of establishing trajectory within the program to the students.

Overall the quality of the student work was excellent.

Faculty have also engaged in reflective and projective activity as an internal feedback process. Notably, the

following list of the program’s strengths and opportunities was developed over the course of the Fall semester

2006 by an Ad-hoc Core Curriculum Committee and summarized in their report issued January 2007

(Appendix B)

TABLE 1-2 ASSESSMENT OF STRENGTHS & OPPORTUNITIES

ASSESSED STRENGTHS OPPORTUNITIES TO LEVERAGE

Strong sense of social good – the architecture of engagement – strong faculty and student values

A more diverse student body would provide wider range of of views and approaches

Sustainable design breadth and depth especially related to connection to CSBR and MS-SD

Sustainable design can be broadened beyond building technology

Tradition of design teaching and reputation for strong design graduates

Diverse points of view among faculty should contribute to productive discussion, particularly on balance of design and technology

Connection to the profession including excellent adjunct faculty Adjunct faculty range in their availability and interest in curricular discussions beyond their own courses, need a range opportunities

Location in Twin Cities creates vibrant energy Variety of offerings from museums and events can be complementary to School events with advanced planning and communication

Some areas of curriculum well coordinated with attempt to overlap and connect exercises

Coordination can integrate material but demands integrative thinking and methods of working, need to provide support.

Resources available but limited at University, College and School Resources should grows to reflect undergrad changes that have leveraged substantial financial gain for the College

Rapson Hall provides good communal spaces and studios, but University pressure to be efficient increasing

University recognizes design education as distinct from lab or humanities but needs to allow our space intensive teaching methods in design studios

Table based on Ad-hoc Core Curriculm Task Force Report, Jan 2007

The assessment of strengths and opportunities to leverage our particular program was placed in context to

three forces acting upon the profession and larger society:



1-26

1. The built environment is responsible for nearly half the energy consumption in the world, architecture can

play a substantial role in mitigating the negative impacts of climate change. Particular skills and ways of

thinking about energy should be informed by good design decisions.

2. Data technologies have generally transformed communication globally and, particular to architecture, has

changed practice in fundamental ways. Architectural education can inflect the trajectory of this change

with new ways of thinking about data, form and technology.

3. Design thinking is increasing recognized as valuable to fields other than those traditionally defined as

design. Proving the value proposition of design is essential to creating a powerful voice for design in a wide

range and scale of issues.

Through the process of identifying the program strengths in context with larger needs of the profession, the

School has a clear set of goals for architectural education and a strategy for achieving it – build on tradition,

embrace challenge and expect change. The School’s traditions are based in a long history of design teaching

and ties with the profession. Challenge can come in many forms, but at this moment, issues arising from

climate change and technological shifts must be engaged. Change comes from a flexible and agile set of

electives that draw from the diversity and richness of our faculty and the community. In the new curriculum,

for example, elements such as the 4 day catalyst workshops allow for a variety of short but memorable

interchanges, capitalizing on our position within an actively engaged professional and arts community, our

interdisciplinary College and Research I University. Table 1-3 provides an overview of curricular change based

on assessment and analysis.

See table following page.



1-27

TABLE 1-3 CURRICULAR CHANGE BASED ON ASSESSMENT AND ANALYSIS

ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS AND/OR NEED FOR

IMPROVEMENT ADDRESSED BY THESE CURRICULAR CHANGES OR ACTIONS

CURRICULUM

Design thinking taught in design studio is strong

Time-consuming and often out of proportion to credits Change credits for some of the studio courses

Strong technology faculty using design in course work

Design-based tech competes for time with design studio

Three types of response (see appendix C- Task Force on Technology and Design): 1. Integrate completely (Tech 1 and GD1) 2.Tech becomes design (Tech 2) 3.Tech parallel w/studio (Tech 3)

Variety of approaches among faculty

Can appear contradictory, not enough elective offerings to leverage the variety

Allow spring to be diverse, agree on shared fall principals. Create spring modules to increase number of elective options

Some areas coordinated Some not

Not all courses or faculty are well suited to coordination

Strategically target coordination only where critical and most beneficial

Comprehensive studio is strong and meets criteria

Placement of comp studio in the curriculum competes with study abroad or thesis prep

Technical development module builds from fall semester studio and compresses to one module

Thesis Thesis process and outcome uneven, stressful for students and workload of faculty

Major changes to thesis prep (see appendix ___ thesis memo) and thesis advising

Study abroad is valued Can be disruptive to curriculum flow, seems too heavily weighted

Increase M-term offerings, explore possible modular study abroad

3 yr time allows students to fully explore their trajectory in the curriculum and for substantial faculty contact with students

Length of time of program more costly and difficult to compare with 4+2 programs

Focus on providing “value-added” within the 3 year degree for students with a BS background thru dual degrees or possible practice track with internship opportunities

STUDENTS

Strong studio culture Needs geographic and ethnic diversity

Increase recruiting, marketing of new curriculum, increase scholarship development

Activist/idealist students

Needs exposure to broad range of issues around architecture including global economic and policy

Keep ties with AFH, develop ties with Carlson School of Management. Shift in foci in pro-practice class

Most students expect to enter the profession as licensed architects

Need exposure to practices beyond this region

Explore possible IDP placement to national and intern’l firms

Close to 50% work in offices during school Approximately 40% work as teaching or research assistants

Need to manage schedule and workload to achieve balance

Possible practice track. Monitor changes in IDP for 15 hours/week minimum duration

Students are hard working Sometimes risk adverse Catalysts encourage high risk high reward (see syllabus Arch5110)



1-28

ASSESSMENT ANALYSIS AND/OR NEED FOR

IMPROVEMENT ADDRESSED BY THESE CURRICULAR CHANGES OR ACTIONS

AIAS traditionally strong AIAS traditionally undergrad only

Expand offerings to be attractive to grad, required AIAS or IDP membership part of pro-practice class

Students come from diverse educational preparations

Students with pre-professional background and those with liberal arts backgrounds both can feel misaligned with some course material

Establish strong studio community and curricular opportunities for a variety of levels to run in parallel

FACULTY

Good relations between senior faculty and junior faculty

Some overload on junior faculty and some uneven loads on senior faculty

Three year workplan extends planning horizon, point system allows for transparency (see appendix F)

Recent hires push boundaries of interdisciplinary teaching, research and creative practice

Interconnection relies on good communication

Need for communication with University and professional community. Continue clear support for tenure cases of “hybrid” promotion packages

Excellent pool of adjunct faculty Pace of work in offices can be unpredictable

Need for good communication and adjustment of planning horizons

RESEARCH

College research centers offer extraordinary opportunities

Faculty often overstretched and need time

Workload planning and possible lighter loaded in spring

RESOURCES

Faculty and student interest in digifab is high

Resources are insufficient for existing fabrication, no strategies exist to address this concern

Need for additional laser cutting and digifab equipment New materials library under development

The Curriculum Development Timeline on the following page is a graphic depiction of the variety of parallel

and overlapping processes that led to the conception and early implementation of the new curriculum.



1-29

This page left intentionally blank.

Next page: Figure 1-1 Timeline of Curricular Change 2005-2008



1-30

The graphic on the facing page shows a series of events feeding into a critical moment in late spring 2008,

graphically highlighted in a vertical white bar. During a period of two weeks in April and May, faculty

discussions led to near unanimous vote on 15 courses that comprised the changes needed to adopt the new

curriculum. Design reviews of the spring modules were events for students, faculty and the Center for

Teaching consultants. Two national presentations of the curriculum in late May allowed us to reflect back on

the past year and project forward to the next.

Faculty discussions starting in 2005 fed into the work of three task forces (shown in the top horizontal bar).

The first task force was led by a senior faculty member and broadly represented the faculty as a whole. Their

report presented strengths and weakness of the program (listed in the table below), the group presented 5

possible models, designated as Models A-E. The second task force was comprised of our junior faculty (at that

time, 4 people) charged by the governing faculty to develop one model. They worked in a “black box” process

over the summer with input from Head and Director of Graduate Studies (DGS) and limited interaction with

the broader group of faculty. The resulting model “T” was presented in the Fall 2008 and has been the

framework for the new curriculum. The model has evolved and strengthened through testing and input from a

variety of constituents.

Parallel to the faculty discussion, small faculty groups were interested in testing some of the principals of a new

curriculum by introducing new material or new formats within the old curricular structure and existing classes

(shown in the second horizontal bar). Some groups relied heavily on Center for Teaching resources during the

development phases, others used CTL to measure outcomes.

University resources (shown in the third horizontal bar) were accessible for organizational change. There were

two resource tapped, one related directly to curricular content and teaching techniques and the other

supporting broader organisational change and processses to achieve it. Both types of support were helpful as

faculty and students worked through change. The Center for Teaching team was comprised of 3 people with

complementary expertise who were part of the “teaching through change” resources at the Center. An

organizational expert was provided by the Human Resources Office for Organizational Effectiveness to mentor

the Head to lead change and provided feedback through 9 individual faculty interviews and other more

informal venues. The expert also facilitated some meetings to focus discussion on both the content and

decision process of the curriculum change.

Both internal and external to the University, the School pursued multiple opportunities for discussion and

presentation of both the curriculum and its development process (shown in the last horizontal bar). In addition

to multiple presentations to students, adjunct and regular faculty, staff and administration, there were several

high level external venues for presentation, discussion and feedback, most prominent of which were related to

the successful blind-peer reviewed submission for AIA Education Honors Award.

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENTD

ISC

USS

ION

& G

OV

ERN

AN

CE

CU

RR

ICU

LAR

C

HA

NG

EU

NV.

IN

PUT

EXTE

RN

AL

& IN

TER

NA

LPR

ESEN

TATI

ON

S

2005-06spring spring spring springsummer summer summer

2007-082006-07 2008-09fall fall fall fall

GD1 MODIFIED COURSE MATERIAL

LIGHTING / THERMAL MODULE MODIFIED

SPRING PROJECT MODULES

CATALYST

FACULTY DISCUSSIONS

TASK FORCES Ad-hoc Curriculum Model T White Paper Groups

GRAD SCHOOL OFFICIAL COURSE CHANGES

VOTES / APPROVALS

STUDENT INPUT

CENTER FOR TEACHING

JULIUS - ORG. MANAGEMENT

AIA MN - CONVENTION

AUBURN FUTURE OF EDUC. SYMPOSIUM

MODEL T PRESENTATIONS TO STUDENTS & FACULTY

AIA BOSTON TAP PRE-CONV. CHANGE THE WORLD

AIA BOSTON CONVENTION EDUC. HONOR AWARDS

LARGE FIRM ROUND TABLE

COMPREHENSIVE DESIGN

review of tech

sequence

Grad Curriculum proposalfirst discussed

proposal for alt. studio times

beginningdiscussion-Curriculumproposal

governing faculty approve New Curriculum

Head proposes three week work plan

review of studio portion

submission of credit changes to the Grad. School

report presentedto faculty

final report presented to faculty

R. Cheng & 4 asst.

profs. -approved

for curr. charrette

Model Tpresented to faculty-

approved to move forward

White Papers Group formed

Grad. School Letter of Intent approved

White Paper draftspresented to faculty

New Curr. Proposal presented at governing faculty retreat

draft of White Paper presented for disc.

letter of intent sent to Shirley Garner, Assoc. Dean of Grad. School

DES

IGN

REV

IEW

ACSA ADMIN. CONF.



1-31

The structural transformation between the old and new curricular structure is shown below.

Fig 1-2 Storyboard of Curricular Change

1.5.2 PLAN TO ADDRESS PROGRAM CHALLENGES

The School has placed highest priority in aggressively addressing several issues described below:

1. Continue to develop the new curriculum in both content and format shifts. In addition to the curricular

development and teaching strategies, there are many logistical challenges offered by the new curriculum:

• increased need for course planning and diverse offerings,

• increased need for student advising as they choose elective paths,

• adapting material to either the coordinated fall semester or the short half-semester module,

• faculty workload planning to maximize opportunities for blocks of research time and well-timed elective offerings that might advance their research.

3 reduce

To further reduce workload

spread over too many classes,

one class is removed from the

fall, leaving three, interrelated

courses. Credit hours in the

spring, per course, are reduced,

further amplifying the difference

between fall and spring.

4 catalysts

Spring courses focus on specific

knowledge areas (sustainability,

urbanism, emerging practice is-

sues, historic preservation). Stu-

dents can concentrate their

spring semesters around par-

ticular topic areas. Courses are

supplemented by one-week-

long , intensive “catalysts”

where outside visitors can lec-

ture on areas of expertise.

5 combine + mix

Finally, modules in the spring

are highly flexible. They can

be combined in different ways

to accomodate the particular

requirements of various topic

areas. For example, short (1-2

week), medium (4-6 week), and

long (8-12 week) study abroad

courses can be offered while

still fitting within the structure of

the semester. Courses are nim-

ble and experimental.

fall spring

03 cr

06 cr

09 cr

12 cr

15 cr

fall spring

03 cr

06 cr

09 cr

12 cr

15 cr

fall spring

03 cr

06 cr

09 cr

12 cr

15 cr

fall spring

required

elective

03 cr

06 cr

09 cr

12 cr

15 cr

03 cr

06 cr

09 cr

12 cr

15 cr

fall spring

0 current curriculum

The current graduate school

curriculum is relatively symmetri-

cal from fall to spring. Students

take one six credit studio and

three or four three credit lecture

courses and seminars. There is

little room in this model for stu-

dents to take electives.

1 grow + shrink

The first step in creating differ-

ence between fall and spring is

to shift studio credit hours from

spring to fall. One large studio

anchors the fall, while smaller,

more nimble workshops occupy

the spring.

03 cr

06 cr

09 cr

12 cr

15 cr

fall spring

2 attach + divide

To avoid spreading students’

attention over too many cours-

es at any given time, lecture

classes are attached to studio

in the fall. Course content is di-

rectly tied to studio work. Spring

semester is divided into two

halves, giving students more va-

riety and choice.

CURRICULUM EVOLUTION



1-32

We have recently established processes that address these issues. Below shows changes in advising

structure.

Fig 1-3 – Advisory Structure Changes

The pathways to and from the new curriculum need study and development. The connection to our own

BS and BDA degrees to M.ARch, transition after graduation for all streams of students needs to be guided

and tracked. Grad surveys, such as the one completed this fall, will support us in achieving this goal.

We value feedback from students currently in the program as well as alumni. Longitudinal tracking of

graduates shows that they all mention a relatively high level of satisfaction (see appendix G). We cross

reference their satisfaction level with information about when they graduated so that we know the curricula

that they experienced while in school and can project the amount of practice experience that might be

informing their survey rating. Our 2008 survey will provide a baseline for us to measure the effects of the

new curriculum on recent graduates as they progress towards licensure. We are hoping that the particular

strengths of the new curriculum as a design-based practice education will lead to licensed professionals



1-33

that are not only satisfied with how their education prepared them for a changing practice, but have

increased potential for leadership positions. We will remain intensively interested in the successes of

graduates of the program as we track alumni for the next 5-10 years. Additional metrics are needed to

assess the impact of the curriculum change.

The School needs to move from a regional program to one that has a national presence. More national level

recruiting and promotion is needed.

2. Address new space allocation systems of the College and University. There has been increasing pressure

from the University to use space effectively and in this climate it has been difficult to explain space needs

inherent to studio teaching. Flexible meeting spaces for pin-up, discussion and projection has been

reduced each year. Without this space, studio teaching will have to alter – becoming less fluid and

responsive. Reverting back to a model of unvarying desk crits would be extremely detrimental to the

School’s studio culture.

3. Financial allotment within the college does not appear to be proportional to size of student body, number

of full time faculty or tuition income (see section 3.10). While recent gains in faculty salary have been

beneficial to the program, there is still need for improvement. Ideally, resources would be more equitably

dispensed – particularly with approximately $300K of new resources anticipated in fall 2009 achieved by

additional tuition generated by a change to Freshman admitting for Architecture undergraduates. If

resources were available, the new curriculum would have sufficient support for course development –

currently expected to be absorbed into faculty workload. Additionally, programs such as study or work

abroad would have support instead of funded by increasing fees and tuition. Lastly, we would use funds to

attract high quality out of state and international students who current pay almost twice as much as in-state

students.

2.0 PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS SITE VISIT

PROGRESS SINCE THE PREVIOUS SITE VISIT

Summary of Responses to the Team Findings

2-1

2.1 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO THE TEAM FINDINGS

This section must include the school’s response to the previous Visiting Team Report (VTR) for conditions “not met” and to the “causes of concern.”

A copy of the 2003 visiting team report is included in Section 4.4 of this document. This section begins with a

survey of relevant University, College and School changes of which the team should be made aware. Section

2.1.1 indicates the name and description for each of the four conditions not met from the 2003 report, followed

by our response. Similarly, Section 2.1.2 provides our response to two causes for concern expressed by the 2003

visiting team, and Section 2.1.3 addresses observations noted in the visiting team report with respect to

conditions met or minimally met.

The following sets the context for the 2009 team visit:

UNIVERSITY CHANGES

University strategic re-positioning, “Transforming the U”, is a major initiative started in 2005. The Provost led

a process in which the entire institution was asked to evaluate and rethink the ways that it functioned. The

thoroughness of the effort is perhaps most evident in the high participation rate: 300 faculty and staff

participated as members task forces, over 1000 members of the community participated in focus groups, town

hall style meetings and group blog forums. The then College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture was

included in this effort through faculty and staff representation on 8 of the 34 task forces and the College was the

entire focus of the task force charged with evaluating the possibility of creating a new College of Design out of

CALA and allied design disciplines in the Department of Design Housing and Apparel (DHA), housed at that

time in the College of Human Ecology. CALA became one of six “Wave One” colleges - colleges which were

either substantially restructured or eliminated. (see appendix H on Transforming the U) The College of Design

task force had several recommendations (also in appendix H) that recognized the potential of joining these

departments to create a new college.

In addition to several new colleges and realignments of departments across the University, the strategic

positioning process resulted in policy changes and resource shifts that have changed the institutional

environment in which the College of Design operates. Several of those changes have been very positive,

including “star faculty” competitive funds for which the School of Architecture was awarded funds almost

$100,000 of permanent increase to operating expenses for faculty salaries. The tenure code and tenure

processes across the University were revised and units were asked to review their departmental documents and

create new language to address specific areas.



2-2

The strategic re-positioning had many dimensions, but there were specific shifts in University priorities that

offer opportunity for the College of Design and all its units, including the School of Architecture. The

professional M.Arch program has only been tangentially affected but undergraduate and advanced non-

professional degrees in the school are impacted.

TABLE 2-1 EFFECTS OF STRATEGIC POSITIONING ON THE COLLEGE AND SCHOOL

GOAL OF REPOSITIONING OPPORTUNITY FOR COLLEGE IMPACT ON SCHOOL

Admininstrative streamlining: re-organisation of several colleges, elimination of two large colleges

College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture joins with Dept of Design Housing and Apparel to form the new College of Design

Dept of Architecture changes its name back to School of Architecture. Now exists in a context of a broader multidisciplinary College.

Globalization encouraged, some funding established

Existing UNESCO program recognized as valuable. Funded request granted for faculty line for College.

Accelerated timeline for development of M.S. in Architecture with concentration in Heritage Preservation approved in 2004. Funding provided for recent faculty hire in the School

Interdisciplinary work encouraged, funding incentives established mostly through the Institute for Advanced Studies

Allied design disciplines in one college.

Value of BDA recognized, increased opportunity for cross-disciplinary research and teaching. Faculty fellowship opportunities in Institute for Advance Studies

Honors and Writing centrally administered by University

Possible cross disciplinary honors courses

School can determine parameters of new honors within Architecture major

New initiative on Arts and Humanities administered by University

College disciplines eligible to apply for funding

School faculty may get additional development funds

Support for teaching through change and leading through change

Resources available for “Wave One” colleges (6 colleges substantially restructured in 2006), including College of Design

CTL consultants for new curriculum, coaching/process mapping for Head and staff through Human Resources Office.



2-3

COLLEGE CHANGES

The new College of Design is larger and more complex than the old CALA. Degree programs expanded to

include the five disciplines within Design Housing and Apparel (DHA): Housing Studies, Interior Design,

Graphic Design, Retail Merchandising and Apparel Design. The number of faculty has approximately doubled,

the number of undergraduates has more than tripled, the number of graduate students has had a small

increase. In most shared college administrative areas, personnel has more than tripled. Academic resources

housed in Rapson Hall are now shared with students from both campuses with no additional personnel.

TABLE 2-2 COMPARISON OF COLLEGE OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE (CALA) IN 2003 WITH CURRENT COLLEGE OF DESIGN

CALA IN 2003 COLLEGE OF DESIGN IN

2008 PERCENTAGE CHANGE

College Administration total: 12.5 42 336% increase

Student Services 4 13

Research & Outreach 0 2

Information Tech 3 9

Human Resources .5 2

Finance/Accounting 3 7

Development 1 3.5

Communications 0 3.5

Alumni Relations/Cont.Ed 1 2

Academic Resources total: 7 7 0%

Workshop 2 2

Imaging Lab 2 2

Digital Collections 3 3

Students total: 500 1,395 279% increase

Undergraduate 275 1,085

Graduate 225 310

Faculty total: 52 102 196% increase

Tenured/Tenure Track full time 26 48

FTE non-tenured 26 54

The increase in College staff has resulted in better service to the students and faculty, though new practices and

additional paperwork in the new College has taken some adjustment. College level communication has taken



2-4

on an incremental increase in scale and new habits of checking the RSS feed or College blog are just now

starting to enter the culture for students, staff and faculty. College graphic identity has just recently been

finalized and we are looking forward to adapting this for the School identity.

Several changes to College practices have been implemented that have enhanced the School’s operation.

Section 3.1.1.4 has more information, but to name a few areas of impact:

• annual reviews for staff and faculty had been irregular or non-existent until regular annual review processes started in 2005 within the units and checked at the Dean’s level.

• IT requests are tracked and planned at set times of the year

• Promotional material are gathered more systematically,

• Alumni are tracked more consistently,

• Student services and advising have improved,

• Development meetings/strategy are conducted more regularly

• A new materials library is underdevelopment by the Goldstein Gallery

• Continuing Education Program has been discontinued

• Events staffing in CALA had been minimal, but now discontinued in the new College

• New desks and a consistent routine of studio cleaning and end of semester clean up has been implemented

New units in the school offer opportunities for collaboration and old relationships with LA are strengthened –

recent evidence of the quality of this collaboration can be found in the GD3 studio taught in conjunction with a

LA studio which recently won an ASLA student award given to a multidisciplinary student team. In the context

of the new College, we revived the name “School of Architecture”, a title that had been used when the School

was in the context of the Institute of Technology between 1912-1966

Among the research centers named as central to the School in 2003, The Design Institute has been

discontinued, the Design Center for the American Urban Landscape has been renamed the Metropolitan

Design Center and expects new leadership with Professor Ignacio San Martin arriving in January 2009. The

Center for Sustainable Building Research has expanded in personnel and scope of research and the Center for

Rural Design remains stable.



2-5

SCHOOL LEADERSHIP CHANGES

At the time of the 2003 visit, two faculty shared the School leadership as Co-Heads, previous to this there was a

system of shared leadership among four faculty. The current single Head model has been in place since fall of

2004 and has provided continuity, improved communication and better advocacy for the School. Current Head,

Renee Cheng, is well respected by the local practice community and has a strong national network among the

AIA and academic communities and has increased the school’s visibility nationally. In addition to consistency

at the Head level, there has been stability in the most critical administrative role for the graduate program, the

Director of Graduate Studies (DGS). Professor Steve Weeks has been an anchor for students and faculty alike,

particularly during the recent program changes.

FIGURE 2-1: LEADERSHIP CHANGES 1999-PRESENT

SCHOOL FACULTY DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES

The current faculty demographic profile is vastly different than 2003. The addition of 9 faculty since 2003

makes the community more diverse at a variety of levels and discussions have greatly benefited from new

points of view. Tenure-track faculty have had a considerable positive impact on the program individually and as

a collective. As a prime example, in 2007, four tenure track faculty were asked to propose a new curriculum, the

success of the process reflects the mutual trust and support evident between the senior and junior faculty. The

adjunct FTE shows the adjunct faculty contributions have been effectively aligned with our teaching needs.



2-6

TABLE 2-3 – SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE FACULTY DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES

RANK 2002-3 2008-9

Assistant tenure track 0 7

Associate tenured 10 8^

Associate un-tenured 1 0

Professor tenured 4* 5**

Subtotal 15 20

Adjunct FTE 24 19.26

Total FTE 39 38.26

* does not include Tom Fisher, Dean of College of Design

^ does not include Kate Solomonson, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Design

** does not include Tom Fisher, Dean of College of Design; Gail Dubrow, Dean of Graduate School; Ignacio San Martin, Director of Metropolitan Design Center

Changes in the tenured and tenure track faculty since 2003: 9 new faculty arrived, 3 faculty departed

TABLE 2-4 – TENURE AND TENURE TRACK FACULTY CHANGES SINCE 2003

NAME ARRIVED CHANGE OF STATUS

Ann Forsyth, Professor 2002 2007 departed for Cornell professorship

Garth Rockcastle, Professor 1978 2006 departed for University of Maryland deanship

Bruno Franck, Associate Prof on the tenure-track 2002 2005 Stepped off tenure track, 2007 private practice

Leslie VanDuzer, Professor 2005 2008 Promoted to full professor

Renee Cheng, Professor 2002 2008 Promoted to full professor

Ritu Bhatt, Assistant Professor 2004

Marc Swackhamer, Assist. Professor 2004

Ozayr Saloojee, Assistant Professor 2005

John Comazzi, Assistant Professor 2006

Blaine Brownell, Assistant Professor 2008

Benjamin Ibarra, Assistant Professor 2008

Greg D’Onofrio, Assistant Professor 2009

Ignacio SanMartin, Professor 2009

Changes have occurred within the School that, while not directly related to the professional program and

outside the purview of the NAAB, have impact to the professional program and contributes to the team’s

understanding of the context of the program. The undergraduate program in 2003 was stressing capacity for

studio space and available instructors. Changes in 2005 have reduced the number of students in residential



2-7

studios to one fifth of previous and increased the number of students in flexible workshop studio settings. New

graduate programs have been added with the Master of Science in Sustainable Design, started in 2004, and the

Master of Science in Heritage Preservation (with a related College Center for World Heritage Preservation)

started in 2008. Among the 6 College Centers, the Design Institute has been placed indefinite suspension of

activities, Design Center for the American Urban Landscape had a name change to Metropolitan Design

Center and just recently appointed a new director, Ignacio SanMartin, who will start in January of 2009.

2.1.1 RESPONSE TO CONDITIONS NOT MET

This section indicates the name and description for each of the four conditions not met, followed by our

response. They include: 12.11 Non-Western Traditions; 12.14 Accessibility, 12.27; Detailed Design Development;

and 12.29 Comprehensive Design.

12.11 Non-Western Traditions Understanding of parallel and divergent canons and traditions of architecture and urban

design in the non-Western world

This criterion is not met, despite opportunities to introduce non-Western traditions within the curriculum. There

is some exposure through special studio projects, and travel abroad, but the mainstream emphasis is minimal,

fragmented, and superficial.

Non-Western Traditions: New admissions review processes require all entering B.S. and B.A students with a

major in Architecture to have had a survey architectural history course that includes non-western material.

Students who did not major in architecture as an undergrad are in the 3+ program (Arch 5101) requiring a

summer architecture history survey that includes non-western course material. The Architecture and

Urbanism of Hindu and Buddhist India, Early Islam East and West, Japan, China, Mughal India is covered in

three and one half weeks of lectures in Arch 3411 and an equivalent lecture material in the 3+ lectures.

Since 2003, three new tenure track faculty have joined who have non-western ethnicity and backgrounds:

Benjamin Ibarra (Mexico), Ritu Bhatt (India), Ozayr Saloojee (South Africa). They bring diverse points of view

to their courses and design critiques. New tenure-track faculty member Blaine Brownell has on-going research

in Japan and Professor Leslie VanDuzer has on-going outreach work in Malawi, Africa.

Study abroad and May term offer several non-western electives and these continue to grow in popularity, in

May 2008, approximately 50 graduate students participated. Graduate students in recent years have had the

opportunity to participate in semester or M-term programs in Mexico, India, Turkey, Greece, and Malawi; a M-

term program is anticipated for Japan in 2009. The College’s relationship with UNESCO offers additional

opportunities with recent research trips to Baku, Azerbaijan and to the Philippines. Two new program



2-8

relationships are under study, one with the Cyprus Institute and the other with the Technical University in

Munich, Germany.

12.14 Accessibility Ability to design both site and building to accommodate individuals with varying physical abilities .

This criterion is not met. While there was evidence of efforts to teach awareness and understanding of

accessibility issues in the foundation design studios, there was a failure in the systematic application in

subsequent design projects, particularly with respect to the site.

The fall of 2003 was the first introduction of a required interactive ADA workshop in GD1 and it had not yet

been made evident in advanced studio work at the time of the visit. Workshops include lectures and experiential

exercises utilizing either wheelchairs or blindfolds. In the GD2 fall studio, a lecture on codes includes ADA

information and evidence of application of principals of site and building accommodations and are monitored

by the studio instructors and Director of Design. The ability to design with ADA accommodations is monitored

by studio faculty and the Director of Design.

12.27 Detailed Design Development Ability to assess, select, configure, and detail as an integral part of the design

appropriate combinations of building materials, components, and assemblies to satisfy the requirements of building

programs.

This criterion is not met and requires additional focus throughout the studio curriculum. The recently launched

Comprehensive Design Studio is positioned to develop design beyond schematic resolution.

In 2002, a new full time faculty member with expertise in teaching construction systems, Renee Cheng, was

added to the faculty. She started teaching required courses in her area in 2003. Since then, she has collaborated

with other experienced full time faculty, Sharon Roe and Steve Weeks, to significantly revise the materials and

methods construction sequence and has introduced a series of exercises specifically focused on detail design. A

set of exercises in GD1 studio and Tech One ask the students to have the ability to resolve 5 critical moments:

how the building meets the ground, meets the sky, how an opening is made, how a corner is turned and the

making of a wall. Other more recent changes in the tech sequence and tech development studio will continue

to strengthen this area. Evidence of integration in subsequent studios is apparent in the work of all later

studios, but connections are particularly strong with the comprehensive design studios in specific detailing

exercises that resonate with GD1 exercises.



2-9

12.29 Comprehensive Design Ability to produce an architecture project informed by a comprehensive program, from

schematic design through the detailed development of programmatic spaces, structural and environmental systems, life-

safety provisions, wail sections, and building assemblies, as may be appropriate; and to assess the completed project with

respect to the program’s design criteria.

Evidence of comprehensive design in some studio projects and thesis projects was evident, but not for all

students in the program. The recently launched comprehensive Design Studio will resolve this deficiency.

The set of studios that meet the School’s comprehensive design requirement all have a strong focus on design

development beyond schematic design. While different faculty may emphasize one area of development over

another, all studios designated as meeting the comprehensive requirement within the school must address

program, structural and environmental systems, life-safety, wall sections and building assemblies as well as

other criteria such as 12.26 building economics. Choice of building program, site and approach will vary by

section, but all sections are reviewed and coordinated by an administrative group comprised of the Director of

Graduate Studies, Director of Design and Head. At this point in time, two of those three administrators have

expertise in teaching building systems, in the future, the group may evolve to specifically include Building

Technology faculty. The comprehensive studios have continued to strengthen since 2003 with senior partner

level practitioners teaching. See appendix N for complete list of partner or senior principal level practitioners

(averaging 3 per semester) who have taught comprehensive studio in 2003-2008 and the 6 who will be teaching

or co-teaching the technical design development modules in Spring 2009 described below. Notable was the

2006 collaboration between Scott Davidson and Bill Blanski that took the software Revit to a higher level than

previously done. This work was featured in an Autodesk success story found in appendix I.

Note that while the semester-long comprehensive studios have been successful, we are testing an innovative

proposal for re-conceiving our comprehensive design as a semester plus one half semester module. This

sequence is underway in Spring 2009 and will be presented to the team alongside the established one

semester comprehensive studio format. The new approach takes as a premise that the students build directly or

indirectly from the work done in the GD2 Fall semester. The GD2 Fall does not in and of itself meet the

comprehensive design criteria, but provides critical preparation in areas such as life safety and egress, program

preparation and accessibility. This base allows the following half semester module to build on skills and start at

a point towards the end of schematic design (either provided by the instructor or using the students work from

the fall semester) and focus on design development.



2-10



2-11

2.1.2 RESPONSE TO CAUSES OF CONCERN

The 2003 visiting noted two causes for concern: Communication; Advising and Curriculum Issues. The

following lists each of these concerns, followed by the visiting team’s comments and our response.

A. Communication

There remains great concern about the level and quality of communication among all members of the college

and department communities. Communication problems are cited repeatedly in the Previous NAAB Visiting

Team Report (dated January 1997), as well as more recent documents including the Term Faculty Compact

(dated December 2001). and Graduate Student Concerns document (dated January 2003). Issues regarding

communication are the primary cause of other weaknesses in the program.

Over the past year, communication appears to have improved, but in general, communication gaps are severely

hampering both the operations and impact of the department. This applies to communication among students,

staff, faculty members, the administration, and alumni/ae. Opportunities are missed, potential linkages are

overlooked, and the sharing of resources is not being maximized.

Despite the presence of four premier research centers, there is insufficient awareness of their work among other

members of the department community. Substantial opportunities exist to integrate the knowledge of the

centers into both the undergraduate and graduate curricula. Relatively few formal connections exist between the

department and other departments in the college and throughout the campus.

Finally, despite the best efforts of the CALA Student Board, barriers persist between undergraduate and graduate

students and even among the years within the two programs. The same is true regarding communication

between the full-time and term faculty.

Progress has been made since 2003, mainly as a result of two factors: simplifying the administrative structure

to a single Head starting in 2004, and improving the College structure that greatly expanded support for School

activities.

COMMUNICATION WITHIN THE SCHOOL:

Since its inception as a unit within the Institute of Technology in 1912 and throughout its time as a Department

in CALA, the School had operated without its own governance document. The first School governance

document outlining roles, responsibilities and specific procedures for operation was adopted in 2004. Written

annual performance reviews are now part of the regular communication between faculty and Head. Published

3 year workplans for all full time faculty has greatly increased transparency. Agreement on a working system of

weighting course load, research and service is applied in this workplan. In 2003 student governance existed as

an appointed advisory group and has grown into a more robust system where open elections are run by students

and student representation is fully integrated into the School governance through committee representation

and regular meetings between the student group and Head (see Appendix Q for list of Graduate Student



2-12

Advisory group, charge and committee participation). Staff had been operating without regular staff meetings

for many years, starting in 2008, regular weekly meetings and extensive organizational mapping facilitated by

College HR Director 2007-8 has improved communication within the staff and clarity on staff roles.

Connections between undergraduate and graduate students are created at several levels: socially, academically

as peers, academically as teacher-student and curricular level connection between programs. Social ties are

most prominent through the student-run AIAS group. AIAS Minnesota is one of the most active chapters in

the country and has traditionally been an undergraduate organization in our school. Increasingly, graduate

students have recognized the benefits of membership and the upcoming Forum to be hosted in 2009 has led to

a recent increase from a limited number of graduate students to almost 30 graduate student members in this

past year. Specific curricular offerings have promoted academic connections between the two student groups.

New courses such as the Solar Decathlon and newly increased May term study abroad options have a mix of

both undergraduate and graduate students. In the past 5 years, we regularly offered graduate courses or

symposia in Oaxaca to complement the regular undergraduate studio there. As in 2003, we have significant

numbers of TA positions each year, over 103 students each year. Changes since 2003 are new foundation level

design courses where TA’s receive intensive support and training, some attending summer sessions with one

of our most experienced drawing instructors, Andrzej Piotrowski. Other large undergraduate courses with 6-8

TA’s have been reworked since 2003, with more emphasis on the goals for each discussion session. We have

seen an increase in TA confidence to lead discussions and make meaningful connections between graduate

and undergraduate. At the program level, we have taken more care to have several joint undergraduate and

graduate curriculum meetings and to have a faculty bridging between the two committees, typically the

Director of Design.

The graduate student Advisory Board is comprised of two students from each graduate cohort elected by their

peers. In 2003 there was another form of this board, CALA Student Board, but not as openly elected or clearly

charged as the current form. The main charge of this advisory group is to establish good communication

between students in different year levels, student and faculty and student and administration. Students serve

on curricular sub-committees and curriculum committee as well as meeting with the Head. The board has

functioned extremely well in the past two years and its continued role will be supported.



2-13

TABLE 2-5 CURRENT STUDENTS, PROFESSIONALS AND ALUMNI PARTICIPATION ON COMMITTEES

ENTITY TOTAL NUMBER

OF MEMBERS NUMBER OF ACTIVE ARCH

STUDENTS PARTICIPATING FREQUENCY OF

MEETINGS RECORD OF DECISIONS

Graduate Student Advisory 6 6

Monthly with Head, monthly with curriculum committees

Notes in meeting with Head, Minutes for curriculum committee

College Advisory Board 11

0 (students presentations as

requested) quarterly Follow up notes by Dean’s

office

College of Design Student and Alumni Board

24 5 quarterly Notes by Alumni Director

COMMUNICATION TO PROFESSIONAL AND ALUMNI:

Alumni and professional communication has improved as a result of deepened connections between AIA

leadership and School faculty, including prominent roles in the community for School and College

administrators. The Dean, Head and Director of Graduate Studies all serve on the Boards of Directors for the

state and local AIA chapters. Head is an elected officer for the state chapter, serving as President-elect in 2008

and President in 2009. College now has a Director of Alumni Relations and positive communication has

resulted such as the recent survey of graduates. Dean, Head and an average of four faculty presentations per

year are given at AIA presentations at the large annual convention and other AIA or professional organization

venues. (see Section 3.7.8 for list of State and National AIA faculty activities)

COMMUNICATION AND CONNECTIONS WITHIN THE COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY:

Among the College centers, there are two that have more substantive connections to the school – Center for

Sustainable Building Research and the Metropolitan Design Center. Both of these centers have researchers

who teach and research projects on which faculty collaborate. We collaborate on curricular programs (Master of

Science in Sustainable Design with CSBR and Certificate of Metropolitan Design with MDC). Communication

is facilitated between Center researchers and the regular faculty by regular curricular meetings. The Director

of CSBR has shifted his role from part time teaching to be more fully with the Center, but remains involved

with the M.S. program. 2-4 senior and junior research fellows from CSBR participate in teaching as their

schedule allows. Additionally, the College has an Associate Dean for Research and Outreach who provides

opportunities for discussion on initiatives within the College and University. Relations with the Department of

Landscape Architecture have greatly deepened since the 2003 visit when the Port Cities program was the only



2-14

significant shared program. This study abroad program continues to provide excellent opportunities, and now

we have added several joint admissions and recruiting events and a regular fall semester joint studio.

University ties have been made much more accessible since the Universities strategic repositioning and the

creation of a new College of Design which has an emphasis on interdisciplinary work. The two Associate Deans

in the College work together to support, promote and cultivate interdisciplinary research, outreach and

teaching for disciplines within the College and within the larger University. They have created a fertile climate

for a wide variety of work to flourish. New and recent hires have emphasized collaborative practices faculty

whose work crosses boundaries. Several of the recent hires have had a specific charge to make connections

between disciplines. Collaborative opportunities with faculty in the School have been favorably sought and

received by other department in the College and University. Two junior faculty members were recently invited

to present at the prestigious Chemical Engineering and Material Science Department’s Rutherford Aris

Seminar Series on Design – Marc Swackhamer on Biomimicry and Blaine Brownell on Materials in

Architecture. Other ties have come from faculty teaching and outreach, where the school benefits greatly from

interdisciplinary input. Marc Swackhamer has regular guest lecturers and reviewer from the Bell Museum at

the UMN and the Biology Department at St. Thomas, a local University, he is also planning to co-teach an

undergraduate workshop with a junior faculty member in Art on the topic of interactive spaces; Ozayr Saloojee

has consulted with faculty from Islamic studies for the upcoming May term travel in Istanbul and with the Art

Department for planning collaborative teaching on the topic of sketchbooks; John Comazzi has been working

closely with faculty at the College of Education and the Center for Early Childhood education for a seminar on

Playspaces which is planned to lead to a design build project by Architecture students at the pre-school

Laboratory school next year; Leslie VanDuzer is co-teaching an undergrad workshop with visiting

choreographers from the Dance Department. John Comazzi’s interest in brownfield sites have led to award-

winning studios taught in collaboration with Landscape Architecture studios.

Formal ties include two senior faculty in Architecture with multiple tenure homes; Professor Gail Dubrow has

tenure homes in four departments: Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Public Affairs and Planning, and

History; Professor Ignacio San Martin has tenure homes in Architecture and is finalizing his tenure in

Landscape Architecture, a dual home mirroring that of his predecessor Ann Forsyth. Another formal tie can be

seen between Architecture and Computer Science in the Digital Design Consortium (DDC), an endowed

research center jointly housed in Computer Science and Architecture. Research projects are run with three

architecture faculty (Lee Anderson, Renee Cheng and Marc Swackhamer) and two Computer Science Faculty.

Several study abroad options are multi-disciplinary, the longest running is the Port Cities program shared

between Landscape and Architecture, May term options such as Netherlands have had a similar mix of

architecture and LA students. Expanding to include other college programs is under discussion. Also under

discussion is a multidisciplinary PhD program within the College.



2-15

B. Advising and Curriculum Issues

Insufficient and inconsistent academic and career advising by department faculty and staff is apparent and a

concern voiced by students of all levels. A related concern is the perceived inconsistencies among faculty

member teaching styles and standards.

Despite a full 3-year program, opportunities and encouragement 1r students to pursue non-departmental

electives, directed studies, allied interests, minors, and areas of emphasis are limited. The students lack the

support to develop parallel competencies, which could serve them well in their advanced studies and after

graduation. The number of elective offerings is lacking. Courses in History, Art, Theory, and Criticism are

especially underrepresented. Similarly, digital technologies need much stronger infrastructure in relation to

teaching.

The M. Arch. thesis structure is in need of clarity relative to expectations, intent, and objectives. The delayed

execution of the thesis book is of particular concern and represents a major problem facing the department.

These two issues are critical considering that students do not take any other courses during their final thesis

semester.

The team is also concerned about the stagnant course curriculum and materials, which have changed only

marginally in the past 6 years.

Disconnections between full-time and term faculty members are detrimental to the program. Especially with the

high number of term faculty members, there is a distinct need for clarity of communication structures, contract

and hiring protocols and standards, and performance expectations.

Finally, the distinction between the B.A. and B.S. programs in Architecture was not clearly articulated or

presented. This issue is directly related to the ongoing debate within the department regarding the duration of

the M. Arch. program and the potential for distinguishing between the B.A. and B.S. degree holders. The current

B.A. degree sets the standard for great advising and honors programming. The B.S. degree should aspire to

these while maintaining the additional studio requirement that currently defines its popularity. Since the B.S.

program is offered through CALA. the path to the professional degree M. Arch. program should become much

clearer and more efficient. The national standard for a 4-year B.A. or B.S. degree followed by a 2-year M. Arch.

should be seriously considered to attract a broader spectrum of student applications to the graduate program.

The 2003 VTR concern about the stagnant curriculum and lack of electives created a platform for discussion

that eventually led to the current curricular reform. (see timeline Figure 1-1 in section 1.5) Mission and strategic

plan from 2002 remained relevant, but additional goals were set to maintain traditional strengths of

architectural education while making room for the extraordinary shifts that are occuring. We summarize these

goals as “build on tradition while expecting change”. Program changes have been organized around two

different speeds of work: slow each fall semester and quick each spring semester. In the fall semester, courses

are 15 weeks long and concurrent courses are coordinated. Spring semester courses are mostly taught in half-

semester long modules with the exception of the 4 day catalyst workshops occurring directly before spring

break. This contrasting course structure allows us to use the fall semester as a relatively traditional, though

more intricately coordinated, design studio-based education, while spring semester becomes a highly variable

experimental setting for a range of approaches and topics. The School believes that the new curriculum will

provide opportunities for interdisciplinary modules and workshops as well as increasing electives in



2-16

traditionally defined areas such as History, Representation, Theory or Criticism. Appendix A provides an

illustration of the structure described here through selected courses and student work.

In 2003, digital teaching was not integrated into the curriculum to the extent it is today. First year students are

asked to become fluent in SketchUp, Revit and Photoshop. This provides the foundation for students to

continue to use those essential tools or to expand into other software. Specific studios at the GD2 or GD3 level

focus on software such as Maya or Rhino, other studios are open to multiple platforms. Typically, we see about a

quarter to a third of the class continue with Revit and close to 80% continue with SketchUp.

It is assumed that the VTR criticism about inconsistent approaches among faculty did not imply that faculty

needed to teach alike. The new curriculum acknowledges the different strengths of faculty and takes into

account that some prefer to work in a team and others to have a clear space in the curriculum with specified

interactions. Standards in the School have become more consistent since 2003 as a result of a set of documents

which have been in use and updated annually or on alternating years: a studio grading standard, Faculty

Handbook (see appendix P) and Graduate Student Handbook (appendix J). Additionally, the Head meets once

per semester for an orientation meeting for all new adjunct faculty to go over the relevant sections of the faculty

handbook.

On the issue of student advising, in the four years preceding the 2003 visit there had been four different

Directors of Graduate Studies (DGS) in as many years (refer to leadership diagram, Figure 2-1). Since 2003, a

senior faculty with many years of administrative experience, Steve Weeks, has held the role of the DGS. During

this time, student advising was consolidated to assign the DGS the official advising role for all students. Terry

Rafferty, Director of Admissions and Student Affairs provided essential support in program planning. Terry

also supervises a set of graduate student peer advisors that have been very effective in identifying areas of need

of clarification. Individual faculty are consulted by students on an informal one-on-one basis. While this

arrangement has provided consistency of program advising, additional, complementary advising mechanisms

are currently under development. For example, for thesis projects, the DGS had been the signatory for all

students, in 2008, this is shifting to the thesis chairs. (Please see 1.5 Advising) As a side note, we have noticed an

improvement in peer-to-peer advising with the addition of the graduate student orientation, a 3 day event

hosted off campus that establishes a cooperative community among incoming graduate students.

The three-year workplan (noted above in the response to Communications concerns and found in appendix F)

is a key element in improving advising. Students will be able to plan with any faculty advisor on how they might

either balance or cluster courses. The three year plan also is used to plan a transition to pass on the role of the

DGS as a regular rotating two year term among the tenured senior faculty.

During 2003-7, the School made dramatic gains in student completion of the thesis book under the joint

leadership of Steve Weeks as the DGS and Bill Conway as Thesis Coordinator. Advising, schedule adjustments



2-17

and the addition of a thesis preparatory section led a cultural shift and resulted in an increase from

approximately 30% to over 80% of students having the thesis book complete by the end of their thesis semester.

Successful efforts have been made to seek out and support graduates who did not complete their books by

offering continuing education courses and intensive advising. Figure 2-x Thesis is continuing to undergo

discussion and improvement, with some new strategies for approaching thesis preparation and the spring

design semester are underway this year.

FIGURE 2-2 GRADUATE STATISTICS ON MATRICULATION AND DEGREES CONFERRED

TABLE 2-6 LENGTH OF TIME TO DEGREE <HTTP://WWW.GRAD.UMN.EDU/DATA/STATS/PR/1008800.HTML>



2-18

Adjunct and regular faculty communication have improved since 2003. Several mechanisms have contributed

to this improvement: the creation of Professor in Practice role, formation of Professor in Practice advisory

group, 2004 governance document revision to the adjunct promotion document and a new pay scale

transparently linked to course types (see appendix L). Adjuncts have an important positive effect on the program

as individuals and as a group. Individual adjunct faculty have invested enormous amounts of energy in

teaching, several attending conference such as the Beginning Design Studio Conference and others listed in

Section 3.7.8. Healthy relations between regular and adjunct faculty rely on mutual respect and

communication. The documents and policies mentioned above have created a more clear structure and reflect

the high level of respect the adjunct faculty have earned through their excellent contributions.

2.1.3 RESPONSE TO VT OBSERVATIONS NOTED IN CONDITIONS MET OR MINIMALLY MET

The 2003 visiting noted two conditions that were met or minimally met: Verbal and Writing Skills and

Building Economics and Cost Control. The following lists each of these conditions, followed by the visiting

team’s comments and our response.

12.1 Verbal and Writing Skills Ability to speak and write effectively on subject matter contained in the professional

curriculum

The criterion is minimally met. Students exhibit very strong verbal communication skills and were highly

articulate in their interactions with the team. There are major inconsistencies, however, in writing skills among

students. This appears to be due to varying standards among faculty members and the feedback provided by

individual faculty members and teaching assistants.

Writing skills were also cited as a concern by the 1997 NAAB Visiting Team. The need persists to develop and

consistently enforce writing standards throughout all courses within the curriculum.

Verbal skills, as noted by the 2003 report, have traditionally been strong in the student of the program and

these skills continue to be tested and developed with verbal presentations required in all studios and many

seminars.

The School has been conscious of an increasing need for research and well focused trajectories and clearly

expressed questions. There is a natural linkage between writing skills and the research curricula. Beginning

with the research methods component embedded in Arch5401 Theory class taken in the first semester of the

first year (4 lectures), moving to the second year fall semester research component comprised of 4 lectures and

two written exercises and including the thesis document produced parallel with the design thesis in the spring

of the third year. There are additional writing opportunities throughout the program including papers and



2-19

reports not in the research components of the Professional Practice and Theory courses as well as all the

History courses.

12.26 Building Economics and Cost Control Awareness of the fundamentals of development financing, building

economics, and construction cost control within the framework of a design project

This criterion is minimally met and requires increased attention in the design process and related courses.

Building Economics is one of the topic areas for the professional practice class covered as the “flow of money” by

four lectures, one public panel, two exercises and a mini-case study. Cost as part of the design process has

received increased attention in the comprehensive design studio and the related technical development

module. The addition of a new faculty member in 2009, Greg D’Onofrio brings research depth to the financial

flow of money and its effect on past and contemporary city development.


Summary of Responses to Changes in the NAAB Conditions

2-21

2.2 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO CHANGES IN THE NAAB CONDITIONS

If applicable, summarize the school’s response to changes in the NAAB Conditions for Accreditation adopted since the previous visit.

NAAB eliminated “awareness” as a category. All must now be “ability” or “understanding” (some sections

moved up to “understanding” based on this: Human Behavior, Human Diversity, Construction Cost Control,

Architectural Practice, Architect’s Leadership Roles). The School had exceeded the criteria of awareness in all

areas previously required. Additionally, the new curricular structure emphasizes both broad and deep coverage

of areas critical to our program, which meet and often exceed NAAB minimum standards.

Since the prior visit, NAAB added a section on ‘Studio Culture’. Since 2004 we have had in a studio culture

policy; a description of it is found in Section 3.5 and the policy itself is in Section 4.2 of this APR. AIAS studio

culture summit in 2004 was held in Minneapolis, and faculty participant Mary Guzowski reported that

University of Minnesota was cited as a model its healthy studio culture. At that summit, Tom Fisher delivered

what became an influential lecture on “The Past and Future of Studio Culture”, later published in Voices. Our

awareness of these discussions led the then Director of Design, Renee Cheng, to formalize the already strong

practices at the School that reinforced values expressed at the Summit and later AIAS documents.

NAAB also made a major revision in 2.2.6 regarding general studies in their curricula. Condition 3.12 requires

all schools to offer a minimum of 45 credit hours of general studies by Jan. 1, 2015 in their accredited degree. As

a 90 credit program, the School uses undergraduate experience to meet the goal of 45 credits. The School’s

admission policy calls out only 24-26 required credits in the architecture major (see appendix M for admissions

standards), leaving ample time for a typical 90 credit undergraduate degree to accommodate non-architecture

courses. However, our own B.S. degree does not meet the 45 credit minimum, this has been the topic of two

meetings between the Head, College registrar, Student Services advisors and Associate Dean for Student

Affairs. A recommendation will be made for faculty discussion and a decision will be made in order to meet the

requirement long before 2015.

There were further detailed changes in various criteria. Many of these changes are discussed at some length in

the curricular areas of the APR and in various syllabi. In brief, these changes are as follows:

Clarification on expectations for ‘Critical Thinking and Research Skills’ was made by NAAB. This was reflected

in our changes to the handling of both GD1 and GD2 fall semester studios and thesis. NAAB requested that

‘Collaborative Skills’ emphasize interdisciplinary collaboration. A substantial section in the Arch5621

Professional Practice Course is devoted to Collaboration with a series of four lectures, public panel, two


Summary of Responses to Changes in the NAAB Conditions

2-22

exercises and a mini-case study, several of these components address interdisciplinary collaboration. Individual

faculty bring interdisciplinary work into their studios, research and seminars as noted in the section 2.1.2 A.

Collaboration is an essential component in GD1 fall and spring, with a cooperative “urban game” in fall and

teams for the Tech 2 spring module. Later studios in GD2 and GD3 often use collaborative practices.

NAAB enhanced the role of ‘Sustainable Design’ (which previously been “environmental conservation”), 2.2.2

Sustainability. The School has long benefited from a high level of awareness on sustainable design. The

connection between the School and the Center for Sustainable Building Research has encouraged discussion

for many years, the 2005 launch of the M.S. in Sustainable Design greatly raised the level of this discussion.

Work on the Solar Decathlon has made this even more pronounced. In addition to intensive sustainable design

focus found in the Arch5516 Tech 2: Thermal and Luminous Design required of all second year students, there

are numerous elective courses. Four 8000-level MS courses (Theory of Sustainable Design; Site/Water;

Energy/IAQ; Sustainable Materials), Solar Decathlon seminars have been regularly offered in the past few

semesters, there are new electives such as Billy Weber’s project-based module in Spring 2009 on Housing and

Sustainable Infrastructure.

‘Life Safety’ includes a greater emphasis on egress, and 'Technical Documentation’ includes requirement for

outline specifications; this is addressed in both our semester long Comprehensive Studio and the new

sequence of GD2 fall studio Arch 8253 and the Technical Development module.

New categories added include the ‘Client’s Role in Architecture’, ‘Architect’s Administrative Roles’, and ‘The

Context of Architecture’, old categories eliminated include ‘Construction & Documentation’, ‘Legal Context of

Architecture’, ‘Detailed Design Development’, and ‘Building Code Compliance’. The effect of these criteria

changes needed to be considered with other wording changes in pre-existing criteria “trends that affect practice,

such as globalization, outsourcing, project delivery, expanding practice settings, diversity, and others”. “Issues of

growth, development, and aesthetics in their communities” has been added to Leadership.” The School had

already recognized changing needs due to BIM and data managing. These factors triggered major

restructuring of the pro-practice course. These various changes are reflected primarily in Professional Practice

which has course sections: Emerging Issues, Flow of Relationships (collaboration), Flow of Information, Flow

of Responsibilities, Flow of Money and Practice-Research. Also we go beyond minimum requirements for

providing access to NAAB information by discussion in professional practice class on the role of NAAB and

other regulatory systems in the architectural education and profession.

Changes to self assessment process did not substantially affect the School. The School’s 2002 Strategic Plan,

included in Section 1.4, was very complete. With regular updates, it remains relevant to guide the direction of

the School for many more years. The School has taken multiple opportunities for measuring effectiveness as

described in Sections 1.5 and 3.2.

3.0 THE THIRTEEN CONDITIONS OF ACCREDITATION

THE THIRTEEN CONDITIONS OF ACCREDITATION

Program Response to the NAAB Perspectives

3-1

3.1 PROGRAM RESPONSE TO THE NAAB PERSPECTIVES

Schools must respond to the interests of the collateral organizations that make up the NAAB as set forth by this edition of the NAAB Conditions

for Accreditation. Each school is expected to address these interests consistent with its scholastic identity and mission.

3.1.1 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND THE ACADEMIC CONTEXT

The accredited degree program must demonstrate that it benefits from and contributes to its institution. In the APR, the accredited degree program

may explain its academic and professional standards for faculty and students; its interaction with other programs in the institution; the contribution

of the students, faculty, and administrators to the governance and the intellectual and social lives of the institution; and the contribution of the

institution to the accredited degree program in terms of intellectual resources and personnel.

3.1.1.1 ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR FACULTY AND STUDENTS

Academic and professional standards for both students and faculty are governed by the University standards of

conduct reflected in the School of Architecture Faculty Handbook and the School of Architecture Graduate

Student Handbook. The Graduate Student Handbook works in conjunction with the Graduate School Student

Handbook and is regularly updated by the DGS. When changes are extensive, a faculty committee is convened

to review and make recommendations to the governing faculty. The Faculty Handbook was created in 2004 and

is regularly updated by the Head, DGS and DUS. Major changes are treated similarly to the student handbook

process. Standards for tenured and tenure track faculty are governed by the School’s 7.12 Promotion and Tenure

document that works in conjunction with the University 7.11 and new 9.2 sections of the University Promotion

and Tenure Document. See Appendix O for promotion and tenure documents, Appendix J for Grad Student

Handbook, Appendix P for Faculty Handbook.

3.1.1.2 CONTRIBUTIONS OF STUDENTS, FACULTY AND ADMINISTRATORS TO THE INSTITUTION

School of Architecture faculty are active in the governance in the College. The new College constitution

adopted in 2008 provides for 40 faculty governance positions, of those, School of Architecture faculty fill 15.

Numerous College committees are populated with Architecture faculty. Below is a table of School of

Architecture faculty participation in College committees that highlights leadership positions and membership

to committees with significant time investment and impact.



3-2

TABLE 3-1 – FACULTY LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE TO COLLEGE

LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE IN THE COLLEGE

Blaine Brownell 2008 Member, Exhibitions Committee, College of Design

Ritu Bhatt 2005 Organizer, Public symposium, Feng Shui: Everyday Acts of Space Making, CALA,

Ritu Bhatt 2007 Member, Heritage Preservation Search Committee, 2007-8

Renée Cheng 2006 Chair, Search Committee for Director of Information Technology, 2006

Renée Cheng 2006 Chair, Search Committee for Director of Information Technology, 2006

Renée Cheng 2002-2004 Member, CALA Academic Technology Committee, 2002-2004

John Comazzi 2006 Organiser, School Buildings-The State of Affairs: A New Architecture for a New Education symposium and exhibition

John Comazzi 2006present Chair, Communications, Exhibitions, Lectures + Publications Committee, CDES

William F. Conway 2007 Member Search Committee, Director, Metropolitan Design Center College of Design

Gunter Dittmar 2003-2005 Chair, CALA (College of Arch. & L.Arch.)Curriculum Committee

Gunter Dittmar 2006present Chair, College of Design Curriculum Committee

Mary Guzowski 2007-2008 Member, Interior Design Search Committee, Cdes

Nancy Miller 2008 Member, Faculty Search Committee, Heritage Preservation, College of Design, 2008

Julia Williams Robinson 2007 Chair, College of Design Promotion & Tenure Committee 2007

Julia Williams Robinson 2007-08 Chair College of Design Constitution Committee 2007-08

Marc Swackhamer 2006 Developed and taught, Continuing Professional Studies Course: “Pencil to Production: A Survey of Digital Design and Fabrication Tools”

Marc Swackhamer 2005-2007 Chair of CALA/CDes Digital Technology Committee Spring 2005 – Fall 2007

Marc Swackhamer 2008-present Member of CDes CELP Exhibitions Committee

Leslie Van Duzer 2006-07 Member, CDes International Committee

Leslie Van Duzer 2006-07 Member, CDes Diversity Committee

Leslie Van Duzer 2007-08 Member, Search Committee for Director, Metropolitan Design Center

Leslie Van Duzer 2007-2008 Jury member, Metropolitan Center Traveling Fellowship

Leslie Van Duzer 2007-2008 Member, Search Committe for Director, Metropolitan Design Center

J. Stephen Weeks 2007-08 Chair CDES Curriculum and Policy Committee 2007-08

The School of Architecture interacts other programs in the institution with many formal and informal ties to

departments and research centers within the College. Outside the college there are fewer but equally

important formal ties. See 2.1.2.A communications: university ties and the table below for more information

on specific faculty projects and interdisciplinary groups. Additionally, there are many faculty that serve on

University committees, contributing to the intellectual life of the University:



3-3

TABLE 3-2 – FACULTY LEADERSHIP AND SERVICE TO THE UNIVERSITY

3.1.1.3 INTERACTION WITH OTHER PROGRAMS IN THE INSTITUTION

Students are active in the College, participating on a number of College governance and advisory boards, (see

Table 2-5 showing the College alumni board etc). The University recognizes the contributions of our students,

just recently, M.Arch student Sarah Wolbert won a President’s Student Leadership and Service Award. School

of Architecture students are the dominant presence in the Solar Decathlon (21 out of 28 students involved) and

the single largest discipline in the mentor program (in 2007, 98 graduate and undergraduate architecture

students out of 217 total placed) run by the College. A number of University Outstanding Achievement Alumni

Awards have been made, most recently to prominent alums Leonard Parker and Bill Pederson.

Changes since 2003, finds the School now in a far richer College environment and with a University structure

better aligned with its strengths (Sections 2.1 University Changes and 2.1 College Change list examples of

specific areas of opportunity, benefit or support). As the School becomes accustomed to the larger and more

engaged college environs, we expect to better leverage the resources and incorporate College goals and

procedures into those of the School. There is continuity in several important resources provided by CALA such

as excellent personnel in the College academic resources (library, wood shop, imaging lab, visual resources).

Information Technology (including the computer lab) has undergone positive change in the new college with



3-4

additional personnel and policies more consistent than the old CALA. A college faculty consultative committee

is essential to guiding the future IT goals, and continued leadership from several School faculty will be needed.

3.1.1.4 INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES AND PERSONNEL CONTRIBUTIONS OF INSTITUTION TO THE PROGRAM

The College of Design houses an array of 6 centers in the College, 4 within DHA and 6 University Centers with

College affiliation. All these centers provide opportunities for School faculty and students. These opportunities

are supported and promoted by Associate Dean Marilyn Delong who directs the Research and Outreach units.

Some centers have physical resources such as the 3D body scanner in the Human Dimensioning Lab or the VR

cave in the Digital Design Consortium (DDC). DDC, Metropolitan Design Center (MDC) and Center for World

Heritage Studies and Center for Sustainable Building Research have funding faculty work or travel in addition

to student research assistants. The School has benefited on average 2-5 grants per year of $5000-$12,000 for

faculty work and 2-4 semesters of student research assistant positions. There is a significant benefit to the

School to have Centers as partners in major grants that might have been difficult to achieve without the

expertise found in the centers.



3-5

3.1.2 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND THE STUDENTS

The accredited degree program must demonstrate that it provides support and encouragement for students to assume leadership roles in school and

later in the profession and that it provides an environment that embraces cultural differences. Given the program’s mission, the APR may explain how

students participate in setting their individual and collective learning agendas; how they are encouraged to cooperate with, assist, share decision

making with, and respect students who may be different from themselves; their access to the information needed to shape their future; their exposure

to the national and international context of practice and the work of the allied design disciplines; and how students’ diversity, distinctiveness, self-

worth, and dignity are nurtured.

3.1.2.1 ENVIRONMENTS FOR LEARNING; ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

The students in the School of Architecture are notably “activist” and set high standards for themselves, their

classmates, their faculty and their program. The faculty and administration understand that our students are

both a valuable resource and essential collaborators. There are numerous opportunities for students to

contribute their energy as individuals and their collective voice to curriculum and programs within the School.

Some self-assessment activities described in 1.5 are generated by student input. Table 3-3 provides examples of

student opportunities for academic and professional Achievemnet.

TABLE 3-3 STUDENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACADEMIC AND PROFESSIONAL ACHIEVEMENT

STUDENT

GROUP GROUP DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY OUTCOME

Greenlight

Student initiated volunteer group, approximately 5 core participants and faculty advisor Virajita Singh

2004 to present Annual charrettes on greening the College, weekend activity each spring for the past 3 years. approximately 10-20 students participate

New waste material management system, racks and bins near loading dock constructed and managed by students. Prototype for trash, composting, recycling container, several built for Rapson Hall

t/here journal Student initated volunteer group, led by faculty mentor Tom Fisher

2004 to present Began with a request by 12 arch students for opportunity to transform erratically produced journals, Works, Viva, and All Student Exhibition Catalog into annual peer-reviewed journal

Creation of infrastructure including course offering and budget for production. 3 issues produced to date.

Graduate student advisory group

6 reps elected by students, report to students and consult with Head and serve on faculty governance subcommittees and graduate curriculum committee

Fall 2007 to present Feedback on courses and curriculum changes throughout the academic year 2007-8. Numerous forums and types of input.

2007 Student input incorporated into faculty led white papers, curriculum developments directly took into account feedback from students 2008 Student input led to increased CTL involvement for workload planning and reading skills

GD1 students Forum facilitated by Center for Teaching (approximately 50 students)

Spring 2008 Feedback on Tech 2 spring modules content and format

3 studio instructors added as support to course, provided office hours for design feedback



3-6

STUDENT

GROUP GROUP DESCRIPTION ACTIVITY OUTCOME

GD2 students

Forum facilitated by Head and DGS (approximately 30 students face to face, 16 study abroad students via email exchange)

Spring 2008 Discussion of possible thesis and thesis prep changes for the school and impacts on their particular class in their thesis year 2008-9 April 2008

Request to keep some formal fall thesis prep balanced with faculty desire to contain thesis work to spring only resulted in a set of exercises incorporated into the required professional practice course on research methods

GD1 and GD2 students

Small subgroup within the class (approximately 5)

Spring 2006 Requested faculty advice for planning a trip to Turkey for the summer

Creation of new M-term led by Ozayr Saloojee which has since led to discussion of inter-University exchange. Over two years, over 28 students participating.

Graduate and undergraduate students

20-30 total AIA 150 events including architects in the schools (k-12), community charrettes

3.1.2.2 STUDENTS AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY

The faculty in the School of Architecture provide role models the exemplify diversity (see 3.4 for table of women

and faculty of color) Students learn to value points of view that may be different than their own through contact

with this faculty group. Additionally study abroad opportunities encourage this point of view and the regular

exchange of Mexican students in GD1 courses each spring (note: program on hiatus in 2009 while we adjust to

University policy changes). The ADA workshop referenced in 2.1.1 is another example where students have the

opportunity to appreciate a point of view not previously experienced. Additionally, the Catalyst workshops

(ARCH5510) are intended to bring diverse methodologies and tools not part of our day to day culture in the

school. Symposia and lecture series provide opportunities to see other points of view, in particular two listed

below highlight diverse points of view:

1. April 2008: Sacred Sites / Sacred Sights: Architecture, Ethics, and Spiritual Geographies

Co-organized by Ozayr Saloojee (Architecture), Virajita Singh (Center for Sustainable Building Research) and Richard Kroeker (Dalhousie University, Canada) sponsored by the School of architecture and Graham Foundation.

Track One Sessions will include examinations of architecture and the sacred across world heritage, ethics, Abrahamic, and eastern religious traditions. Track Two Sessions brings together community elders and other members of the Native American Dakota community who have worked to preserve sacred spaces.



3-7

2. October, 2005: Feng Shui: Everyday Acts of Space Making

Organized by Ritu Bhatt, Assistant Professor in Architecture.

Symposium and workshop: Well known Feng Shui specialists, Professor Lin Yun and Alex Stark will talk about the transcendental and physical aspects of Feng Shui. Anthropologist Ole Bruun will discuss the myths associated with Feng Shui practice in rural China. Workshop conducted by Alex Stark, Feng Shui specialist from NY. Themes will include: Flow of Chi, Color Theory, Lighting, Site and Geomantic Analyses, Ergonomics, Topography, Phenomenology, Co-relations between Qualitative aspects of Spaces and the Human Body.

3.1.2.3 STUDENTS AND LEADERSHIP

One of the best examples of student leadership opportunities is AIAS Minnesota, one of the most active

chapters in the country. They recently won the bid to host Forum 2009, they also have one of only 38 Freedom

by Design groups nationally as well as participating actively on AIA events such as the AIA 150 last year. The

president of the chapter sits on the AIA Minnesota Board and the chapter elects an AIAS faculty mentor each

year (Cynthia Jara for 2008-9). The organization is predominantly undergraduate, but there has been a recent

increase of graduate student engagement from a typical average of 1-2 to current number of 25-28.

3.1.3 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND REGISTRATION

The accredited degree program must demonstrate that it provides students with a sound preparation for the transition to internship and licensure.

The school may choose to explain in the APR the accredited degree program’s relationship with the state registration boards, the exposure of students

to internship requirements including knowledge of the national Intern Development Program (IDP) and continuing education beyond graduation, the

students’ understanding of their responsibility for professional conduct, and the proportion of graduates who have sought and achieved licensure since

the previous visit.

3.1.3.1 PREPARING STUDENTS FOR INTERNSHIP AND LICENSURE

The table below indicates that UMN grads do well on the ARE and there is a clear upward trend in the number

of students attempting and passing the test.



3-8

TABLE 3-4 ARCHITECT REGISTRATION EXAMINATION PASS RATES FOR THE UMN 2005-07.

2005 2006 2007

NUMBER OF CANDIDATES

PASS

RATE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES

PASS

RATE NUMBER OF CANDIDATES

PASS

RATE

PRE DESIGN 14 100% 4 100% 34 91%

GENERAL STRUCTURES 11 100% 5 80% 32 87%

LATERAL FORCES 10 100% 4 100% 37 86%

MECHANICAL & ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS

16 94% 5 100% 40 82%

MATERIALS & METHODS 8 87% 6 83% 31 100%

CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS & SERVICES

19 95% 2 100% 33 85%

SITE PLANNING 39 77% 48 62% 41 56%

BUILDING PLANNING 42 69% 44 77% 41 56%

BUILDING TECHNOLOGY 33 64% 47 83% 38 66%

3.1.3.2 INTERN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

New in 2008 is a policy that all students enrolled in the required professional practice course will be enrolled in

either AIAS or IDP or both. This has resulted in a increase of membership in IDP among the second and third

year students from approximately 15 to 85. The professional practice course provides context for IDP in a lecture

that lays out the process of IDP and registration in their career. Exercises for several topics in the course use the

Emerging Professional’s Companion (EPC), whose structure is organized along the lines of the IDP

compentancies.

3.1.3.3 PROGRAM’S RELATIONSHIP WITH STATE REGISTRATION BOARDS

The department has a strong relationship with the professional community of 1,758 registered architects

practicing within the Minneapolis/St. Paul metropolitan area. This is demonstrated by the ongoing

involvement with AlA Minnesota as well as the presence of the CDes Mentor Program.

The AlA State Intern Development Program (IDP) Coordinator works with the department faculty and

students to explain the state registration requirements and the intricacies of NCARB’s IDP. The School IDP



3-9

coordinator, Steve Weeks, also serves as the Director of Graduate Studies and on the AIA Minneapolis and

St.Paul Boards of Directors. A permanent exhibition about NCARB’s IDP is on display in the library. The

NCARB presentation at the AIA Minnesota convention is repeated at a well attended AIAS annual event at the

school. State IDP Representative (currently Meg Parsons, AIA, Cuningham Group) attends lecture in the

Professional Practice class on IDP and registration exam. She also holds information sessions with students to

follow up on the class and for general information.



3-10

3.1.4 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND THE PROFESSION

The accredited degree program must demonstrate how it prepares students to practice and assume new roles and responsibilities in a context of

increasing cultural diversity, changing client and regulatory demands, and an expanding knowledge base. Given the program’s particular mission, the

APR may include an explanation of how the accredited degree program is engaged with the professional community in the life of the school; how

students gain an awareness of the need to advance their knowledge of architecture through a lifetime of practice and research; how they develop an

appreciation of the diverse and collaborative roles assumed by architects in practice; how they develop an understanding of and respect for the roles

and responsibilities of the associated disciplines; how they learn to reconcile the conflicts between architects’ obligations to their clients and the public

and the demands of the creative enterprise; and how students acquire the ethics for upholding the integrity of the profession.

The mechanisms needed to prepare students to engage in the current state of practice are different than those

needed to prepare them for a changing professional context. To address current practice, the School of

Architecture engages the local professional community on a wide range of levels; to anticipate future

professional roles and responsibilities, the School innovates in the academic content of the professional

practice and research streams.

3.1.4.1 ENGAGING LOCAL PROFESSIONALS

The School of Architecture has a long-standing relationship with the local professional community that is

mutually beneficial to our students and to the profession. There are six ways that local practitioners and firms

consistently engage with our academic community:

• Attend AIA/MASLA Fall reception for graduate students (approximately 200 students, 10-30 practitioners, 10 faculty)

• Attend lecture series or symposia (AIA continuing education provided), (varies from 10-100 professionals)

• Attend design reviews or thesis reviews as critic (3-12 professionals per midterm and final jury – well over 150 per semester)

• Participate as mentor in mentor program (80-90 per year)

• Firm participation in career fair (typically 25-35 firms)

• Teaching (design studio, design workshop or drawing class – approximately 30 people)

• Professional practice course participation in students’ firm interview and case study (45 firms in 2008)

Under development are additional engagement opportunities:

• Advisory Board

• Spring module, participation for Continuing Education

• Catalyst, participation for Continuing Education



3-11

The majority of our students have professional office experience for at least a summer. Recent poll taken of the

GD2 and GD3 student group showed:

1/5 more than 2 years of professional experience

2/5 between 10weeks and 2 years experience

1/5 summer professional experience

1/5 no professional experience (some of these had experience in construction or engineering)

Approximately 40% of the students work 10 hours per week or more in offices during the school year. This is

balanced by approximately 50% working at Teaching or Research Assistants. Students in the required

Professional Practice course have two exercises that bring them to firms for interviews and case study

documentation on the financial, management and philosophy of the offices.

Participation in the AIA Minnesota annual convention among students is high as a result of the $25 reduced

registration rate and numerous free keynote events with high-profile speakers. AIA Minnesota’s AIA150

events in 2007-8, as well as annual events such as Search for Shelter, offered many opportunities for students

to participate in community based charrettes, working side by side with professionals. The School is fortunate

that many of the principals of local and regional firms and leaders of the professional community are alumni of

the school. They have an allegiance and provide strong support to the School with their time and scholarship

donations. Additionally some of the most prominent individuals and firms teach in the comprehensive design

studio (see list in Appendix N).

3.1.4.2 ENGAGING PROFESSIONAL BEYOND REGION

Beyond these local and regional connections, the School has developed strong ties with several Gulf-coast

reconstruction efforts. One year after Hurricane Katrina, Cameron Sinclair came to the School to teach a large

undergraduate lecture course and a graduate seminar. From this relationship came one of the first post-

hurricane buildings– a wash-house designed by two graduate students who also supervised the permitting and

construction. Perhaps more importantly, lasting ties have been made where two of our recent graduates are

now working full time for the Gulf Coast Design Studio in Biloxi and over 60 students have participated in the

annual spring break reconstruction efforts in New Orleans and Biloxi. We have had as many as 8 students

participate in semester long “study-away” programs in Biloxi. Residential graduate studios and seminars often

use New Orleans or Biloxi as sites and a handful of thesis projects are sited there. The presence of School of

Architecture students in the Gulf has been favorably noted by community activists and feedback has indicated

that UMN students are leaders and capable of leading teams of students.



3-12

3.1.4.3 PREPARING STUDENTS TO ASSUME NEW ROLES

Preparation for changing context of practice requires projection to possible futures and awareness of

discussions occurring in practice and industry today. When the opportunity arises, both the Dean and the Head

attend events such as the Large Firm Roundtable (Fisher annually, Cheng in 2007), AIA Board meetings

(Cheng 2007, Fisher and Cheng 2009). Professor Cheng served on the AIA Board Knowledge Committee in

2007. When Wiley revised Architectural Graphic Standards, only two new chapters were added: Fisher was

asked to write chapter on research and Cheng on digital practice. Through these and related AIA MN activities,

both Dean and Head stay abreast of emerging issues and concerns in practice (see Section 3.7.8 for faculty

professional activities). This awareness informs their vision for the School and in particular has contributed to

the research and practice-education curricula in the program. For two of the most relevant courses, see course

descriptions for Arch5401 Theory taught by Fisher and Arch5621 Professional Practice taught by Cheng.

By looking at a sample of our junior faculty research, it is apparent that emerging professional issues are

directly addressed in Marc Swackhamer’s teaching and research on biomimicry and Blaine Brownell’s work on

new materials. Professor Swackhamer’s work has been part of the curriculum for several years and yielded

impressive results from student studios and seminars. Projects from the seminar garnered two of the four

national student awards given by AIA COTE in 2007. Professor Brownell’s work has resulted in two books

commonly used as reference in the profession: Transmaterials and Transmaterials 2. Both promising young

faculty are already leading discussions in practice through their highly visible and cutting edge work

3.1.5 ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION AND SOCIETY

The program must demonstrate that it equips students with an informed understanding of social and environmental problems and develops their

capacity to address these problems with sound architecture and urban design decisions. In the APR, the accredited degree program may cover such

issues as how students gain an understanding of architecture as a social art, including the complex processes carried out by the multiple stakeholders

who shape built environments; the emphasis given to generating the knowledge that can mitigate social and environmental problems; how students

gain an understanding of the ethical implications of decisions involving the built environment; and how a climate of civic engagement is nurtured,

including a commitment to professional and public services.

3.1.5.1 STUDIO CURRICULUM AND SOCIETY

The Twin Cities metropolitan area with its historic, industrial, and high-tech context, its social and ethnic mix

of population, and its natural and cultural amenities, provides a living laboratory for relevant issues and

projects. Studio projects commonly locate themselves in the local or regional context. In many cases, siting is

not simply the choice of a physical location, but a complex social and environmental situation. To highlight

examples of the four fall 2008 ARCH8255 studio projects, topics include: examination of brownfield sites along

the Mississippi River (Comazzi/Neckar 2007 and 2008), effects of sub-prime mortgage lending on



3-13

neighborhoods in North Minneapolis (Conway, 2008) and numerous explorations in dense urban sites in

downtown Minneapolis (Mic Johnson, 2004-8). Outside the region, the fall 2008 studio on New Orleans Ninth

Ward housing has been co-sponsored by the School of Architecture and the Metropolitan Design Center

(Robinson, 2008). Several of the design studios mentioned above have community members as “clients” who

attend reviews and use the material produced by the students to advance discussion in their communities.

3.1.5.2 COURSES AND SOCIETY

Many of the courses the program offers emphasize the social and ethical dimensions involved in shaping the

built environment. These include Principles of Urban Design, Suburbia, the majority of the history courses,

and Professional Practice, not to mention numerous studios, including those indicated above. Squarely

addressing the social art of collaboration is the Professional Practice course’s set of lectures, panel and exercises

on the topic of Collaboration. The new technology sequence, particularly Tech 2, is a national leader in carbon

neutral design work, unique that it is required of all students in GD1, working collaboratively and with both

digital and analog tools. While not under the purview of NAAB review, the team should be aware of the positive

impact on the M.Arch program by M.S. program, particularly the sustainable design track. Of the current 23

students, 16 are dual degree students and bring their expertise and interests to the M.Arch courses. The recent

seminars and charrettes on the Solar Decathlon has engaged M.Arch and dual degree students actively.

3.1.5.3 FACULTY RESEARCH AND TEACHING AND SOCIETY

Noteworthy work highlighting social issues is being done by four of the School’s faculty, Julia Robinson, Leslie

VanDuzer, Ritu Bhatt and Ozayr Saloojee. Each has research expertise in social issues and allow this to inform

large lecture courses that they teach. Both Professor Van Duzer and Assistant Professor Saloojee teach large

freshman courses, required for admission to the major (Arch1281 Design Fundamentals 1, Van Duzer; Arch1701

The Designed Environment, Saloojee). They have each incorporated service learning exercises which bring the

students to the community. Over 15 graduate students each year participate as teaching assistants for one or

both of the courses and facilitate these activities. Feedback from students recently nominating Ozayr Saloojee

for the AIAS/ACSA New Faculty Teaching Award spoke eloquently to the lasting effects of this teaching

opportunity on the careers of those TA’s. Julia Robinson and Ritu Bhatt alternate responsibilities for a 200

person sophomore writing intensive class (Arch3711: Environmental Design and the Sociocultural Context)

with 7-8 graduate teaching assistants per semester. A recent Bush Grant supported many supplemental course

development activities and teaching assistants have benefited from these new resources to teach the social

aspect of architectural design. Since these faculty all engage with research in the area of social issues, their

research assistant positions provide an excellent base for graduate students and thesis students.



3-14

The School has greatly benefitted from two faculty that the Tide Foundation lists as “champions of sustainable

design”. One of these champions is Mary Guzowski who has spearheaded efforts to develop sustainable design

since her arrival in 1992. The other, Rebecca Foss, has been greatly missed since her death in 2006. Her work

at the Center for Sustainable Building Research (CSBR) has continued and the Center remains a leader in

sustainable design research and teaching.

3.1.5.4 RESEARCH CENTERS AND SOCIETY

The Metropolitan Design Center (MDC) is in a period of transition, under Ann Forysth, the Center was

engaged with the Academic Health Center studying walkable communities. While she was here, students were

exposed to this work through Professor Forsyth’s teaching of a required Arch5711 Urban Design course and

electives, as well as student fellowships and research opportunities. We anticipate that the incoming director,

Ignacio SanMartin will continue with his own community-based studios and highly interactive practice and

academic work. As mentioned above, CSBR is major positive force in our community, contributing their

teaching, research and service.

3.1.5.5 PUBLIC EVENTS AND OUTREACH AND SOCIETY

To highlight a few of the programs and activities that have benefited the public:

Library lecture series “Working Through Architecture” co-sponsored by the School and the Friends of the

Public Library, 9 lectures by faculty, each on a different architect. This program was developed and curated by

Leslie Van Duzer, Ozayr Saloojee and John Comazzi, average attendance was over 200 and overflow space was

commonly used. Audience included members of the professional and academic community but mostly from

the general public.

Many students are also active in Habitat for Humanity and the student run Greenlight group. Notably, the

three issues of T/here student journal have all chosen society and/or environment as theme: Design + Identity;

Refuse; Importing Spectacle. Gulf-Coast Design Studio and AIA’s Search for Shelter mentioned in the

previous section also provide opportunities for the students.


Program Self-Assessment Procedures

3-15

3.2 PROGRAM SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES

The accredited degree program must show how it is making progress in achieving the NAAB Perspectives and how it assesses the extent to which it is

fulfilling its mission. The assessment procedures must include solicitation of the faculty’s, students’, and graduates’ views on the program’s

curriculum and learning. Individual course evaluations are not sufficient to provide insight into the program’s focus and pedagogy.

The APR must include the following:

• A description of the school’s self-assessment process, specifically with regard to ongoing evaluation of the program’s mission statement and how it

relates to the NAAB Perspectives

• Faculty, students’, and graduates’ assessments of the accredited degree program’s curriculum and learning context as outlined in the NAAB

Perspectives

• A description, if applicable, of institutional requirements for self-assessment

• Any other pertinent information.

3.2.1 THE SCHOOL’S SELF-ASSESSMENT PROCESS

Our typical self-assessment processes are similar to many programs and serve two goals: feedback to the School,

setting goals or values upon which success will be measured.

Curriculum-Excellence in graduate professional education and student performance are measured by:

Design Studios mid-reviews and final reviews with invited local and national guests

Design Reviews at end of semester, invited visitors and CTL

Student evaluations written by studio faculty

Exit interviews by studio faculty

External Professional Portfolio Reviews (for employment and scholarships)

Awards (such as Design Excellence), Publications and Competitive Scholarship

Graduate Student Advisory Group

Success of students in gaining internships and employment

Success of students in gaining faculty appointments or research fellowships

Success of students in completing IDP and ARE

Alumni and Employer Satisfaction

Faculty Effectiveness- Excellence in graduate professional education and faculty performance are measured by:

College Advisory Group feedback

Annual Process Reports

Annual Reviews with Head



3-16

Awards, Publications and Peer-reviewed Scholarship

External Peer review for probationary faculty

Faculty Course Evaluations by Students

Professional Practice

Research Funding

Student Surveysa

Review, Reappointment, Promotion, Tenure-Full-time tenure and tenure-track are measured by excellence in:

Teaching, Research (scholarly and creative practice), Service and Outreach (as described in the 7.12 document in appendix O)

Tables 2-5 and 3-3 show several examples of student involvement and the School’s response to their input.

While the School has a robust process for student grievances (see both Student and Faculty Handbooks for

resolution processes), emphasis is placed on communication to proactively address issues before they reach the

point of crisis. The success of this approach has been apparent in the past two years while the new curriculum

and its transition has affected all the students currently in the School. In spite of the numerous, radical and

sometimes confusing changes to their study programs, students have been extremely supportive. The School’s

efforts to solicit student feedback across a variety of forums and topics created a situation where students are

collaboratively contributing to the curriculum development.

3.2.2 ONGOING EVALUATION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND HOW IT RELATES TO NAAB PERSPECTIVES

The Strategic Plan in 1.4 was extremely complete and thoroughly discussed at the time of its formation. The

values outlined in the plan have remained relevant to the program and directly relate to the NAAB perspectives

3.2.3 FACULTY, STUDENT, AND PROGRAM GRADUATE VIEWS RELATIVE TO NAAB PERSPECTIVES

The School has a long tradition of education that is grounded in design excellence. Commitment to the

profession and public good are established values in the School and demonstrated in multiple ways described

in other sections of the report.

3.2.4 COURSE EVALUATIONS

Following is an example of the standard online course evaluation form. The hardcopy evaluation form is

similar and is favored by most instructors since the rate of response is generally higher. The University has

recently undergone a major review of the course evaluation process and content of the evaluations. School of

Architecture faculty participated in focus group discussions on this change in 2007-8.



3-17



3-18


Public Information

3-19

3.3 PUBLIC INFORMATION

To ensure an understanding of the accredited professional degree by the public, all schools offering an accredited degree program or any candidacy

program must include in their catalogs and promotional media the exact language found in the NAAB Conditions for Accreditation, Appendix A. To

ensure an understanding of the body of knowledge and skills that constitute a professional education in architecture, the school must inform faculty

and incoming students of how to access the NAAB Conditions for Accreditation.

The APR must include both of the following:

• A description of the degree program as it appears in university catalogs and other institutionally authorized material.

• Evidence that faculty members and incoming students have been informed of how to access the NAAB Conditions for Accreditation (including the

Student Performance Criteria) on the NAAB Web site.

3.3.1 FACULTY AND STUDENT ACCESS TO NAAB DOCUMENTS

Information is posted and discussed in professional practice course in two lectures on the context of

professional education. Text below is on School of Architecture website

<http://arch.cdes.umn.edu/overview.html>. Grad School Catalog has slightly shorter version

<http://www.catalogs.umn.edu/grad/programs/g010.html>. Screen shots from both websites below:

ACCREDITATION & LICENSING

Accreditation:

In the United States, most state registration boards require a degree from an accredited professional degree program as a prerequisite for licensure. The National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB - http://www.naab.org), which is the sole agency authorized to accredit U.S. professional degree programs in architecture, recognizes three types of degrees: the Bachelor of Architecture, the Master of Architecture, and the Doctor of Architecture. A program may be granted a 6-year, 3-year, or 2-year term of accreditation, depending on the extent of its conformance with established educational standards. Master's degree programs may consist of a pre-professional undergraduate degree and a professional graduate degree that, when earned sequentially, constitute an accredited professional education. However, the pre-professional degree is not, by itself, recognized as an accredited degree.

Licensing for Architects:

In the state of Minnesota and in most other states an applicant for examination for registration as an architect must have a professional degree from an architectural program accredited by the NAAB and also a National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB) certificate showing compliance with the Intern Development Program (IDP) training requirements.


Public Information

3-20


Public Information

3-21


Social Equity

3-22


Social Equity

3-23

3.4 SOCIAL EQUITY

The accredited degree program must provide faculty, students, and staff—irrespective of race, ethnicity, creed, national origin, gender, age, physical

ability, or sexual orientation—with an educational environment in which each person is equitably able to learn, teach, and work. The school must

have a clear policy on diversity that is communicated to current and prospective faculty, students, and staff and that is reflected in the distribution of

the program’s human, physical, and financial resources. Faculty, staff, and students must also have equitable opportunities to participate in

program governance.


• The criteria and procedures used to achieve equity and diversity in faculty appointments, reappointments, compensation, and promotions

• The criteria and procedures used to achieve equity and diversity in student admissions, advancement, retention, and graduation

• A description of the means by which faculty, students, and staff are given access to the formulation of policies and procedures, including curriculum

review and program development

• Identification of any significant problem, with recommendations for improvement.

As one of the top 20 public research universities in the nation, with a large urban campus, the University of

Minnesota is committed to fostering a diverse student body and faculty. Students at the University of Minnesota

come from all 50 states, and over 100 countries. The largest of the four campuses of the University of Minnesota

system, the Twin Cities campus comprises 19 colleges and 132 graduate degree programs and 10,370 graduate

students, 1,903 degrees were awarded in 2006. Among those, Architecture is one of 9 professional degree

programs, including School of Dentistry, Law School, Carlson School of Management, Medical School, College

of Pharmacy, School of Public Health, College of Veterinary Medicine, College of Education and Human

Development.

Architecture students in the College of Design are part of a culturally diverse and academically rigorous

educational environment. For students from all backgrounds, the College of Design offers a premium

education at an affordable price. Students from Wisconsin, North Dakota, South Dakota, Manitoba, Kansas,

Michigan, Missouri, and Nebraska may qualify for discounted tuition through one of our reciprocity tuition

agreements. For non-residents tuition is still affordable in comparison to other universities ranked as highly as

the University of Minnesota.

3.4.1 INSTITUTIONAL POLICIES REGARDING EQUITY AND DIVERSITY

University Statement on Non-Discrimination:


Social Equity

3-24

The University of Minnesota is committed to the policy that all persons shall have equal access to its programs,

facilities, and employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status,

disability, public assistance status, veteran status, or sexual orientation.

The College of Design, and the School of Architecture are bound by these University policies and practices, and

fully support their objectives.

Each college at the University of Minnesota has an equal opportunity officer responsible for coordinating the

equal opportunity efforts at that level. The equal opportunity officer receives training to properly prepare for the

duties. College of Design’s equal opportunity director is Jan Batt, Director of Human Resources, 89 Church St

S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455

3.4.2 CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES USED TO ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN EQUITY AND DIVERSITY

FACULTY

Position descriptions and selection criteria are screened by the University of Minnesota’s Office of Equal

Opportunity and Affirmative Action to ensure compliance with the University’s affirmative action goals and

regulations. The chart below illustrates the Department of Architecture’s full-time faculty profiles in the

academic years 2008 and 2003.

TABLE 3-5 GENDER AND ETHNICITY OF FULL TIME FACULTY

FULL-TIME FACULTY 2008 2002-03

Black or African-American 0 1

American-Indian or Alaska Native 0 0

Asian 4 2

Hispanic or Latino 1 0

Women Faculty tenured rank of Professor rank of Associate Professor rank of Assistant full-time Adjunct

9 5 3 2 1 3

8 6 2 4 0 2

Total women or faculty of color 23 22


Social Equity

3-25

The ranks of full-time faculty include tenured and tenure-track faculty, and 100%-time P&A (Professional and

Administrative) academic appointments.

Since the last accreditation visit, the School of Architecture has promoted two women faculty members, and

hired three faculty of color.

Part-time, term faculty ranks and numbers are more fluid. For the 2002-03 academic year there are 49 adjunct

faculty. Of them, 2 are of Hispanic origin; and 18 are women.

TABLE 3-6 STUDENT EQUITY

STUDENTS 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

African-American

0 0 0 1 2 2

Native American

0 0 0 0 0 0

Asian-Pacific 10 9 10 9 12 10

Hispanic 5 3 5 5 4 4

Women 79 83 87 75 76 71

Minnesota is less diverse than the United States average, for example, the 2006 US Census shows Minnesota

with 4.6% African American population compared with 12.8% national average, Asian 3.5% compared to 4.4%,

Hispanic 3.8% compared to 14.8%. The table above, while showing low numbers, is reflective of this context. We

continue to expand the base of design awareness at the high school and middle school level by working with

program and groups such as the Assembly for Architects (a network of minority architects) and Architecture

Youth Program (high school outreach) and AIA MN Architects in Schools program (middle school outreach)

and programs such as Design Camp (formerly run through the Design Institute - DI) and Design Camp for

Teachers recently expanded by John Comazzi with a DI staff person (providing middle school teachers with

resources to teach design thinking).

Our recruiting efforts seek to create diversity in all its dimensions. We track student according to their

educational backgrounds and geographic distribution of their undergraduate experience. We have made

progress towards our recruiting goal to create more geographic diversity; changes in the demographics of

students show this progress. Since 2003, we have shifted away from predominantly University of Minnesota

B.S. students (approximately 80% of total class) to a range of 50-70% . This has been accomplished through our

successful 3+ program which draws nationally, and by adding resources to recruiting.


Social Equity

3-26

TABLE 3-7 DEMOGRAPHICS OF STUDENTS BY EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND 2002-2007

MATRICULATIONS 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

UMN 38 32 30 25 27 39

Other MN Colleges 4 1 5 10 9 5

Other U.S. Institutions 2 11 8 8 14 9

International 4 2 0 4 3 1


Studio Culture

3-27

3.5 STUDIO CULTURE

The school is expected to demonstrate a positive and respectful learning environment through the encouragement of the fundamental values of

optimism, respect, sharing, engagement, and innovation between and among the members of its faculty, student body, administration, and staff.

The school should encourage students and faculty to appreciate these values as guiding principles of professional conduct throughout their careers.

The APR must demonstrate that the school has adopted a written studio culture policy with a plan for its implementation and maintenance and

provide evidence of abiding by that policy. The plan should specifically address issues of time management on the part of both the faculty and

students. The document on studio culture policy should be incorporated in the APR as Section 4.2.

3.5.1 STUDIO CULTURE POLICY

The School enjoys a healthy studio culture and operates with studio policies governing studio culture, studio

ethics, green studio policies, outlines of student and faculty workload expectations and clear guidelines for

achieving respectful and equitable studio environment workable for all. These can be found in the “Academic

Policies for Design and Drawing Studios” in the Faculty Handbook in Appendix P. Additional information is

found in Section 4.2 Studio Culture Policy. These policies were developed in 2002-2003 by the then Director of

Design, Renee Cheng. It was adopted by the studio faculty and governing faculty. Annually since 2004, it has

been distributed to and reviewed with all incoming and returning adjunct studio and drawing faculty at an

orientation meeting with the Head.

The GD1 studio sets up expectations and establishes community values ranging from level of engagement to

work management. GD1 syllabus clearly states the honor agreement for “pencils down” on the night before

reviews. Establishing the tenor of strong studio culture from the first semester is critical to ensuring

inculcation into the values of the program.

3.5.2 AWARENESS AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT OF STUDIO CULTURE

Several formal and informal mechanisms are in place to reinforce the written documents described above.

Faculty routinely provide guidance on time management and expectations, several strategies and mechanisms

for this are suggested in the Academic Policies document. Studio interim and final deadlines are tracked, these

are communicated so that non-studio courses can work around deadlines and resources are aligned to provide

services to support the reviews. In concordance with the Academic Policies, instructors with students in the

same year level meet regularly to coordinate workload – this is especially important in the fall when the studio

and non-studio courses are consistent by student cohort. Head routinely gathers feedback on student perceived

workload (through casual contact with students in her class and Grad Student Advisory) and provides feedback

to faculty, calling additional coordination meetings as needed. Recently, students expressed interest in


Studio Culture

3-28

resources from CTL to help with time management and reading skills. Head and Director of Design is working

with CTL to develop workshops for students.

Time management for both faculty and students mapped during curriculum development and meets standards

set forth in the Academic Policies. Clearly the new curriculum has aspects that are more intense than the

previous curriculum, offering more opportunity while demanding a higher level of attention to workload and

general expectations on the part of both students and faculty.

Social events are crucial to maintaining a strong community. The School places significant resources to

introduce new members to the community through recruiting events which connect current students with

prospective students. Through the process of reflecting on their experiences in written profiles on the web or in

panels during open house, students become more aware of their roles and expectations for the program. Some

of the annual community building events are listed below (also referred to in 2.1.2 advising):

• Orientation Weekend for new grad students hosted on the Marcel Breuer-design campus of St.John’s

University in Collegeville, MN

• GD1 Chicago trip

• Architecture and Landscape Graduate Student Reception (cosponsored by AIA and MASLA) occurs at

the end of the first day of Fall semester studio, hosted at theWeisman Art Museum

• Open house and recruiting events with current students as hosts: panel discussion, reception at home

of the Head, post-reception student social event


Human Resources

3-29

3.6 HUMAN RESOURCES

The accredited degree program must demonstrate that it provides adequate human resources for a professional degree program in architecture,

including a sufficient faculty complement, an administrative head with enough time for effective administration, and adequate administrative,

technical, and faculty support staff. Student enrollment in and scheduling of design studios must ensure adequate time for an effective tutorial

exchange between the teacher and the student. The total teaching load should allow faculty members adequate time to pursue research, scholarship,

and practice to enhance their professional development.

The APR must include these major elements:

• Description of the students’ educational backgrounds and the degree program’s selectivity, retention, and time-to-graduation rates since the last

accreditation sequence

• Description of the distribution of effort between teaching and other responsibilities of each faculty member and evidence that students evaluate

individual courses for both teaching effectiveness and course content

• Faculty-student teacher ratios for studios for all design levels

• For each administrative position, a description of the distribution of effort between administrative and other responsibilities

• For each staff position, a description of the distribution of effort between administration and other responsibilities

• Identification of any significant problem, with recommendations for improvement

3.6.1 STUDENTS’ EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDS

Students come from two types of educational background: non-architecture (3+ stream), and architecture (BS,

BA or our new BDA) The 3+ stream is our most competitive pool and tends to draw from a diverse range of

geographic distribution and has inherent diversity in the range of majors and experiences. BS current has a

majority (approximately 50%) from University of Minnesota undergraduate program. BDA is a new and

promising stream, with just six graduates and two applicants last year, we cannot project what the pattern

might be when the future cohorts of 100 student each graduate starting in 2009.


Human Resources

3-30

3.6.2 PROGRAM’S SELECTIVITY, RETENTION, AND TIME-TO-GRADUATION RATES SINCE THE PREVIOUS

SITE VISIT.

TABLE 3-8 ADMISSION SELECTIVITY AND RETENTION

2003-2004

2004-2005

2005-2006

2006-2007

2007-2008

2008-2009

Applications 180 194 187 188 189 225

Admissions 89 102 94 112 94 98

Matriculations 51 49 52 57 59 45

Degrees Conferred 29 60 58 65 61 *

Since 2004, we have had extremely high retention and on-time graduation rates. Previous to that time, issues

in completing the thesis book prevented many students from graduating on time (discussed in 2.1 Advising

Progress). Students entering before 2004 had taken extra time to graduate, this has resulted in the increased

numbers of degrees conferred in recent years as they move through. Any student entering after 2004 has a 95-

98% chance of graduating on time (defined as 3 yrs from matriculation), with only one or two students from

each cohort needing additional time. See Figure 2-2 and Table 2-6 for more information on matriculation and

time to degree.

The dramatic increase in on time graduation is largely the result of reorganizing the thesis schedule and

different structure of faculty support (see 2.1.A Advising for more information). DGS and Graduate Advisor

provide support for students who need additional time to complete their program. The majority of these cases

have been personal – triggered by family, health or military service.

3.6.3 DISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT BETWEEN TEACHING AND OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH FACULTY

MEMBER

2008-9 was the first year where the School utilized a three-year workplan outlining teaching, research and

service expectations for each faculty member. The workplan relies on a point system based on a simple formula

for teaching: credits + number of TA’s. Credits are an accurate reflection of contact hours and class preparation.

The number of TA’s for a course is an accurate reflection of the course’s level of complexity for course

management. TA numbers are determined based on 1:40 ratio with exceptions for writing intensive or studio

intensive courses. Non-teaching activities are assigned a point load that reflects the time commitment for

university, college and school service, taking into account that some committees meet only rarely and that


Human Resources

3-31

workload may vary. Research is assigned a weight in the point system as a baseline. Under development are

mechanisms for adjusting the values for individual faculty members. The workplan and point system are both

included in Appendix F.

Increased credit load from 6 to 9 credits for the GD1 and GD2 fall studios reflect increased time commitment on

the part of students and faculty. Actual increase in contact hours used in GD1, GD2 assumes additional time for

students’ independent work outside of class and increased class prep time for faculty.


Human Resources

3-32

3.6.4 CLASS SIZE AND SUPPORT

Required lecture courses average about 48 students – the size of our first year graduate design class. In 2008,

the Professional Practice course has double group, GD2 and GD3 combined for this year only. Graduate Design

studios have a maximum of 13 students. Studio meeting times vary as noted below:

TABLE 3-9 COURSE FORMATS, TYPES, AND RATIOS

STUDIO OR PROJECT MODULE

COURSE HOURS PER WEEK

AND FORMAT DURATION CREDITS

2008 RATIO FTE FAC:STUDENT

ACTUAL FACULTY

TEACHING, FT AND PT

GD1 fall studio 12 studio + 2 lab Semester 9 1:11 4 full time

GD2 fall studio 12 studio Semester 9 1:13 4 full time

GD3 fall studio (inc. comp) 10 studio Semester 6 1:10 4 full time

Tech 2 studio + lecture Half-sem 6 1:11 10: 2 full time, 8 part time

Project based module (inc. tech development mod)

12 studio Half-sem 4 1:12 1 per module typical

Seminar based module 5 lecture Half-sem 3 1:20 1 per module typical

Lectures classes with more than 40 students are assigned a 25% graduate teaching assistant. Additional

teaching assistants are assigned for each increment of 40 students; some larger classes may have less than one

teaching assistant per 40 students, depending on the nature of the class.

3.6.5 ADJUNCT FACULTY AS RESOURCES

The School has a long-standing tradition of inviting local architects in practice to teach in both the

undergraduate and graduate programs. The term/adjunct faculty is a mix of established and emerging

professionals who often teach design studios and drawing classes. Lecturers may receive courtesy titles

corresponding to their qualifications such as Professor in Practice, this is a relatively new title created in 2005

as a working title appropriate for a principal or senior partner with an established regional or national

reputation. First created in 2004 and annually updated is a document establishing pay rates according to

course type and instructor background. (see Appendix L for adjunct policies) We also typically have one or two

“Cass Gilbert” visiting faculty members each semester, often serving as studio instructors.


Human Resources

3-33

3.6.6 DISTRIBUTION OF EFFORT BETWEEN EACH ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION AND OTHER

RESPONSIBILITIES

All administrative positions continue with their full research load and are relieved of some teaching and some

service

• Head teaching varies. Fall 2008 load was heavier than normal with development of new Professional Practice course and contributions of 5 lectures to Tech 1 and 2 lectures in other courses.

• The Director of Graduate Studies is a tenured faculty member who receives a course release and additional graduate student support in recognition of the effort toward the administrative management of the graduate program. However, in 2008 the DGS is beginning phased retirement and has been focusing on administration and research, and does not have a teaching load, but contributes guest lectures and attends design reviews.

• The Director of Design is a tenured faculty member who receives one course release for the year in recognition of the effort toward the administrative management of studios, the graduate curriculum committee, administrative groups, etc. This position is expected to attend many design reviews for graduate and undergraduate studios.

The School of Architecture has the following staff positions: Administrator, Office Manager, Graduate Student

Support, DGS/DUGS Support, Receptionist, student workers. These positions work together to to provide

support for the administrative functions of the school. In addition, staff provides the faculty with adequate

support for their teaching, research and outreach efforts. Types of duties include clerical work such as copying,

collating; basic graphic design to create posters; organization of special events – including food, travel for guests;

payroll and benefits information; ordering special equipment. The staff also interfaces between the College

support personnel and the faculty, helping faculty use the College resources effectively and alerting College

directors of issues arising. In 2009, there will be a new position of Department Administrator, who will oversee

workload of the School for staff and adminstration and become the primary interface between the School and

College.


Human Resource Development

3-35

3.7 HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Schools must have a clear policy outlining both individual and collective opportunities for faculty and student growth inside and outside the

program.

The APR must include the following major points:

• The school’s policy regarding human resource development opportunities

• A list of visiting lecturers and critics brought to the school since the previous site visit • A list of public exhibitions brought to the school since the

previous site visit

• A description of student support services, including academic and personal advising, career guidance, and internship placement where applicable

• Evidence of the school’s facilitation of student opportunities to participate in field trips and other off-campus activities

• Evidence of opportunities for students to participate in professional societies and organizations, honor societies, and other campus-wide activities.

• A description of the policies, procedures, and criteria for faculty appointment, promotion, and tenure and access to faculty development

opportunities

• Evidence of the school’s facilitation of faculty research, scholarship, and creative activities since the previous site visit, including the granting of

sabbatical leaves and unpaid leaves of absence, opportunities for the acquisition of new skills and knowledge, and support of attendance at

professional meetings

• Evidence of how faculty members remain current in their knowledge of the changing demands of practice and licensure.

3.7.1 THE SCHOOL’S POLICY REGARDING HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES

The School provides each faculty member with $2,000 per year in development funds to be used for any activity

supporting their research, teaching or service. There are some limitations on the use of the funds governed by

University policies on travel and reimbursable expenses – for example funds cannot be used for cellular or PDA

phones and there are per diem limits for any travel destination. Funds cannot be used to buy out faculty

teaching but may be used as a match for grant funded work. If a faculty has $4,000 accrued in their

development funds at the end of the fiscal year, the faculty is not eligible for additional annual funds. If a

faculty has expenses beyond the available funds, the Head works with the faculty member to identify possible

University funds or alternative School funds. For School funds, priority is given to probationary faculty

members.



3-36

3.7.2 LIST OF VISITING LECTURERS AND CRITICS BROUGHT TO THE SCHOOL SINCE THE PREVIOUS SITE

VISIT

TABLE 3-10 LIST OF VISITING LECTURERS AND EXHIBITIONS SINCE 2003

TITLE SPEAKER SEMESTER YEAR DATE

Cities as Historical Actors: Ecological, Linguistic and Economic Aspects of Urban Life Manuel DeLanda Fall 2007 17-Sep

From Concepts to the Real Landscapes of the Future: The Role of Landscape Ecology Rob Jongman Fall 2007 8-Oct

Sustaining Architecture James Timberlake Fall 2007 15-Oct

The Diversity of Design Eric Jolly Fall 2007 22-Oct

Performance Practices Chris Reed Fall 2007 29-Oct

Architecture of Linkage Bill Pedersen Fall 2007 5-Nov

New Structural Membrane Developments Robert Off Fall 2007 12-Nov

The Design of Business Roger Martin Fall 2007 26-Nov

Defiant Gardens Kenneth Helphand Spring 2007 5-Feb

Design Redux: Eames as Paper Eames Demetrios Spring 2007 8-Feb

Making Waves Along the Big Muddy: Pursuing Equity Planning in New Orleans Ken Reardon Spring 2007 19-Feb

The Bones Studio Vincent James Spring 2007 5-Mar

Shared Space-Reconciling People, Places, and Traffic Ben Hamilton-Baillie Spring 2007 19-Mar

The Conservation Biologist's Toolbox for Landscape and Land-use Planning Craig Groves Spring 2007 26-Mar

The Architecture 2030 Challenge: Toward Zero Emission-Zero Energy Design Ed Mazria Spring 2007 23-Apr

The State of Minnesota's Affordable Housing Sherry Ahrentzen Spring 2007 19-Jun

Design & Meaning: Community Design Practice Kathy Dorgan Fall 2006 25-Sep

Landscape Architecture, American Civilization, and the West Lance Neckar, Dan Nadenicek, Bill Tishler, Nancy Volkman Fall 2006 6-Oct

Urban Projects Ken Smith Fall 2006 9-Oct

The Missing Dimension: The Social Component of Sustainability David Pijawka Fall 2006 6-Nov

Beyond Desire: Fashion, Art, and Life Valerie Steele Fall 2006 16-Nov

Ecology of Construction John Fernandez Fall 2006 17-Nov

Inhabiting Urban Landscapes Diogo Burnay Fall 2006 27-Nov

Woodland Landscape: History and Perspective Russel Wright's home Carol Franklin Spring 2008 11-Feb

Sustainable Design: Moving from Buildings to Communities Peter Busby Spring 2008 18-Feb



3-37


Traverse: Shifted Waterways and Urban Life Liska Clemence Chan Spring 2008 25-Feb

Human Settlement: Lessons Learned Bob Close Spring 2008 3-Mar

New Light on New Canaan: Philip Johnson's Glass House/Guest House

Alice Friedman Spring 2008 10-Mar

Consuming Heritage and the End of Tradition Nezar Al Sayyad Spring 2008 24-Mar

Floating Cities Ria Van Dijk Spring 2008 31-Mar

The Fifth Sector: Philanthropy's Role in Community Change Rip Rapson Spring 2008 7-Apr

Visualizing Urban Data Streams Eric Rodenbeck Spring 2008 14-Apr

Interiors Parlance: Inside Out Shashi Caan Spring 2008 28-Apr

Promoting Town/Gown Partnerships that Work: Lessons from the Field Ken Reardon Spring 2006 23-Jan

From Gardens to Urban Parks Steven Tupu Spring 2006 30-Jan

Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art Stanford Anderson Spring 2006 6-Feb

20th Century Cities Alex Krieger Spring 2006 20-Feb

The Architect as Artisan and World Citizen Steve Badanes Spring 2006 6-Mar

Urbanisms Margaret Crawford Spring 2006 20-Mar

Architecture for Humanity Cameron Sinclair Spring 2006 27-Mar

The Future of Affordable Housing Nicolas P. Retsinas, Ann Forsyth Spring 2006 28-Mar

Urban Form, Walking, Eating Anne Vernez Moudon Spring 2006 3-Apr

Plain Modern: The Architecture of Brian MacKay-Lyons Brian MacKay-Lyons Spring 2006 7-Apr

Rethinking our Urban Environment Congressman Earl Blumenauer, Judith Martin Spring 2006 1-May

We Make the City and the City Makes Us: From Massive Change to the Future of Urban Space Jennifer Leonard Fall 2005 19-Sep

Ralph Rapson: A Modernist Vision Bruce Wright, Susan Murphy, Ralph Rapson Fall 2005 26-Sep

The Rural Studio Chuck Schultz, Samuel Mockbee Fall 2005 5-Oct

Recent Work Merrill Elam Fall 2005 7-Oct

refabricating ARCHITECTURE Stephen Kieran Fall 2005 17-Oct

Standing with the Land Grant Jones Fall 2005 24-Oct

Landscapes Between the Virtual and the Real Char Davies Fall 2005 14-Nov

Making and Traveling Richard Hansen Spring 2005 31-Jan

A Modern Vernacular: Finding and Designing an Everyday Architecture Charlie Lazor Spring 2005 21-Feb

Modernism from Cultural Roots David D. Salmela Spring 2005 21-Mar

Confronting Sustainablity at the Neighborhood Level: Perceptions, Footprints and Design David Pijawka Spring 2005 4-Apr

Breaking Ground Daniel Libeskind Spring 2005 13-Apr

Work in Transition Nick Winton Spring 2005 18-Apr



3-38


Integrated Design and The Triple Bottom Line…WHEN PIGS FLY! Bob Berkebile Spring 2005 25-Apr

Housing and Justice Mike Pyatok Spring 2005 2-Jun

Environmental Justice and Community Design and Development: The West Philadelphia Landscape Project Anne Whiston Spirn Spring 2005 3-Jun

Megascale, Complexity, memory Moshe Safdie Fall 2004 1-Oct

Site Seeing Jane Amidon Fall 2004 4-Oct

Public Space, Public Good

Lodewijk Baljon, Dianne Harris, Walter Hood, Kristine Miller, Frank X. Moya, Laurie Olin, Lynda Schneekloth, Robert Shibley, Marc Treib

Fall 2004 15-Oct

SITE-in Process James Wines, Joshua Weinstein Fall 2004 1-Nov

Pulp Architecture: A Movement in Progress! Roger Connah Spring 2004 26-Jan

In Situ: Barkow Leibinger Frank Barkow Spring 2004 6-Feb

The Bold Landscape: Urban and Rural Gestures Shane Coen Spring 2004 8-Mar

Consuming Monsters: Big, Perfect, Infectious Anthony Dunne, Fiona Raby, Jeffrey kahn, Lynn Lukkas, Janet Abrams Spring 2004 15-Apr

Recent Projects Mark Hansen, Ben Rubin Spring 2004 22-Apr

APRT: Recent Work Hannu Tikka Fall 2003 17-Sep

Visualizing the Future of Mass Transit Michael J. Shiffer Fall 2003 22-Sep

Restoring Ecological Spaces and Consciousness Robert France Fall 2003 29-Sep

CALA Beaux Arts Ball Lecture Joan M Sorrano Fall 2003 25-Oct

Le Corbusier in the Land of Ford Mardges Bacon Fall 2003 10-Nov

Continuity and Invention Richard Kroeker Fall 2003 3-Dec

Exhibitions

Community Parkways in the Twin Cities Fall 2003 Sep

Helsinki Contemporary Urban Architecture Photographs by Jussi Tiainen, Finland

Fall 2003 Oct

Minnesota’s Own: AIA Young Architects Awards Fall 2003 Nov

Matters of Fact: The Architecture of Barkow Leibinger Spring 2004 Feb

Key Words/Key Images: The Design Center Image Bank Spring 2004 Jan

The Bold Landscape: Urban and Rural Gestures: Shane Coen, landscape architect, coen + partners Spring 2004 Mar

Accommodating Density: Housing in the Twin Cities Fall 2005 Sept

Soft Space: work by dECOi, Jakob + MacFarlane, Ocean North, Open Source Architecture, Sean Lally, and Serve Fall 2004 Oct

Richard Hansen: Stone and Water, Space and Time Spring 2005 Feb

Lazor Office: Modern Vernacular Spring 2005 Mar

Salmela Architect Spring 2005 Apr



3-39


Mark Scogin Merrill Elam Architects Fall 2005 Oct

MASSIVE CHANGE: urban economies Fall 2005 Sept

KieranTimberlake Associates Fall 2005 Sept

Jones & Jones Architects and Landscape Architects Fall 2005

Eladio Dieste: A Principled Builder Spring 2006 Jan

Fall 2005 Design Excellence Awards Spring 2006 Feb

2006 Thesis and Capstone Award Winners Spring 2006 May

Plain Modern: The Architecture of Brian MacKay-Lyons Spring 2006 May

On Wright: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Darwin D. Martin House Visitors’ Center Competition Projects by ARO, Brian Healey, Office dA, Schwartz/Silver, and Toshiko Mori

Fall 2006 Oct

Design Redux: Eames as Paper Spring 2007 Mar

Leading from Policy to Practice: Affordable Housing in Minnesota and Affordable Housing: Designing an American Asset

Spring 2007 Apr

2006 Schl of Arch Design Excellence Awards Spring 2007 Feb

Watercolor Paintings by Julia Williams Robinson Spring 2007 Mar

Textilien Spring 2007 Mar

School Buildings – The State of Affairs: A New Architecture for a New Education Fall 2007 Oct

Precedents and Influences Spring 2008 Jan

Fall 2007 Schl of Arch Design Excellence Awards Spring 2008 Mar

Sacred Sites / Sacred Sights: Architecture, Ethics, and Spiritual Geography Spring 2008 Mar

Richard Knight: Photography Saarinen Fall 2008 Sep

ACADIA: Anxious Climates Fall 2008 Oct

ACADIA: Silicone and Skin Fall 2008 Oct

Squares of Europe Fall 2008 Oct

Visiting critics since 2003 are too numerous to list, but include guest critics for interim and final reviews as

well as faculty for special events such as catalyst workshops. In a typical year, there are 12-15 visitors from

outside the region. Since 2003, visitors have included:

• Shigeru Ban, Shigeru Ban Architects, Japan

• Tim Eliasson, Tripyramid Designs, Boston

• Billie Faircloth, University of Texas at Austin

• Daniel Friedman, University of Washington

• Mary Hardin, University of Arizona



3-40

• Laura Lee, Carnegie Mellon

• Steve Luoni, Arkansas University

• Kiel Moe, Northeastern University

• Paul Tesar, North Carolina State University

• Cathrine Veikos, PennDesign

3.7.4 STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES

Student support services is coordinated by the Director of Admissions and Graduate Student Services. Most of

the resources are provided within the School with the notable exception of the Career Fair and Mentorship

programs organized by College Student Services. Additionally, career place support is provided by St. Paul

Career Services. They provide information on resume writing, interviews and collect work opportunities to post

on their “Gold Pass” jobs website.

3.7.5 STUDENT FIELD TRIPS AND OTHER OFF-CAMPUS ACTIVITIES

Evidence of the School’s Facilitation of Student Opportunities to Participate in Field Trips and other Off-

campus Activities

Field trips are generally funded through course fees, but often are supplemented by departmental funds to

offset the costs. Staff provides support for reserving hotel, vans and other arrangements as needed. Students are

encouraged to attend off-campus activities sponsored by AIA such as the AIA Minnesota Convention and

community events. Promotional material is provided and class time is given for brief announcements.

TABLE 3-11 STUDIO-BASED FIELD TRIP ACTIVITIES

DESTINATION YEAR NUMBER

STUDENTS FACULTY LEADER FUNDING

Chicago Spring 2002-2007

45 per year

GD I studio instructors $1,000 departmental support, course fee

Vancouver Spring 2004 12 Rockcastle $1,200 departmental support, student out of pocket

Chicago Spring 2004 12 Lazor $1,200 departmental support, student out of pocket

Los Angeles Spring 2005 12 Lazor/Anderson $2,000 departmental support, student out of pocket

Chicago Fall 2007 11 Comazzi $500 departmental support, student out of pocket

Oaxaca, Mexico Spring 2007 9 LaVine $4,500 ($500 block grant to each student)

Kansas City Summer 2007, 2008

12 per year Lavine $1,200 departmental support



3-41

Chicago Spring 2008 12 Comazzi $500 departmental support, student out of pocket

New York Spring 2008 12 Saloojee $500 departmental support, student out of pocket

Chicago Fall 2008 70 Iannacone, Tambornino $1,000 departmental support, course fee

New York Fall 2008 12 Swackhamer $500 departmental support, student out of pocket

New Orleans Fall 2008 12 Robinson $2,500 from Metropolitan Design Center, $1,200 departmental support

Chicago Fall 2008 11 Comazzi $1,500 departmental support, student out of pocket

St.Cloud Annual 48 annually Rafferty/Weeks Orientation fee

New Orleans/Biloxi Annual 20-30 AIAS with Head Administrative support, $3,000 departmental

support, student out of pocket

3.7.6 EVIDENCE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AND

ORGANIZATIONS, HONOR SOCIETIES, AND OTHER CAMPUS-WIDE ACTIVITIES

Students have many opportunities for participation outlined in Table 3-3. Recent opportunities include:

Solar Decathlon, AIAS, Greenlight, CDes student and alumni Board, T/here journal, AIA MN Homes by

Architects Tour, AIA MN Architects in Schools Program, AIAS Freedom by Design

3.7.7 FACULTY APPOINTMENT, PROMOTION, AND TENURE

See appendix O with documents 7.12 describing school policies procedures and criteria, this document works in

conjunction with the University document 7.11 and 9.2. Additionally, the Adjunct 7.12 governs promotion for

adjunct faculty.

3.7.8 FACILITATION OF FACULTY RESEARCH, SCHOLARSHIP, AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES

Evidence of the school’s facilitation of faculty research, scholarship, and creative activities since the previous site

visit, including the granting of sabbatical leaves and unpaid leaves of absence, opportunities for the acquisition

of new skills and knowledge, and support of attendance at professional meetings.

3.7.8.1 EVIDENCE OF GRANTING SABBATICAL LEAVES AND UNPAID LEAVES OF ABSENCE



3-42

TABLE 3-12 FACULTY SABBATICALS AND LEAVES

FACULTY NAME SEMESTER OR YEAR DESCRIPTION OF LEAVE

(ALL LEAVES PAID EXCEPT WHERE NOTED)

Arthur Hui-Min Chen 2003-2004 Sabbatical Furlough-Year Long

Ritu Bhatt 2003-2004 1 Course release for incoming probationary

Ritu Bhatt 2006-2007 Leave

Ritu Bhatt Spring 2007 67% load

Ritu Bhatt 2008-2009 67% load

Blaine Brownell 2008-2009 1 Course release for incoming probationary

John Comazzi 2006-2007 1 Course release for incoming probationary

Bill Conway 2008-2009 1 Course release

Greg Donfrio 2008-2009 1 Course release for incoming probationary

Mary Guzowski 2008-2009 Sabbatical Furlough-Year Long

Cynthia Jara Spring 2003 Leave

Cynthia Jara 2003-2004 Leave

Cynthia Jara 2004-2005 3 Course release

Cynthia Jara 2005-2006 1 Course release

Cythnia Jara 2007-2008 1 Course release

Andrzej Piotrowski 2004-2005 1 Course release

Julia Robinson 2002-2003 1 Course release

Julia Robinson 2005-2006 1 Course release

Ozayr Saloojee 2006-2007 1 Course release for incoming probationary

Ozayr Saloojee Fall 2008 Single Semester Leave

Kate Solomonson Fall 2004 Single Semester Leave

Kate Solomonson Spring 2005 Unpaid leave

Marc Swackhamer 2006-2007 1 Course release for incoming probationary

Leslie VanDuzer Fall 2008 Teaching leave buy out from IAS grant

J. Stephen Weeks Fall 2008 Begin Phased Retirement

3.7.8.2 EVIDENCE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE ACQUISITION OF NEW SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE

Faculty have multiple opportunities to gain new skills and knowledge, but most commonly these are presented

in academic meetings or skills workshops. Below is a table showing a list of conferences where faculty attended

to develop their knowledge and expand their skills.



3-43

TABLE 3-13 DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNTIES FOR NEW SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE SINCE 2003

FACULTY ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCES SUPPORTED BY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TYPICALLY TRAVEL, PER DIEM & REGISTRATION

Lee Anderson 2007 Creativity and Cognition 2007

Lee Anderson 2007 IEEE Virtual Reality 2007

Jonee Brigham 2007 USGBC National GreenBuild Conference 2007 and several prior years

John Comazzi 2005 Encounters/Encuentros/Rencontres, ACSA International Conference in Mexico City, May, 2005

John Comazzi 2006 PUSH 2006: A New Life, Conference, Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, MN, June 11-13

John Comazzi 2007 Reggio-Emilia-Architecture and Pedagogy in Dialogue: An international symposium on School Design and Education, hosted by the Loris Malaguzzi International Center, Reggio-Emilia, Italy, October, 2007

John Comazzi 2007 Design and Its Publics: Curators, Critics, and Historians: An international conference on the state of contemporary design discourse, hosted by the Design Institute, Minneapolis, MN

John Comazzi 2007 Mapping New Knowledge Ecologies, workshop, Design Institute, Minneapolis, MN-invited by Jan Abrams, Director, Design Institute, February, 2007, 2007

John Comazzi 2008 ACADIA Conference: Silicon and Skin, Minneapolis, MN, October, 2008

Benjamin Ibarra Sevilla 2006 CIB Symposium on Integrated Design Solutions (IDS) Workshop II, September 2006

Benjamin Ibarra Sevilla

2007 Seminar in Modern Heritage in Mexico City. Center for World Heritage Studies. CDes UMN. Fall 2007.

Benjamin Ibarra Sevilla 2007 ACSA National Conference. Philadelphia 2007

Benjamin Ibarra Sevilla 2008 "Sacred Sites | Sacred Sights: Past/Present/Future," Symposium, CDes UMN April 2008

Miller,Nancy A 2007 National Trust for Historic Preservation, Annual Conference, 2007

Julia Robinson 2003 AIA Minnesota Conference (3 days) 2003

Julia Robinson 2003 ACSA Conference, (2 days) 2003

Julia Robinson 2003 Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) (4 days) 2003

Julia Robinson 2003 Educators’ Conference, UMN, (one-day) 2003

Julia Robinson 2004 Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) 2004

Julia Robinson 2005 5th International Space Syntax Symposium, Delft (3 days) 2005

Julia Robinson 2006 International Association for Person-environment Studies (IAPS) (5-day conference - Alexandria, Egypt 2006

Julia Robinson 2006 Society for Teaching and Learning, London (2 days) 2006

Julia Robinson 2007 AIA Minnesota Annual Conference 2007



3-44

FACULTY ATTENDANCE AT CONFERENCES SUPPORTED BY SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TYPICALLY TRAVEL, PER DIEM & REGISTRATION

Julia Robinson 2008 International Association for Person-environment Studies (IAPS) (5-day conference)- Rome 2008

Julia Robinson 2008 Society for Teaching and Learning, London (2-day conference) 2008

Julia Robinson 2008 Working through Architecture Lecture Series, Minneapolis Central Library (6 lectures) 2008

Julia Robinson 2003- 04 Teaching & Learning Center- Mid Career Development Seminar 2003-04

Sharon Roe 2005 ACSA Regional Conference in Judson, IL, 2005

Sharon Roe 2006 22nd National Conference on “The Beginning Design Student,” Ames, Iowa, 2006

Sharon Roe 2008 ACADIA Conference 2008

Sharon Roe 2008 International “Fabric-formed Concrete” Conference, University of Manitoba, 2008-

Ozayr Saloojee 2005 North Forks Design Charrette and Panel Discussion on Mixed Use Neighborhoods, November 2005

Ozayr Saloojee 2006 Reading Spiritualities International Conference, Lancaster, England, January 2006

Ozayr Saloojee 2007 The Past in the Present International Conference, Glasgow, Scotland, October 2007

Ozayr Saloojee 2007 ACSA National Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah, March 2007

Ozayr Saloojee 2008 ACSA National Conference, Houston, Texas, March 2008

Marc Swackhamer 2004 ACSA Regional Conference at Judson College, Illinois September 2004

Marc Swackhamer 2005 “Envisioning Information” seminar by Edward Tufte, Minneapolis April 2005

Marc Swackhamer 2006 “Push” Conference – Walker Art Center June 2006

Marc Swackhamer 2007 95th ACSA Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, PA March 2007

Leslia Van Duzer 2003 2003, 2000, 1994, Alvar Aalto Symposia, Finland

Leslia Van Duzer 2007 Spatial Recall: The Place of Memory in Architecture and Landscape Architecture Symposium, University of California, Berkeley

Leslia Van Duzer 2008 Chinati Foundation Symposium, Marfa

Stephen Weeks 2005 ARCC Annual research conference, Mississippi State U 2005

Stephen Weeks 2007 ARCC Annual International Conference, Philadelphia, PA 2007

Stephen Weeks 2008 IDP Educator’s Conference, New Mexico spring 2008



3-45

FACULTY TRAINING FOR SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

Lee Anderson 2003 Workshop on Virtual Environments/7th International Workshop on Immersive Projection Technology 2003

Julia Robinson 2004 Individual Consulting & 5 Workshops with Teaching and Learning Center 2002-04

Sharon Roe 2007 REVIT training 2007

Sharon Roe 2006 American Steel Institute workshop on new teaching tools for steel systems, 2006

Marc Swackhamer 2005 “Maya” software 4-day instructional seminar at Alias headquarters in Toronto June 2005

Marc Swackhamer 2007 “Smart Geometry” Conference, sponsored by Bentley, Microsoft, and Adobe –NY

3.7.8.3 EVIDENCE OF AND SUPPORT OF ATTENDANCE AT PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS

School faculty attend many professional meetings, usually with a specific role or contribution. Meetings are too

numerous to list, but Table 3-14 in the follow section lists the most substantial engagement opportunities for

faculty, most of which involve attendance at professional meetings. Support for professional meeting is treated

the same as support for academic meetings or skills workshops. Faculty use their development funds first and if

additional funds are needed, the Head helps to find alterative funding sources.

3.7.9 EVIDENCE OF HOW FACULTY MEMBERS REMAIN CURRENT IN THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE

CHANGING DEMANDS OF PRACTICE AND LICENSURE

TABLE 3-14 FACULTY ROLES AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO PROFESSIONAL MEETINGS AND ORGANISATIONS

NATIONAL AIA COMMITTEES AND JURIES

FACULTY DATE PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITY

Loren E. Abraham 1991-p AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE), 1991-present

Renée Cheng 2007 Facilitator, Architectural Education in the 21st Century, ACSA/AIA Cranbrook Teachers Seminar. Bloomfield Hills, MI., 2007

Renée Cheng 2007 Invited contributor, White Paper on The Future of Architectural Education, AIA Technology in Architectural Practice Conference., 2007



3-46

Renée Cheng 2007 Invited participant, AIA Research Summit, Seattle, WA., 2007

Renée Cheng 2007 Juror, AIA National BIM TAP awards., 2007

Renée Cheng 2007 Juror, Firm of the Year and Sustainable Firm of the Year. AIA Arizona., 2007

Renée Cheng 2007 Juror, Honor Awards, AIA Ohio., 2007

Renée Cheng 2007 Member, AIA National Board Knowledge Committee. Sub-committees: Research. Knowledge Community Liason:4 knowledge communities

Renée Cheng 2006 Invited participant and team writer, AIA discussion on BIM, IP and Education, Oak Park, IL., 2006

Renée Cheng 2004 Presentor & Participant, Case Study Initiative. ACSA/AIA Cranbrook Teachers Seminar. Bloomfield Hills, MI., 2004

Renée Cheng 2003 Juror, AIA Minnesota, 25 Year Award., 2003

Renée Cheng 2005 Juror, AIA Minnesota, Homes of the Year., 2005

Renée Cheng 2004-07 Advisory Board, Architectural Graphic Standards, AIA National. One of a 7 member board., 2004-2007

William F. Conway 2004 Project reviewer AIA Case Study Project program, 2004

Mary Guzowski 2003-04 Advisory Board, American Institute of Architects (AIA) Minnesota Affordable Housing Committee, 2003-2004.

Ann Forsyth 2008 R/UDAT Team Member, AIA Center for Communities by Design, Staten Island, 2008

Thomas Meyer 2008 Juror, AIA Philadelphia Honor Awards, Philadelphia, PA, 2008

Thomas Meyer 2005 Juror, AIA Minnesota/MplsSt.Paul Magazine RAVE Awards, Minneapolis, MN, 2005

Thomas Meyer 2005 Juror, AIA Northeast Illinois Honor Awards, Naperville, IL, 2005

Thomas Meyer 2006 Juror, AIA Columbus Honor Awards, Columbus, OH, 2006

Thomas Meyer 2006 Juror, AIA Minnesota 25 Year Award, Minneapolis, MN, 2006

Thomas Meyer 2007 Juror, AIA (National) Interior Architecture Honor Awards, Washington, DC, 2007

Leslie Van Duzer

2004 Peer reviewer for AIA Case Study Program

Jennifer Yoos 2006 Juror and Chair, AIA Columbus Honor Awards, 2006



3-47

Jennifer Yoos 2006 Juror, AIA Kansas City Honor Awards (Missouri), 2006

Jennifer Yoos 2005 Juror, AIA Wisconsin Honor Awards, 2005

Jennifer Yoos 2008 Juror, AIA Philadelphia Design Awards Jury, 2008

Jennifer Yoos 2008 Juror, AIA New England Design Awards, 2008

STATE AIA MN OFFICERS


William F. Conway 2003 Board Member, AIA Minneapolis Board of Directors

Thomas Fisher 1996-p. Board Member, AIA Minnesota Board of Directors

Steve Weeks 2002-present Board Member, AIA Minneapolis Board of Directors

Steve Weeks 2002-present Board Member, AIA St.Paul Board of Directors

Renée Cheng 2006-present Board Member, AIA Minnesota Board of Directors

Renée Cheng 2008 President Elect, AIA Minnesota

Renée Cheng 2009 President, AIA Minnesota

Renée Cheng 2006-present Executive Committee, AIA Minnesota

Thomas Meyer 2007 President, AIA Minnesota

Thomas Meyer 2006 President Elect, AIA Minnesota

Thomas Meyer 2006-present

Executive Committee, AIA Minnesota

Loren E. Abraham 2004-p AIA Minnesota Chapter, Committee Chairperson present, 2004-present

Doug Pierce 2005-7 Chair, AIA MN Committee on the Environment (COTE)

J. Stephen Weeks 2008 Chair, AIA MN Disaster Assistance 2008-



3-48

STATE AIA MN DOMMITTEES AND JURIES


Renée Cheng 2003 Juror, AIA Minnesota, 25 Year Award., 2003

Renée Cheng 2006 and 2007

Jury moderator and Presentor, AIA Minnesota Honor Awards., 2006-2007

John Comazzi 2007 AIA-150: AIA Minnesota and Mayor Rybak Five Great City Design Charette, Steering cmte

Julia Robinson 2006 AIA Minneapolis Merit Awards Jury Member 2006

Julia Robinson 2007 MSAIA Jury member for the 5th Annual Midwest Home Awards 2007

Ozayr Saloojee 2006 Jury Member, AIA Minneapolis Honor Awards (2006)

Marc Swackhamer 2005 invited juror for 2005 AIA Minneapolis Design Awards

Marc Swackhamer 2006 invited juror for 2006 AIA Minnesota 25 Year Award August 2006

Marc Swackhamer 2007 invited juror for 2007 AIA Minnesota 25 Year Award August 2007


Physical Resources

3-49

3.8 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

The accredited degree program must provide the physical resources appropriate for a professional degree program in architecture, including design studio

space for the exclusive use of each student in a studio class; lecture and seminar space to accommodate both didactic and interactive learning; office space

for the exclusive use of each full-time faculty member; and related instructional support space. The facilities must also be in compliance with the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA) and applicable building codes.

The APR must include the following information:

• A general description, together with labeled 8-1/2" x 11" plans of the physical plant, including seminar rooms, lecture halls, studios, offices, project review

and exhibition areas, libraries, computer facilities, workshops, and research areas, with accessibility clearly indicated.

• A description of any changes to the physical facilities either under construction or proposed.

• A description of the hardware, software, networks, and other computer resources available to students and faculty.

• Identification of any significant problem that impacts the operation or services, with a recommendation for improvements. The accredited degree program

must provide the physical resources appropriate for a professional degree program in architecture

NOTE: PLANS OF RAPSON HALL INCLUDED AT THE END OF THIS SECTION.

3.8.1 DESIGN STUDIO SPACE

Graduate student design studios are all located in Rapson Hall on the renovated second floor of the former

Architecture Building and the third floor of the addition. The large, open studios are each divided into four or five

smaller studio clusters. Each graduate student is assigned a desk for his/her exclusive use. All of the studio desks

have been replaced with "CDesK: The design, engineering, manufacture, and marketing of a unique furnishing

solution" by Kevin Groenke (W. L. Hall Workshop), The CDesK© CD provides Design and Manufacturing

Specifications for a durable, mobile, versatile and adaptable workstation in educational and professional design

environments. The unique “ladder-back” mounted shelves and accessories design allow the user to configure the

workstation to suit the way they work and encourages interaction with the work environment. Students share side

tables for large-scale work and storage. All studios in Rapson Hall are now technology enhanced and networked to

the CDES computer server. All graduate students are required to purchase their own laptop computers.

3.8.2 LECTURE AND SEMINAR SPACE

The university of provides centrally scheduled classrooms for our instructional use. The classrooms in the Rapson

Building are used by others on campus, sometimes making it necessary for our faculty to use classrooms outside of

the building. This makes it difficult at times because our faculty need to be close to the other facilities in the

building.


Physical Resources

3-50

3.8.3 OFFICE SPACE

Department of Architecture faculty offices are located in two wings of the Ralph Rapson Building and part of

the second floor above the west side of the building. The two wings and second floor area are linked by the

department’s lobby and reception space, a conference room, and supply and service area. Each member of the

regular faculty and our full-time adjuncts have an individual office (140 sq. ft.). All offices are connected by

ethernet to the studios, digital media labs, and the visual resource collection, as well as the internet. Recently

renovations were completed to enclose office spaces in the North side of the building. We were given an

additional four office spaces that house our new faculty.

Within the Department of Architecture, individual offices are assigned to the Senior Administrative Assistant,

the office manager and the Graduate Student Advisor. There is an office receptionist and student workers

that sit in a open area to great visitors and students. There are two conference rooms located off the reception

area. One is large enough for most committee and other small department meetings, the other, mostly used

by Landscape Architecture can be used by smaller groups; a larger CDES conference room on the second

floor of Rapson Hall is used for faculty meetings.

3.8.4 INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SPACE

The university of provides centrally scheduled classrooms for our instructional use. The centrally scheduled

classrooms in the Rapson Building are used by others on campus, sometimes making it necessary for our faculty to

use classrooms outside of the building. This makes it difficult at times because our faculty need to be close to the

other facilities in the building.

W.L. HALL WORKSHOP – 3500 SQ.FT.

http://design.umn.edu/current_students/leo/hall/index.html

General Description: The W. L. Hall Workshop provides equipment, facilities, staff support and user instruction to

eligible College of Design students for the execution and enrichment of their educational experience. The

Workshop provides a full complement of power and hand tools for the manipulation of wood and similar media; a

limited selection of equipment for the working of metals and related materials is also available. Workshop staff

provide user assistance, training and supervision while offering users an extensive knowledge of materials, tools,

processes and safety. Orientations available to all users include an introduction to the facility and staff while

outlining equipment usage and safe shop practices. Extensive online resources provide additional information for

Workshop users. The Workshop is open 75-80 hours per week during academic periods: professional shop staff are

present during all scheduled hours.


Physical Resources

3-51

FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT:

Workshop: 2300 sq.ft. - The Workshop provides a full complement of traditional woodworking and model-building

equipment. Commonly used consumables (adhesives, abrasives, fasteners, etc) are provided.

(2) 10” SawStop tablesaw

(17” bandsaw

(2) 14” bandsaw

(2) 9” bandsaw

12” jointer

20” planer

13” planer

(2) 12” miter saw

22” scroll saw

16” x 42” lathe

10” x 14” lathe

17” drill press

square chisel mortiser

37” dual drum sander

6” belt/12” disc sander

(2) 1” belt/5” disc sander

6” edge sander

spindle sander

(10) workbenches

requisite hand and portable power tools

Metal Shop: 500 sq.ft.

36” sheet metal shear

49” sheet metal brake

vertical bandsaw

horizontal bandsaw

dry cut circular saw

6” belt/12” disc sander

GMAW welder

GTAW welder

3)workbenches

DigiFabLab: 100 sq. ft. - Although the Workshop provides state-of-the-art digital fabrication equipment, it has fallen

behind some peer institutions in this regard; the College must continue to invest in such equipment and support

personnel.

Universal X-660, 18”x32”, 60 watt laser ZCorp Z-510 3D printer

Materials Store: 100 sq. ft. – The Workshop sells ~ $15,000 worth of commonly used materials annually to shop

users for their convenience.

MDF

particle board

plywood

acrylic & PETG sheet

chipboard

basswood

dowels

fasteners

adhesives


Physical Resources

3-52

Annex: 500 sq.ft. – the Annex is a dedicated workspace adjacent to the workshop which is accessible to eligible

students 24 hours/day. Students can check out portable and hand-held tools and equipment to utilize in the Annex

outside of the Workshop’s operating hours. The Annex also provides instructors and students a quiet area for

informal gatherings.

(10) workbenches

matt board/glass cutter

storeroom

spray booth

(2) 9” bandsaw

(2) 1” belt/5” disc sander

utility sink

Personnel: During academic periods the Workshop employs 3 professional staff and 4-6 student staff; the Workshop

Director position is 100% for 52 weeks.

The current Director has been in the position since 1994 and is a member of the Furniture Society and the

Minnesota Woodworkers Guild and a founding member of the Society of Architecture Workshop Supervisors

(SAWS) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/archmanagers/. SAWS is an ad-hoc community of architecture and

design shop personnel worldwide which provides a virtual meeting place for shop professionals to discuss technical,

administrative and pedagogical issues faced by all. Numerous SAWS members gather annually concurrent with

the annual conference of the Furniture Society: http://www.furnituresociety.org.

Two professional Workshop Technicians with a combined 12 years on the job are employed 75% for 30 weeks during

academic periods; opportunities for additional hours are periodically available throughout the year. Workshop

Technicians are encouraged to participate in professional organizations and to advance their technical expertise.

Four to six Student Technicians typically work ~40 hrs/wk collectively during academic sessions; most Student

Technicians are undergraduate or graduate students in architecture programs.

In addition to providing direct supervision and assistance to shop users, Workshop personnel provide technical,

design and production services to all units of the College of Design. One such project was the design and

manufacture of 320 new studio workstations: the resulting design, the CDesk, is being licensed for sale by the

University’s Office of Technology Commercialization: http://www.research.umn.edu/techcomm/CDesK.html.

Budget: The Workshop’s personnel and operations are funded entirely by the College of Design through central

allocations and collegiate fees. The college has generally approved budget proposals developed by shop staff

intended to continue the high historical standard of professional staff, equipment, supplies and operating schedule.

Budget reductions mandated by the University’s central administration in recent years have limited capital

investment in digital fabrication and related equipment and have reduced staffing levels and operating hours

outside of academic periods.


Physical Resources

3-53

TABLE 3-15 BUDGET FOR WORKSHOP

ITEM 08-09 07-08 06-07

Professional staff (salary + fringe) 128,000 131,624 114,700

Student staff 14,400 14,400 14,000

Supplies and Maintenance 10,000 6,000 5,225

3d printing consumables and service 9,000 5,000 0

Capital Equipment 4,000 4,000 65,000

Professional Development/Travel 2,000 1,500 775

Administrative fees 1,400 1,420 1,116

Total $168,800 $163,944 $200,816


Physical Resources

3-54

State of Affairs: With the recent formation of the College of Design, the Workshop is available to nearly twice

the number of students that it was prior to 2006. To date, geographic barriers and curricular issues have

limited the number of students other than those in architecture programs using the shop, but this will likely

change over time. Despite the increased user base, the College has made no significant improvements to the

Workshop’s facilities, personnel or operations budget nor does it have any concrete plans to do so in the

immediate future. The proposed addition of a product design program will place even greater demands on

fabrication resources. Workshop personnel have conducted an extensive peer study and have prepared a

comprehensive proposal outlining the improvements required to maintain parity with or surpass peer

institutions. The College must enact/fund significant aspects of this proposal if the Workshop is to continue to

serve all College of Design students to the standard that it has historically served students in architecture and

landscape architecture programs.

IMAGING LAB

OVERVIEW

Located in Ralph Rapson Hall, the Imaging Lab provides image production facilities to students, faculty and

staff in the College of Design. The facilities include a photographic studio with specialized lighting and

backgrounds, large format artwork scanners, film scanners and a desktop 3d scanner. Additional equipment is

available for checkout to registered students. The lab staff also provides technical support for college sponsored

lectures and events. Tapes of lectures recorded by the lab are available for viewing in the lab. Key lectures are

also compressed and placed on the college web server. Videotape editing and duplicating are also done in the

lab.

FACILITIES & EQUIPMENT

The Imaging Lab studio occupies 1200 sq. ft. and is strategically located on the first floor next to the main

college computer lab. This arrangement allows students to produce images of projects in the studio then move

to the computer lab for post-production work.

A high quality ink jet photography printer is available for output of portfolios and competition entries.

Items for checkout include:

Digital Cameras, Video Cameras, Tripods, Lighting & Stands

LCD Data Projectors, Screens & Laptops

Audio Recorders, Speakers & Audio Mixers


Physical Resources

3-55

STAFFING

The Imaging Lab is staffed by 2 full time professional employees, the lab manager and a principal

photographer. While the role of the principal photographer is to produce images for the college on both

campuses, the lab manager also performs functions as a photographer along with the role of coordinator of

Academic Resources. The lab staff also provides technical assistance to the college for lectures and special

events through preplanning and documentation by video and audio recording.

During the academic year, specially trained student lab attendants help with lab operations. Generally, 4 to 5

students work in the lab 8 to 10 hours per week.

FINANCING

Like many other areas in the college, the Imaging Lab staff and operations are funded through the college by

collegiate fees.

The budget allocation for 2008/09 is: $182,373

3.8.5 COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) AND APPLICABLE BUILDING DODES.

The Ralph Rapson Building is in compliance with the ADA. We have an elevator in the building and a wheel

chair ramp coming from the courtyard into the building. We have three entrances/exits that are handicap

accessible.

3.8.5.1 PHYSICAL PLANT—DESCRIPTION AND PLANS

8-1/2-inch by 11-inch plans for Ralph Rapson Hall and the Mann (YMCA) Building at the end of this section.

Square footages are listed on the plans.

3.8.5.2 CHANGES TO THE PHYSICAL FACILITIES—PROPOSED OR UNDER CONSTRUCTION

We currently have no plans or changes to our physical facilities. In summer 2008, new faculty offices were

completed in the North wing of the first floor and the School of Architecture was allocated four faculty offices

spaces.


Physical Resources

3-56

3.8.6 COMPUTER RESOURCES

COLLEGE OF DESIGN COMPUTER LABS

The College of Design provides architecture students with state-of-the-art computer lab facilities on both

campuses in Rapson Hall (Minneapolis) and McNeal Hall (St. Paul). The computer labs are managed by a full-

time employee who supervises undergraduate and graduate level student staff (lab attendants); providing

assistance during regular lab hours:

TABLE 3-16 COMPUTER LAB HOURS

DAY(S) HOURS

Monday – Thursday 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 a.m.

Friday 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.

Saturday 10:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.

Sunday 12:00 p.m. – 12:00 a.m.

CDes graduate-level students have 24-hour access to the computer lab in Rapson Hall room 127 with their

university ID card.

COMPUTING CAPABILITIES

Rapson Hall, which primarily serves architecture students, has three computer labs: Room 127, a working lab,

and Rooms 33 and 35, teaching labs. Specifics on the computers available in each lab are shown below.

TABLE 3-17 COMPUTER LAB SPECIFICATIONS

ROOM NUMBER AND TYPE OF COMPUTERS

Rapson 127 19 Dell Precision T3400 PC workstations

Rapson 33 25 Dell Precision 390 PC workstations

Rapson 35 12 Dell Dimension 9150 PC workstations

All of the Rapson Hall computers have 1 Gbps network connections and DVD-RW capabilities as well as USB

connections for external storage. All computers are running Microsoft’s Windows XP Pro. The university

provides ďNetFiles,Ē a browser-accessible storage service (based on technology licensed from Xythos) with 5 GB


Physical Resources

3-57

of capacity for each student. The College of Design provides network storage for specific classes based on faculty

requests which is accessible on each computer. Authentication and authorization for access to lab computers is

done via the university’s central Active Directory service.

APPLICATION SOFTWARE

The computer labs in Rapson Hall have an extensive selection of application software customized for the needs

of architecture students

Adobe Creative Suite 3 Design Premium

Adobe Premiere Elements 4

ArcGIS 9.2

AutoCAD 2009

Revit 2009

3DS Max Design 2009

ECOTECT 5.6

Flamingo 2.0

Rhino 4.0

Fragstats

FSP Viewer

Google Earth 4

HydroCAD 8.5

Kerkythea 2008

Notepad++

Google SketchUp 6

Windows Movie Maker

Microsoft Office 2003

PRINTING AND PLOTTING

Professional quality laser printing, plotting, and scanning equipment rounds out the Rapson Hall computer lab

facilities and includes the following equipment located in room 127:

• Two HP DesignJet 5500ps color plotters

• One HP T610 plotter

• Two Epson Expression 10000 XL 11x17Ē color flatbed scanners

• One GraphTec CS1000EV 8-bit continuous feed 36-inch scanner

• Two Canon C5180 color laser printers

Printing and plotting on this equipment is available for a nominal fee. Scanners are available for use free-of-

charge.

3.8.7 PROBLEMS OR CONCERNS REGARDING PHYSICAL RESOURCES

Frederick Mann Building (1425 University Avenue)—6,584 sq ft


Physical Resources

3-58

The University has upgraded the lighting and mechanical systems and repaired spaces and materials that have

produced mold. However, there are still some complaints about this building. The Mann Building now

provides office space for CDES’s landscape research fellows on the first floor and CDES’s Center for

Sustainable Building Research on the second floor. The University has upgraded the basement, first and

second floors to include improved air conditioning and interior finishes. This building is still considered a part

of the college, providing space for landscape research, the Center for Sustainable Building Research, and

undergraduate architecture studios.


Information Resources

3-59

3.9 INFORMATION RESOURCES

Readily accessible library and visual resource collections are essential for architectural study, teaching, and research. Library collections must include at

least 5,000 different cataloged titles, with an appropriate mix of Library of Congress NA, Dewey 720–29, and other related call numbers to serve the

needs of individual programs. There must be adequate visual resources as well. Access to other architectural collections may supplement, but not

substitute for, adequate resources at the home institution. In addition to developing and managing collections, architectural librarians and visual

resources professionals should provide information services that promote the research skills and critical thinking necessary for professional practice and

lifelong learning.

The architectural librarian and, if appropriate, the professional in charge of visual resources collections, must include in the APR the following:

• A description of the institutional context and administrative structure of the library and visual resources

• An assessment of the library and visual resource collections, services, staff, facilities, and equipment that does the following:

–Evaluates the degree to which information resources support the program’s mission, planning, curriculum, and research specialties

–Assesses the quality, currency, suitability, range, and quantity of resources in all formats, (traditional and electronic)

–Demonstrates sufficient funding to enable continuous collection growth –Identifies any significant problem that affects the operation or services and

recommends improvement

• An assessment of the budget and administration of the library and visual resource operations (see Appendix B)

• A statistics report (see Appendix C).

3.9.1 LIBRARY COLLECTIONS

ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE LIBRARY

GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The Architecture and Landscape Architecture Library is one of the branch libraries within the University

Libraries system. With a collection total of 6,867,777 printed volumes and 29,486 electronic and 20,752 print

serial subscriptions, the University Libraries is the 17th largest research library in North America. There are

five major libraries and over twenty smaller units located across the Twin Cities campus, including branches,

archives, special collections, and rare books. The University Libraries is a member of the Research Library

Group.

The Architecture and Landscape Architecture collection, housing 42,724 volumes, is concentrated in the areas

of Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Urban Planning, and Building and Site Technology. The library

supports the graduate and undergraduate curricula for the Architecture and Landscape Architecture

departments in the College of Design, which are the only accredited professional programs in those two subject

areas in the state of Minnesota. The library provides services to faculty, students, and staff from the University of



3-60

Minnesota, professionals in architecture and landscape architecture, and the general public in the Twin Cities

community and in Minnesota.

COLLECTION

The collection consists of 42,724 volumes of books and bound journals, 167 active journal subscriptions, a small

number of DVD and videotapes, and other printed and electronic resources. It primarily supports the needs of

the curriculum and research areas in each department and in the research centers of College of Design. The

collection includes some supplemental resources in the areas of professional practice and regional interests.

Interdisciplinary collections and resources are housed at the Wilson Library on the West Bank of the

Minneapolis campus, and in the Magrath Library on the St. Paul campus. Through the university's Document

Delivery Service, users have access to books from any university location. Books can be borrowed and articles

obtained from other institutions through the Interlibrary Loan service.

The University of Minnesota Libraries currently offers over 300 online databases and indexes. Some of these

indexes include full-text online articles. The users of the Architecture and Landscape Architecture library

primarily research The Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Art Full Text, JSTOR, ARTStor, Geobase, and Lexis-

Nexis Academic Universe. The Avery Index is most widely used.

University Libraries provides the Architecture and Landscape Architecture Library with an annual acquisition

budget. Selection of materials is done by the librarian, and the librarian is open to receiving recommendations

from faculty and students. The subscriptions to the electronic databases that support architecture and landscape

architecture are mostly covered under the central budget.

During the 2001 academic year, the Director of the Design Institute, working with the librarian and the

Libraries’ administration, established a two-year term supplemental fund to support expansion of the design-

related collection in the Architecture and Landscape Architecture Library. Currently, most of DHA-related

materials are housed in Magrath Library in St. Paul.

During the academic years 1998-2000, nearly 10,000 Dewey Decimal volumes were reclassified into the

Library of Congress system. In addition to this project, the collection of books in quarto and octavo sizes,

excluding folio and flat sizes, was inter-filed in the stacks. These projects brought the entire collection into one

classification system, without size-specific filing in the stacks, providing users with enhanced subject browsing.



3-61

TABLE 3-18 LIBRARY COLLECTION EXPENDITURES

TYPES OF COLLECTIONS NUMBER OF VOLUMES

(07/08)

EXPENDITURES BUDGET YEAR BEFORE LAST

(06/07)

BUDGET LAST YEAR (07/08)

BUDGET THIS YEAR

(08/09)

Books 42,724 $50,852.10 $51,048.81 $57,072.15

Periodical Subscriptions 167 $21,082.62 $24,848.66 $24,759.90

Other Serial Subscriptions 24

Microfilm Reels 244

Microfiche 0

Slides 0

Videos* 54

Drawings 0

Photographs 0

Other (specify)

Total 43,213 $71,934.72 $75,897.47 $81,832.05

SERVICES

The library provides circulation, class reserve, reference service, and library instruction with two full-time staff

and six to eight part-time student assistants. The library is open 65 hours a week including weekends and

evenings. Two full-time staff are available for reference during weekday business hours. Besides person-to-

person reference transactions, the library staff answers reference questions from remote locations, via e-mail

or telephone.

The architecture faculty and students actively use the library as an essential part of their research and study.

Working with faculty members each semester, the librarian conducts numerous library instruction sessions

emphasizing electronic resources and specifically aimed at the needs of students. Library instruction and

exercises are designed to integrate course content into the learning of basic and advanced research techniques.

The librarian is in the process of establishing library instruction as a part of the future curriculum. In addition

to structured library instruction, the librarian leads several library orientation sessions for new and transferred

students. Individual assistance in the use of library resources is available from the library staff during the

library’s open hours.



3-62

The circulation activity in the Architecture and Landscape Architecture Library is one of the highest among the

branch libraries in the University Libraries system and is consistently remains high, as detailed below:

TABLE 3-19 LIBRARY USAGE 2005-2008

YEAR ITEMS CHARGED BY THE UNIT

2005/06 14,884

2006/07 15,954

2007/08 14,596

PERSONNEL

There is two full-time staff––librarian and library assistant––and six to eight part-time student staff in the

library. During the summer months, the library hours are reduced, and the student staff is also reduced to one

full-time assistant. All funding for the library staff, including student staff, comes from the University Libraries

system. The job descriptions for both full-time staff are on file in the librarian’s office and in the University

Libraries' Human Resources office. The librarian has a B.S. degree in Library Science and Art, and a Masters

degree in Art, combined with junior college teaching experience and over twenty five years of architecture

library experience. The librarian is an active member of the Association of Architecture School Librarians

(AASL) and served as the Vice President, then President of the AASL, between 1998 and 2000. The librarian

regularly attends the AASL annual conference, as well as regional symposia and workshops. The library

assistant has a B.A. degree and has eighteen years of library experience. The University of Minnesota Human

Resources Office offers staff training programs, and the University Libraries' Staff Development and Training

Team has ongoing training sessions for library staff.

The student staff’s commitment and contributions to the library’s daily operations have been an asset, and the

adequate funding to support student employment has helped reduce, to some degree, the demands on full-time

staff.

BUDGET AND OPERATION

The administration of the University Libraries system funds all staff salaries, operational expenses, and

resource development for the library, including computer upgrades and technical assistance, supplies, and

activities for staff development. Most funds are adequate to maintain the current level of library activities.

Within the University Libraries administrative structure, the Architecture and Landscape Architecture Library

is a part of the Arts and Humanities department in the Academic Programs Division. Academic Programs

approves operational funding for the Architecture and Landscape Architecture Library.



3-63

TABLE 3-20 LIBRARY STAFF EXPENDITURES

TYPES OF POSITIONS

EXPENDITURES BUDGET YEAR

BEFORE LAST (05) BUDGET

LAST YEAR (06) BUDGET

THIS YEAR (07)

Librarians $58,277.60 $59,176.00 $61,027.20

Paraprofessionals $36,158.00 $38,102.00 $36,970.00

Clerks 0 0 0

Student Assistants $14,000 $14,000 $14,000

Volunteers 0 0 0

Total $108,435.60 $111,278.00 $111,997.20

The Libraries administration and the College occasionally collaborate in funding new initiatives by the

librarian, such as establishing Faculty/Alumni Art Exhibition Program, purchasing additional furniture

for the reading areas, and creating a new meeting room for both College and Libraries staff and students.

There are some areas in the library that were previously designed and yet to be completed in the future.

The Special Collections and Rare Books area will need to have proper cabinets and display shelves. These

unfinished areas will be completed as the College carries on its future plans.

FACILITIES

The Architecture and Landscape Architecture Library is located on the second level of the Ralph Rapson

Building, designed by Steven Holl. The 6-year old facility has 8,256 square feet and provides more space than

the previous location for the library’s collections, public spaces, offices, and staff work areas. The Rapson

Building and the library has attracted many more visitors and users to the collections, requiring an increased

amount of service.

In the fall of 2002, the library was moved from a floor area of 3,400 square-feet to a new space with 8,256

square-feet. The faculties from both departments have provided strong support for the library and the library

staff, as demonstrated by the attention paid to the new library space, especially in the context of the entire

remodeled and newly constructed building. The library, surrounded by design studios, is conveniently located in

an attractive environment.



3-64

PARTICIPATION OF FACULTY AND STUDENTS:

The librarian works closely with faculty from both departments within the College of Design and maintains

communication with the College administration. The Library Advisory Board, comprised of faculty

representing both departments, was formed in 2001 to promote communication link between the college,

departments, and the library, to work together on short-term and long-term goals, and to give support to the

library’s community building activities and various other needs.

The working relationship between the library and the departments is supportive, and the library’s relationship

to students and general users is positive. Faculty and students value the library’s collection and services, and

the library’s resources are well used as shown in the annual circulation statistics.


Financial Resources

3-65

3.10 FINANCIAL RESOURCES

An accredited degree program must have access to sufficient institutional support and financial resources to meet its needs and be comparable in

scope to those available to meet the needs of other professional programs within the institution.

The APR must provide the following:

• Comparative annual budgets and expenditures for each year since the last accreditation visit, including endowments, scholarships, one-time capital

expenditures, and development activities.

• Data on annual expenditures and total capital investment per student, both undergraduate and graduate correlated to the expenditures and

investments by other professional degree programs in the institution.

3.10.1 COMPARATIVE ANNUAL BUDGETS AND EXPENDITURES

TABLE 3-21 COMPARATIVE REVENUE AND EXPENSES BY UMN PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS, FY08

FY08 REVENUE FY08 EXPENDITURES

School of Architecture $4,120,295 $4,185,139

Dept of Landscape Architecture $1,513,861 $1,509,698

Design, Housing, & Apparel $3,208,404 $2,718,371

School of Dentistry $28,757,889 $28,851,101

Law School $28,008,693 $27,208,506

Humphrey Inst on Public Affairs $11,890,221 $11,545,545

College of Pharmacy $22,218,784 $21,372,956

Source: College of Design, Budget & Finance


Financial Resources

3-66

TABLE 3-22 – COMPARATIVE TUITION BY UMN PROFESSIONAL SCHOOLS, FY08

TUITION AND FEES RESIDENT NON-RESIDENT

School of Architecture

Per credit 705.92 1,090.84

12-17 credits 8,471.00 13,090.00

Each credit over 17 705.92 1,090.84

Humphrey Institute

Per credit 1,004.00 1,594.17

6-15 credits 6,024.00 9,565.00

Each credit over 15 1,044.00 1,594.17

School of Dentistry

Term (12 or more credits) 11,114.00 19,799.00

College of Agriculture

Per credit 416.34 698.34

12-18 credit plateau 4,996.00 8,380.00

Law School

Per credit 912.50 1,345.96


College of Pharmacy

Per credit 715.67 1,190.17


College of Veterinary Med

Per credit 858.92 1,636.34



Financial Resources

3-67

TABLE 3-23 SNAPSHOT OF FY08 SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE BUDGET

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE BUDGET: FISCAL YEAR 2008

REVENUE

Student Fees 12,705.00

Gifts and Bequests (Cass Gilbert yield, match and interest) 181,163.81

Sales and Services of Educational Acts 310,477.17

Base Allocation 4,212,311.10

Grants/Contracts 64,395.78

Total Revenue 4,781,052.86

EXPENSES

SALARIES / BENEFITS

Tenure / Tenure Track 2,289,287.18

Term Faculty 904,361.59

Staff 161,376.58

Teaching Assitants 701,650.77

Student Employees 21,043.05

Consulting Services 4,000.00

Travel - Domestic 55,458.40

Travel - Foreign 87,870.86

FACULTY AND STUDENT SUPPORT

Student Assistance 186,736.22

Bus Rental for Field Trips 4,919.29

Computing: Hardware and Software 23,401.58

OPERATING

Supplies and Services 218,082.14

Printing/Duplicating/Binding 13,443.74

Mailing/Postage 1,632.09

Telecommunications 2,021.65

Miscellaneous Exp. 4,597.54

Equipment 16,010.20

PROGRAMS / SPECIAL PROJECTS AND NEEDS

Travel: Non-Employee (Faculty Searches/Reviewers) 33,925.57

Publication/Design/Print 14,937.57

OTHER COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY FEES OR TRANSFERS

Bad Debt Expense 401.76

TIP Interest Charge 789.88

Administrative Fees (University fee on Salaries) 35,105.20

Total Expenses 4,781,052.86


Financial Resources

3-68

3.10.2 ANNUAL EXPENDITURES AND TOTAL CAPITAL INVESTMENT PER STUDENT

TABLE 3-24 COMPARATIVE REVENUE, EXPENSES AND O&M BY UNITS IN THE COLLEGE OF DESIGN


Administrative Structure

3-69

3.11 ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE

The accredited degree program must be, or be part of, an institution accredited by one of the following regional institutional accrediting agencies for

higher education: the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS); the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSACS); the

New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC); the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCACS); the Northwest

Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU); and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC). The accredited degree program

must have a measure of autonomy that is both comparable to that afforded other professional degree programs in the institution and sufficient to

ensure conformance with the conditions for accreditation.


• A statement verifying the institution’s accreditation from the regional institutional accrediting agency for higher education

• A description of the school’s administrative structure and a comparison of this structure with those of the other professional programs in the

institution

• A list of other degree programs, if any, offered in the same administrative unit as the accredited architecture degree program.

3.11.1 VERIFICATION OF ACCREDITATION



3-70

3.11.3 ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE OF THE SCHOOL

The administrative structure of the School is described in the org chart on the following page. The Head is an

appointed position based on a search. 2004 search was internal, 1999 search was national. The Director of

Graduate Studies (DGS) is voted by the graduate faculty and has a role defined by the graduate school. While

the School has greatly benefited by having the consistency of the same DGS for the past 6 years, the faculty have

agreed that the role is more appropriately rotated in two year terms among the tenured faculty. The role of the

Director of Undergraduate Studies (DUS) will also rotate among the faculty, ideally this is from among the

regular faculty ranks, but faculty felt it was possible for this role to be effectively filled by a full time adjunct

familiar with our programs. The Director of Design role was created in 2003 and became absorbed into the role

of the Head. Recently, it has been revived to oversee connections between studios. The structure of Head, DGS

and DUS is similar to many across the University and identical to Landscape Architecture in the College. These

roles and that of staff are described in Section 3.6.

Staff structure is shown in its current configuration, a new position is being created and will restructure the

staff by adding a department administrator reporting to the Head. Faculty and student governance structure

shown is an evolution of our previous curriculum and student governance structure.



3-71

FIGURE 3-1 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

3.11.4 OTHER DEGREE PROGRAMS IN THE SAME ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT

Master of Science in Architecture – Sustainable Design Track

Master of Science in Architecture – Heritage Preservation Concentration


Organization Chart Updated October 2008

Adm. Dir. C. Severson

DUGS/DGS Support P. Doble

Office Supervisor C. Schroeder

Director of Ugrad Studies N. Miller

Director of Grad Studies S. Weeks

Governing Faculty

Recruiting/ Admissions/ Advising T. Rafferty, Dir.

Head R. Cheng

Office Support D. Ingraham Student Workers

CDes Dean T. Fisher

Director of Design G. Dittmar

Faculty Advisory Suburban/ Urban/Rural

Faculty Advisory Sustainable Building Tech

Faculty Advisory Hist./Theory/ Culture

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee

Graduate Curriculum Committee

Assoc. Dean Academic Affairs K. Solomonson

Architecture Faculty

All Grad Students

Graduate Advisory Group


Professional Degrees and Curriculum

3-73

3.12 PROFESSIONAL DEGREES AND CURRICULUM

The number of credit hours for a Master of Architecture (M. Arch.) degree is specified below:

Master of Architecture: Accredited degree programs awarding the M. Arch. degree must require a minimum of 168 semester credit hours, or the

quarter-hour equivalent, of which 30 semester credit hours, or the quarter-hour equivalent, must be at the graduate level, in academic coursework in

professional studies and electives.

Curricular requirements are defined as follows:

General Studies: A professional degree program must include general studies in the arts, humanities, and sciences, either as an admission

requirement or as part of the curriculum. It must ensure that students have the prerequisite general studies to undertake professional studies. The

curriculum leading to the architecture degree must include at least 45 credit hours, or the quarter-hour equivalent, that must be outside architectural

studies either as general studies or as electives with other than architectural content. For the M. Arch. and D. Arch., this calculation may include

coursework taken at the undergraduate level.

Professional Studies: The core of a professional degree program consists of the required courses that satisfy the NAAB Student Performance Criteria.

The accredited degree program has the liberty to require additional courses including electives to address its mission or institutional context.

Electives: A professional degree program must allow students to pursue their special interests. The curriculum must be flexible enough to allow

students to complete minors or develop areas of concentration, inside or outside the program.


• Title(s) of the degree(s) offered.

• An outline, for each accredited degree program offered, of the curriculum showing the distribution of general studies, required professional courses

(including prerequisites), required courses, professional electives, and other electives .

• Examples, for each accredited degree offered, of the minors or concentrations students may elect to pursue.

• A list of the minimum number of semester credit hours or the equivalent number of quarter credit hours required for each semester or quarter,

respectively.

• A list identifying the courses and their credit hours required for professional content and the courses and their credit hours required for general

education for each accredited degree program offered.

• A list of off-campus programs, description of facilities and resources, course requirements, and length of stay.

3.12.1 COMPLIANCE WITH NAAB DISTRIBUTION OF CREDIT HOUR REQUIREMENTS FOR M ARCH DEGREE

PROGRAM

As a 90 credit M.Arch program, the School uses undergraduate generalist credits to fulfill the NAAB 45 credit

general studies requirement. Admission requirements state no more than 26 credits in architecture for an

entering B.S. student. This leaves ample time for general studies.



3-74

3.12.2 CONCENTRATIONS STUDENTS MAY ELECT TO PURSUE IN THE UMN M ARCH PROGRAM

With the recent curricular change, it is anticipated that students can choose to either specialize or remain

generalists. Among the choices of specialization are the MS degree are the most clearly defined paths.

3.12.3 REQUIRED GENERAL AND PROFESSIONAL STUDIES COURSES AND CREDIT HOURS

FIGURE 3-2 – PROGRAM PLAN



3-75

3.12.4 OFF-CAMPUS PROGRAMS

Off-campus program vary in duration. “M-term” is May term, lasting 3 weeks. “J-term” is January term lasting 3

weeks. University prefers to keep to official start dates for these intermediate terms, but end date can be flexible.

New in 2009 will be a graduate student only study abroad option for Arch5110; Architecture as Catalyst. Most M-

term are open to undergraduate and graduate, * indicates graduate only.

TABLE 3-25 – OFF CAMPUS PROGRAMS

DESTINATION DURATION CREDITS FACULTY LEADER RESIDENCE

OR TRAVEL AVER # OF

STUDENTS FREQUENCY

OF OFFERING YEARS

OFFERED

Netherlands semester or M-term 15 Julia Robinson residence 7-12* semi-annual, as

possible Since 2002

Chur, Switzerland semester 15 Gunnar Hartman residence 3* annual Since 2005

Port cities semester 15 Arthur Chen mixed 12-15* annual Since 2002

Biloxi semester 15 Gulf Coast Studio residence 3* annual Since 2006

Biloxi/New Orleans

Spring break 0 Tom Westbrook/

John Dwyer residence 12-15 annual Since 2006

India J-term 3 Srivastiva, Singh, Christenson travel 8 as possible 2004

Baku, Azerbaijan M-term 3

Arthur Chen, Bruno Franck, Bob Mack

residence 7-10 as possible 2006

Istanbul, Turkey M-term 3 Ozayr Saloojee travel 10-15* as possible 2007, 2008

Orkney, Scotland M-term 3 Bob Mack residence 9-12 as possible 2005, 2008

Athens, Greece M-term 3 Rachel Iannacone travel 10-12 as possible 2007

Malawi, Africa M-term 3 Leslie VanDuzer residence 5 pilot 2007

Biloxi M-term 3 Tom Westbrook residence 12-15 as possible 2007

Oaxaca, Mexico semester 15 Lance LaVine residence 3* as possible 2008

New Orleans 4 day 1 Julia Robinson residence 6-12* as possible 2009

Oaxaca, Mexico 4 day 1 Lance LaVine residence 6-12* as possible 2009

Tokyo, Japan M-term 3 Blaine Brownell mixed 10-12* as possible 2009

Cyprus/ Athens M-term 3 Rachel Iannacone,

Nikos Bakritis mixed 10-12 as possible 2009

Malawi, Africa M-term 3 Leslie VanDuzer residence 10-12 as possible 2009

Yemen M-term 3 Arthur Chen mixed 10-12 as possible 2009


Student Performance Criteria

3-77

3.13 STUDENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

The accredited degree program must ensure that each graduate possesses the knowledge and skills defined by the criteria set out below. The knowledge

and skills are the minimum for meeting the demands of an internship leading to registration for practice.

The school must provide evidence that its graduates have satisfied each criterion through required coursework. If credits are granted for courses taken at

other institutions, evidence must be provided that the courses are comparable to those offered in the accredited degree program.

The criteria encompass two levels of accomplishment:

• Understanding—means the assimilation and comprehension of information without necessarily being able to see its full implication.

• Ability—means the skill in using specific information to accomplish a task, in correctly selecting the appropriate information, and in applying it to

the solution of a specific problem.

The NAAB establishes performance criteria to help accredited degree programs prepare students for the profession while encouraging educational

practices suited to the individual degree program. In addition to assessing whether student performance meets the professional criteria, the visiting

team will assess performance in relation to the school’s stated curricular goals and content. While the NAAB stipulates the student performance

criteria that must be met, it specifies neither the educational format nor the form of student work that may serve as evidence of having met these

criteria. Programs are encouraged to develop unique learning and teaching strategies, methods, and materials to satisfy these criteria. The NAAB will

consider innovative methods for satisfying the criteria, provided the school has a formal evaluation process for assessing student achievement of these

criteria and documents the results.


• An overview of the school’s curricular goals and content.

• A matrix cross-referencing each required course with the performance criteria it fulfills. For each criterion, the school must highlight the cell on the

matrix that points to the greatest evidence of achievement.

For the purpose of accreditation, graduating students must demonstrate understanding or ability in the following areas [Sections 3.13.1 through

3.13.34].

For an overview of school’s curricular goals and content, refer to appendix A (New Curriculum). The appendix

booklet illustrates courses and student work according to the themes: Build on Tradition, Embrace Challenge

and Expect Change. Grouping courses under these headings was a helpful way to understand the courses, but

other ways that the courses have been arrayed for analysis include NAAB Student Performance criteria more

explicitly.

Over the course of the last two years, a matrix such as the one on the next page was used to develop and test the

curriculum. Studying the match between NAAB minimum criteria and the School’s aspirations for individual

and groups of courses was a valuable exercise. It became clear that the matrix was more powerful tool if criteria

were not sorted in numerical order but rather groups according to priorities in each course. To further

increase the usefulness of the matrix in curricular testing, courses were designated as “Primary Course” for


Student Performance Criteria

3-78

particular criteria and indicated with a yellow line. Those courses that fall on the yellow line form a

streamlined demonstration of how the curriculum meets minimum NAAB Student Performance Criteria.

Courses not on the yellow line make enormous contributions to the curriculum and should not be discounted.

However, the yellow line might serve as the Visiting Team’s “road map” during the visit. The following page is

a foldout with both criteria arranged in two ways: numerically and grouped by primary course. Only required

courses are shown on matrices. A matrix of elective courses is under development and will be completed long

before the spring team visit.

4.0 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

Student Progress Evaluation Procedures

4-1

4.1 STUDENT PROGRESS EVALUATION PROCEDURES

Supplemental information to the APR must include the following:

• A description of the procedures for evaluating student transfer credits and advanced placement.

• A description of the procedures for evaluating student progress, including the institutional and program policies and standards for evaluation,

advancement, graduation, and remediation.

4.1.1 TRANSFER AND ADVANCED PLACEMENT

Transfer credits are discussed in advising session with the student and the DGS and/or Graduate Student

Advisor. Syllabi from previous course work must demonstrate significant overlap with required courses in our

program. Pre-professional courses with some overlap may be counted towards Architecture elective courses,

freeing time for non-architecture electives or lowering the number of credits required for graduation.

From the FAQ on admissions website:

http://arch.design.umn.edu/graduate_admissions_faq.html

What is advanced placement and do I qualify?

Although our standard program is 3 years in length, each fall we accept a few students with advanced standing into the second year of the program. To apply for advanced standing, applicants must possess a pre-professional B.S. degree with a major in Architecture and must have completed at least one course in structures, environmental science and building systems, with at least four semesters of architecture design studios.

Please note that applicants with a professional, 5-year B. Arch. degree are automatically considered for advanced standing.

4.1.2 STUDENT PROGRESS, ACADEMIC POLICIES

The following is an excerpt from page 9-11, graduate student handbook

http://arch.design.umn.edu/documents/a-ARCHGradStudHNDBKver2007-08.pdf

ACADEMIC POLICIES FOR THE MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE/ MASTER OF SCIENCE DEGREES

The School of Architecture expects all students to succeed. The policies listed below are put in place to safeguard the integrity of the program for the students and faculty consistent with the desires of the School of Architecture and the Graduate School.

GRADING POLICIES

The School of Architecture uses the two grading systems of the Graduate School: A-B-C-D-F (with pluses and minuses) and S-N. All A-F registrations in the Graduate School, regardless of course



4-2

level, will be calculated in the cumulative GPA. Changes in grading option are not allowed after the second week of the term. 5xxx and 8xxx courses with grades of A, B, C and S may be applied to a Graduate School degree program. The Director of Graduate Studies may allow 4xxx, 6xxx, and 7xxx courses as graduate credit only if they are taught by members of the Graduate faculty and have prior written approval.

All required courses listed on the Master of Architecture and the Master of Science degree program form must be taken A-F, except as noted. Students may petition to deviate from this policy.

School of Architecture guidelines/conditions for awarding/completing an "I"

The symbol "I" may be assigned by an instructor to indicate "incomplete" in accordance with University guidelines and the provisions announced in class (syllabus) at the beginning of the semester. In general, an "I" is issued ONLY when at least 80% of the coursework is complete, there are compelling personal, health or other emergency conditions, and there is an expectation that the student will successfully complete the course work in a reasonable amount of time. An instructor will issue an "I" with a thoroughly worked out contract stating the goals and deadline to meet those goals. Both parties must then sign this contract with copies to the Director of the Graduate Studies, the instructor of record and the student.

The School of Architecture strongly discourages students from having incompletes on their transcripts. A maximum of two “I”s are allowed on a transcript. Incompletes should be removed from the transcript prior to the commencement of the next semester. An incomplete in a course does not constitute satisfaction of a pre-requisite requirement or to continue to the next course in a sequence.

The Graduate School issues bi-annual reports to the DGS regarding students who have incompletes on their record. Students who do not respond to the DGS or who resist completing course work risk having a "registration hold" placed on their records. The presence of incompletes will affect offers of financial aid, including TA and RA positions. Reasonable exceptions to this policy may only be approved by the Director of the Graduate Studies in consultation with the student, adviser and the instructor.

GRADE CHANGES

Reasons for a grade change

Grade disputes involving an instructor's judgment in assigning a grade based on academic performance may be resolved informally between the instructor and the student. A student may ask an instructor to review the original grade submission. Grounds for a grade change might include an error in calculation, a dispute over a final exam or paper grade that changed the expected grade. Acceptable reasons include but are not limited to errors and omissions on the part of the instructor or re-evaluation of the work; unacceptable reasons are submission of late work or additional work submission.

Procedure for a grade change

The instructor of record submits all grades electronically. If an instructor has reason to believe the grade of record was incorrect, they will submit a supplemental electronic grade change and select a reason for the change. The DGS must electronically approve the grade change for it to become official. When the instructor of record is off duty, the DGS may approve the request directly. This is done in order to preserve the integrity of the graduate transcript as an accurate record of a student's academic progress.



4-3

RETAKING COURSES

The Graduate School discourages the retaking of courses to improve grades. If a course is retaken, appropriate tuition and fees will be assessed. All registrations and grades for the repeated course remain on the student's transcript and are calculated into the cumulative GPA. The additional credits incurred may not be used to satisfy any degree program credit requirement. Professional degree students (M.ARCH) not meeting the GPA requirements for the required Design Studios will be asked to retake a specific required design studio.

COURSES TAKEN FOR GRADUATE CREDIT OUTSIDE THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

The School of Architecture has specific limitations on transfer credits. For the M.ARCH professional degree, undergraduate courses taken at NAAB accredited programs, are evaluated for the equivalent Minnesota appropriate course. Any Minnesota course that is exempted from the candidate’s Graduate Degree Program form at the time of admission reduces the total credits to complete the Master’s degree.

These courses entered on the Degree Program form must be on an official transcript from an accredited NAAB architecture program.

Policies defining Satisfactory Progress toward the Degree

The student’s Adviser will review student transcripts at least once per year to ensure satisfactory progress toward the professional Masters of Architecture or the Master’s of Science. The DGS will request a meeting with students who appear to be unable to graduate in a timely manner.

SATISFACTORY GRADE POINT AVERAGE

A graduate student must maintain a Grade Point Average of 2.80 or better to be in good standing. Grade Point Averages that fall below 2.80, either as a cumulative or semester GPA, will trigger a progress review between the student and the adviser and the Director of Graduate Studies.

SATISFACTORY DESIGN STUDIO PROGRESS IN THE M.ARCH DEGREE

In addition to fulfilling the Graduate School requirements, students must meet the following program-specific criteria for satisfactory progress toward their degree. The award of grades in the required Architectural Design Studio sequence follows a different set of guidelines. The Design Studio is the core of the professionally accredited M. ARCH degree and as such is held to higher performance standards.

M.ARCH Students must achieve a grade of “B-” (2.67) or better in a Design Studio in order to move to the next studio in the sequence without special approval of the Director of Graduate Studies. After the first semester of design, cumulative Grade Point Averages for the required Design Studios that fall below 2.67 will trigger a progress review. Any semester grade below a “B-” in any core Design Studio after the first Design Studio, ARCH 8251, will automatically initiate a probationary status and review as described below. Two studios below “B-” constitute grounds for dismissal (termination of graduate status). In a case where a student is not meeting academic standards, the DGS has the discretion to ask the Academic Standards Committee to review the case and make a recommendation for action or dismissal.

PROBATION, HOLDS AND TERMINATION OF GRADUATE STUDENT STATUS

Progress Review for Unsatisfactory Grade Performance or Progress in the Program

The Progress Review is a meeting between the student and the Director of Graduate Studies and may result in a probationary status being placed on the student’s file. The conditions of this probationary status will include specific goals for the removal of that status. The student's



4-4

graduate adviser, the DGS and the Graduate Program Manager participate in the review with the student. A Design Review committee will be assigned to conduct the review when necessary for personnel absences, changes in progress, or other unforeseen circumstances. The DGS may ask for a separate review or initiate a sequence of post-semester reviews when there is evidence that the student is having difficulty meeting the satisfactory progress criteria.

Holds

Holds are a measure of last resort. A hold may be imposed for unpaid tuition or fees (e.g., library fines) or for disciplinary or scholastic reasons. For example, a hold can be placed on a student's record due to low GPA (below 2.8), excessive incompletes or failure to file required Graduate School forms in a timely manner. A hold is placed on a record at the discretion of the DGS and is removed by the DGS once the situation is resolved. If you have a hold on your record, you may not register for classes or thesis credits or obtain official transcripts.

Termination of Graduate Student Status

When performance is unsatisfactory in terms of grades or normal progress toward the degree objective and the student has failed to complete the goals to remove the probationary status, an Academic Standards Committee will consider a termination of status in the School of Architecture and the Graduate School. The ASC will include one or more members of the architecture faculty, the Director of Graduate Studies, and the Chair of the student’s Master’s Committee, if appropriate.

The Dean of the Graduate School may terminate the student’s graduate status because of the student’s failure to maintain the minimum standards of achievement or progress as stipulated in print by the Graduate School and the Architecture faculty. The degree program is obligated to publish its standards and criteria either in the form of a Handbook for students or on its website (or both). The Dean shall act after reviewing the student’s academic record and the recommendation of the graduate adviser and the faculty of the graduate program, or of any committee charged by that faculty with the evaluation of student progress.

The following is an excerpt pp 11-12 Graduate Student Handbook: Annual Graduate Student Progress Report–

see Appendix J.

ANNUAL GRADUATE STUDENT PROGRESS REPORT

The Annual Progress Report

Each architecture graduate student (MS in Architecture or M.ARCH) will fill out the School's Annual Progress Report (see Appendix A) prior to the annual adviser-student meeting. The adviser will confirm the progress, comment as appropriate on the student's experience in the program and then forward the outcome to the Director of Graduate Studies. The DGS will meet with the student if necessary, make recommendations for actions and add the report to the student's record held by the Graduate Program Manager. A copy of this annual report is given to the student.

Annual Progress Report Information

The information that serves as the basis for the report includes, but is not restricted to the following:

• Cumulative GPA (must be 2.8 or greater to graduate)

• Recommendations for and Record of Awards, Scholarships, and Assistantships

• Evaluations of TA or RA performance by students or faculty



4-5

• Other academic, professional or service efforts, recognition in studio or classes.

• Filing of Milestones: paperwork (e.g., degree program form)

• The following apply to the M.ARCH professional graduate student:

• Cumulative Design Studio GPA (must be 2.67 or greater to graduate)

• Individual Design Studio Grades (@ B- or better to continue without permission)

• Satisfactory evaluation the Comprehensive Project.

• Faculty Studio Reports: At the end of each semester, the studio instructor will submit a report evaluating the student’s development, design knowledge, communication skill.

EVALUATION DECISIONS AND CONDITIONS

The DGS is responsible for communicating in writing the review outcome to the student with copies to the student Adviser and the Graduate Program Manager. The student should receive their written evaluation no more than two weeks following the progress review.

Students who do not meet either the general Graduate School degree requirements and/or the School's established goals/expectations of the Master's program, will be provided with clear, written instructions on the conditions that must be met to remain in good standing as a graduate student in the program. These conditions may include ways to meet a minimum GPA, eliminating incomplete grades, a timeframe for meeting those conditions, and the outcomes if the requirements/conditions are not met.

RECORD-KEEPING

The Annual Progress Reports will be collected in spring semester, around early April for Graduate students enrolled in ARCH 8251 and 8253, including those enrolled in any Study Abroad program. The Graduate Program Manager will maintain the Graduate student's annual evaluations, with a copy placed in each student's file. Any post-graduation correspondence will be included in the file; this may assist with future professional applications (IDP, AIA issues, NCARB inquiries, state registration examining board.


Studio Culture Policy

4-7

4.2 STUDIO CULTURE POLICY

Supplemental information to the APR must include the school’s current studio culture policy.

Following is an excerpt from the faculty handbook given to all faculty and discussed in a meeting with Head on

the faculty person’s first semester teaching or returning semester if coming back to teaching after time away.

Sections below are relevant to studio culture, workload and studio ethics, full document is in Appendix B:

ACADEMIC POLICIES FOR DESIGN AND DRAWING STUDIOS – EXCERPTED FROM FACULTY HANDBOOK

Written by R. Cheng, director of design 10/31/02, adopted by studio faculty in 2002-3, modified by Ad-hoc

Academic Policies committee (chaired by S.Roe) 2004-5, updated 2008-9.

INTRODUCTION

Studio education is a unique model that offers great opportunity for teaching and learning but also great responsibility on the part of both student and teacher. This handbook will outline certain suggested studio procedures that should be adapted for each individual instructor and some policies that have been adopted by the full faculty of the School of Architecture and University of Minnesota and must be followed by all those teaching in studio. It was primarily written for the design studio faculty, but much of the material is relevant for the drawing studio and other studio-based teaching.

The University provides excellent materials on-line regarding code of conduct, grading standards and syllabi guidelines noted in the general academic policies section of the Architecture Faculty Handbook. This section of the handbook is intended as a supplement to those resources and you should familiarize yourself with them.

Some of the contents of this handbook may seem common sense, or others overly dictated. Keep in mind this handbook was written to try to maintain the integrity of the studio education, to provide a basis for professional behavior in the studios and to provide clear and defensible standards for studio teaching.

FACULTY WORKLOAD EXPECTATIONS

It is expected that all faculty will spend time outside of class contact hours. It is required that all faculty coordinate with others teaching in their year level and with the studio coordinators. Time for this and other activities should be budgeted when judging the time required to teach. Only very rarely can class time be used for any of these activities:

• preparation time

• grading

• advising

• studio coordination meetings

Office hours: faculty are required to be available one hour per week outside of class times, this can be fixed or by appointment and must be published in the syllabus.



4-8

STUDENT EXPECTATIONS

Student Attendance

Faculty may not schedule any required class activity outside of regular class hours. This means that a student cannot be penalized for missing an event outside of studio hours. Events outside of class hours can be arranged with your group but attendance cannot be graded and there must be some way for a student who cannot attend to make up for required work resulting from this outside event. Studio instructors can collaborate or trade with non-studio instructors to combine required class time into one larger time block.

Exceptions to this are made for site visits or field trips that have been advertised as part of the studio before the students elect to enroll in the studio.

Students are not allowed to have a regularly scheduled event during studio hours. Students may not have other classes, physical therapy sessions, paid work time, work-study time in the building during studio hours.

Student Workload

University mandates for grad and undergrad students respectively:

“It is expected that the academic work required of graduate and professional students will exceed three hours per credit per week (over a full semester) necessary for an average student to achieve an average grade in the course. Studio courses are six credits, therefore eighteen hours of learning effort per week are expected for an average student taking this course to achieve an average grade.

For undergraduate courses, one credit is defined as equivalent to an average of three hours of learning effort per week (over a full semester) necessary for an average student to achieve an average grade in the course. Design studio is a six credit studio, therefore eighteen hours of learning effort per week are expected for an average student taking this course to achieve an average grade.”

The above describes TOTAL time spent on studio including the 12 contact hours per week for the typical design studio.

The "average student to achieve the average grade" is obviously not the ideal situation. Referring to the grading standards we clearly hope that most of our students put in above average effort to achieve a higher level of work.

As we all know, studio education is a unique and highly charged experience, unlike any other model on campus. The expectation over the years has been that studio is all-consuming and hours cannot be counted.

We are fully in support of creating an intense experience where the students are completely committed to their work. However there are two recent reports to consider:

1) Tom Fisher reports from the AIA that the single most common complaint that practitioners have of our graduates is that they have no time management skills (the second most common is that they cannot keep their workspaces orderly!)

2) The AIAS national group of students has published a widely circulated report on the state of the design studio. In the report, there is a call to allow students to have a life outside of studio to enrich their education as architects. The balance that they seek is not just for social time, it is also for other classes that a significant part of their education.

With these two factors in mind, we should support the spirit behind the workload guidelines mandated by the University and not try to create a special exception for studio. I think that we can



4-9

operate within the University rules AND maintain the studio standards and culture that we all value so highly.

We need to use studio time effectively and to encourage the students to find ways to quickly drop into that "zone" of concentration in their outside time. Much of the time spent at studio is social and cannot really be considered "hours of learning effort". We would do our students a great service if we can teach them to achieve productive hours at times other than 2am!

Deadlines

Students’ final work must be collected no later than the night before the review. This ensures a more sane and productive review for all involved. Collection times may vary, but whatever the time is, it should be enforced by the instructor going to studio, reviewing all work that is completed by that time and encouraging all students to leave the building. In some cases, the instructor may feel justified in allowing a student to complete a finite part of the whole project but it should be clear that all students will be graded only on what is completed at the deadline time. In reality, it is difficult to separate specific work that is completed after the deadline but a late penalty can be factored into the overall grade. An alternative to the collection by instructor is an honor agreement, but it is recommended that it be a signed agreement and required that it is part of the studio syllabus and discussed with all students.

All deadlines - intermediate and final - must be coordinated with your studio coordinator. Studio coordinators will be responsible for staggering deadlines between studios to relieve pressure on the lab and shop as well as coordinating with instructors in non-studio courses with the same students. You may be asked to move deadlines to help with the overall coordination of students’ workload or facilities capacity.

STUDIO CULTURE

Studio Ethic

It is essential that the instructor establish a strong studio ethic at the beginning of the semester. This includes responsible attitudes towards:

• Maintaining a physical studio environment workable for all (clean, free from unwanted noise, sharing space/light/data and power access equitably)

• Maintaining a professional environment workable for all (respectful, inclusive, non-discriminatory). This means: no cell phones on during class hours for instructors or students, clean studios that the janitors can access and reasonably clean

Time Management

It is highly suggested that a studio meeting is held at least once per week or daily as needed. In this meeting, the overall goals for the week or day are laid out, the schedule for mini-deadlines, expectation for each mini-deadline and clarification of any changes to the issued problem statement.

One of the most common complaints from the AIA is that our graduates have poor time management skills. Studio instructors can help with this by structuring exercises with clear and realistic time line, estimated interim goals and in-studio exercises that help the students make “leaps” in process.

It is imperative that every studio hour is potentially productive. There are always reflective and social times in studio, however, instructors should have a clear lesson plan for each day and week. It is highly suggested that instructors incorporate a well-balanced and well-timed mix of the following:



4-10

• in-class exercises,

• studio lectures by you or drawing from the resources of the School and larger community,

• exercises/discussion structured around lectures or readings

• group critiques of various sizes and groupings

• individual desk crits

• pin-up reviews

• formal reviews

• team exercises

• individual exercises

• shop-based exercises

• lab-based exercises

• library-based exercises

• field trips

Student Process

At all stages of the curriculum, students need help developing a process of working that can be sustained after leaving your studio. It is highly suggested that you find ways to incorporate the following into your exercises:

• Design process is not linear and not rational, leaps of scale, change of media, shift of focus are necessary

• Design is unending, but closure can be reached at various points in the process

• Analysis and editing are equally important and far more difficult to teach than ideation and creation

• As Anni Albers says, we seek to establish “boundaries for the task of free imagination”


Course Descriptions

4.3 COURSE DESCRIPTIONS

Supplemental information to the APR must include for each required and elective course in the accredited degree program a one-page description with

an overview, learning objectives, course requirements, prerequisites, date(s) offered, and faculty member teaching it.

REQUIRED COURSES FOR THE PROFESSIONAL DEGREE: MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE

All courses from this list are required:

ARCH 5110: Architecture as Catalyst

ARCH 8251: Graduate Architectural Design One

ARCH 8253: Graduate Architectural Design Two

ARCH 8255: Graduate Architectural Design Three

ARCH 5411: Principles of Design Theory

ARCH 54xx: Elective Approved History

ARCH 5515: Technology I: Building Materials & Construction Systems

ARCH 5516: Technology II: Luminous & Thermal Design

ARCH 5517: Technology III: Structural Systems

ARCH 8254: Technical Applications in Design

ARCH 5621: Professional Practice in Architecture

ARCH 8777: Master’s Thesis

One elective* is required from this list:

*ARCH 5421: Architectural Interpretation Cave & Light

*ARCH 5423: Gothic Architecture

*ARCH 5424: Renaissance Architecture

*ARCH 5425: Baroque Architecture

*ARCH 5431: 18C Arch & Enlightenment

*ARCH 5432: Modern Architecture

*ARCH 5434: Contemporary Architecture

*ARCH 5445: Suburbia

*ARCH 5446: Arch Since WWII Post-War Experimentation; Aesthetics & Politics

*ARCH 5461: North American Indian Architecture

REQUIRED COURSES FOR ACCELERATED OR 3+ TRACK

ARCH 5101: Architectural Design Studies

ARCH 5291 Accelerated UG Arch Studio


Course Descriptions

This page intentionally left blank


Course Descriptions

ELECTIVE COURSES (note additional electives will be in next draft of report)

Representation ARCH 5301: Conceptual Drawing

ARCH 5311: Theory of Architectural Representation

ARCH 5313: Visual Communication Techniques in Architecture

ARCH 5321: Architecture in Watercolor

ARCH 5350: Topics in Architectural Representation

ARCH 5361: 3-D Computer Arch Modeling

ARCH 5381: Introduction to CAAD

ARCH 5382: Computer Aided Architectural Design

History and Theory ARCH 5410: Topics in Architectural History

ARCH 5450: Topics in Architectural Theory

ARCH 5451: Arch: Defining the Discipline

ARCH 5452: Architecture: Design, Form, Order and Meaning

Building Technology ARCH 5539: Daylighting and Architecture Design

ARCH 5550: Topics in Technology

ARCH 8561: Sustainable Design Theory/Practice

ARCH 8563: Energy and Indoor Environmental Quality Issues in Sustainable Design

ARCH 8565: Materials Performance in Sustainable Building

ARCH 8567: Site and Water Issues in Sustainable Design

Prof Practice & ARCH 5241 Principles of Design Program

Preservation ARCH 5611: Design in the Digital Age

ARCH 5670: Topics in Historic Preservation

ARCH 5671: Historic Preservation

ARCH 5672: Historic Building Conservation

Urban Planning ARCH 5711: Design Principles of Urban Landscape

ARCH 5721: Proseminar in Metropolitan Design

ARCH 5750: Topics in Urban Design

COURSES DISCONTINUED AFTER CURRICULAR REVISION 2008

ARCH 5511: Construction Materials in Architecture

ARCH 5512: Building Methods in Architecture

ARCH 5513: Thermal Design in Architecture

ARCH 5514: Lighting and Acoustical Design

ARCH 5292: Accelerated UG Arch Studio

ARCH 5571: Architectural Structures I

ARCH 5572: Architectural Structures II

ARCH 5371, 5372, 5373, 5374: Computer Methods

ARCH 8252 (also ARCH 5292)(replaced by 4 cr. Project-based modules) Graduate

Architectural Design II


Course Descriptions



Course Descriptions

Required Course Title Architecture as Catalyst

Course Number ARCH 5110

Credits 1

Type of Course Studio

Faculty Instructors are drawn from regular faculty within College, University or notable visitors.

Cathrine Veikos, (Penn Design) “Surface Effects” Yr 08

Jeremy Ficca (Carnegie Mellon) and Renee Cheng,

“Closing the Loop” Yr 08

Marc Swackhamer and Billie Faircloth (UT Austin),

“Bio-inspired exhibition system” Yr 08

Prerequisites All graduate students

Offered Every spring, 4 days, 8 hours per day

Overview This course creates an intense experience where students take high risks with topics and/or

methodologies not typically explored in our curriculum. Topical workshops explore design

methods, theories or emerging practices. Varying topics and objectives include: provocative

collaborations, innovative hybrids of architecture, interrelated collaborations or

experimental design approaches. Team-taught architecture with professionals, faculty and

visiting scholars.

Objectives Projects must have at least one of the following characteristics: interdisciplinary,

experimental or collaborative.

Course Requirements Outcomes must have some public component of performance, presentation, exhibition or

other work appropriate for students’ design portfolio.


Course Descriptions

Required Course Title Principles of Design Theory


Credits 3

Type of Course Lecture

Faculty Thomas Fisher Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09

Prerequisites M Arch major or #

Offered Fall every yr

Overview Principles of design and their instrumentation. How and why architecture theory is

generated. Types and significance of formal analysis. Theoretical positions and modes of

criticism. Theory lectures and student writings are grouped under four main areas Context,

Power, Buildings and People, each with three topics:

I. Theories about Context

Environmental theory

Urban theory

Historical theory

II. Theories about Power

Political / ethical theory

Semiotic theory

Post-Structuralist theory

III. Theories about Buildings

Tectonic theory

Formal theory

Typological theory

IV. Theories about People

Social theory

Behavioral theory

Phenomenological theory

Objectives The goals of the course are to help: develop ideas about the elements of architecture: site,

program, structure, materials; see how architects use ideas to make form and space, and

how great architecture derives from ideas; critique current architectural theory from

readings of recent theorists; understand theory as part of the larger history of ideas, of

which architecture is a part and to which it has much to contribute; and formulate your own

theoretical position toward architecture and toward your own work. To complement your

efforts in defining a position, four lectures will be given on research methods.

Course Requirements Each student is expected to attend class and participate in discussions. Class attendance

will be taken and participation in discussions will affect approximately 20% of your grade.

80% of your grade will be based on the four papers you will write. The papers should

represent your engagement with the material you are reading and demonstrate your ability

to relate the ideas under discussion to your own actions as a designer.

Primary Course Used to Demonstrate these NAAB Student Performance Criteria

Level # NAAB Requirement

Ability 1 Speaking and Writing Skills Understanding 34 Ethics and Profess. Judgement


Course Descriptions

Changes to the Required Graduate Technology Sequence This three-semester sequence replaces the existing required graduate technology sequence.

Arch 5511 (3 cr) and Arch 5512 (3 cr) are replaced by Arch 5515 (3 cr)



Architectural Structures were once taught by teachers from engineering departments. While this established a physics-based

understanding of the technological issues in architecture, it did little to incorporate these issues into design thought. We are

committed to teaching building technologies as organic to design thought—not simply as a technical skill necessary to

completion of construction documents.

Technology I: Building Materials & Construction Systems, ARCH 5515 (new course)

Construction Materials in Architecture, ARCH 5511 (phased out)

Building Methods in Architecture, ARCH 5512 (phased out)

Students are able to focus on the integration their architectural design with the exploration of material technologies and

selection methods. The fundamentals of all major building materials and systems are introduced including circulation,

envelope and HVAC systems (as well as the basics of moisture, heat, sound and air movement). This class explores, through

the integration with the design studio, issues such as the linkage between the quality of the environment, design procedures,

material qualities and building production methods.

Technology II: Luminous & Thermal Design, ARCH 5516 (new course)

Thermal Design in Architecture, ARCH 5513 (phased out)

Lighting and Acoustical Design, ARCH 5514 (phased out)

Students develop their capacity to address design problems with environmentally responsive architecture. This class covers

issues such as the complex interactions of built and natural environments; the importance of generating knowledge that can

mitigate social and environmental problems; the ethical implications of decisions involving the built environment; and the

necessity of nurturing a climate of global awareness, including a commitment to meeting the goals of the Architecture 2030

Challenge.

Technology III: Structural Systems, ARCH 5517 (new course)

Construction Materials in Architecture, ARCH 5571 (phased out)

Building Methods in Architecture, ARCH 5572 (phased out)

GDII Architectural Structures represents a different condition in terms of collaboration between design and technology. Here

four studio instructors follow very different paths toward a common goal. Unlike the common problem model of the GDI

studio, four different design and pedagogical models emerge this studio. Common connections with technology classes are

made difficult by this model. Instead, design studio will interface with Structures by creating a “need to know.” Design

instructors may individually dip into the technology curriculum as they see fit in terms of the role of structures in their

particular projects and pedagogy.


Course Descriptions



Course Descriptions

Required Course Title Technology I: Building Materials & Construction Systems

Course Number ARCH 5515 (new course)

Credits 3


Faculty Sharon Roe Yr 08-09

Prerequisites Admitted to MArch Program, concurrently registered with Arch 8251 or #

Offered Fall semester

(replaces Arch 5511 and 5512)

Overview Characteristics of primary building materials (concrete, masonry, steel, timber and glass);

characteristics building systems (structure, envelope, circulation, HVAC and plumbing);

principles related to integration of systems; building construction processes and

terminology.

Objectives Students consider five conditions of the building: how the wall is constructed, how an

opening is made in the wall. How the wall turns a corner, how the building meets the

grounds, and how the building meets the sky.

These conditions are posed as question very early the design process and continue through

sketches, physical and digital models to the final detain of one of these conditions as a

hand-drawn axon.

Course Requirements There are two short design problems, two exams and a final report. The journalistic report

must show the development of design conditions in your studio project. This will include a

written and illustrated discussion of your design drawings, conceptual models, digital

models, and a hand-drafted axon of a significant detail and a model of that detail.


Course Descriptions

Required

Course Title Technology II: Luminous & Thermal Design


Credits 6

Type of Course Project-based Module

Faculty Mary Guzowski, Billy Weber, Richard Strong, Loren Abraham Yr 07-08

Prerequisites Arch 8251 and Arch 5515 or #

Offered First half of spring semester

(replaces Arch 5513 and 5514)

Overview Concepts/principles of daylighting, thermal, energy, and systems integration.

Architectural/technological implications of lighting and thermal design. Ecological thinking

in support of sustainable design decision making.

Objectives ~Ecological and Holistic Systems Thinking: To provide students with daylighting and

thermal design processes and integrated tools that enable them to evaluate, assess, and

apply an holistic approaches to zero energy carbon neutral design.

~Formal, Aesthetic and Experiential Design Opportunities: To introduce students to the

formal, aesthetic, and experiential opportunities of an ecological approach to daylighting,

thermal, and systems integration in design.

~Ecological and Technological Design Opportunities: To introduce students to the

ecological and technical concepts, principles, and strategies of daylighting, thermal, energy,

and systems integration for zero energy carbon neutral design.

~Appropriate Technology and Multi-functionality: To learn to employ technology

appropriately to achieve optimal results and long term cost and ecological effectiveness.

~Performance Assessment Methods and Testing: To introduce and apply qualitative and

quantitative methods and design tools for assessment, testing, and performance analysis

for an ecological approach to zero energy carbon neutral approaches to luminous and

thermal design.

Course Requirements The course will include three design projects, which enable students to assess and apply

concepts, strategies, and assessment methods through direct application to design.

Students work on a collaborative project which includes individual and group graded

exercises.



Understanding 15 Sustainable Design

Understanding 19 Environment


Course Descriptions

Required Course Title Technology III: Structural Systems


Credits 3


Faculty Benjamin Ibarra Sevilla Yr 08-09

Prerequisites Arch 5516, concurrently registered with Arch 8253, or #

Offered Every Fall

Replaces ARCH 5571 and 5572

Overview Structural behavior in withstanding gravity and lateral forces. Evolution, range, and

applications of structural systems.

Objectives Students will learn some basic tools needed to understand structures as a whole and the

main component that make up a structure. They will gain insight into structural analysis

and design. The course is intended to prepare graduate students for a simple

understanding of structures in architecture. At the end of the course students will be able to

analyze and design simple building structures through the broad treatment of statics and

structural design.

Course Requirements Learning in the course is accomplished by readings and assigned structural design

problems: structural analysis, graphical methods, site visits, analog/digital modeling, and

case studies.



Understanding 17 Structural


Course Descriptions

Required Course Title Professional Practice in Architecture

Course Number ARCH 5621 (Revised as of Yr 08-09)

Credits 3


Faculty Renee Cheng Yr 08-09

Vince James Yr 08-09

Peter Hilger Yr 07-08

Jay Isenberg Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07

Robert Olsen Yr 07-08


Offered Fall

Overview Legal, ethical, business, and practical requirements of architectural practice. Contemporary

and historical models of contract formation, business principles, accounting, project

management, design services, and marketing.

Objectives The objective of this course is to make clear the connection between design and the

building production industry now and in the future. Climate change and data-driven

technology are transforming practice – creating a new relationship between architectural

design and research and new roles for architects in multidisciplinary teams. Case examples

will show how design choices are made in the context of economic, ethical and contractual

forces now and how these might project forward to the future. Course material will cover

issues related to construction sequence, tolerances, coordination, communication,

financial, and legal responsibilities and how such concerns shape the design. Exercises are

intended to encourage students to develop understanding of current practices and question

where they can be transformed.

Course Requirements Case Studies: Teams of 4-5 students will make a semester-long series of site visits to

buildings under construction in the area. Weekly or bi-monthly photo-documentation and

report forms will be gathered into a report to be submitted at the end of the term. Analysis

must demonstrate an understanding of the construction sequence, scheduling,

coordination of trades, field conditions, etc.

Primary Course Used to Demonstrate these NAAB Student Performance Criteria Level # NAAB Requirement

Ability 4 Research Understanding 27 Client Role Understanding 29 Arch Admin Roles Understanding 30 Arch Practice Understanding 31 Professional Development Understanding 32 Leadership Understanding 33 Legal Responsibilities


Course Descriptions

Changes to the Required Graduate Design Sequence

This three-semester sequence replaces the existing required graduate studio sequence.

Arch 8251 (6 cr), 8252 (6 cr), 8253 (6 cr) and 8255 (6 cr) is replaced by

Arch 8251 (9 cr), 8253 (9 cr) and 8255 (6 cr)

THE CORE STUDIO

The project-based, active learning model developed for architecture education relies on a reflective exchange between students and instructors, students-to-students and the self-reflective individual. The design studio projects are explicit attempts by instructors to stage and demonstrate strategies for negotiating the indeterminacy of the design process. The objective is to use projects to sponsor debates and exchanges among professionals, students and academics.

In addition to teaching design thinking, the questions framed in the studio create the “need to know”—the basis for synthetic learning. The energy invested in creating this active state of inquiry is essential. Studio projects are the means by which students will be guided to integrate various areas of knowledge into a well-resolved design solution. When this attitude of inquiry and critical thought finds a strong base in the design studio, it naturally expands to include other topics such as building technologies, professional practices, history or theory.

Consequently, we have established three CORE design studios in the respective Fall semesters of our three-year curriculum. Each of the CORE studios will hold students responsible for understanding basic conditions of site, materials, program, precedents, architectural theory and architectural form manipulation. However, each of the CORE studios brings a different level of coordination, integration and synthesis—incrementally building students’ independence as structured assignments decrease.

Graduate Design ONE

Studies that focus on fundamental issues of space/ form/ light/ materiality in relation to human habitation; design as a process of exploration and creative inquiry; modes and media of representation.

Graduate Design TWO

Investigations at a conceptually comprehensive level rigorously addressing issues of the design process, representation, programming, technology, and urban relations.

Graduate Design THREE

Projects that promote multiple forms of research and analysis infused into the design process as necessary for the negotiation of complex sites, programs, and environmental and/or cultural circumstances.


Course Descriptions

This page intentionally left blan


Course Descriptions

Course Title Graduate Architectural Design I


Credits 9

Type of Course Studio, Lecture

Faculty

Blaine Brownell Yr 08-09 John Comazzi Yr 06-07 Gunter Dittmar Yr 07-08 Nina Ebbighausen Yr 07-08, 08-09 Lance Lavine Yr 07-08

Sharon Roe Yr 03-09 Ozayr Saloojee Yr 06-07 Marc Swackhamer Yr 06-07 Mark Tambornino Yr 03-04, 08-09 Marcelo Valdes Yr 03-04, 06-07

Prerequisites Admission into the M.Arch;Must be taken concurrently with Tech I and Architectural Theory


Overview Design projects focus on fundamental issues of space/form/ light/materiality in relation to

human habitation. Design as a process of exploration/inquiry. Modes/media of

representation, their critical impact.

Objectives The goal of this course is to establish the core values, knowledge and procedures that

constitute the discipline and are essential in cultivating an architectural intellect.

Course Requirements Scale and scope of projects create a cycle of investigation between large and small, real and

abstract, comprehensive and focused. Lectures and demonstrations are integrated to help

understand the theoretical goals of each section.

-Progression Problem The progression problem sets a methodological framework for

succeeding exercise as it seeks a rigorous development of an evolutionary formal logic.

-Public/private urban formal organizations. Progressive cooperative gaming processes are

used to collectively develop a urban community. Urban morphology, theories of design

(formalism, phenomenology, semiotics) and theories and concepts of contemporary space.

-Architectural analysis of an urban fragment. Topics addressed are theories of

representation, techniques of drawing, modeling and recording as ways of understanding

-An urban design exercise. Constructional logic that relates the part (the building detail as a

“critical moment”) to the whole building. This will include building materials, assemblies

and issues of envelope. This section is integrated with the Tech I class.



Understanding 5 Formal Ordering Systems

Ability 6 Fundamental Design Skills

Ability 7 Collaborative Skills

Ability 17 Site Conditions

Understanding 21 Building Envelope Systems

Understanding 24 Building Materials/Assemblies


Course Descriptions

Required Course Title Graduate Architectural Design Two Course Number ARCH 8253 Credits 9 Type of Course Studio, Lecture Faculty Andrzej Piotrowski (coordinator), Bob Ganser, Marc Swackhamer, Jennifer Yoos Prerequisites Graduate Design ONE , Must be concurrently registered with Tech II Offered Fall Overview Investigations at a conceptually comprehensive level rigorously addressing issues of the

design process, representation, programming, technology, and urban relations.

Objectives The studio provides an opportunity to experience a holistic way of organizing the

conceptual work of an architect. Thus the pedagogical emphasis of each studio section will

be on bringing critical insight and discipline to the design process—structuring ways of

conceiving, conceptualizing, exploring, and developing architectural ideas. This will include

general design efforts and specific areas of emphasis such as:

− Conceptualization of initial ideas and their revisions.

− Focus on conceptual function of media and modes of representation.

− Issues of structure, materiality and building technology.

− Daylight and experiential phenomena.

− Practical (accessibility, life safety and means of egress) and conceptual aspects of the

program, including input from potential users.

− Presentation and time-management skills.

Course Requirements The sequence of initial exercises/projects will prepare students to design a complex and

conceptually comprehensive project—a design for a (preferably) public building in an urban

context. The final project should be thoughtful and competent enough to support

comprehensive technical development in the required Comprehensive Design course.

Section 1. Conceptual Issues

Section 2. Precedents

Section 3. Site explorations and/or critical programming.

Section 4. Design



Ability 2 Critical Thinking Skills

Ability 3 Graphics Skills

Ability 11 Use of Precedents

Understanding 12 Human Behavior

Understanding 13 Human Diversity

Ability 14 Accessibility

Ability 16 Program Preparation

Understanding 20 Life Safety


Course Descriptions

Required Course Title Technical Applications in Design/Comprehensive Design

Course Number ARCH 8255(6cr fall) or 8254 (4 cr spring),

Credits 4 (6cr if schematic design is included in the course description)

Type of Course Project-based Module (4 cr), Comprehensive Studio (6 cr)

Faculty varies

Prerequisites 8252 grad Arch major or #

Offered Spring module or fall studio, every yr

Overview Design potential inherent in technical development process of design project. Testing

concepts, developing details, integrating building systems. Structural bay enclosure, cost

considerations, regulatory compliance. Building-information modeling, analog/digital

representations in architecture document production.

Objectives The objective of this course is to explore the design potential inherent in technical

development of a design project. Course work will test design concepts by developing

details, integration of building systems, structural bay, enclosure, cost considerations and

regulatory compliance. Exercises are intended to encourage students to expand projects

from previous studio semesters to a high degree of technical competence.

Course Requirements ~Program and Building Types: 10,000 square feet, two stories, at least one long span

space.

~Graphic Conveyances: site plans; building plans, building sections, wall details, 1/2”

models and drawings, structural and HVAC. Lighting and integration documents.

~Research: construction systems, structural, aesthetic, informational, environmental

controls, accessibility, building codes and egress, programmatic issues

~Critical Thinking: design development

~Architectural Expression: compelling critical arguments (pragmatic or theoretical)

~Site and Context Conditions: affect structural principles, building systems selection,

environmental imperatives, accessibility and long-term performance.

~Ethical and Professional Judgments: ethical assessments and debates



Understanding 22 Building Services

Ability 23 Building Systems

Understanding 25 Construction Costs

Ability 26 Tech Docs/ Specs

Ability 28 Comprehensive Design


Course Descriptions

Required Course Title Graduate Architectural Design Three


Credits 6


Faculty Julia Robinson, “Housing & Urban design for New Orleans Lower 9th Ward”

Bill Conway, “What role can architecture play in light of the current foreclosure crisis?”

John Comazzi, “Landscape Urbanism in the age of BIG + DIRTY”

Prerequisites [8253, grad Arch major] or #

Offered Fall, every yr

Overview Projects that promote multiple forms of research and analysis infused into the design

process as necessary for the negotiation of complex sites, programs, and environmental

and/or cultural circumstances.

Objectives Operating at scales larger than a single building, time-frames and horizons beyond current

generations, and /change/ as inevitable, these studios will sponsor collaborative practices

in the development of complex urban, rural, and/or sub-urban interventions. Infusing a

continual feedback of research and analysis into the design process, the studio sequence

will also model forms of self-guided practice to be refined and developed by students in the

subsequent and final semester of the curriculum.

Course Requirements The settings for the studio’s work are expansive and vastly layered with cultural, historical,

commercial and natural conditions of significance that, together, comprise sites, programs

or situations of far greater complexity than the more controlled design projects of the first

two CORE studios. You will rarely, if ever, work alone in this studio, because any problem of

such complexity requires a collective and collaborative effort.

Section 1. Discovering the site, program or situation through multiple lenses at multiple

scales to disclose predominant-overt systems, divulge underlying-latent systems, and to

exploit gaps in those systems as opportunities.

Section 2 Developing a set of protocols, or complex adaptive systems, in staging multiple

futures for the particular project proposed by the individual instructor.

Section 3 Developing and communicating a strategy for resolving the issues.


Course Descriptions

Required Course Title Thesis


Credits 12 (Max 18 cr per semester or summer; 10 cr total required; Plan A only)

Type of Course studio

Faculty includes most graduate faculty

Prerequisites Fall, Spring, Sum, every yr

Offered each spring

Overview Student-led research projects with a documented text and graphic outcome

Objectives The process of completing the thesis semester allows students to frame a trajectory for

their future work. Student research agendas are supported by the research methods

lectures in the first year Theory course, continued in the research segment of the

Professional Practice course in the second year. Thesis is the culmination of the students’

research agenda in school and sets a path for their future explorations.

Course Requirements Thesis documents must meet graduate school requirements. Each student has a three-

faculty committee, School faculty serve as committee members and chair. Support is given

for research and documentation.


Course Descriptions



Course Descriptions

The following are “selective” courses, students choose at least one from among these courses approved to meet a requirement for History.

*ARCH 5421: Architectural Interpretation Cave & Light

*ARCH 5423: Gothic Architecture

*ARCH 5424: Renaissance Architecture

*ARCH 5425: Baroque Architecture

*ARCH 5431: 18C Arch & Enlightenment

*ARCH 5432: Modern Architecture

*ARCH 5434: Contemporary Architecture

*ARCH 5445: Suburbia

*ARCH 5446: Arch Since WWII Post-War Experimentation; Aesthetics & Politics

*ARCH 5461: North American Indian Architecture


Course Descriptions



Course Descriptions

Course Title Architectural Interpretation: Cave & Light*


Credits 3

Type of Course seminar

Faculty Robert Ferguson Yr 06-07

Prerequisites [3411, 3412] or #

Offered Fall, odd yrs

Overview Historical/hermeneutical investigation of iconography of grotto. Intertwined themes of

descent into earth and ascent to light, from earliest strata of human culture to present day.

Objectives

Course Requirements

NAAB Student Performance Criteria Met by this Course


Understanding 8 Western Traditions


Course Descriptions

Course Title Gothic Architecture*


Credits 3

Type of Course Lecture with recitation

Faculty Leon Satkowski Yr 03-04, 05-06

Prerequisites M Arch major or instr consent

Offered Spring, even yrs

Overview Architecture and urbanism in Europe, 1100-1400. Primary focus on France, England and

Italy, with emphasis on buildings of the cathedral era.

Objectives Understanding of spatial, structural, and symbolic issues in major Gothic cathedrals.

Introduction to critical ideas: limitations posed by the term ”Gothic.,” unique contributions

of Italian churches and civic spaces.

Course Requirements Two Exams and term paper.





Course Descriptions

Course Title Renaissance Architecture*


Credits 3


Faculty Leon Satkowski Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 07-08


Offered F, Spring, when feasible

Overview History of architecture and urban design in Italy from 1400 to 1600. Emphasizes major

figures (Brunelleschi, Alberti, Bramante, Palladio) and evolution of major cities (Rome,

Florence, Venice).

Objectives

Course Requirements





Course Descriptions

Course Title Baroque Architecture*


Credits 3


Faculty Leon Satkowski Yr 04-05, 06-07, 08-09


Offered Fall, odd yrs

Overview Architecture and urban design in Italy from 1600 to 1750. Emphasizes major figures

(Bernini, Borromini, Cortona, Guarini) and evolution of major cities (Rome, Turin).

Objectives

Course Requirements





Course Descriptions

Course Title 18C Arch & Enlightenment*


Credits 3


Faculty Robert Ferguson Yr 05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Prerequisites Arch 3412M Arch grad student or #

Offered Fall & Spring, every yr

Overview Architecture, urban planning, and garden design in Europe and America from 1650 to 1850.

Objectives Build up the context of baroque representation against which the new movement declared

itself, and try to understand the consequences in terms of our own situation. Centered in

the 18th century, we shall need to engage 17th and 19th realities and personalities; dwelling

long in the Holy Roman Empires, in England and in France and French architectural theory,

we may come to ground outside Europe including the newly United States. The presence of

Rome, ancient and modern, will be a constant. The reciprocity of representation and

interpretation will structure our inquiry.

Course Requirements Exam, quiz and major paper





Course Descriptions

Course Title Modern Architecture*


Credits 3


Faculty Rachel Iannacone Yr 07-08

Nancy Miller Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06,


Offered Fall, when feasible

Overview Architecture and urban design in Europe and the United States from early 19th century to

World War II.

Objectives

Course Requirements




Understanding 10 National/Regional Traditions


Course Descriptions

Course Title Contemporary Architecture*


Credits 3


Faculty Rachel Iannacone Yr 06-07, 08-09

Nancy Miller Yr 04-05, 05-06



Overview Developments, theories, movements, and trends in architecture and urban design from

World War II to present.

Objectives

Course Requirements Students are responsible to work with a group to present and moderate one in-class

discussion, present their research to the class, and submit one research paper.




Understanding 9 Non-Western Traditions


Course Descriptions

Course Title Suburbia*


Credits 3


Faculty Kate Solomonson Yr 05-06

Prerequisites


Overview Suburbia, from origins in 18th-century England to present. Historical changes and present

challenges, especially in America. Ideology, mythology, planning, development, geography,

transportation, the family. Specific sites/designs. Representations in film, television,

popular literature, and music.

Objectives

Course Requirements



Understanding 10 National/Regional Traditions


Course Descriptions

Course Title Arch Since WWII: Post-War Experimentation; Aesthetics & Politics*


Credits 3


Faculty Ritu Bhatt Yr 07-08

Prerequisites 3412 or #


Overview Avant-garde responses to post-war consciousness of social issues/meaning in architecture.

Eroding communal identity, common man, architectural symbolism, monumentality,

critical regionalism, place/technology in form making, popular culture, rise of theory.

Objectives

Course Requirements Postwar Experimentation: Aesthetics and Politics deals with a variety of case studies from

the west as well as the non-west particularly emphasizing inter-cultural nature of

architectural dialogues and how tenets of western avant-gardism were transformed by

regional constraints when introduced to post-independent agendas of the non-western

world. The particular case-studies in the section on Nation building include Beirut,

Lebanon; Dhaka, Bangaladesh; Chandigarh, India; in addition, we have a session that

critiques "critical regionalism" with a focus on Japanese modernism and another one on

Tropicalism which focuses on Singapore. Toward the end the students review a range of

readings on globalization/ rise of the creative class/ global cities.






Course Descriptions

Course Title North American Indian Arch*


Credits 3


Faculty Lee Tollefson Yr 03-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08


Offered Spring, every yr

Overview Historic/contemporary principles/theories of North American Indian architecture. Culture,

technology, environment, art, and craft of North American Indians in their

settlements/architecture.

Objectives The view presented in this course is uniquely one of viewing architecture and its

relationship to history, environment and culture. This view will be different from one of a

purely anthropological or archeological perspective through the emphasis on the

architecture and settlements. As the course develops through the semester there will be a

focus on three architectural topics: Symbolism in architecture (relation to socio-cultural

phenomena); Environment or ecological issues; Tectonics (art and craft of construction

with emphasis on structure).

Course Requirements Three quizzes, final exam and research paper






Course Descriptions

Course Title Topics in Architectural History*

Topic Classes must be pre-approved by the Curriculum Committee in order to qualify as a

Required History Elective.


Credits 3


Faculty Bakirtzis,Nikolas Yr 08-09

Bhatt,Ritu Yr 03-04

Arthur Chen Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Robert Ferguson Yr 03-04, 04-05, 07-08

Rachel Iannacone Yr 06-07, 07-08

Lance Lavine Yr 07-08


Julia Robinson Yr 03-04

Leon Satkowski Yr 06-07, 07-08

Kate Solomonson Yr 03-04



Overview Advanced study in architectural history. Readings, research, seminar reports.

Objectives

Course Requirements


History Elective meeting Criteria

8 : Western Traditions

9 : Non-Western Traditions


Course Descriptions

The following two courses are used for accelerated students and for 3+ students:

Course Title Accelerated UG Arch Studio*

Course Number ARCH 5291(see ARCH 8251)

Credits 9

Type of Course Studio and Lecture

Faculty same as ARCH 8251

Prerequisites Admission to the M. Arch program

Offered Every Fall

Overview see ARCH 8251

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title ARCH 5101

Course Number Architectural Design Studies

Credits 7


Faculty Renee Cheng Yr 06-07, 07-08

Benjamin Ibarra Sevilla Yr 06-07, 07-08

Lance Lavine Yr 05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Andrzej Piotrowski Yr 06-07, 07-08

Leon Satkowski Yr 06-07, 07-08

Marc Swackhamer Yr 06-07, 07-08

John Comazzi Yr 06-07

Prerequisites 3+ track for MArch

Offered Summer, every yr

Overview Principles/methods architectural design/ Theories, history, technologies, media, and

processes as foundation for critical thinking.

Objectives This is a series of coordinated co-taught lectures/seminars/studios for students admitted

to the Master of Architecture program with degrees in subjects other than architecture. It is

an intensive experience during the summer preparing the students for their entry to

Graduate Design.

Course Requirements Analytic modeling, visual thinking


Course Descriptions



Course Descriptions

The following courses are elective courses and, while they respond to a wide array of Student Performance Criteria,

are not used to demonstrate meeting minimum NAAB standards.

Additional material will be added to this section in the final draft of the report


Course Descriptions



Course Descriptions

Course Title Principles of Design Program


Credits 4


Faculty Julia Robinson Yr 08-09


Offered Spring

Overview Concepts and techniques of architectural programming, including space and activity

analysis, site selection, precedent study, code review, appropriate technology identification,

hypothesis formulation and evaluation.

Objectives Students will

~apply a particular design methodology for hypothesis development challenge their

preconceptions;

~make and critique alternative propositions that relate to issues of program;

~work with images and words to reveal intentions, possibilities and limitations;

~work with precedents to develop a vocabulary of formal expression

Course Requirements Emphasis on conceptual development, research, and analytic drawing. Each week students

will explore one or more issues with a completed exercise due for presentation on Friday.

These exercises are intended to accumulate to create a final document that represents a set

of decisions about the design direction that a project could take. The document would be

of such a form that it could be the basis for further design development. The exercises that

make up the document are due periodically during the module, the final document is to be

handed in on the last day of the course module.


Course Descriptions

Course Title Accelerated UG Arch Studio*

Course Number ARCH 5291(see ARCH 8251)

Credits 9

Type of Course Studio and Lecture

Faculty same as ARCH 8251

Prerequisites Admission to the M. Arch program

Offered Every Fall

Overview see ARCH 8251

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Conceptual Drawing


Credits 3

Type of Course Lecture and lab

Faculty Andrzej Piotrowski Yr 05-06, 07-08

Prerequisites [1301, M.Arch major] or #

Offered Fall

Overview Drawing as way of analyzing, exploring, and generating design ideas. Projection systems,

diagramming, mapping. Different modes of visual perception (Nonverbal structures).

Objectives Explore how different modes of drawing relate to conceptual thinking; learn to identify

design ideas in the material world and images; improve general drawing skills;

Course Requirements In addition to the high volume of graphic production it is expected that students will learn

how to critically read and develop their own work. Self-directed and self-motivated

improvement will be essential in assessing student’s educational achievement in this

course.


Course Descriptions

Course Title Visual Communication Techniques in Architecture


Credits 3


Faculty Renee Cheng Yr 06-07

Mike Christenson Yr 03-04, 04-05

Benjamin Ibarra Sevilla Yr 05-06, 06-07

Marc Swackhamer Yr 05-06


Offered Fall and Spring

Overview Delineation, presentation, and design techniques. Various visual media and methods of

investigation.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Architecture in Watercolor


Credits 3


Faculty Monica Fogg Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09

Douglas Lew Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06

Prerequisites M Arch grad student or #


Overview Watercolor as a tool in design process. Foundation principles, techniques, medium, tools,

materials. Color relationships, mixing, composition, applications to design.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Topics in Architectural Representation


Credits 1 to 3


Faculty Lee Anderson Yr 06-07

Arthur Chen Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Lance Lavine Yr 03-04, 07-08


Ozayr Saloojee Yr 06-07, 07-08

Virajita Singh Yr 03-04

Malini Srivastava Yr 03-04


Prerequisites [5321, [Arch major or M. Arch major]]

Offered Fall, Spring, or Sum, every yr

Overview Selected topics in architectural representation.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title 3-D Computer Arch Modeling


Credits 3


Faculty Dozier,James Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09

Prerequisites M Arch major

Offered

Overview Use of 3D computer modeling for representation in abstract/realistic ways. Computer

modeling software. Creation/arrangement of objects, setting up lighting, developing

surface materials, creating still renderings/animations. Ways in which computer

visualization can be used for design exploration, for feedback during development of ideas,

and for realistic representation of fully formed designs.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Introduction to CAAD


Credits 3


Faculty Anderson,Lee Bruce Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09

Anderson,Kristine Yr 04-05

Christenson,Mike Yr 03-04, 04-05

Dozier,James Yr 03-04, 04-05

Prerequisites Arch or BED or M Arch or grad student in LA or #


Overview 2-D drawing, 3-D modeling/animation, printing, plotting. Electronic

networking/communications, database management, spreadsheet analysis, land-use

analysis, project management.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Computer Aids for Design


Credits 3


Faculty Lee Anderson Yr 03-04, 04-05, 06-07, 07-08

Prerequisites 5381 or arch grad major or #


Overview 2-D/3-D CAD, image manipulation. Advanced multimedia visualization techniques for

design, including solid modeling, photo-/realistic imaging, animation, video-

editing/recording.

Objectives This course explores some interesting potentials for 3D modeling, specifically:

1) Photorealistic rendering

2) Scripting for computational design.

3) Rapid Prototyping and Fabrication

4) Virtual Reality

5) Building Information Modeling using Revit

Course Requirements An assignment each week and a quiz after each section


Course Descriptions

Course Title Topics in Architectural Theory


Credits 1 to 4


Faculty Arthur Chen Yr 06-07, 07-08

Thomas Fisher Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06



“Innovative Housing & Urbanism in the Netherlands”

Prerequisites Arch major or M Arch major or #

Offered Fall, Spring, Sum, ev yr

Overview Selected topics in architectural theory and criticism.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Arch: Defining the Discipline


Credits 3


Faculty Gunter Dittmar Yr 03-04, 05-06


Offered Spring when feasible

Overview Architecture as a discipline: its nature, role, purpose, and meaning discussed within a

general, philosophical, and theoretical framework. Investigation and discussion of

paradigms defining architectural theory and practice.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Architecture: Design, Form, Order and Meaning


Credits 4


Faculty Gunter Dittmar Yr 03-04, 04-05, 07-08, 08-09



Overview Explores architecture and the issue of meaning. Explores fundamental and constituent

elements of architectural form and order; their inherent tectonic, phenomenal, experiential,

and symbolic characteristics; their potential and implications for the creation and structure

of meaningful human places.

Objectives To bridge the gap between theory and design, between thought, meaning and physical form

To become familiar with, and gain in-depth understanding of, some of the foremost

philosophical and theoretical viewpoints and approaches to contemporary architecture

To uncover the underlying paradigms and premises, and analyze how they inform and

become manifest in a respective canon of architectural form, and define meaning through

the disposition and articulation of its constituent elements and architectonic order

To personally engage a particular philosophical/theoretical viewpoint and approach

through an exploratory design/analysis process in order to understand its architectural and

design implications not merely intellectually, but also physically ~to explore potentially

useful “diagnostic” tools and modes of representation to make explicit and “visible”

underlying notions and potential meaning

Course Requirements Starting with Phase 1, each of the four in-class reviews plus the final presentation will be

graded.The final grade will be computed from the best four grades of the five presentations

(each valued at 25%). Participation and contribution to the in-class discussions will also be

considered for the final grade, especially if the numerical grade falls between two letter

grades. Though the evaluation of each phase will vary to some degree, it will typically

emphasize substance and depth of content, richness and rigor of exploration, creativity in

use of modes of representation, and quality of visual and verbal presentation.


Course Descriptions

Course Title Daylighting and Architecture Design

Course Number ARCH 5539 (revised course)

Credits 4


Faculty Mary Guzowski Yr 03-04, 04-05, 06-07

Prerequisites 5514, M Arch major or #

Offered

Overview Role of daylighting in architectural design: principles, strategies, energy and environmental

issues, psychology of light, color, and integration of electric lighting. Design projects

investigate qualitative and quantitative issues through drawing, physical models, and

photometric analysis.

Objectives

Course Requirements Projects (five iterative investigations at site/room/component scales); investigating

incremental issues of daylighting: Quality of light, Site, Program, Color and materials,

Structure, Passive systems, Envelope


Course Descriptions

Course Title Topics in Technology


Credits ARCH 5550


Faculty Lucas Alm Yr 07-08, 08-09

John Carmody Yr 05-06

Arthur Chen Yr 03-04

Bruno Franck Yr 05-06, 06-07

Lance Lavine Yr 03-04, 07-08


Stephen Weeks Yr 05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Prerequisites M. Arch major


Overview Selected topics in architecture technology, e.g., construction, environmental management,

energy performance, lighting, materials.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Design in the Digital Age


Credits 3


Faculty Lee Anderson Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Prerequisites Grad student or upper level undergrad student


Overview Introduction to design, design process. Developing/understanding ways of seeing,

thinking, and acting as a designer. Changes in design being wrought by digital technology.

Objectives Arch 3611/5611 covers a variety of topics related

to how digital tools are changing both the process and product of design. Digital

technologies are having a profound impact on design, both as tools for designers, and as a

domain that is in need of attention from designers. As tools, digital technologies—from

Virtual Reality to electronic communications—have the potential to radically change the

ways in which designers work. Our class will exploring 3D modeling, visualization, analysis,

information management, communication, presentation, and design’s relationship to the

manufacturing process.

Course Requirements Team design project. There will most often be an assignment each week. Typically, an

assignment will be handed out at the Monday class, due by class time the next Monday.

Each assignment will take four to six hours.


Course Descriptions

Course Title Topics in Historic Preservation


Credits 1 to 3



Robert Mack Yr 07-08

Prerequisites Arch or M Arch major or #

Offered Fall, when feasible

Overview Selected topics in the theory, philosophy, research, and methods of architectural historic

preservation.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Historic Preservation


Credits 3


Faculty Todd Grover Yr 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09

Robert Mack Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08. 08-09

Prerequisites ARCH 3412 or #


Overview Philosophy, theory, and origins of historic preservation. Historic archaeology and research,

descriptive analysis, and documentation of historic buildings. Government's role in historic

preservation, preservation standards and guidelines, preservation and building codes,

neighborhood preservation, preservation advocacy, and future directions for historic

preservation. Research on architectural and historical aspects of historic sites using primary

and secondary resources and on controversial aspects of preservation.

Objectives The course is designed to give students a general understanding of the entire field of

Historic Preservation and with specific emphasis on documentary research, written

documentation of historic properties, and critical analysis of preservation issues.

Course Requirements Report on MHS Research Center, District survey, Research paper, National Register

Nomination, Advocacy presentation, Issues Letter, Quizzes


Course Descriptions

Course Title Historic Building Conservation


Credits 3


Faculty Todd Grover Yr 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Robert Mack Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Prerequisites 3412, 5671 or #


Overview Historic building materials, systems, and methods of conservation. Discussion of structural

systems, building repair and pathology, introduction of new environmental systems in

historic buildings, and conservation of historic interiors. Research on historic building

materials and techniques using primary and secondary resources and on documentation of

a specific historic site through large-format photography and measured drawings.

Objectives The course is designed to give students a familiarity with historic building materials and

systems, causes of their deterioration, and appropriate methods for their conservation. In

addition, students will learn recording techniques including measured drawings and large-

format-photography.

Course Requirements several quizzes, research paper with associated submissions, the building conditions

evaluation, and the HABS survey materials


Course Descriptions

Course Title Design Principles of Urban Landscape


Credits 3



Forsyth,Ann Yr 05-06

Cynthia Jara Yr 06-07

Richard Milgrom Yr 04-05



Prerequisites M Arch major or LA grad major or grad student or #


Overview Art/design of creating city, neighborhood, and development plans. Public policies, planning

tools/processes, and physical models used by design professionals and private/civic

institutions to shape physical environment.

Objectives

Course Requirements Up to 6 short written assignments and one major term paper.


Course Descriptions

Course Title Proseminar in Metropolitan Design


Credits 3


Faculty

Prerequisites [[5711 or equiv], enrollment in CMD prog] or #

Offered

Overview Reading seminar. Evolution of the contemporary city. Dynamics that created contemporary

urban spatial patterns. Planning/design theories that have guided public interventions in

the built environment. Thematic texts, classroom discussions.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Topics in Urban Design


Credits 1 to 4


Faculty Arthur Chen Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07, 07-08, 08-09

William Conway F Yr 06-07, 07-08


Julia Robinson Yr 03-04, 06-07, 07-08

Prerequisites

Offered

Overview Special topics in theory/practice of urban design.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Course Title Sustainable Design Theory/Practice


Credits 3


Faculty Mary Guzowski Yr 06-07, 07-08

Doug Pierce Yr 06-07, 07-08, 08-09

Prerequisites [5513, [grad MS or MArch]] or #


Overview History, theory, and ethics of sustainable design processes/practices. Emphasizes

approaches to sustainable architecture. Regional/global ecological issues, design

strategies, methods of assessment. Primary architectural/technological implications of

sustainable design theory/practice that inform design thinking/research. Sustainable

design issues.

Objectives

Course Requirements Research projects, case studies, fieldwork


Course Descriptions

Course Title Energy and Indoor Environmental Quality Issues in Sustainable Design


Credits 3

Type of Course

Faculty John Carmody Yr 06-07

Lara Greden Yr 07-08

Prerequisites [5513, [grad MS or MArch]] or #


Overview Energy/IEQ aspects of sustainable design related to global environmental issues.

Energy/IEQ strategies, methods, and tools as applied to sustainable building design.

Objectives

Course Requirements Research projects, case studies


Course Descriptions

Course Title Materials Performance in Sustainable Building


Credits 3

Type of Course

Faculty Rick Carter Yr 07-08

Richard Strong Yr 07-08

Blaine Brownell Yr 08-09

Prerequisites [5512, grad MS or March]] or #


Overview Building-material properties, resource conservation, fabrication/construction processes in

production of high performance sustainable building designs. Application of

assessment/evaluation tools (LCA, BEES, Athena or LEED) for IEQ, waste reduction and

management with an emphasis on experimental/analytic methods. Aesthetic/technical

solutions that integrate design selection processes, construction methods, commissioning

processes, and facility management, maintenance, and decommissioning.

Objectives ~Develop knowledge of how the materials selection and performance aspects of

sustainable design fit into the context of a whole building design process.

~Develop knowledge of determining materials resource and energy flows and ways to

evaluate sustainable product certification methods – the interaction between

manufacturing conservation, recycle/reuse and waste – as fundamental to the design

process.

~Develop evaluation and assessment (decision making) processes for material life-cycles;

construction use and maintenance; manufacturing and fabrication; material

acquisition/preparation/ and reuse, recycling and disposal.

~Develop knowledge of Eco-Labeling and LCA assessment tools and their function with

other strategies (Athena™, LEED, and B3) that improve energy efficiency, conserve

materials resources and reduce waste during construction, building operations and de-

construction.

Course Requirements Three projects/exercises will be used to investigate the major course topics


Course Descriptions

Course Title Site and Water Issues in Sustainable Design


Credits 3

Type of Course

Faculty Rich Strong Yr 07-08, 08-09

Prerequisites [5512, [grad MS or MArch student]] or #

Offered

Overview Site, water and site/building integration aspects of sustainable design. Ecological

principles, site analysis. Water/site/building integration strategies, methods, and tools

integrated with sustainable design issues such as energy, indoor environmental quality, and

materials. Research projects, case studies, measurement methods.

Objectives

Course Requirements


Course Descriptions

Retired



Course Descriptions

The following courses were taught after 2002 but prior to the development of the new curricular sequences in both the Graduate design studio sequence and the Building technology sequence. These classes are now phased out and the new classes are in place.

ARCH 5511: Construction Materials in Architecture

ARCH 5512: Building Methods in Architecture

ARCH 5513: Thermal Design in Architecture

ARCH 5514: Lighting and Acoustical Design

ARCH 5292: Accelerated UG Arch Studio

ARCH 5571: Architectural Structures I

ARCH 5572: Architectural Structures II

ARCH 5371, 5372, 5373, 5374: Computer Methods


Course Descriptions



Course Descriptions

Retired

Course Title Construction Materials in Architecture

Course Number ARCH 5511 (replaced by new class Arch 5515)

Credits 3

Type of Course lecture

Faculty Sharon Roe Yr 03-04, 04-05,05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Steve Weeks Yr 03-04

Prerequisites

Offered

Overview Building materials, assemblies, and construction operations shaping building designs.

Material properties for design/detailing of building systems, elements, and components.

Implications in design applications..


Course Descriptions

Retired Course Title Building Methods in Architecture


Credits 3

Type of Course

Faculty Renee Cheng Yr 03-04, 04-05,05-06, 06-07

Mike Christenson Yr 05-06

Sharon Roe Yr 06-07

Stephen Weeks Yr 04-05

Prerequisites

Offered

Overview Analysis of architectural materials, building systems, and construction operations related to

enclosure systems design, building infrastructure, and detailing. Application of legal

constraints and regulations (e.g., ADA, building codes, life-safety issues) in preparation of

drawings, specifications, and construction documents for building design.


Course Descriptions

Retired Course Title Thermal Design in Architecture


Credits 3

Type of Course

Faculty Loren Abraham Yr 07-08

William Weber Yr 03-04, 04-05,05-06, 06-07

Prerequisites

Offered

Overview Thermal and climatic issues in the design of small and mid-size buildings. Investigations in

built and mechanical methods to modify climate. Evaluation of the impact of design

techniques on energy use, the environment, and architectural meaning.


Course Descriptions

Retired Course Title Lighting and Acoustical Design


Credits 3

Type of Course

Faculty Jonee Kulman Brigham Yr 03-04

Mary Guzowski Yr 04-05,05-06, 06-07, 07-08

Prerequisites

Offered

Overview Principles of daylighting, electric lighting, and acoustic design in architecture. Relationship

between luminous and acoustic environments, human comfort and architectural

experience. Analytical methods, design process, and modeling of daylighting.


Course Descriptions

Retired Course Title Architectural Structures I


Credits 3

Type of Course

Faculty Scott Durand Yr 05-06, 07-08

Bruno Franck Yr 03-04, 04-05, 06-07

Prerequisites

Offered

Overview Influence of history/culture on architecture/structure. Structural mechanics, analysis, form

finding, and design by experimental, qualitative/intuitive, and quantitative methods. Vector-

/form-active structural systems, funicular structures. Bending/compression elements,

plates/grids. Tensile architecture, shells. Traditional construction materials.


Course Descriptions

Retired Course Title Architectural Structures II


Credits 3

Type of Course

Faculty Bruno Franck Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 06-07

Prerequisites

Offered

Overview Overview of advanced materials: reinforced fiberglass, structural glass, and structural

tensile fabrics. Impact of construction technology on architecture and methods of

integrating knowledge of structural materials and construction methods into the design

process.


Course Descriptions

Retired Course Title Comp Methods I, II, III, IV

Course Number ARCH 5371, 5372, 5373, 5374 (phased out)

Credits 1 cr each

Type of Course Lecture, lab

Faculty Sharon Roe Yr 03-04, 05-06, 07-08

Marc Swackhamer Yr 04-05, 05-06, 06-07

Ian Mclellan Yr 07-08

Mary Guzowski Yr 07-08, 08-09

Prerequisites

Offered

Overview 5371. Introduction to current techniques, computer programs, and their application to

architectural computing.

5372. Current techniques, computer programs, and their application to architectural

computing and design.

5373. Advanced techniques, computer programs, and their application to architectural

computing in design, theory, and technology.

5374. Advanced architectural computing applications in design, history, theory,

representation, and technology.


Course Descriptions

Retired Course Title Graduate Architectural Design II

Course Number ARCH 8252 (also ARCH 5292)(replaced by 4 cr. Project-based modules)

Credits 6

Type of Course Studio

Faculty Sharon Roe Yr 03-04, 04-05, 05-06, 07-08


Prerequisites

Offered

Overview Fundamental architectural problems involving design as a creative inquiry. Individual and

collaborative effort.

Requirements

Curriculum vitae are in alphabetical order by faculty last name:

(more information and additional faculty will be included in final draft of report)

Loren E. Abraham

Lee B. Anderson

Ritu Bhatt

Blaine Brownell

Arthur Hui-Min Chen

Renee Cheng

John Comazzi

William F. Conway

Gunter Dittmar

Gregory Donofrio

Thomas Fisher

Mary Guzowski

Rachel Iannacone

Benjamin Ibarra Sevilla

Cynthia Jara

Michael (Mic) Johnson

Lance LaVine

Thomas Meyer

Nancy Miller

Andrzej Piotrowski

Julia Robinson

Sharon Roe

Ozayr Saloojee

Leon Satkowski

Katherine Solomonson

Marc Swackhamer

Leslie Van Duzer

William Weber

J. Stephen Weeks

Loren E. Abraham Adjunct Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

Technology

Courses

Arch 5516 Tech II: Luminous & Thermal Design

Educational Background

Business Administration Certificate, Northeast Metro University, 1987-88

BA Architecture/Landscape Architecture, Interdisciplinary, UMN, Minneapolis MN, 1977

Architectural Technology Courses, Southeast Technical Institute, Sioux Falls, South Dakota, 1972

Academic and Professional Positions

Adjunct Assistant Professor, UMN, College of Design, Architecture Department, 2005-p

Continuing Education Instructor: Renewable Energy Systems, American Institute of Architects, 2006-p

Public Education Workshop Instructor: Passive Design and Renewable Energy, MRES, 2007-p

Abraham + Associates Architects, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Principal, 2001-p

Daybreak Technology, LLC, Minneapolis, Minnesota and Charlottesville, VA, Principal, 1997-p

Guest Lecturer, Bethel University, Adult MBA Program, Business and the Environment, 2007 William McDonough + Partners, Charlottesville, Virginia, Architect, Energy Specialist, Director of Research, 1994-1997

Training Seminar Instructor-Designing Low Energy Buildings with Energy 10, DOE/FEMP, 1997-1998 Workshop Instructor, Passive Solar Design Strategies/BuilderGuide Software, Passive Solar Industries Council, 1994-1996

Andersen Window Corporation, Bayport, Minnesota, Advanced Research Manager, 1989-1994

Andersen Window Corporation, Bayport, Minnesota, R&D Product Design Engineer, 1984-1989

KKE Architects, Minneapolis Minnesota, Project Architect, 1983-1984

RSP Architects, Minneapolis Minnesota, Project Architect, 1982-1983

Abraham and Broussard Architects, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1982

David Todd Runyan & Associates, St. Paul, Minnesota, Architect, 1970-1982

Buetow & Associates, St. Paul, Minnesota, Architect Intern, 1979-1980

Drake & Sessing Architects, Saint Paul, Minnesota, Architect Intern, 1978-79

Koch Hazard Associates, Architects, Sioux Falls, SD, Architect Intern, 1977-19781

Landscape Designer, Dundee Nursery, 1976-1977

Intern, Ward Whitwam & Assoc Architects, Sioux Falls, SD, 1974-1975

Steel Erection Crew Foreman, Maxcore Engineering, Aberdeen, SD, 1974

Apprentice Carpenter in the South Dakota Carpenter Apprenticeship Program, 1973-74

Membership, Registration, Certifications

1990-p Licensed Architect, Minnesota, registration no. 20882, 1990-present

1993-p US Green Building Council Founding Member, 1993-present

2007-p US Green Building Council Mississippi Headwaters Chapter Member, 2007-present

1990-p American Institute of Architects (AIA),1990-present

2008 American Solar Energy Society (ASES) Member, 2008-p

2006 LEED Accredited Professional, US Green Building Council, 2006

2006 Minnesota Renewable Energy Society Member, 2006-p

2005 McClauren Institute Contributing Member, 2005-p

Research, Publications, Exhibitions, Creative Practice

2005

Reimagining the relationship between Human Beings and their Environment, The Hennepin County Brookdale Regional Center, Daybreak Press, 2005

2000-05 Guest Lecturer and Jury Member, UMN, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture

Academic and Professional Service

2004-p AIA Minnesota Chapter, Committee Chairperson present, 2004-present

1991-p AIA Committee on the Environment (COTE), 1991-present

2008 Minnesota Renewable Energy Society, Board Member, 2008

2007 Solar Decathlon Project Advisor, UMN College of Design, 2007-p

2005 Sustainable Technology Faculty Committee, UMN College of Design, 2005-p

Presentations, Invited Lectures

2008 Renewable Energy in Commercial Buildings, Energy Design Expo, Duluth, MN, Feb. 29, 2008

2007

An Ecological Approach to Daylighting Design, International Interior Design Association, Continuing Education Workshop, Minneapolis, MN, Nov. 7, 2007

2007 A Sustainable Future: Design as Devotion, Cornerstone Music Festival, Bushnell, IA, June 28-30, 2007

2007

Renewable Energy in Commercial Buildings, AIA Workshop, Earl Brown Center, SP, MN, Mar. 13, 2007

2007 Renewable Energy in Commercial Buildings, Energy Design Expo, Duluth, MN, Feb. 28, 2007

2005

Twin Cities Green Roof Council, Minneapolis Central Library Greenroof, Minneapolis, MN, Mar. 4, 2005

2004

Sustainable Architecture - Energy & Environmental Choices, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, Sep. 22, 2004

2004 Minnesota Public Radio Midmorning Program, Sustainable Architecture Interview, Sep. 21, 2004

2004

Twin Cities Green Roof Council, 901 Cherry - Gap Offices Greenroof, Minneapolis, MN, August 9, 2004

Lee B. Anderson Associate Professor

Teaching Area

CAD, Design

Courses

Arch 3611/5611 Arch 4381/5381 Arch 4382/5382


UMN, School of Architecture, Master of Architecture, 1981

Sophia University, Tokyo, B.S. in Asian Studies and Mathematics, 1973


Associate Professor, College of Design, Department of Architecture, UMN

Digital Design Consortium Director, 2007

Digital Design Consortium Director, 2001-2003

Director of Graduate Studies, 1996-2001

Interim Department Head, 1997-99

President, SketchTech, Inc., 1986-96


Acadia (Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture)

Grants, Awards, Honors

2007-10

NSF Information Technology Research (NSF-ITR) grant titled “Effectively Harnessing Virtual Environments Technology for Visualization and Design” (2007 -2010) $424,000(co-PI with Associate Professor Victoria Interrante CSci)

2003-p

NSF CAREER grant titled “High Quality and Efficient Rendering of Discrete Primitives for Interactive Visualization” $408,959 2/1/03-1/31/08 plus extensions (co-PI with Associate Professor Victoria Interrante CSci)

2007-08 Institute of Advanced Studies Social Networks study grant covener $10,000 2007-2008 (co-PI with Associate Professor Victoria Interrante CSci)

2007 Winner (with student team) Google Earth "Build your own Campus" contest 2007

2003-06

NSF Information Technology Research (NSF-ITR) grant titled "Collaborative Research in Immersive Design Environments". $379,196 2003-09-01 to 2006-08-31 Plus extensions (co-PI with Associate Professor Victoria Interrante CSci)

2006 Roy Jones Award for Outstanding Research 2006

2006 UMN iFellow, 2006

2003 Graphics" $195,000 (including University matching funds) Granted 9/11/2003(co-PI with Associate Professor Victoria Interrante CSci)


2007

Victoria Interrante, Brian Ries, Jason Lindquist and Lee Anderson (2007) "Elucidating the Factors that can Facilitate Veridical Spatial Perception in Immersive Virtual Environments",IEEE Virtual Reality 2007

2006

Ross Treddinick, Lee Anderson and Victoria Interrante (2006) "A Tablet Based Immersive Architectural Design Tool", Proc. of ACADIA (Assoc. for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture) 2006. (acceptance rate: 20%)

2006 Victoria Interrante, Lee Anderson and Brian Ries (2006) "Distance Perception in Immersive Virtual Environments, Revisited", IEEE Virtual Reality 2006, pp. 3-10.

2003

Lee Anderson, James Esser and Victoria Interrante (2003) "A Virtual Environment for Conceptual Design in Architecture", 9th Eurographics Workshop on Virtual Environments/7th International Workshop on Immersive Projection Technology


Academic Technology Advising Committee (University) Advisory Board-GRAVEL, Institute for New Media Studies, School of Journalism and Mass Communication

College Curriculum

College Technology

Department Curriculum

Faculty Consultative Committee-College

School Graduate Curriculum


2008 Invited presenter and panelist at the Networks & Neighborhoods in Cyberspace Symposium, UMN. 2008

2007

Creativity and Cognition 2007, June 13-15, 2007, Washington, D.C. Gave presentation titled "Advancing architectural design and education through the use of Virtual Environments technology" in the Tool for Creativity workshop

2007

Victoria Interrante, Brian Ries, Jason Lindquist and Lee Anderson (2007) "Elucidating the Factors that can Facilitate Veridical Spatial Perception in Immersive Virtual Environments", IEEE Virtual Reality 2007

2006 Building Information Modeling in Education, invited presentation, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway-Fall, 2006

2006

Ross Treddinick, Lee Anderson and Victoria Interrante (2006) "A Tablet Based Immersive Architectural Design Tool", Proc. of ACADIA (Assoc. for Computer-Aided Design in Architecture) 2006.

2006 Victoria Interrante, Lee Anderson and Brian Ries (2006) "Distance Perception in Immersive Virtual Environments, Revisited",

2005-06 Virtual Reality Seminar, Invited seminar, School of Architecture, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway-Fall, 2005, 2006

Ritu Bhatt Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

History/Theory/Culture

Courses Arch 5546 Architecture Since WWII: Post-Ware Experimentation, Aesthetics & Politics

Educational Background 1996-2000 Ph.D., History, Theory & Criticism, Department of Architecture, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA

1991-93 Masters of Architecture, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS

1990 Bachelor of Architecture, Department of Architecture, University of Roorkee, India.


Assistant Professor, UMN, 2003-present

Visiting Assistant Professor, Departments of Architecture, Comparative Literature and Rhetoric, University of California, Berkeley, 2000-2003

Project Architect Design Plus, Inc New Delhi, India, 1990-91

Intern Design Plus, Inc New Delhi, India, Summer 1998


American Association of Aesthetics

Environmental Design Research Association

International Association for the study of Traditional Environments

Quadrant Program, UMN Press

Society of Architectural Historians


2008

2008 AIA Education Honors Award for an Incomplete Curriculum for Transformation, a collaborative work co-authored with Renee Cheng, John Comazzi, Ozayr Saloojee, and Marc Swackhamer


current

Ritu Bhatt, "Aesthetic or AnAesthetic: The Competing Symbols of Las Vegas Strip," Instruction as Provocation, or Relearning from Las Vegas," edited by Aron Vinegar and Michael Golec UMN Press, forthcoming

2008 Ritu Bhatt and Julie Brand, "Christopher Alexander: A Review Essay," Design Issues, Volume XXIV Number 2, Spring 2008, pp.93-102

current Currently preparing a proposal to study the spatial practices that support mind-body cognition in Mcleod Gunj, Upper Dharam Shala, India

current Currently preparing a series of journal articles based on my dissertation work: "On the Epistemological Significance of Aesthetic Values in Architectural Theory."

2004 Ritu Bhatt, "Aesthetic or AnAesthetic: The Competing Symbols of Las Vegas Strip," Visible Language, Special issue on Learning from Las Vegas 37.2, Spring 2004.


2008 Paper Reviewer for the session on "The End of Architectural History and Reports of Its Demise, "ACSA 96th Annual Meeting, 2008

2008 Heritage Preservation Committee, 2008-9

2008 History, Theory Culture Committee, 2008-9

2007 Paper Reviewer for the session on "Teaching the History Survey," ACSA 95th Annual Meeting, 2007

2007 Heritage Preservation Search Committee, 2007-8

2007 Model T Graduate Curriculum Development 2007-8

2007 Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, Fall 2007

2005 Organizer, Public symposium, Feng Shui: Everyday Acts of Space Making, CALA, UMN, October 28, 29, 30, 31, 2005 http://www.cala.umn.edu/fengshui/index.html

2005 Co-Chair Scholarship and Awards Committee 2005-6

2005 Faculty Evaluation Committee 2005-6

2005 Graduate Curriculum Committee 2005-6

2004 Awards Committee 2004-5

2004 Committee: Development of M.S. program in History, Theory and Culture 2004-5

2004 Faculty Search Committee 2004-5


2008 Feng shui Analysis of Ralph Rapson Hall and Weisman Museum at UMN Campus, IASTE Cambridge, UK, 2008

2008 Feng-Shui Analysis of Ralph Rapson Hall and Weisman Museum at the UMN Twin Cities Campus," EDRA, Veracruz, Mexico, 2008

2008

Julia Robinson and Ritu Bhatt, Developing Culturally Critical Perspective in Early Design Education, 24th National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Atlanta, 2008

2006

Exploring Cognition in Everyday Environments: Comparison between Christopher Alexander's Pattern Language and Feng Shui-Chinese Art of Space Making, EDRA, Atlanta,

2005

Christopher Alexander's Pattern Language: Search for an Alternative Conception of Knowledge, in the Session on The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Architectural History, SAH Annual Meeting, Vancouver 2005

2005 Conference Panel Co-Chair with Alona Nitzan-Shiftan, Inter-Cultural Negotiations of PostwarArchitectural Knowledge, SAH Annual Meeting, Vancouver 2005

Blaine Brownell Assistant Professor Joined the faculty in Fall 2008

Teaching Area

Sustainability, Design

Courses

Arch 8251 Graduate Design I Arch 8565 Materials Performance in Sustainable Building


Master of Architecture, Rice University, 1998 Bachelor of Arts in Architecture + Certificate in East Asian Studies, Princeton University, 1992


Assistant Professor, UMN

Visiting Professor in Sustainability, University of Michigan, 2007-08

Visiting Research Fellow / Fulbright Scholar, Tokyo University of Science, 2006-07

Associate / Architect, NBBJ, 1999-06

Associate / Intern Architect, Willis Bricker & Cannady, 1998-99

Intern Architect, Takenaka Komuten, 1997

Research Assistant, Yung-Ho Chang, 1995-1996

Intern Architect, Giattina Fisher Aycock, 1992-1994

Intern Architect, Kajima Kensetsu, 1991


2005 Construction Document Technologist, Construction Specifications Institute, 2005

2005 Sustainable Building Advisor, National Sustainable Building Advisor Program, 2005

2003 Registered Architect, Washington State, 2003

2003 Registered Architect, NCARB, 2003

2003 LEED Accredited Professional, United States Green Building Council, 2003


2006-07 Fulbright Fellowship, Research Fellowship to Japan, 2006-2007

2006-07 Fulbright Fellowship, Research Fellowship to Japan, 2006-2007

2006 40 Under 40 Award, Building Design & Construction, March 2006

2004 Nomination, Mentor of the Year, NBBJ, 2004

2003-04 Leader, Leading Change Program, NBBJ, 2003-2004

Research, Publications, Exhibitions, Creative Practice 2009 Matter in the Floating World (book proposal), Princeton Architectural Press, 2009

2009 Transmaterial 3 (book proposal), Princeton Architectural Press, 2009

2008 Katie Gerfen, "The Second Annual R+D Awards," Architect, August 2008

2008 Amy Cortese, "In Search of Better (and Greener) Building Blocks," The New York Times,

2008 Sarah Rich, "Material Cultures," Dwell, February 2008

2008 Material Complexity in Architecture, Materia (Italy), July 2008

2008 Transmaterial 2, Princeton Architectural Press, 2008

2008 PET Wall (Installation), The University of Michigan, March-April, 2008


2008 Materials Library Committee, College of Design

2008 Exhibitions Committee, College of Design


2008 Material Futures: Securing Architecture + Cities, ACSA/Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 2008.06.27

2008 Material Futures in Architecture, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, 2008.04.15

2008 Material Futures in Architecture, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, 2008.04.14

2008 PET Wall Exhibition Lecture, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 2008.03.28

2008 Material Futures in Architecture, Washington U in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, 2008

2008 Material Futures, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 2008.02.25

2008 Material Futures in Architecture, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, 2008.02.01

2008

Material Futures: Securing Architecture + Cities, ACSA/Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 2008.06.27

Arthur Hui-Min Chen Associate Professor

Teaching Area

Representation, Design, Heritage Preservation

Courses

Port Cities Study Abroad Arch 5670 Topics in Historic Preservation


Ph.D., Architectural History, Theory and Criticism, Georgia Institute of Technology, 1993

M.Arch., North Carolina State University, 1983

B.Arch., Tamkang University, 1976


Director of Study Abroad Program-Port Cities Studies: Lisbon, Barcelona & Venice, present

Director of the Center for World Heritage Studies, present

Associate Professor, UMN, 2001-p

Associate Professor, UMN, 1998-2001

UMN; Cass Gilbert Visiting Professor, 1996-1998

State University of New York at Buffalo; Clinical Associate Professor, Graduate Faculty, 1989-96

Georgia Institute of Technology; Design Studio Instructor, Architecture, 1986-1989

East Carolina University, Assistant Professor, 1983-1984


Present Fellow of the World Academy of Art and Science, Present

Present Advisor to the National Commission to UNESCO of the Philippines, Present

Present Advisor to World Heritage Centre of UNESCO to undertake the university partnership projects of conservation, Present

2006-08 Principal Investigator, UNESCO Project Grant ($60,000) for developing the digital inventory of historic sites in Isheri Sheri at Baku in Azerbaijan, 2006/8

2008 2008 Principal Investigator, Travel grant from UNESCO for leading the Expert Mission Team to Xian, China

2006-07

Principal Investigator, Cranbrook Academy Campus Project Grant ($50,000) for preparing the nomination dossier of the campus as a World Heritage Site in the US Tentative List, 2006/7

2007 2007 Principal Investigator, Travel grant from UNESCO grant for leading the Expert Mission team to the Batanes archipelago, Philippines, 2007

2007 Member of the UNESCO-ICOMOS evaluation team to Baku, Azerbaijan, 2007

2007 Principal Investigator, Travel grant from UNESCO for the mission to Baku Azerbaijan, 2007

2006 UMN reoccurring funds ($50,000 yearly) for operating the Center for World Heritage Studies, 2006-p

2006 CALA Mann Frederick Mann Award for Disciplinary Service, 2006

2004 Principal Investigator, Project Grant ($13000) for developing adaptive uses of schemes at Luchesse Shipyard in Giudecca, Venice, by VESTA, 2004

2004 Selected for Exhibition at Le Biennale for design research work in Venice, 2004


2005-p Institutional building. CWHS is a research unit in the College of Design at the University of Minnesota, founded on a unique partnership with UNESCO's World Heritage Centre., 2005-p

2007-p

Batana Archipelago in the Philippines. CWHS works with UNESCO and officials in the Philippines, to provide expert consultation and technical assistance in the process of developing, reworking, and resubmitting the nomination dossier.., 2007-p

forthcoming The Baku Inventory Project, Paris: UNESCO (forthcoming)., Present

2007/2008 The Batanes Archipelago in the Philippines. UNESCO/WHC, 2007/2008

2007/2008 The Daming Palace Park in Xian. UNESCO/WHC Daming Palace in Xian, China, 2007/2008


present Director, graduate study abroad program of Port Cities: Lisbon, Barcelona, and Venice, present Director, the Center for World Heritage Studies

present External Reviewer of the Ph.D. program in Architecture, Virginia Tech, Present

present Guest Reviewer, Architectural Research Quarterly, ARQ, Present

present Member of Editorial Board, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, JAPR,

present Member of ICOMOS-USA, Present

present Paper Reviewer for the ACSA National and International Meetings, Present

present Represent CDes to International Program Committee, UMN, Present


2008 2008 Presentation at the 2008 Heritage Meeting, An Inventory Model for Baku

2005/2007 Leading UNESCO missions to Baku Azerbaijan, 2005/2007

2007 Expert observer at the 31st UNESCO World Heritage Committee Meeting, Christchurch, New Zealand, June 19-30, 2007

2007 ICOMOS International Committee on the Interpretation of World Heritage, 2007

2007

Invited Expert by the Romualdo Del Bianco Foundation, International Preparatory Conference on "The Historical Architectural Heritage in the New Social Political Situation after the Soviet Union," Florence, Feb 20-22, 2007

2007

Invited Expert by the Romualdo Del Bianco Foundation, International Preparatory Conference on "The Historical Architectural Heritage in the New Social Political Situation after the Soviet Union," Florence, Feb 20-22, 2007

Renee Cheng Professor

Teaching Area

Technology, Professional Practice, Design

Courses

Arch 5670 Professional Practice in Architecture


Harvard University Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, Massachusetts Master of Architecture, 1989

Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts A.B., Psychology Concentration, Cum Laude, 1985


School of Architecture, College of Design, UMN, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Head of the School of Architecture, Professor, 2008-p School of Architecture, College of Design, UMN, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Head of the School of Architecture, Associate Professor, 2004-2008 Department of Architecture, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, UMN, Minneapolis, Minnesota, Director of Design, Associate Professor, 2001-2004


Minnesota Licensed Architect #44732

NCARB Certificate #45755, Certified since 1995


2007 AIA Minnesota President-elect (pending), 2007

2004

Principal Investigator: $17,000 Grant sponsored by the Steel Tube Institute for case study educational material., 2004-5


2007

Can BIM Inspire New Directions in Architectural Education?. In Fresh Air: Proceedings of the ACSA Ninety Fifth Annual Meeting Held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 2007, 455-460. Washington, DC: ACSA

2007 Computing Technologies. Edited new chapter in Architectural Graphic Standards, 11th edition, ed. A. Pressman, 932-956. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2007

2007

Principal Investigator, Building Information Modeling as a Design Tool, Digital Design Consortium, University of Minnesota. Ongoing research in collaboration with local firms and contractors on the topic of BIM. Work involves a prototype hospital with the firm of HGA architects using performance data to drive BIM., 2007

2006

Suggestions for an Integrative Education. In AIA Integrated Practice Report, eds. N.Strong, D.Friedman, M.Broshar, essay 5, Washington, DC: AIA., 2006

2006 Getting Real: Design Ethos Now: Proceedings of the ACSA Ninety Fourth Annual Meeting, eds. R. Cheng, P.Tripeny. Washington, DC: ACSA., 2006


2006-p Member, Colleagues Advisory Board, Weisman Art Museum, Minneapolis, MN, 2006-present

2006-p

Member, McKnight Advisory Committee, advising on the McKnight Arts and Humanities Endowment, 2006-present

2004-07 Advisory Board, Architectural Graphic Standards, AIA National. One of a 7 member board., 2004-2007

2007

Chair, ACSA White Paper on BIM and Comprehensive Studio, advisory for the NAAB accreditation review., 2007

2007 Facilitator, Architectural Education in the 21st Century, ACSA/AIA Cranbrook Teachers Seminar. Bloomfield Hills, MI., 2007

2007

Invited contributor, White Paper on The Future of Architectural Education, AIA Technology in Architectural Practice Conference., 2007

2007 Invited Panelist, Women in Administration, hosted by the Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs, UMN, 2007

2007 Invited participant, AIA Research Summit, Seattle, WA., 2007

2007 Juror, AIA National BIM TAP awards., 2007

2006 Co-Chair, "Getting Real: Design Ethos Now." ACSA Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah., 2006

2004 Presentor & Participant, Case Study Initiative. ACSA/AIA Cranbrook Teachers Seminar. Bloomfield Hills, MI., 2004


2007 Can BIM Inspire New Directions in Architectural Education? ACSA National Meeting. Philadelphia, PA., 2007

2006 Curricular Strategies. Faculty Development Lecture Series. Howard University, Washington DC., 2006

2006 The Internship Trap. AIA Minnesota Convention Panel, Minneapolis, MN., 2006

2006 Turning the Big Ship: BIM and Architectural Education. Panel on BIM. ACSA Adminstrators' Conference. Phoenix, AZ. (presented by proxy due to illness)., 2006

2005

"Evolving Tools, Evolving Ideas." Education Summit. Association of Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA). Waterloo, Canada. (also broadcast on Architecture Radio). 2005

John Comazzi Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

Design

Courses

Arch 8255 Graduate Design IV Arch 5280 Graduate Project Based Module


Master of Science in Architectural History and Theory, University of Michigan: Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 1999

Master of Architecture, University of Michigan: Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 1998

B.S.-Architecture, University of Virginia: School of Architecture, 1993


Assistant Professor of Architecture UMN: College of Design_School of Architecture 2006-present Lecturer in Architecture, University of Michigan: Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 2001-2006 Adjunct-Lecturer in Architecture, University of Michigan: Taubman College of Architecture and Urban Planning, 1999-2001

Founding Partner, design-CRED, Minneapolis, MN, 2006-present

Founding Partner, Wilkins + Comazzi design L.L.C., Ann Arbor, MI, 2002-2006

Principal, PLY Architecture + Design, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000-2002

Architecture Intern, David W. Osler, Architect, Ann Arbor, MI, 1999-2000


2008 AIA Education Honor Awards (with Renee Cheng, Ritu Baht, Ozayr Saloojee and Marc Swackhamer), 2008

2007 School Buildings-The State of Affairs: $3100. SHARE-Boston (Swiss House for Advanced Research and Education). Consulate of Switzerland.

2007 Architecture and Pedagogy: $1000. Office of International Programs Travel Grant,

2007

CASE: Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, Bronze Award for Excellence in Design, CDES Fall 2007 Lecture Poster (with J. Boyd-Brent and J. Schacht)

2007 Dayton Hudson Faculty Fellowship, Research Topic: The Architectural Eye of Balthazar Korab. Awarded by the Metropolitan Design Center

2007

UMN, Successful Grant-In-Aid Proposal selected as Exemplary for posting on the UMN's Graduate School website to "provide new applicants with a framework and a useful guide in writing their own proposals.", 2007


2008

The Saarinen Legacy: Photographs by Balthazar Korab, Minneapolis Central Public Library, Minneapolis, MN, October-November, 2008. Designer + Curator (with B. Korab, C. Korab, and A. Jarvi)

2008

Drawings and Illustrations produced for book: Feasting in the City of Paradise, by Sussan Babaie, PhD, forthcoming 2008, Role: Illustrator and artistic director for Interpretive and analytical diagrams (with Sam Zeller)

2008

Performance and Architecture: A review of the Walker Art Center and the Tyrone Guthrie Theater, in Journal of Architectural Education, Blackwell Publishing, Inc., forthcoming 2008, (I also supplied all images used in the essay).

07, 08

Scaffolds, Billboards and Cupcakes: Design Camp 2007, by John Comazzi, Anselmo Canfora and Wendy Friedmeyer, Fabric Architecture, January/February 2008. Features the work of Design Camp 2007

2008 Making Material Matter: Design in Education, Creative Engagements: Teaching with Children, 4th Global Conference, July 5-7, 2008, Mansfield College, Oxford,


2008 School of Architecture-Urban-Suburban-Rural Committee, member, 2008-P

2008 School of Architecture-Candidate Search Committee member: Design-Technology- Sustainability, 2008

2008 Architecture Project Leader-Project Leader, Open Architecture Competition -Invited by Jeffery Swainhart, MAFH, 2008

2006-08 School of Architecture-member, Graduate Curriculum Committee, School of Architecture 2006-2008

2007 School of Architecture-recruiter, School of Architecture-Graduate Program, (UVA & University of Maryland), 2007

2007 School of Architecture-reviewer, Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program, College of Design, 2007


2008

Children, Spaces, Relations: New thoughts on Environmental Design for Young Children fromReggio-Emilia, Italy, Institute for Child Development Colloquium Series, University of Minnesota, College of Education and Human Development,-Invited by BarbaraMurphy, Director of the Shirley G. Moore Lab School, February, 2008

2008 Design as Catalyst for Learning, Cooper-Hewitt Summer Design Institute Workshop, Walker Art Center, Minneapolis, MN

2008

Making Material Matter: Design in Education, Creative Engagements: Teaching with Children, 4th Global Conference, July 5-7, 2008, Mansfield College, Oxford, United Kingdom

William F. Conway Associate Professor

Teaching Area

Urban Design, Design

Courses

Arch 8255 Graduate Design IV Arch 5750 Territorial Cities


Master of Architecture, Yale University, School of Architecture, New Haven, Connecticut, 1989

B.A. Architecture, North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota, 1986


UMN, School of Architecture, Associate Professor of Architecture, 2008-present

Thesis Coordinator, Associate Professor of Architecture, UMN, School of Architecture, 2004-2008

Visiting Professor, School of Architecture University of Arkansas, 2006

Principal: Conway+Schulte Architects, P.A. 113 Washington Avenue North Minneapolis, MN 55401, 2000-present Department Head, Associate Professor of Architecture, UMN, School of Architecture, 1999-2004 Visiting Artist: American Academy in Rome, 1989-90

Principal: Conway+Schulte 428 Fifth Street, Suite B, Ames, Iowa 50010, 1994-2000

Designer: Cesar Pelli & Associates New Haven, Connecticut., 1988-1989

Teaching Fellow and Project Manager-Knowledge Map Project, Design Institute, UMN, 2002-2003


Licensed Architect: States of Arkansas, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota

NCARB Certificate, No. 49953, 1998

Member, Urban Land Institute, 2006-present

Member, US Green Building Council 2005-present

Member, AIA, 1999-present


2008

AIA Honor Award for Regional and Urban Design, Visioning Rail Transit in Northwest Arkansas:, Lifestyles and Ecologies, William F. Conway with University of Arkansas Community Design Center,

2008

NCARB Prize, Visioning Rail Transit in Northwest Arkansas:, Lifestyles and Ecologies, William F. Conway with University of Arkansas Community Design Center, 2008

2007

AIA Education Honor Award for Excellence, Visioning Rail Transit in Northwest Arkansas: Lifestyles and Ecologies, William F. Conway with University of Arkansas Community Design Center, 2007

2007 Merit Award, Archiving Memory, William F. Conway with Nancy Ann Coyne and Marcy Schulte, Society of Environmental Graphic Design (SEGD), 2007

2006 MACTac Award, Archiving Memory, William F. Conway with Nancy Ann Coyne and Marcy Schulte, First Place, Interior Signage, 2006

2005 AIA Minneapolis Merit Award, Iowa State University Transit Shelter, Conway+Schulte Architects, P.A., 2005

2005 First Place: Invited Competition Meredith Corporation Headquarters, Entry Pavilion, Media Center, Resource Center and Site Design, Des Moines, IA, 2005


2008 Lotte Tower New construction Busan, Korea, 2008

2008 MacArthur Park Master Plan, Little Rock, AR., 2008

2008 Paul Nelson Photo Studio Interior renovation Minneapolis, MN, 2008

2008 Residence New construction Edina, MN, 2008

2008 Stone Arch Lofts Interior renovation Minneapolis, MN, 2008

2008 Core Distribution Interior renovation Minneapolis, MN, 2008

2007

"Culture and the Recalibration of First Ring Suburbs," with Marcy Schulte Green Braid: Towards and Architecture of Ecology, Economy and Equity, Ed. by Kim Tanzer and RafaelLongoria Pub. by Routledge, 2007, p. 113-121

2007 NWA Rail Transit in Northwest Arkansas: Lifestyles and Ecologies Ed. by Stephen Luoni pub. University of Arkansas Community Design Center, 2007

2007 Tracing History Architecture Minnesota Pub. By AIA Minnesota April 2007, Vol. 33 Issue #2 Article by Mason Riddle


2007 Constitution Committee, member College of Design UMN, 2007

2007 ACSA National Awards Juror ACSA Administrators Conference Minneapolis, MN,

2007 Search Committee, member Director, Metropolitan Design Center College of Design UMN

2006 Paper Reviewer ACSA West Meeting Surfacing Urbanisms: Recent Approaches to Metropolitan Design

2006 Chair, Professional Practice Committee School of Architecture UMN

2006 M. Arch. Ad hoc Curriculum Committee School of Architecture UMN


2008 Visioning: MacArthur Park, Master Plan Arkansas Art Center Little Rock, AK

2006 Culture and the Recalibration of First Ring Suburbs with Marcy Schulte Surfacing Urbanisms, ACSA West Regional Conference Woodbury University Los Angeles, CA

2006 Recalibration of First Ring Suburbs and Mid-Century Homes with Marcy Schulte Mid-Atlantic Popular / American Culture Association Conference Baltimore, MD

2006 The City in a Park: How Cities Use Parks AIA Little Rock invited lecture Arkansas Art Center Little Rock, AK

Gunter Dittmar Associate Professor

Teaching Area

Design, Theory

Courses

Arch 8251 Graduate Studio I Arch 5451 Defining the Discipline Arch 5452 Architecture: Design, Form, Order, Meaning


M.Arch Yale University, 1967

Dipl. Ing. (Arch.), Tech. University, Munich, Germany, 1965

Studies in Philosophy, Ludwig. Maximilians University, Munich, 1975-1976


Director of Design, School of Architecture, 2008/2009

UMN, Department of Architecture, Assoc. Professor, 1970

Brandenburg Tech. University, M-Term, Visiting Professor, 2002


2007

The (Endless) Question of Architecture, article in Festschrift in honor of Karsten Harries, Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, International Journal of Architectural Theory, E. Führ, ed., 2007


2008 Director of Design

2008 Chair, Graduate Curriculum Committee

2004-present Governing Faculty Committe

2003 Chair, CALA (College of Arch. & L.Arch.)Curriculum Committee 2003-p

2004 Chair, Design Faculty Search Committee

2008 Chair, History/Theory/Culture Committee

2007 Coordinator, Graduate Design I (together with Sharon Roe)

2003-8 Member History/Theory/Culture Committee

2003-present Member, Architecture Admissions Committee

2003-present Member, Architecture Design Committee

2003-present Member, Architecture Graduate Curriculum Committee

2007 Member, Technology/Design Faculty Search Committee


2008 Peter Zumthor/Architecture of Being, Building and Dwelling, MplsPublic Library,

2007 Design Intelligence and Design Thinking/or Lessons Learned from Paper Folding (Exercise)', Oaxaca Workshop on Beginning Design Education, 2007

2005 Invited Panelist and Respondent, Symposium 'The City and Identity, Oaxaca, Mexico,

2003 Invited Lecture Presentation 'Is Sustainable Architecture Sustainable', Conference on Sustainable Architecture, Oaxaca, Mexico, 2003

Gregory Donofrio Assistant Professor Joins faculty in Jan 2009

Teaching Area

Heritage Preservation

Courses

Arch 4150 Topics in Historic Preservation


2008 Cornell University College of Architecture, Art and Planning Ithaca, NY Ph.D., Historic Preservation Planning (expected Dec.)

2001 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY M.A., Historic Preservation Planning

1998 Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, NY B.A., major: History of Science & Technology, Departmental Honors; minor:

American History


Spring 2007 Cornell University College of Architecture, Art and Planning, Department of City and Regional Planning, Visiting Lecturer.

2003-2006 Cornell University College of Architecture, Art and Planning, Department of Architecture, , Graduate Teaching Assistant

2001-2003 New York State Historic Preservation Office, Waterford, NY Historic Sites Restoration Coordinator for New York City, NYS Grade 19 (Scientific &

Technical) 2005-present Private Architectural Conservation and Historic Preservation Consultant,

Philadelphia, PA Summer 1999 Jablonski Berkowitz Conservation, Inc., New York, NY


2005 Student Paper Competition Award Winner, Agriculture, Food & Human Values ($500)

2007 Andrew W. Mellon Fellow, $2,000, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston, MA 2003-2005 National Council for Preservation Education (NCPE) Fellowship, $30,000 2003-2004 Historic Preservation Research Fellowship, $5,000, Cornell University 2000 John W. Reps Award for Superior Academic Achievement, Cornell University 1998-2000 Department Fellowship, Cornell University 1998-2000 Eloise Ellery Graduate Fellowship, $2,000, given by Vassar College


current Dissertation “The Container and the Contained: The Functional Preservation of Historic Food Markets”

current “Urban Planning, the Natural Environment, and Public Health,” with Nancy Wells, Ph.D., submitted July 2008 for inclusion in the Encyclopedia of Environmental Health, edited by Jerome Nriagu, to be published by Elsevier in 2009.

Thomas Fisher Professor and Dean

Teaching Area

Theory

Courses

Arch 5411 Principles of Design Theory


MA, Case Western Reserve, 1980

BArch, Cornell, 1975


Dean, 1996-present


1996-p Associate member of the American Institute of Architects, 1996-present

1996-p Member of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, 1996-present

2005-p Member, Urban Land Institute, 2005-present


2006 AIA Minnesota President's Citation, 2006

2005 AIA Minnesota Special Award "Leadership in Architectural Education" 2005

2005 Minnesota Monthly, "10 Minnesotans Changing your World" 2005


in progress Architectural Ethics, book in progress for Princeton Architectural Press

in progress Salmela Architect, II, book in progress for UMN Press

2008 Ensuring a Healthy and Prosperous Future, Architecture: Celebrating the Past, Designing the Future, 2008

2008 Public Interest Architecture, Expanding Architecture, Design as Activism, 2008

2008 Seeing Ghost Ghosts, Building an Architectural Vision, 2008

2008 The Architecture School as a Type, Designing for Designers, 2008

2008 Architectural Design and Ethics: Tools for Survival, Architectural Press, 2008;

2002-08 Articles: 77 in a variety of professional and popular magazines and newspapers from 2002-2008

2008 Designing for Designers: Lessons Learned from Schools of Architecture, edited with Jack Nasar Wolfgang Preiser, Fairchild, 2008

2007 A New Social Contract, Equity and Sustainable Development The Green Braid, 2007

2007 The Epicurean House Farrar House, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson, 2007

2006 Architecture's Pre-Medieval Condition T/here, A Journal of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, 2006

2006 Reconciling Art and Design Praxis/Practice, 2006

2005 Architectural Research Architectural Graphic Standards, 2005

2005 Design Practice in Professional Practice 101, 2005

2005 Home Among the Homeless T/here, A Journal of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, 2005

2005 If You're Cold, Add Layers Gould Evans, Architects, 2005

2005 Lake/Flato Architects, Rockport Press, 2005

2005 Salmela Architect, UMN Press, 2005


1996-p. Board Member, AIA Minnesota, 1996-present.

2004-p Advisory Board Member, Faith & Form, 2004-present

2008-09 President Elect, Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, 2008-09


2008 Architectural Design and Ethics St. Olaf College, 2008

2008 Sustainability and Ethics, University of New Mexico, 2008

2005 Studio Culture: a 21st Century Model University of Manitoba, 2005

2003 Architectural Form and Architectural Education University of Lisbon, 2003

2003 Salmela Architect, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson University of Hartford, 2003

2003 Salmela Architect Northeastern University, 2003

Mary Guzowski Associate Professor

Teaching Area

Sustainability, Daylighting

Courses

Arch 5516 Tech II: Luminous & Thermal Design Arch 8561 Sustainable Design Theory and Practice


Master of Architecture, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1990

Bachelor of Arts, Major in Fine Arts, Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, MI, 1982

L'ecole des Beaux-Arts, Aix-en-Provence, France


1998-date Associate Professor, School of Architecture, UMN, Minneapolis, MN

IEQ Coordinator (with Rachelle Schoessler Lynn), CALA GreenLight Charette, CALA, January 2005.


2001-2004 Member, ACSA Task Force for Sustainability.


2006

Special Recognition in Design Education, American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment, MS Sustainable Design Program, 2006 (received as Chair on behalf of the MS Sustainable Design Committee).

2004 Educator Award, American Institute of Architects Minnesota, 2004.


2000-p Minnesota Sustainable Design Guide, UMN, (with J. Carmody et al.), 2000-on going.

2008-09

“Carbon Neutral Design Project,” American Institute of Architects, 2008-2009, $75,000 (with $75,000 in matching funds from an Anonymous Foundation) (Co-P.I. with Terri Meyer Boake and John Quale; P.I.: Jim Wasley).

2007-09

“Minnesota Zero Energy Design Protocol (mnZED Protocol),” Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), 2007-2009, $60,000 (Co-P.I. with J. Carmody and R. Strong).

2006-08 “Renewable-Architecture Education Initiative,” MPCA, 2006-2008, $60,000 (P.I. with Co-P.I., J. Carmody).

2007 “Is Beauty Only Skin Deep: The Building Envelope and Its Implications for Daylighting Design,” 2007 Proceedings of the American Solar Energy Society

2007 “The New Architecture of the Sun and Wind,” American Institute of Architects Committee on the Environment Sustainable Design Whitepapers, AIA COTE, 2007.

2005-07 “A Multicultural Approach to Ecological Design Education,” Center for Teaching and Learning Services, UMN, 2005-2007, $2,500 (P.I.).

2004-07 “The Affordable Housing Initiative,” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2004-2007, $400,000 (Co-P.I. with J. Carmody et al.).

2007 “Is Beauty Only Skin Deep,” American Solar Energy Society (ASES), July 2007.

2006 “An Integral Theory of Sustainable Design Explored Through Daylighting,” 2006 Proceedings of the American Solar Energy Society, July 2006 (with M. DeKay).

2006 “Solar Design in Minnesota: Lessons from Zero Energy Housing,” 2006 Proceedings of the American Solar Energy Society, July 2006 (with W. Weber).


2007

Coordinator and Moderator, “Sustainability Now,” Associated Collegiate School of Architecture (ACSA) Administrator’s Conference, Minneapolis, MN, October 2007 (with Tom Fisher, Judith Sheine, and Jim Wasley).

2007 Coordinator and Moderator,“Architecture 2030 Challenge: Zero-energy Design in Minnesota,” Ed Mazria, Third Annual Earth Day Forum,

00-01,05-07 Paper reviewer, American Solar Energy Society (ASES), 2007, 2006, 2005, 2001,

01,04,06,07 Paper reviewer, ACSA Annual Meetings, 2007, 2006, 2004, 2001.

2006 Coordinator and Moderator, “Innovations in Solar and Renewable Energy,” Thomas Spiegelhalter, Second Annual CALA Earth Day Forum, April 2006.

2006

Paper reviewer, Journal of Solar Energy, September 2006 (J. Page, J.L. Scartezzini, J. Kaenf, N. Morel, “On-site Performance of Electrochrome Glazings Coupled to an Anidolic Daylighting System”).

2006 Moderator, “Design for Climate Recovery,” ASES, 2006.

2005 Coordinator and Moderator, “Integrated Sustainable Design,” Robert Berkebile, First Annual CALA Earth Day Forum, April 2005.


2007 “Teaching Sustainability in Schools of Architecture,” ASES, July 2007. (Invited presentation to a professional audience with Jim Wasley et al.)

2007 “Greening the Curriculum,” ASES, July 2007. (Invited presentation to a professional audience with Michael Zaretsky et al.)

2007 “Sustainable Design Education,” Walter Wagner Forum, 2007 American Institute of Architects (AIA) Convention, San Antonio, Texas, May 2007.

2007 “On Ecological Design Education,” AIA Conference on Sustainability in Higher Education,” AIA, February 2007. (

Rachel Iannacone Adjunct Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

Modern History

Courses

Arch 4434/5434 Modern Architecture

Arch 4432/5432 Contemporary Architecture


Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, 2005

M.A., University of Pennsylvania, 2001

B.A., Art History Honors, University of Pennsylvania, May 1994


Fall 2006 –Present: Visiting Assistant Professor, College of Design, UMN, Minneapolis, MN

Fall 2005 – Spring 2006: Visiting Assistant Professor, Art History Department, Ithaca College, Ithaca, NY


2005-09 College Art Association 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

05, 07, 09 Society of Architectural Historians 2005, 2007, 2009


2002-03 Dumbarton Oaks Junior Fellowship, Garden and Landscape Studies, 2002-2003


present Designing Play Book project, target date: Fall 2011

2009 College Housing in the Post-World War II period Article project, target date

2009 New York City and Beaux Arts Parks Article Project, target date: Fall 2009

2008

“The Small Parks Movement in New York City and the Civilizing Process of Immigrants at the Turn of the Twentieth Century,” Gardens and the Construction of Cultures in the Americas (Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, 2008).

2007

“Central Park,” and “Neighborhood Playgrounds and Parks,” Robert Moses and the Transformation of New York edited by Hilary Ballon and Kenneth T. Jackson (New York: W.W. Norton, 2007).


2009

“An Elevating Influence: Beaux-Arts Public Parks in New York City.” Agents of Civilization: Civic Art and the National Body at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, Association of Historians of American Art, College Art Association Conference, February 2009.

2007 “College Housing for Co-eds, Eero Saarinen’s Women’s Dormitory at the University of Pennsylvania,” Art History Department, UMN, December 4, 2007.

2006 “Public Space in New York at the Turn of the Twentieth Century,” Design@Noon, College of Design, School of Architecture, UMN, November 1, 2006.

2004

“The Meaning and Use of Public Space in the Early Twentieth Century: Fannie Griscom Parsons and the First Garden Schools of New York City,” Women and the Creation of Public Landscape, Society of Architectural Historians Annual Meeting.

2004 “ ‘A little lawn-planting intelligence’: Samuel Parsons Jr. and the Debate over Public Space in Twentieth Century New York,” Philadelphia Museum of Art Symposium.

Benjamin Ibarra Sevilla Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

Technology, Design, Heritage Preservation

Courses

Arch 5517 Technology III: Structural Systems Arch 5280 Project Based Module


University of Alcala de Henares and Carolina Foundation Excellence Program, Madrid, Spain. 2005 Master Degree in Conservation and Restoration of Heritage Cities and Buildings.

Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México UNAM. Mexico City 1994 Licensed Architect with distinction (professional degree to practice architecture).


Assistant Professor of Architecture, Fall 2008 to present

Visiting Assistant Professor, UMN. Spring 2006 – Spring 2008

Design Principal . Benjamin Ibarra Architecture, 2004 - 2006

Cass Gilbert Visiting Professor, UMN. Fall 2002, 2004.

Design Principal. Lastra – Ibarra Arquitectos. 1999 - 2004

Cass Gilbert Visiting Professor, UMN. Fall 2002, 2004.


1998 Registered Architect by the Mexican General Professions Department within the Department of Public Education

ICOMOS US member.

National Trust for Historic Preservation member.

Spanish Association for Cultural Heritage Management


2005 Carolina Foundation Fellowship, Excellence Program in Heritage Conservation at Spain. 2005

2004 Cass Gilbert Fellowship, CALA, UMN, 2002 and 2004.


present

Stereotomy of the Sixteenth Century Buildings at Mixteca Alta, Oaxaca, Mexico. Completion:

present

UNESCO mission to the Philippines. Advisor, Nomination Dossier of Batanes Islands. Center for World Heritage Studies (CWHS), U of M and UNESCO. Completion Date: February 2009

2008 Inventory System of Historic Buildings at Baku, Azerbaijan. CWHS, U of M and UNESCO. Documentation completed 2006, Publication December 2008

date tbd Research / book: “The Heritage of Icheri Sheher at Baku Azerbaijan”. World Heritage Center UNESCO. Forthcoming

2007 Essay: “The City of Oaxaca as a World Heritage Site”. Book in commemoration of the 475th anniversary of Oaxaca City. Casa de la Ciudad, Harp Foundation. 2007

2007 Essay: “Can BIM inspire a new direction in Architectural Education?” With Renee Cheng. ACSA National Conference Proceedings. 2007

2007 Article: “The stereotomy of the Open Chapel at Teposcolula, Mexico”. Loggia Magazine Number 20, College of Architects, Valencia, Spain. 2007

2006 Essay: “Sixteenth Century Indigenous Architecture, and the Monastic House of San Juan Teposcolula, Oaxaca”. ARPA Conference Proceedings, Valladolid, Spain. 2006


2007, 2008 Research Fellow. Center for World Heritage Studies. UMN. Fall 2007, Spring 2008.

2007 Seminar in Modern Heritage in Mexico City. Coordinator of the seminar with Center for World Heritage Studies. UMN. Fall 2007.

2007 Final review guest reviewer. Sam Fox School of Design and Visual Arts, Department of Architecture. Washington University of Saint Louis. Fall 2007

2007 Final review guest reviewer. Department of Architecture. University of Arkansas.

2006, 2007 Graduate Admissions Committee. College of Design, School of Architecture. UMN. Spring,2006 - Spring 2007

2005 Seminar in Latin American Heritage at Madrid, Spain. Coordinator of the seminar with the Cultural Heritage Spanish Association. 2005


2008 “Oaxaca a World Heritage City of the present time”. "Sacred Sites | Sacred Sights: Past/Present/Future," CDes UMN 2008

2008 “Stereotomic and Structural challenges of Ancient Masonry Buildings” University of Arkansas. 2008

2007 “Oaxaca a World Heritage City of the present time”. National Trust for Historic Preservation Conference. Twin Cities 2007

2007 “Can BIM inspire a new direction in Architectural Education?”. With Renee Cheng at ACSA National Conference. Philadelphia 2007

2005

“Renovation of Sixteenth Century Indigenous Architecture, San Juan Teposcolula, a Sustainable and Regional Development Project” University of Alcala de Henares, Spain. 2005

2005

"Geometry, stereotomy and graphic representation in the conservation of heritage in Oaxaca, Mexico". Seminar in Latin American Heritage, Museum of America, Madrid, Spain. 2005

Cynthia Jara Associate Professor

Teaching Area

History, theory, design

Courses

Arch 4701 Introduction to Urban Form and Issues Arch 5711Urban Design Arch 4284 Undergraduate Studio 4


Education M.Arch, Columbia University 1977

M.A. in Curriculum and Teaching, Columbia University 1972

B.A. in History, Carleton College 1971


Teaching and UMN, Associate Professor 1997-Present

Administrative Director of Graduate Studies 2001-02

UMN, Assistant Professor 1983-97

Colunbia University, Instructor of Architecture 1981-85

New York University, Adjunct Lecturer 1982-85

Professional I.M. Pei & Partners, New York 1978-82

UMN, Institute of Technology


2000-p National Architectural Accrediting Board, Visiting Team 2000-Present

1998-p UMN, Faculty Senate 1998-Present


2001 Research Rockefeller Archive Center, Travel Grant 2001

1992 Professional Honors UMN, Single Quarter Leave 1992

1986 George Taylor Award for Distinguished Teaching 1986

1991-4 UMN, Graduate School Grant-in-Aid 1991-94


1995 Publications "Adolf Loos's Raumplan Theory," Journal of Architectural Education, 48:3 (February 1995), pp. 185-201.

1997

"Adolf Loos and Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Common Bond of Sprachkritik," ARRIS: Journal of the Southeast Chapter of the Society of Architectural Historians, 7 (1997), pp. 19-31.

1996

“The Forest Hills Experiment: Philanthropy, Urbanism, Design, and Technology,” Proceedings of the 84th ACSA Annual Meeting and Technology Conference (Washington, D.C.: ACSA, 1996), pp. 624-30.

1996

“Prefabrication in the Design of Housing at Forest Hills Gardens in New York, 1909-1919," Proceedings of the ACSA European Conference (Washington, D.C.: ACSA, 1996), pp. 282-89.


1999-p Judicial Committee 1999-Present

2000-p Subcommittee on Twin Cities Facilities Support Services 2000-Present

Michael (Mic) Johnson Professor in Practice

Teaching Area

Comprehensive studio

Courses

Arch 8255


Bachelor of Architecture, University of Oregon, 1976


Professor in Practice, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (Graduate Design Studio), University of Minnesota, 2003 to present

Adjunct Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture (Design Studio), Univ. of Oregon, 1981, 1984, 1994-1998

Adjunct Professor of Architecture, School of Art (Design Studio), Portland State University, 1993, 1994

Visiting Design Critic and Lecturer Univ. of Notre Dame, 1990; Arizona State Univ., 1990, Oklahoma State Univ., 1991 Univ. of Oregon, 1979-1984, 1992-1993; Oregon School of Design, 1983-1984; Portland State Univ., 1993

Design Principal, Ellerbe Becket, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2006-present Principal, RSP Architects, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2002-2006 Design Principal, Ellerbe Becket, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1998-2002 Partner, Johnson Design Studio Architecture, Portland, Oregon, 1993-1998 Design Consultant, Ellerbe Becket, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1993-1998 Design Partner, Yost Grube Hall Johnson, Architecture, Portland, Oregon, 1990-1993 Design Principal and Chief for Architecture and Interiors Group, Ellerbe Becket, Minneapolis,

Minnesota, 1985-1990 Senior Project Designer, SERA Architects, Portland, Oregon, 1983-1985 Designer, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, Portland, Oregon, 1979-1983 Design Consultant, Daniel Mann Johnson Mendenhall, Portland, Oregon, 1978-1979


Registered Architect, State of Oregon, 1981; and State of Minnesota, 2008 National Council of Architectural Registration Boards, 2005


Citation of Merit Award, Healthcare Design magazine. University Hospital, Dubai Healthcare City/Harvard Medical International, Dubai, United Arab Emirates. 2008.

First Place, Commercial Category: Ceramic Tiles of Italy Award. Target Northern Campus, Building D, Brooklyn Park, Minnesota. 2007.

Facility Design Award, Association of College Unions International. Coffman Memorial Union Renovation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2005.


Healthcare Design (Samsung Cancer Center and University Hospital), 2008 Architecture Minnesota (Samsung Cancer Center), 2008 Healthcare Design (Yonsei University Medical Center, New Severance Hospital), 2006 Architectural Record (Target Store, Albany, California), 2005 Architecture and Culture (Yonsei University Medical Center, New Severance Hospital), 2005 Landscape Architecture (Healing Gardens, Good Samaritan Hospital and Emanuel Hospital), 2003 Portland Tribune (Emanuel Children’s Garden), 2003 Architecture Minnesota (Coffman Memorial Union), 2003 “The New Urban Landscape,” Exhibition of Drawings, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2004 “Towers”, Exhibition of Drawings, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 2002


Korea’s Samsung Cancer Center: Leading-edge Integrated Treatment, Education and Research. Tradeline Academic Medical Center Conference, October 2008.

Yonsei University Medical Center’s New Severance Hospital: Planning and Design that Respects a Cultural and Contextual Framework. Healthcare Design.07 Conference, The Center for Health Design and the AIA Academy of Architecture for Health, Dallas, Texas, November 2007.

At the Edge of Community and University Development. Society for College and University Planning, North Central Regional Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, October 2007.

A Global Perspective: International Healthcare Design and Development. Panel Discussion Participant, Healthcare Facilities Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 2007.

Engaging the Community and Urban Context in Plant Design: Lessons Learned from District Energy St. Paul’s

Yonsei University Medical Center’s New Severance Hospital: An Urban Oasis. International Congress on Design + Health, Glasgow, Scotland, June 2007.

Strategies for Incorporating Big Box Retail into Urban Environments. Portland Business Alliance Monthly Luncheon, Portland, Oregon, March 2007.

Architecture in the Public Realm. Konkuk University – Invited Lecture, Seoul, Korea, March 2007. 900 Nicollet Case Study.

International Healthcare Practice. Twin Cities Healthcare Engineering Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, November 2006.

Yonsei University Medical Center’s New Severance Hospital: An Urban Oasis. Healthcare Facilities Symposium, Chicago, Illinois, October 2006.

Urban Field Notes. University of Minnesota College of Design, Minneapolis, Minnesota, October 2006.

Riverbend Commons and Coffman Union. Designing, Building and Renovating a Multi-Use Facility, National Association of College Auxiliary Services, Regional Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, August 2005.

Big Box Retail in Dense Downtowns. University of Notre Dame School of Architecture & City of South Bend Department of Community and Economic Development, South Bend, Indiana, April 2005.

“Coffman Memorial Union Design Process” The A’s to Z’s of Renovation Seminar. Association of College Unions International Regional Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 2004.

Lance LaVine Professor

Teaching Area

Design, Technology, Theory

Courses

Arch 1701 The Designed Environment Arch 8255 Graduate Studio V Oaxaca Study Abroad


Master of Architecture, University of Pennsylvania, 1970

Master of City Planning, University of Pennsylvania, 1970

Bachelor of Architecture, UMN, 1968


Professor, School of Architecture, UMN, 1991-present

Coordinator of Oaxaca Program, School of Architecture, UMN, 1998-present

Director of Undergraduate Studies, Department of Architecture, UMN, 1994-2002

Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, UMN, 1980-1991

Visiting Lecturer, Humberside School of Architecture, Kingston Upon Hull, England, Spring 1985

Visiting Lecturer, Tainjin University, Tainjin, Peoples Republic of China, Spring 1981

Assistant Professor, SALA, UMN, 1975-80

Assistant Professor, SALA, UMN, 1975-80


2008 Chair, BDA Workshop, 2008

2006 Chair, Core Curriculum Task Force, 2006

2007 Chair, White Paper Group for Technology+Design


2002-04 Wilder Affordable House Demonstration Project with Mary Guzowski, Stroush Wilder Foundation, St. Paul, MN, 2002-2004

prior to 03 Energy+Architecture with U of Oregon, Developing strategy for use of energy use simulation progress, energy scheming in a design studio, 1999-2001


2005, 2008 Constructing Ideas, Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., First Edition 2005, Second Edition

2006 Conversations in Oaxaca: The City and Identity, Editor and Contributor, “Institutions, Architecture, and Urban Residence, pp. 41-55, 2006, CASA de la Ciudad


2009 School of Architecture Admissions Committee, Spring 2009

2009 Place-empathetic Architecture: The Work of Enrique Lastra and Daniel Lopez, PISO, Mexico City, May 2009.

Thomas Meyer Professor in Practice

Teaching Area

Comprehensive design

Courses

Arch 8254 Technical Development in Design; Arch 8254 Comprehensive Studio


Bachelor of Architecture, UMN, 1971


Adjunct Associate Professor in Practice, UMN College of Design, 2006–Present

Founding Principal/Supervisory Architect—Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle, Ltd., 1981–Present

Assistant Professor, UMN College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (CALA), 1982–1992

Associate Professor, UMN College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (CALA), 1993–1999


2006-p Member, UMN Task Force on College Design, 2006–Present

2005-p Member, AIA Minnesota Board of Directors, 2005–Present

2007 Member, UMN Twin Cities Master Plan Design and Preservation Work Team, 2007

Registered Architect, State of Wisconsin, Registration #1348

NCARB, Certification #47865, File #71907

Minnesota Preservation Alliance

Registered Architect, States of Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Arizona, New Jersey


2007 AIA Minnesota/Midwest Home Architect of Distinction, 2007

2006 Elected into AIA College of Fellows, 2006

2005 National AIA Honor Award for Architecture (Mill City Museum), 2005

2004 National Trust Historic Preservation Award (Mill City Museum), 2004

2004 Waterfront Center Excellence on the Waterfront Top Honor (Mill City Museum), 2004

2004

Minnesota Chapter ASID Interior Design Competition Award, First Place for Residential Design/ Multiple Spaces (Cowles Loft), 2004


2009 City House Interpretive Center (Saint Paul, MN) Conversion of former grain elevator into 10,200 sf interpretive center on Mississippi River, to be completed in 2009.

2009 Valspar Ameriprise Corporation Office (Minneapolis, MN) Office fit-out for multi-billion dollar corporation, to be completed in 2009.

2008 DeLaSalle High School Playing Fields (Minneapolis, MN) New playing fields for school and city park board, located on Nicollet Island, to be completed in 2008.

ongoing

Centennial Mills Redevelopment (Portland, OR) Redevelopment of 12 historic industrial mill structures on Portland riverfront into community-defining mix of shops, restaurants, offices, and educational facilities, completion date tbd.

ongoing Asian Pacific Cultural Center (Saint Paul, MN) Feasibility study for adaptive reuse of historic brewery site into shared cultural center, completion date tbd.

2007 Schaar’s Bluff Gathering Center (Nininger Township, MN) New 3,500 sf environmental center (designed to meet LEED Gold standards), completed in 2007.

2007 Carmichael Lynch Office (Minneapolis, MN) Adaptive reuse of 90,000 sf in former warehouse for advertising agency, completed in 2007.

2007 Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Education Center (Carver, MN) New 16,000 sf environmental education center, completed in 2007.


2005-p Member, AIA Minnesota Finance Committee, 2005–Present

2008 Juror, AIA Philadelphia Honor Awards, Philadelphia, PA, 2008

2007 President, AIA Minnesota, 2007 2003-present Numerous AIA state Honor Award juries


2008 Panelist: From Mill to Museum Exhibit Opening Panel Discussion, Minneapolis, MN, September 11, 2008

2006 Panelist: The Waterfront Center Conference, Portland, OR, September 30, 2006 , Topic: “Waterfront Cultural and Educational Facilities: The Added Dimension”

2006 Speaker: UMN College of Design Design@Noon Series, Minneapolis, MN, September 20, 2006 Topic: “Design at Noon”

2006 Speaker: Walker Art Center “Drawn Here” Lecture, Minneapolis, MN, June 2006

Nancy Miller Research Associate, Adjunct Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

Modern History, Urban Planning

Courses

Arch 5711 Introduction to Urban Form and Issues


Ph.D., Department of the History of Art, University of Pennsylvania, 1999

M.Arch, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, UMN, 1993

B.A., College of Liberal Arts, UMN, 1989


Director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Architecture, College of Design, June 2008–Present

Associate Director, Center for World Heritage Studies, College of Design, June 2007–Present

Adjunct Assistant Professor & Lecturer, School of Architecture, College of Design, 2007–Present

Research Associate, Center for World Heritage Studies, College of Design, 2006–2007

Adjunct Assistant Professor & Lecturer, Department of Architecture

College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, 1999–2006

Research Associate, Design Center for American Urban Landscape / Metropolitan Design Center, College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, 2000–2004


2007-08 Member, Network of Interdisciplinary Initiatives Working Group, UMN, 2007–2008


2008 Buckman Fellowship, College of Design, 2008


2010 Social / Architectural History of the UMN Campus, book, under contract to UMN Press, 2010.

2009

Development of Minnesota Modernism Map tour within www.placeography.org, in collaboration with the Center for World Heritage Studies and the Minnesota Historical Society, Spring 2009.

2008 “The Breuer Zone,” Architecture Minnesota (AM), January/February 2008.

2008 “A New Chapter: St. John’s Chapter House Renovation,” AM, January/February

2008 “A Warm Reception: St. John’s Abbey Guesthouse,” AM, January/February 2008.

2008 “Material Matters,” AM, January/February 2008.

2007 “On the Right Track,” AM, November/December 2007.

2007 “Bank Statement: The Westin Minneapolis,” AM, September/October 2007.

2007 “Urban Revolution: Urban Outfitters Headquarters,” AM, September/October 2007.

2007 “Study Hall: Music Ed Building, UMN,” AM, September/October 2007.

2007 “Material Matters,” AM, May/June 2007.

2007 “A Delicate Matter: Benedicta Arts Center Expansion,” AM, March/April 2007.

2007 “Material Matters,” AM, January/February 2007.

2007 Minnesota Modernism Map, 2007

2006 “Pipe Dream: Day Block Renovation,” AM, November/December 2006.

2006 “Turning the Page: Franklin and Sumner Community Libraries,” AM, September/October 2006.

2006 “Speed Reading,” AM, September/October 2006.

2006 “Straight and Narrow,” AM, July/August 2006.

2006 “Building Blocks,” AM, May/June 2006.

2006 “Material Matters: Plastics,” AM, May/June 2006.

2006 “Arrested Development,” AM, January/February 2006.

2006 “Material Matters: Wood,” AM, March/April 2006.

2005 “Inside Out,” AM, November/December 2005.

2005 “Prison Reform,” AM, September/October 2005.

2005 “Civic Centennial,” AM, January/February 2005.

2004 “Architecture,” New Book of Knowledge, (NY: Scholastic Library Publishing, 2004).


2005-p Member, Preservation Alliance of Minnesota, Advocacy Committee. 2005–Present

2008 Chair, MS–Heritage Preservation Degree Program Advisory Group, School of Architecture, College of Design, 2008

2008 Chair, Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, School of Architecture,

2008 Member, Faculty Search Committee, Heritage Preservation, College of Design,

2005 Coordinator, “Capitol Views: Building, Public Life & Culture,” UMN, 2005

2003 Member, Steering Committee, 38th St. Light Rail Station Area Planning Committee, City of Minneapolis Planning Department. 2003


2008 “From Beaker to Building: Material Innovation in the Architecture of Eero Saarinen,” ACSA West Regional Conference, Los Angeles, October 2008

2008 “Eero Saarinen in the Corporate Landscape,” Eero Saarinen: Beyond the Measly ABC, Symposium, Minneapolis Institute of Arts & Walker Art Center, Minneapolis,

2008 Session Moderator, Sacred Sights, Sacred Sites, College of Design, UMN, April 4,

2006 “Past Forward: The Landscape of Modernism in Minnesota Today,” The Future of the Modern Past, Symposium, Weisman Art Museum, UMN, May 2006.

2004 Rochester Art Center, Rochester, MN, October 14, 2004.

2004 “The Corporate Icon Next Door: A History of the IBM Manufacturing Facility in Rochester,” Rochester Art Center, Rochester, MN, October 14, 2004.

Andrzej Piotrowski Associate Professor

Teaching Area

Design, Representation

Courses

Arch 2301 Introduction to Architectural Drawing Arch 8253 Graduate Design III Arch 5301 Conceptual Drawing


Magister Inzynier Architekt; Department of Architecture, The Warsaw Polytechnic, Warszawa, Poland; 1979


Associate Professor, Department of Architecture, UMN, 1998-present

Assistant Professor Department of Architecture, UMN, Tenure Track; 1993 – 1998

Assistant Professor Department of Architecture, UMN, 1988-1998

1988-1989, Associate Architect: Mulfinger, Susanka, and Mahady Architects; Minneapolis, MN. USA;

1981-1988, Founder: Piotrowski Architectural Design; Lublin, Poland;


Architectural License, Poland; 1981-now


2006 The American Institute of Architects, Minnesota, Special Award for Education; 2006


2008-p

“On Interpretations: A Case of Unselfconscious Representation” paper accepted for publication in Cloud-Cuckoo-Land: International Journal of Architectural Theory; 2008-in progress

2002-p Architecture of Thought, a book project accepted for publication by the UMN Press. 2000-in progress

2000-p 2000-Present Architecture of Thought, a major study in history and theory of architecture, to be published by the UMN Press in 2010.

2008

“Digital Explorations of Byzantine Architecture” a paper accepted for the Media and its Applications in Cultural Heritage international conference, November, 2008, Petra University, Amman, Jordan 2008-in progress

2008 “The Spectacle of Architectural Discourses,” at Architectural Theory Review, (13:2, Routledge, 2008): 130 -144; 2008

2007 “Discerning High Modernism,” a paper proposal submitted to Journal of Architectural Education, (under review); 2007-in progress

2007

“Le Corbusier and the Modern Modality of Representation” published digitally by The Role of the Humanities in Design Creativity conference,. http://www.lincoln.ac.uk/home/conferences/human/papers/Piotrowski.pdf (EMTEC, University of Lincoln, UK, 2007); 20

2006

“Representational Function of Daylight in the Katholikon of Hosios Loukas,” published digitally by 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, http://www.byzantinecongress.org.uk/paper/VII/VII.1_Piotrowski.pdf 2006

2006 Served as one of the organizer and curators of the Praxis/Practice exhibition in the Katherine E. Nash Gallery, Regis Center for Art, UMN. 2006

2006 Served as one of the organizers of the Site/Life Mapping exhibition at the Minneapolis College of Art and Design. 2006

2003-05

Research Instrumentation: An Immersive Projection Environment for Collaborative Research in Visualization, Perception, Architectural Design and Computer Graphics, (collaboration with Lee Anderson Department of Architecture, Baoquan Chen, Victoria Interrante, Gary Meyer, Department of Computer Science and Engineering) supported by the Linda and Ted Johnson fund

2002-05

Research and Development of Next Generation Digital Design Tools for Architecture, (collaboration with Baoquan Chen, Department of Computer Science and Engineering) supported by the Linda and Ted Johnson fund; 2002-2005


1995-p 1995 - Present, UMN Public Art on the Twin Cities Campus Committee, member;

2007 2007, Member of the ACSA Architecture as Discipline group preparing the NAAB Accreditation Review Conference;

2002-2005 Founding Member of the UMN Digital Design Consortium;

2004 The American Institute of Architects, Minnesota, 25-Year Award Program, Juror;

2003 UMN Grant in Aid Committee, member,


2007

Presentation at The Role of the Humanities in Design Creativity International Conference, EMTEC, University of Lincoln, UK, 15-16th November 2007.

2007 Invited presentation at the UMN Oaxaca Workshop, Oaxaca, Mexico, March 12-17, 2007.

2006 Invited presentation at the 21st International Congress of Byzantine Studies, London,

Julia Robinson Professor

Teaching Area

Culture and Social Forces

Design

Courses

Arch 3711 Environmental Design and the Sociocultural Context Arch 8255 Graduate Design IV


Ph.D. Delft Technical University, the Netherlands 2004

M.A. Anthropology UMN 1980

Bachelor of Architecture, Univ.of Minnesota (with distinction) 1971


Professor UMN, School of Architecture 1994-present

Association for Retarded Citizens, Philadelphia, Department of Natural Resources, State of Minnesota, State of Minnesota Pre-Desgn Advisory Committee Capital Budget Reform Group, State of Minnesota Department of Human Services, Town of Rockport Massachusetts Pigeon Cover Property Study Committee) 2004

Assoc Prof (Tenured) UMN, Dept of Architecture 1985-1994

Assistant Professor UMN, School of Architecture 1980-85

Lecturer UMN, School of Architecture 1975-80

Program Director Innovative Hsg & Urban Design in the Netherlands 1999,02,04,07,08

Visiting Professor Eindhoven Technical University, 1994

Visiting Scholar Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1988-89

Program Director Innovative Hsg & Urban Design in the Netherlands 1999,02,04,07,08


1976-p Environmental Design Research Association (EDRA) 1976-pres

1982-pres Registered Architect Minnesota 1982-pres

1982-pres American Institute of Architects (AIA), Minnesota Society (MSAIA) 1982-pres

1984-pres International Association for Person-Environment Studies (IAPS) 1984-pres

1990-pres American Anthropological Association (AAA) 1990-pres

1987-pres Affiliated Faculty Member: Program on Developmental Disabilities 1987-pres


2008 Metropolitan Design Center, Univ of MN “Travel, Exhibit & Publication: New Orleans Studio”, - ($7,000), PI 2008

2006-07 Metropolitan Design Center Dayton Hudson Faculty Fellow 2006-07

2004-07 Bush Teaching Grant for Large Classes (Architecture 3401/ 3711) 2004-2007

2004-06 US Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Affordable Housing Initiatives- Case Study Prototypes” Project Team Member 2004-2006

2003

Amherst H. Wilder Foundation and other local agencies. “Promoting Design Excellence in Affordable Housing: The Single Family Case Demonstration Project” - Mary Guszowski, Lance LaVine & John Carmody, Principal Investigators. Project Team member for Social & Cultural Issues 2001-2003


2007 “Near and Far” Architecture Library, UMN Solo exhibit of 37 Watercolors 2007

2007 “Scenes of France” California Building Gallery, Minneapolis 2 paintings 2007.

2006 Institution & Home: Architecture as a Cultural Medium, Delft, Netherlands: Techne Press 2006

2006

“Designing Research: The Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Large Lecture Courses” V. Ruhe, J. Robinson and S. Wick, In Proceedings: Scholarship of Teaching and Learning Annual Meeting, London 2006

2006 “Landmarks in an Architectural Research Trajectory: Degrees of Institutionality,” International Assoc for Person-environment Studies (IAPS), Alexandria Egypt 2006

2006 “Domesticity to Oppression: Values & Appropriate Housing Design,” Housing Symposium, IAPS Conference Proceedings, Alexandria Egypt. 2006


2007-p Teaching Evaluation Advisory Group 2007-pres

2006-p Senate Committee on Disabilities 2006-pres

2007-p C Des Honors Representative 2007-pres


2008 “Home Range: A personal perspective from the Midwestern US” Invited paper: Symposium on Home Range IAPS Conference, Rome 2008

2008 “Travel Pedagogy for International Study of Housing & Urbanism” Invited paper: Symposium on Teaching Culture to Architecture Students, IAPS Conference, Rome,

2008

“Improving Large Lecture Instruction using Student Assessment: A Research-Based Approach” Lead author with Brad Cohen and others for the London Conf of the Society on Teaching and Learning

Sharon Roe Senior Lecturer/Adjunct Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

Design, Technology

Courses

Arch 8251 Graduate Design I Arch 5515 Technology One: Building Materials and Construction Systems


Master of Architecture, University of California, Berkeley, 1992

Bachelor of Architecture, U of Minnesota, Institute of Technology, Minneapolis, 1982

Bachelor of Arts, UMN, College of Liberal Arts, Minneapolis, 1969


Senior Lecturer/ Teaching Assistant Professor, UMN, 2002-present

Adjunct Assistant Professor, (50%), UMN, 1998-2002

Cass Gilbert Visiting Scholar, (80%), UMN, Spring 1998

Assistant Professor, North Carolina State University, 1993-1998

Assistant Professor, Mississippi State University, 1992-1993

Adjunct Assistant Professor, UMN (50%), 1988-1992


1984-p Registered Architect, State of Minnesota, 1984-present

2000-05 Member, American Institute of Architects, 2000-2005

prior to 03 Member, American Institute of Architects, 1984-1991


2006 Ralph Rapson Teaching Award, CALA, 2006


03-05, 07-p Authored the new GDI curriculum and continue to revise (2002, 2003, 2004, 2004, 2005, co-authored new GDI 2007, 2008)

2004-p B.D.A. Planning Task Force, Summer 2004 to Present

2003-p Design Committee, Member, 2003-present

2002-p Design Coordinators Group, 2002-present

2002-p Graduate Admissions Committee, Member, 2002- present

2001-p CALA Scholarship Committee, Member, 2001- present

2008-09 Sponsored UROP Student (Undergraduate Research Opportunities), 2008-09

2008

Introduced a new format for GDI. Developed a series of intensive four-day workshops. These workshops serve to introduce the students to their computers in the fall and to special issues of representation and programming in the spring. These have now been converted into the Catalysts offered to all graduate students in the spring.

2003-07

Developed the ADA Workshop offered every spring (2003-2007) and moved into first semester GDI this fall). This is a four-day hands-on experience for all GDI students including readings and lectures from consultants on sight, mobility and building code.

2004-07 Undergraduate Curriculum Committee, member, 2004-2007

2007 Design Workshop, Committee Chair, 2007

2007 Recruited faculty for 8 workshops for Fall 2007. Worked with each of the faculty to develop individual syllabi.

2007 PhD in Civil Engineering, Examining Committee Member, 2007

2004-06 Design Search Committee, Member, 2004-2006

2006 Masters in Civil Engineering, Examining Committee Member, 2006

2004-05 Academic Policies Committee, Chair, 2004-2005

2005 GDI design studio student (Todd Costain) won an Honorable Mention in the ACSA/AISC Student Design Competition for the “Student Union” project, spring 2005

2002-04 Digital Design Search Committee, Member, 2002-2004

Ozayr Saloojee Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

Design

Courses

Arch 1701 The Designed Environment Arch 8253 Graduate Studio III


M.Arch, Carleton University School of Architecture, Ottawa, 2001

B.Arch, Carleton University School of Architecture, Ottawa, 1999


Assistant Professor of Architecture, UMN, August 2005-Present

Designer, Martin Conboy Lighting Design, Ottawa, June 2004-July 2005

Sessional Instructor (Part-Time Faculty), Carleton University School of Architecture, June 2001-April 2005

Associate, Gulzar Haider Design Group, Ottawa, June 1996-June 2004

Teaching Assistant, Carleton University School of Architecture, August 1999-April 2001

Teaching Intern, Carleton University School of Architecture, January 1999-April 1999

Designer, John K. Szczepaniak, Landscape Architecture, Summer, 1999, 2000

Co-Founder/Principal, Blue Pooch Design Build, Summer 1998-June 1999


2008-p ACS – Architectural Forum on Spirituality (June 2008 – present)


2008 UMN McKnight Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, ($20,000), February 2008

2007 Grant-in-Aid of Scholarship, Research and Artistry, UMN ($20,000), July 2007

2006 Faculty Mini-grant, Metropolitan Design Center ($1000), November 2006

2003 Honorable Mention, St. Mark’s Coptic Village International Competition (with GHDG and Architects Alliance, Toronto), September 2003


2008-09

Christ Church Lutheran: Three Photographic Visions, Organizer, Curator, Christ Church Lutheran, Minneapolis, MN, with VJAA Architects and Site Assembly Fabricators, October 12, 2008-January 9, 2009

2008 Invited contributor to European Architecture Journal, ‘Wolkenkuckucksheim,’

2008 ‘Solomon’s Narrative: Architecture, Text and the Sacred,’ Chapter in forthcoming book Reading Spiritualities, to be published by Ashgate Press, November 2008.

2008 Work/Book. Drawings and Sketchbooks featured in Nash Gallery Exhibition, UMN, June

2008 ARCHITECTURE IN ISTANBUL: 2008 Festival of Nations, River Center, St. Paul.

2008 SACRED SITES | SACRED SIGHTS: Architecture, Ethics and Spiritual Geographies Organizer and curator. School of Architecture: HGA Gallery, Minnesota, MN: UMN,.

2008 FACULTY WORK (Abrams | Ibarra-Sevilla | Saloojee) School of Architecture: Rapson Library, MN: UMN, March-April 2008.

2007

‘Flamel’s Dream: Architecture as Alchemy.’ 23rd International Conference on the Beginning Design Student Conference Proceedings. Professor C. Rathmann, editor. Savannah, GA: Savannah College of Art and Design, March 2007.


2005-p M. Arch Thesis advising (August 2005-Present)

2006-p Undergraduate Curriculum Committee (January 2006-present)

2009 Fullbright Application Review Committee, September 2009

2008 Paper reviewer, JAE and ACADIA (2008)

2007-08 Member, Technology Faculty Search Committee (2007-2008)

2006-07 Steering and Advisory Committee on Service and Engagement (2006-2007)

2006 PRAXIS/PRACTICE, Member of advisory and curatorial committee, Regis Center for Art: Nash Art Gallery, Minnesota, MN: UMN, November 2006.

2006 Jury Member, AIA Honor Awards (2006)


2008 The Next Building: Eliel and Eero Saarinen at State UMN, Mankato, Invited lecture , October 9th, 2008

2008

In the Form of His Father: Eliel and Eero Saarinen at Christ Church Lutheran, ‘Eero Saarinen: Beyond the Measly ABC,’ Walker Art Center, Minneapolis Institute of Art, UMN and Christ Church Lutheran, October 12, 2008

2008 Sinan: Tradition in Transformation [Public Lecture] ‘Working Through Architecture: 9 Architects | 9 Lectures | 9 Tuesdays’ Pohlad Hall, Minneapolis Central Library.

2007 Narrative (His)Stories: Architecture, Religion and Sacred Space [paper presentation], The Past in the Present. Dept of Historical Studies, Glasgow, Scotland: Glasgow School of Art,.

2005

The Solomnic Narrative: Architecture, Text and the Sacred [paper presentation], Reading Spiritualities - Constructing and Representing Spiritualities Through Texts - Literary, Visual and Sacred. Department of Religious Studies, Lancaster, England: Lancaster Univ.

Leon Satkowski Professor

Teaching Area

Architectural History to 1750

Courses

Arch 3411 Architectural History to 1750; Arch 4425/5425 Baroque Architecture Arch 4424/5424 Renaissance Architecture; Arch 4423/5423 Gothic Architecture Arch 5410 History of Minnesota Architecture


Harvard University, 1971-77, M.A. (1972), Ph.D (1977)

Cornell University, 1965-70, Bachelor of Architecture (1970)


Professor of Architecture, UMN, July 1994 to date

Associate Professor of Architecture, UMN, 1986-94. Associate Professor of Architecture, Syracuse University, 1981-86. Assistant Professor of Architecture, Syracuse University, 1977-81. Visiting Assistant Professor of Architecture, Cornell University, Spring 1981.

Expert professional witness on architectural plagiarism for Ervin, Cohen, and Jessup (Los Angeles) and Gordon Rees (San Diego) regarding case in Federal Court, Central District of California, 2004-2006.


Minnesota Architecture and Landscapes: A Guide and a History. Research in progress. Contract with U of M Press.

02, 05, 08 Italian Architecture of the 16th Century Co-author Colin Rowe. NYC:Princeton Architectural Press, 2002. Japanese edition, 2005; Spanish edition expected Fall 2008..

2008 Review of Fabrizio Nevola, Siena: constructing the Renaissance city. Choice, August

2007 Review of Richard J. Goy, Building Renaissance Venice: patrons, architects, and builders, c. 1430-1500. Choice, February 2007.

2006 Review ofAndrea Palladio. Palladio's Rome: a translation of Andrea Palladio's two guidebooks to Rome, ed. and tr. by Vaughan Hart and Peter Hicks. Choice December

2006 Review of Will Pryce, Buildings in Wood for Choice, January 2006.

2004 Review of Georgia Clarke. Roman House-Renaissance Palace: Inventing Antiquity in Fifteenth-Century Italy. (Architecture in Early Modern Italy.) Renaissance Quarterly

2004 Review of Harris, Dianne Suzette. The nature of authority : villa culture, landscape, and representation in eighteenth-century Lombardy University Park, Pa., Choice

Katherine Solomonson Associate Professor

Teaching Area

Architectural History, ca. 1700-presesnt

Courses

Arch 3412 History Since 1750; Arch 4445/5445 Suburbia; Arch 4434/5434 Contemporary Architecture; Arch 4435/5435 Modern Architecture


Ph.D., History of Art, Stanford University, 1991. BA, History of Art, Stanford University, 1978.


Fall 2006-present: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, College of Design; Associate Professor, School of Architecture, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Summer 2001-Spring 2004: Acting Co-Head, Department of Architecture, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Fall 1999-present: Associate Professor, Department of Architecture; Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Art History and Department of American Studies, UMN Twin Cities. 1998-Spring 1999: Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of American Studies, UMN Twin Cities. Spring 1994-Spring 1999: Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Art History; Graduate Faculty member, Comparative Studies in Discourse and Society, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities


2007 2007 Telling River Stories, National Endowment for the Humanities planning grant (member of the project team, Patrick Nunnelly, Principal Investigator).

2004

2004 Alice Davis Hitchcock Award, for The Chicago Tribune Tower Competition: Skyscraper Design and Cultural Change in the 1920s, awarded annually by the Society of Architectural Historians for the most distinguished work of scholarship in the history of architecture published by a North American scholar.


ongoing

Reviews: Times Literary Supplement (London), American Studies International, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Art Bulletin, Choice, Library Journal.

current Minnesota Buildings and Landscapes (book project), co-author with Jane Hession, Michael Koop, and Leon Satkoski, UMN Press, contract.

current

Cass Gilbert in the West: Making a National Landscape (book project), editor and co-author, with contributions by Paul Larson, Lance Neckar,, Janet Whitmore, Thomas Blanck and Charles Locks. Minneapolis: UMN Press, in progress,

current Andrew Shanken, 194X (in press)

current Paula Lupkin, Manhood Factories: YMCA Architecture and the Making of Modern Urban Culture (in press).

current Dianne Harris, Little White Houses (advance contract)

2008

Annmarie Adams, Medicine by Design: The Architect and the Modern Hospital, 1893-1943

2007 Carla Yanni, The Architecture of Madness (2007).

2006

Series description: Opening up new lines of inquiry into American architecture and landscape, books in this series explore the complex and dynamic interplay between buildings, landscapes, and the social, cultural, economic, and political processes that shape and are shaped through them. Books published, in press, and under contract.

2005 “The Chicago Tribune Tower: Publicity Creates Community,” chapter in The American Skyscraper: Cultural Histories. Roberta Moudry, ed. New York: Cambridge Univ.Press,

2003

The Chicago Tribune Tower Competition: Skyscraper Design and Cultural Change in the 1920s, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Paperback, Chicago: Univ of Chicago Press, 2003


2007-p Learning Abroad Center Advisory Council, member. (UMN Service) 2000-p UMN Press, reviewer and consultant for book projects in architectural history. ( 1999-08 State Review Board for National Register Nominations, Minnesota, member.

2005-08 Society of Architectural Historian, national board, member. Diversity Committee, member (2005-2006); Digital Technology (2006-2007)

2000-07 UMN Press, Committee on the Press (faculty editorial board), member. 2006-07 Master Planning – Design and Preservation Task Force (UMN Service)

2007 Chair and moderator, session on preservation and globalization at the National Trust for Historic Preservation annual conference, St. Paul, MInnesota, October 2007.

2007 Respondent, “The Value of the Visual: Nineteenth-Century American Landscapes” session, Organization of American Historians Annual Meeting, Minneapolis, MN,

2005-06 CALA-DHA/CHE Task Force, co-chair (with Becky Yust) – Strategic Positioning task force, charged with developing recommendations for the new College of Design.

2003-06 All-University Honors Committee, member. (UMN Service)

2005 Co-chair, “Capitol Views: Building, Public Life and Culture,” (in celebration of the Minnesota State Capitol’s centennial), Minneapolis, MN, October 15, 2005.


2008

“Enacting Discovery: Itasca State Park and the Mississippi Headwaters,” presented at Desighing the Parks, Part 1, co-sponsored by the University of Virginia and the National Park Service, Charlottesville, Virginia, May 20, 2008.

2008 “Railroad Hospitals in the West,” presented at the annual meeting of the Vernacular Architecture Forum, Fresno, California, May 2008.

Marc Swackhamer Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

CAD, Design

Courses

Arch 1281 Design Fundamentals I Arch 8253 Graduate Design III


Master of Architecture Degree, Rice University Graduate School of Architecture, May 1997

Bachelor of Architecture Degree, University of Cincinnati School of Architecture and Interior Design, June 1995


Assistant Professor of Architecture, Department of Architecture, UMN, August 2004 - present

Assistant Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture and Interior Design, University of Cincinnati, Sept. 2002 – August 2004

Visiting Assistant Professor of Architecture, School of Architecture and Interior Design, University of Cincinnati Sept. 2001 - Aug. 2002


2008

“An Incomplete Curriculum for Transformation” – curricumlum proposal won an AIA Education Honor Award (co-authors, John Comazzi, Ozayr Saloojee, Ritu Bhatt, and Renee Cheng)

2007

“Drape Wall + House” received Best in Category Award in the Environments category of the 53rd Annual Design Review in The International Design (ID) Magazine – slvDESIGN (jury consisted of Marc Tsurumaki of LTL Architects, Joe Rose, Curator of Architecture and Design at the Art Institute of Chicago, and Winka Dubbeldam of Archi-Tectonics and Director of the Post-Professional Program at the University of Pennsylvania) 2007

2007

“Sound Team” and “Glare Team” from graduate seminar Bio-Inspired Systems won AIA COTE (American Institute of Architectus, Committee On The Environment) Award – projects will travel around U.S. to be displayed at regional and national AIA events (jury consisted of, among others, Dr. Dayna Baumeister, co-founder of the Biomimicry Guild)

2006

“CRI: IAD Performance-Driven Paint Application and Alternative Building Materials for Pre-Fabricated Wall System” – NSF Equipment Grant Proposal, Co-Principal Investigator with Professor Gary Meyer - not awarded November 2006


2007-p “Cloak Wall / House” – continuation / further development of “Drape Wall + House”

2006-p “Coffee Filter” – new coffee shop in existing building at 1500 Monroe Street, Minneapolis – client, Industrial Art & Design 2006 - present

2008 Transmaterial 2: A Catalog of Materials that Redefine our Physical Environment, edited by Blaine Brownell, Drape Wall invited for publication – slvDESIGN February 2008

2008

“Computer Craft: Handiwork in the Age of Digital Fabrication” by David Dewane, published in Cite: The Architecture + Design Review of Houston, issue no. 73, winter 2008– article written about slvDESIGN’s work. January 2008

2005-07

authored 3 case studies (Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts, Loblolly House, and Porter House) for a new chapter on Emerging Technology, edited by Department Head, Renee Cheng in re-designed Architectural Graphics Standard, John Wiley & Sons, 2007.

2007 “Drape Wall + House” published in Chinese periodical Community Design, - slvDESIGN July 2007 issue no. 23, pp. 60 – 67

2007 “Cloak Wall / House” prototype appeared in Here By Design III: Process and Prototype at the Goldstein Museum of Design – slvDESIGN October 2007

2007 “Disperse” acoustic installation, room 225 Rapson Hall, College of Design, UMN – published in Princeton’s 306090 10: Decoration

2007

“Digi-Fab” Knowledge Map published (map, database, essay, explanation of digital fabrication) through collaboration with Janet Abrams, Director, Design Institute, Scott Christensen, Design Institute, and Ariel Apte-Carter, MGMT. Design – authored essay, “Three Loops” as part of publication, generated illustrations, edited portions of publication, and both creative work and student work appears in publication October 2007

2007

“Food Processor” (essay on GD1 studio work) published in proceedings: 23rd International Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Savannah College of Art and Design – co-authored with John Comazzi, Assistant Professor, College of Design, University of Minnesota 2007

2006

“Biomimicry and Architecture: An Analysis of the Role of Biology in the Architectural Design Process” published in Proceedings: ARCC/EAAE: International Conference on Architectural Research, Philadelphia, PA – co-authors, Corri Kluba, grad. arch. student, UMN and Tim Jordan, grad. arch. student, UMN June 2006

2006

“Biomimicry: Nature as Model, Measure, and Mentor” published in Proceedings: “Intersections: Design Education and Other Fields of Inquiry” – 22nd National Conference on the Beginning Design Student, Iowa State University – co-author, Tim Jordan, grad. arch. student, UMN April 2006

2005

The HOME House Project: The Future of Affordable Housing, MIT Press – book published based on exhibition at the Southeastern Center for Contemporary Art, “Draft House” appears – slvDESIGN March 2005

2004 16 Houses: Owning a House in the City, Monacelli Press - book published based on 16 Houses Exhibition – slvDESIGN April 2004


2008 “HouMinn Practice” lecture presented at Rice University, School of Architecture, Houston – slvDESIGN January 2008

2007 ACADIA 2007 International Conference, Halifax, Nova Scotia – invited to provide closing / summarizing remarks at conference October 2007

Leslie Van Duzer Professor

Teaching Area

Design Fundamentals, Design, History/Theory/Culture

Courses

Arch 1281 Design Fundamentals I, BDA workshop, Undergrad studio


Master of Architecture, University of California, Berkeley 1984-1986

Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, University of California, Berkeley 1976-1981


Professor;2008 - present

Associate Professor; 2005 - 5. 2008

Director of Undergraduate Studies 2005 - 6. 2008

Dalhousie University, Halifax 2007-2009 Adjunct Associate Professor, External Examiner

University of Pennsylvania Spring 2003 Visiting Associate Professor

Washington University, St. Louis Fall 2002 Visiting Associate Professor, with Juhani Pallasmaa, Finland

Arizona State University, Tempe 1997 – 2005 Associate Professor with tenure

University of Technology, Helsinki, Fall 1996 Visiting Instructor

University of California, Berkeley, Summer 1996 Visiting Lecturer

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1995 - 1996 Adjunct Assistant Professor


2006-07 2006-2007 Dayton Hudson Faculty Fellow, Metropolitan Design Center, UMN, Project: To Whom does it Concern?

2008 Fall 2008 Institute for Advanced Studies Fellow, UMN, Project: The Art of Deception

2005 Andrew Mead, "Critic's Choice: Books of the Year," the architects' journal (15.12.05): 47. AWARD


2009 Leslie Van Duzer and Maria Szadkowska. Adolf Loos: Works in the Czech Lands (2009)

2008 Leslie Van Duzer, "Adolf Loos Readymade" in ptah (2008). Finland

2008 "Adolf Loos: Works in the Czech Lands" – contributor, Opening 9.30.2008, City of Prague Museum, Prague

2008 Leslie Van Duzer, To Whom does it Concern? (working title - December 2008)

2007 Leslie Van Duzer, "Villa Müller: An Adolf Loos Readymade" in DOMES Architectural Review (spring 2007). Greece

2006 Leslie Van Duzer, "In Wonder" in Archipelago: Essays on Architecture, ed. Peter MacKeith (Helsinki: Rakennustieto Oy, 2006), 23-27.

2006 ARCH 1281 Service Learning Project, Places 18.2 (September 2006). UC Berkeley

2006 "Adolf Loos: La Villa Müller, 1928-1930/2002" – contributor, Opened 7.12.2006 Hermann Hall, IIT, Chicago and Opened 11.13.2002, Pavillon de l'Arsenal, Paris

2005 Kent Kleinman and Leslie Van Duzer. Mies van der Rohe: Krefeld Villas, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 2005.


2007-p 2007-pres, Architecture tour author for the new Guthrie Theater by Jean Nouvel

2007-09 2007-2009, External Examiner, Dalhousie University, Halifax

2008-09 2008-2009, Member, Mill City Commons Board, non-profit organization in the Minneapolis Riverfront Neighborhood age in place


2003 2003, 2000, 1994, Alvar Aalto Symposia, Finland

2008 2008 International Education Conference, Honolulu. "Magic and the Art of Deception in the Classroom," with Eric Van Duzer (workshop)

2008 2008 International Education Conference, Honolulu. "Mis(sed) Perceptions," with Eric Van Duzer (paper presentation)

2007 Architecture Education Summit 2007, Los Angeles, CA, "Straddling Dichotomies"

2007 Curiosity Camp, UMN Continuing Education, "Going Global"

2007 University of Texas, Arlington, "The Art if Deception"

2006 ACSA / CELA Administrators Conference, Scottsdale, AZ, "Teaching Teachers to Teach"

2006 Alvar Aalto Academy, Finnish National Gallery, Helsinki, "Adolf Loos Readymade"

2006 Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, "Adolf Loos and the Villa Müller"

2006 Dalhousie University, Halifax, "The Art of Deception: Adolf Loos and Mies van der Rohe"

2006 Washington State University, Pullman, Washington, "On Magic and Architecture"

William Weber Adjunct Assistant Professor

Teaching Area

Technology, Sustainability

Courses

Arch 5516 Tech 2 Arch 55xx Topics in Technology: Sustainable Housing Infrastructure


Masters of Architecture, CALA-UMN, 2002

Bachelor of Arts in Architecture, UMN, 1997


Adjunct Assistant Professor/Lecturer, School of Architecture, College of Design (nee the Department of Architecture, CALA) UMN, 2002-present

Research Fellow, Center for Sustainable Building Research, College of Design, UMN, 2002-present

Project Manager. Affordable Housing Initiative: Case Study Prototypes a HUD-Community Outreach Partnership Center. Primary funding from US HUD and the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. 2004-2007

Researcher, Building Research Group CALA-UMN, 5/2000-2002

Research Assistant, Building Research Group CALA-UMN 1999-2000

Teaching Assistant, CALA-UMN, 1998-1999

Project Manager, Minnesota Green Affordable Housing Guide, Primary funding from MN OEA. 2004


2006-08 Co-P.I. with John Carmody. Minnesota Sustainable Affordable Housing Knowledge Base. Primary funding from the McKnight Foundation, 2006 (– 2008)

2007-08

Project Manager. Viking Terrace, Worthington Minnesota Green Building Health Outcome Evaluation. In partnership with the National Center for Healthy Housing. Primary funding from the US EPA and MN BCBS. 2007 (-2008)

2006-08 Project Manager. Green Communities Program and Pilot Project Assistance and Evaluation. Primary funding from the Greater Minnesota Housing Fund

2008 A Deeper Shade of Green, Architecture Minnesota, May – June 2008

2007 By the Numbers: Climate Change and the 2030 °Challenge, Architecture Minnesota, January – February 2007

2007 Innovation by Nature: The Emerging Field of Biomimcry, Architecture Minnesota, January – February 2007

2006

MPCA Eco-Experience at the Minnesota Sate Fair: Exhibit HUD-CPOC Affordable Housing Initiative, August – September 2006, project lead produced with AHI project team.

2006

HOME House Project: The Future of Affordable Housing, Installation: HUD-CPOC Affordable Housing Initiative, Weisman Art Museum January –, project lead produced with AHI project team.

2005 Practice: The Next Housing Revolution Architecture Minnesota, May – June 2005

2004 Book Review: Living Green Architecture Minnesota, May – June 2004

2004 Windows Systems for High-Performance Buildings, Carmody, John. Norton Press 2004. (contributor)

2003 Researcher, The Single Family Case Demonstration Project. Primary funding from the Amherst H. Wilder Foundation. 2003

2003 Technology: SIP or Stick? Architecture Minnesota, May – June 2003


2008 “Case Study: Green and Healthy Affordable Housing in Southwestern Minnesota,” Greening the Heartland. Saint Louis, MO June 2008

2008 Lessons Learned”, w/ David Jacob PhD (NCHH) BCBS of Minnesota Grantee Conference.

2008 “Minnesota Green Communities Demonstration Projects: Lessons from the Field” GreenbyDesign, Minneapolis, MN May 2008

2008 “Case Study: Viking Terrace”, w/ Rick Goodeman (SWMHP) Minnesota Municipal Utilities Associations Conference, Bloomington MN March 2008

2008 “Shades of Green” Duluth Energy Conference and Expo, Duluth, MN February 2008

2007 “Breaking New Ground: The Minnesota Overlay to the Green Communities Criteria,” GreenbyDesign, w/ Minnesota Housing Minneapolis, MN May 2007

2007 “The First Choice: Opportunities in Site Selection and Design”, Duluth Energy Conference and Expo, Duluth, MN February 2007

2006 Solar Architecture in Minnesota: Toward Zero Energy Housing, ASES 2006 (abstract reviewed) co-authored with Mary Guzowski

2006 “Sustainable Affordable Housing” Homes for All. Saint Paul, MN. December 2006

2005 “Sustainable Affordable Housing” Greening the Heartland Chicago, IL June 2005

2005 “Sustainable Affordable Housing” Living Green Expo Saint Paul MN April 2005

2005 “HUD-COPC: Affordable Housing Initiative” w/John Carmody Working Together Conference New Orleans LO March 2005

2003 Wilder Single House Demonstration Project, PLEA 2003 – Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture. (co-author with Lance Lavine et. al.)

J. Stephen Weeks Associate Professor

Teaching Area

Technology, Design, Sustainability

Courses

Arch 8565 Materials Performance in Sustainable Building Undergraduate and Graduate Studios Arch 5512 Building Systems


B.ARCH University of Minnesota, with High Distinction, 1973

AB Colby College, 1963, major Art


Associate Professor, 1985 - present

Director of Graduate Studies 2003-present

AIA St. Paul Board Member 2004-present, AIA Minneapolis Board Member 2003-present

Treasurer ARCC, (Architectural Research Centers Consortium), 2003-present

Vice-Chair CALA Assembly 2005-07

Department Co-Head 2001-2004

Study Abroad “Northern Europe”/”Port Cities 1995; 2000

Director of Undergraduate Studies 1991-95 and 1980-86

Assistant Professor, UMN 1979-85


Architect, Wisconsin1978, Minnesota, 1976


2008 2008 College of Design e-Scholarhip grant, Interactive website - Contemporary Design and Building Processes of Architects Frank Gehry, Antoine Predock and Steve Holl.

2007 2007 AIA Minneapolis Merit Award, “The Work Force Home”; the architect of four homes exploring sustainable construction technologies in affordable housing.

2003-07

Architect four three of four houses constructed as part of the HUD/Affordable Housing Initiative ($400,000), with CSBR, PI, Mary Guzowski and Lance Lavine, 2003-2007.

2006 Exhibition of the Wilder Affordable House SEPETTMS prototype, “The Home House Project: The Future of Affordable Housing”, Weisman Art Museum, 2006

2006 Frederick Mann Award for Disciplinary Service, 2006


2006-p 2006-present Interactive website, Contemporary Design and Building Processes of Architects Frank Gehry, Antoine Predock and Steve Holl.

2006

Accepted Poster, "Designing the Work Force Home", with Russell Wilson, for Affordable Design: Convening the Conversation, the ACSA/Community Design Association/Fannie Mae Foundation Annual Conference, Los Angeles, CA. June, 2006

2006

Exhibition, the “SEP/ETTMS Affordable House Demonstration” at Minnesota State Fair Eco-Experience, Environment Exhibit Hall, w/ Billy Weber and Russ Wilson, Tom Schirber, demonstration wall assembly and Flash video of construction process. 2006

2005

“Research, Design and Construction Technologies in Affordable Housing”, with William Weber, John Carmody, Greening the Heartland “Cost, Practice and Policy,” Chicago Illinois, June 2005, Published in Proceedings (CD-ROM) 2005.

2005 “Research, Design and Construction Technologies in Affordable Housing”, Stephen Weeks, William Weber, John Carmody, ARCC 2005 Proceedings (CD-ROM) 2005


2000-p Eastcliff Technical Advisory Committee, the President’s residence 2000-present

2007-09 2007-2009 University Senate Committee-on-Committees

2007-08 Chair CDES Curriculum and Policy Committee 2007-08

2008 Chair, AIA MN Disaster Assistance 2008-

2007-08 2006-08 University Senator, College of Design 2000, 2003, 2005 Juror, Wisconsin Golden Trowel Design Jury, 2000, 2003. 2005 2007-present IDP Educator – NAAB/NCARB position in the School of Architecture


2006

Presenter, HUD Community Outreach Partnership Center (COPC) and Universities Rebuilding America Program (URAP) Design Conference, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.November, 16-19, 2006.

2006

Gallery talk as part of Exhibition, “the HOME House Project: The Future of Affordable Housing”,with Rosemary Dolata, AIA, LHB Architects, LEED-AP, Weisman Art Museum gallery,Minneapolis, MN. (16 attendees) April 22, 2006.

2005

“Research, Design and Construction Technologies in Affordable Housing”, Stephen Weeks, William Weber, John Carmody, UMN. at the Greening the Heartland, 2005: “Cost, Practice and Policy,” Chicago Illinois, June, 1, 2005

2005

“Research, Design and Construction Technologies in Affordable Housing”, Stephen Weeks, William Weber, John Carmody, at the 2005 ARCC Spring Research Conference, “The Reach of Research”, College of Architecture, Art and Design, Mississippi State University

2005 “Masonry in Photographs”, at the University Professor Masonry Workshop, Co-hosted by CALA and Civil Engineering, the UMN, and The Masonry Society, March 2005


Annual Reports

4-151

4.5 VISITING TEAM REPORT FROM THE PREVIOUS VISIT

Supplemental information to the APR must include a complete copy of the previous VTR.

SEE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR VISITING TEAM REPORT


Annual Reports

4-152


Annual Reports

4-153

4.6 ANNUAL REPORTS

Supplemental information to the APR must include the following documentation: Copies of all Annual Reports submitted to

the NAAB since the previous site visit. The NAAB responses to the Annual Reports.

Annual reports show that School of Architecture faculty salaries had been up to $30,000 below University

averages for faculty of similar rank. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, the Provost made available special merit funds

that would be competitively awarded. These so-called “star faculty” funds were meant to operate as pre-emptive

retention for faculty who served the School, College and University stategic mission. Under this program,

School of Architecture received almost 100K of additional funds permanently added to our operating funds.

This has helped raise School averages, although the full professor rank continues to be compressed.

All data in this section drawn from the annual statistics, highlighted are numbers that will be confirmed before

the team visit.

TABLE 4-1 STUDENT DATA

Student Data 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Full-Time Students 147 147 133 137 148 146Part-Time Students 3 3 3 3 0 0FTE Students 145.5 145.5 148 139 148 146Arch Design Studio Students 147 147 148 139 148 146Students Working Part-Time, professional or academic approx 90% approx 90% approx 90% approx 90% approx 90% approx 90%Outside Stud. Serv. by Dept. n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aAfrican-American StudentsAmerican Indian Students*Asian/Pacific Isle StudentsHispanic Origin StudentsWomen Students 61 61 64 72 74 71Foreign Students 15 15 15 15 7 7Total Degrees Awarded 29 29 60 58 65 61Grads. Fin. Estab. No. Yrs.Degrees Awarded Women 11 16 26 25 19 32Degrees Awarded Afro-Amer.Degrees Awarded Amer. Ind.Degrees Awarded Asi/Pac. Isl.Degrees Awarded HispanicsMin. Req. SAT/ACT/GRE n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/aNumber of Applicants 180 194 187 188 189 225Number Accepted 89 102 94 112 94 98Enrollment Target/Goal 55 55 50 50 50 48Student Studio/Faculty Ratio 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1 12/1

15 15

2 45 0

15 12

4 4

18 16


Annual Reports

4-154

TABLE 4-2 FACILITIES DATA

TABLE 4-3 FACULTY DATA

Facility/Resource Data 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Departmental Library LCNA or 720-729 Collection 12,000 12,000 12,000 12,100 12,300 12,300 Total Architecture Collection in Department Library 34,884 34,884 34,884 35,000 35,000 42,724 University Library LCNA or 720-729 Collection 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 18,500 29,486 Total Architecture Collection in University LibraryDepartmental Library Architecture Slides 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 131,000 131,000 University Library Architecture Slides 177,000 Departmental Library Architecture Videos 1,050 1,050 1,075 1,100 1,200 1,500 Staff in Dept. Library 2.8 fte 2.8 fte 2.8 fte 2.8 fte 2.8 fte 2.8 fteNumber of Computer Stations (not inc. student laptops) 55 55 60 56 56 56Amount Spent on Information Technology 333,660 333,660 326,351 326,351 326,351 999,000 Annual Budget for Library Resources 104,402 104,402 104,402 105,000 71,934 75,897 Per-Capita Financial Support Received from UniversityPrivate Outside Monies Received by SourceStudio Area (Net sq. ft.) 26,435 26,435 26,435 26,435 26,435 26,435 Total Area (Gross sq. ft.) 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09Faculty DataFull-time Faculty 19 22 21 19 22 22 26Part-time Faculty 44 54 47 47 47 44 44Full-time Equivalent Facuty 36 39 34 35 36 36 38Tenured Faculty 15 15 14 14 15 15 15Tenure-track Faculty 1 2 3 3 4 4 7Faculty Engaged in Service to CommunityFaculty Engaged in Service to University 5 5 5 5 5 7U.S. Licensed Registered Architects 30 43 43 43 43 43Practicing Architects 30 45 45 445 45 45FTE Graduate TAs 25.5 27.75 27.75 27.75 27.75 26 26FT Faculty Avg. Contact Hrs/Wk 15 15 15 15 15 15 15Architecture Studio Student Faculty Ratio 12 12 12 12 12 12 12

No. Full-time Faculty CredentialsPh.D 5 6 6 5 6 6 6D.Arch M.A. or S. 1 2 2 2 2 2 2Prof. M.Arch 14 14 11 12 13 13 14B.Arch 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Post Prof. Masters 1 1Other 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


Annual Reports

4-155

TABLE 4-4 FACULTY SALARY DATA

TABLE 4-5 FACULTY EQUITY DATA

Full-time Faculty Salaries 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08NOTE: competitive University "Star" faculty funds available 2005-7Professor Minumum 64,970 68,609 68,609 78,060 85,275 94,260 Professor Average 70,422 71,838 71,838 80,826 93,705 99,311 Professor Maximum 78,427 76,521 76,521 83,140 97,920 101,837 Professor University Average 94,950 94,950 94,950 97,915 101,097 116,702

Associate Professor Minimum 53,847 57,394 57,394 60,004 65,717 71,000 Associate Professor Average 57,133 58,469 58,469 64,473 73,773 79,107 Associate Professor Maximum 65,915 67,249 67,249 72,045 79,040 84,907 Associate Professor University Average 67,791 67,791 67,791 68,495 70,721 76,664

Assistant Professor Minimum (tenure-track) N/A 51,000 51,000 51,000 54,500 58,800 Assistant Professor Average (tenure-track) N/A 51,000 51,000 51,625 57,174 61,362 Assistant Professor Maximum (tenure-track) 51,000 51,000 52,000 62,000 67,170 Assistant Professor University Average (tenure-track) 55,208 55,208 55,208 55,216 57,011 59,267

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08Faculty Data Equity note: does not include faculty with architecture as one of multiple tenure homesAfrican-American Faculty, Full time 0 1 0 0 0 0African-American Faculty, Part time 1 0 0 1 0 0African-American Faculty, Associate 1 1 0 0 0 0African-American Faculty, Assistant 0 0 0 0 0 0American Indian Faculty, Any Rank 0 0 0 0 0 0Asian/Pacific Island Faculty, Full time 2 2 3 3 3 4Asian/Pacific Island Faculty, Part time 0 3 3 3 3 0Asian/Pacific Island Faculty, Tenured 0 0 0 2 2 2Asian/Pacific Island Faculty, Professor 0 0 0 0 0 0Asian/Pacific Island Faculty, Associate 2 2 2 2 2 2Asian/Pacific Island Faculty, Assistant 0 0 0 1 2 2Hispanic Origin Faculty , Full time 0 0 0 1 1 1Hispanic Origin Faculty, Part time 2 3 3 3 3 3Hispanic Origin Faculty, Tenured 0 0 0 0 0 0Hispanic Origin Faculty, Professor 0 0 0 0 0 0Hispanic Origin Faculty, Associate Professor 0 0 0 0 0 0Hispanic Origin Faculty, Assistant Professor 0 0 0 0 0 0Women Faculty, Full Time 6 7 8 8 9 9Women Faculty, Part Time 14 14 14 14 14 10Women Faculty, Tenured 5 5 5 5 5 6Women Faculty, Professor 1 1 1 1 1 1Women Faculty, Associate 4 5 4 4 4 5Women Faculty, Assistant 0 0 1 1 1 1

APPENDICES

Appendix A Name

156

APPENDICES

Appendix A Name

157

4.7 SCHOOL CATALOG

Supplemental information to the APR must include a current school catalog

SEE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR CATALOG EXCERPTS

A PPE N D IC ES

APPENDICES

5-1

APPENDIX A: A NEW CURRICULUM STRATEGY BOOKLET

In this sleeve is a draft copy of a publication we are finalizing. All required courses are

featured as well as examples of several types of elective modules. Some of the modules

described have been previously taught in semester long format. Study abroad is listed in the

booklet as a spring module, however, will continue to be offered as semester long for Spring

2009, with modules expected to begin in Spring 2010.

APPENDICES

5-2

APPENDICES

5-3

APPENDIX B: AD-HOC CORE CURRICULUM REPORT

Core Curriculum Task Force

Final Report

November 12, 2006

Lance LaVine, Chair

John Carmody

Bill Conway

Terrance Rafferty

Ozayr Saloojee

Leon Satkowski

Mark Swackhamer

Leslie VanDuzer

Jennifer Yoos

Charge:

To develop curricular models of a Core graduate school architecture curriculum for faculty consideration.

At our last retreat, the faculty voted to adopt a Foundation/Elective Study curricular model. To implement this

curricular structure, our task force has been charged to develop alternate models of a common Foundation

curriculum. The broad objectives of this curriculum are to develop a curriculum that 1) lays a solid foundation

for professional practice; 2) creates a common educational base for all ensuing areas of elective study; and 3)

logically adapts to the needs of three streams of incoming students

Priorities:

Establish common curricular values

APPENDICES

5-4

Our Foundational curriculum should represent values that we hold in common. The structure of our

Foundation curriculum suggests both the kinds of emphasis that we place on different curricular topics and

the kinds of relationships that we seek to create between and among classes. This commonality of vision is

paired with an emphasis on individual student and faculty proclivities that might be pursued in Areas of

Elective Study in our new curricular model.

To propose an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary curricular shift

Our current curriculum has evolved over the last 15 years. This curriculum regularly shifts to represent both

new conditions of our discipline and faculty priorities. Our latest shift to a Foundation/Elective Study

curriculum recognizes both calls for expertise from the profession of architecture and the proclivities of our

current faculty. The broad objective of the Foundation curriculum is to build on the existing structure of our

curriculum to create a foundation education in architecture that can be supported by a broad spectrum of the

faculty.

To create curricular models that make clear the explicit and implicit consequences of alternate curricular

reorganizations.

The structure of our current curriculum might be generally seen as parallel strands of studio, technology, and

humanities classes. Each of the alternate structures of a Foundation curriculum that the Task Force proposes

in this report emphasizes a different general set of pedagogical values. By making structural relationships in

proposed curriculum alternatives clear as expressions of architectural values, our hope is to make Foundation

curriculum choices as transparent as possible.

Develop models that help resolve current curricular issues.

As our current curriculum has evolved, some portions of this curriculum appear to have become weakly

connected to an overall curricular strategy. Agreeing on common values in a Foundation curriculum may allow

us to find ways to structurally reconnect these areas to a common educational strategy.

Issues:

The following constitute the 8 major issues that the task force considered to be central to core curriculum

deliberations.

1. Creating a Core curriculum that fits the needs of different streams of incoming students

APPENDICES

5-5

In the future 50% of our graduate students will be from the BDA program, 20-25% from the 3+ program, 15-

25% from B.S. programs from either our own program or from other schools and 5-10% from accelerated

students. Should each of these incoming streams of students have separate paths through a Foundation curriculum

commensurate with their preparation in architectural studies?

2. Understanding the role of technology in our curriculum

We now offer 6 classes in technology in our curriculum but there is no clear tie of the information put forth in

these classes to studio design projects. The application of this information in design is an important part of

both professional practice and academic issues of design competence and imagination. Can the technology

curriculum be modified both to reduce the number of course offerings and to assure that technical knowledge can be

effectively employed in design thought?

3.Understanding the role of the Comprehensive studio in our curriculum

All students are required to complete an NAAB comprehensive requirement. We now fulfill that requirement

primarily in our Comprehensive studio. Should this Comprehensive studio be linked more directly to our technology

class work?

4.Understanding the role of study abroad in our curriculum

Our current Study Abroad offering is generally a stand-alone program. It represents a significant portion of the

course credits of our program and is also a significant aid in recruiting good students. Can graduate study

abroad be more tightly connected to our graduate curriculum as a whole? What purpose might it serve within

Foundation curriculum proposals?

5. Reducing student workload

Our students now take an average of 4 courses per semester in addition to working in jobs outside of the

Department or being TAs. Each class demands a significant commitment of time and thought from them. The

result too often is a competition for time and attention that results in either reduced quality of work in some

classes to the benefit of others or a reduced quality of work across all classes. Students complain about their

APPENDICES

5-6

workload. Can this problem be ameliorated by either reducing the number of classes that students take each semester or

by clarifying the structure of our curriculum?

6. Developing reciprocal responsibilities between Foundation and Elective Study Areas to form a complete professional

architectural education

A Foundation/Elective Study split in our curriculum implies that both portions of this curriculum have

obligations to the other and to the whole of a student’s professional and continuing academic education.

Requirements of the Foundation curriculum need to leave sufficient credits and curricular flexibility for

Elective Study Areas to become a significant part of a student’s education without compromising the quality of

a foundational architectural education. How many credits do areas of Elective Study require to achieve a critical

mass? How might alternate Foundation curriculum models be related to Elective Study Areas?

7. Adding to and deleting currently required course work

In our current curriculum students are not required to take graduate level history courses. Many faculty

members feel that our students should have more graduate training in representation. Others suggest that

technology classes ought to be more tightly woven together with a studio experience. Issues like these offer the

faculty an opportunity to decide if some of our existing curricular requirements ought to be replaced by new

offerings. Should some current course work be replaced by new academic concerns in our Foundation curriculum?

8. Developing linkages to M.S. course work and to other degree programs

An M.S track in Sustainable Design and certificates in Metropolitan Design, History/Theory/Culture, Heritage

Conservation/Preservation, and Emerging Technologies are either in place or are in the process of being

created as post-professional training. How does our graduate program curriculum encourage advanced work in

architecture or joint degrees?

Alternate Foundation Curriculum Models

The following proposals are designed to represent different ways in which a Foundation curriculum might be

considered. Each has explicit and implicit consequences for our curriculum as a reflection of our values and to

our graduate curriculum as a whole. Each addresses the 8 issues listed above in a different manner.

A. Everything at once: parallel strands of design studios, humanities, and technology classes serially organized (4

semesters/51 credits)

This model stresses the integrative value of weaving issues of design, technology, and the humanities together

each semester. Horizontal strands of design, technology, and/or the humanities would “balloon” in the Elective

APPENDICES

5-7

Studies year as progressive development of one or more of these strands. Study abroad could be included as ½

of second semester studies incorporating issues of design analysis, building methods, and architectural theory

in these studies. The second year of this Foundation would focus on advanced treatment of issues introduced

in the first year. This year would contain both Comprehensive studios in design and in technology. B.S.

students could enter this curriculum in the second year of this model. M.S studies might be partially

incorporated in Elective Studies as extensions of strands of thought initiated in the Foundation curriculum.

B. One Topic at a time: alternating rhythm of humanities and technology based curriculum (4 semesters/ 51 credits)

This model alternates semesters of concentration on architectural issues of the humanities and of technology

allowing students to concentrate on one kind of architectural issue at a time. Elective Study becomes an

enlarged vertical organization of study mimicking the structure of the preceding four semesters of Foundation

studies but with concentration in a single area of concern. Study abroad could be incorporated as ½ of the third

semester of Foundation studies stressing issues of design analysis, history, and theory. The second year would

be a more advanced consideration of issues taken up in the first year. B.S. students could enter this curriculum

at the beginning of the second year. M.S. studies would be incorporated partially in Elective Studies as in

Model A.

C. Blurred boundaries: an interlude of choices ( 3 semesters/ 42 credits)

This model creates a divided Foundation curriculum with a semester of workshop topics developed from

Elective Studies areas inserted as a third semester set of student study options. The fourth semester of this

model returns to Foundation studies with a 9 credit Comprehensive studio dedicated primarily to technical

issues in architecture. This blurred boundary between Foundation and Elective studies both allows students to

preview Elective Study choices before their final year of study promoting informed choice and knits the whole

of the curriculum together by relaxing the differences between the two portions of our new curriculum. B.S,

students could enter this curriculum in the second year. Study abroad might occur in the M-term of the first

year because Foundations studies are compressed into 3 semesters in this model. M.S. or other joint degree

studies might be almost completely accomplished in the 3 year program in this model if taken in place of other

electives because 3 semesters are given over to Elective Studies.

D. Design as central: compressed core (3 semesters/48credits)

This model emphasizes the role of design in architecture. It provides for 27 credits of design studios over the

first three semesters of Foundation studies in classes that meet 4 times per week to signify our expectations of

student growth in design thought and skills. Additional coursework during the first three semesters would be

limited to one technology and one humanities course each semester assuring that each class receives sufficient

attention. B.S. students would enter this curriculum in the Spring receiving credit for one semester of graduate

APPENDICES

5-8

work or possibly in the second year allowing them to complete M.S. coursework at the completion of their

normal graduate studies.. All students would be required to take an additional humanities and technology

class (perhaps related to their Elective Study area) as well as Professional Practice during their Elective Studies

tying the two portions of our curriculum partially together. A limited ( 3 week?) U.S trip to significant modern

buildings of the East or West coast would replace a longer study abroad program in this compressed

Foundation model. More extensive study abroad opportunities would become a part of specific Elective Study

areas allowing trips to be tailored to specific areas of architectural concern. M.S. and other joint degree work

could be taken up in Elective Studies as in Model C though there would be slightly less opportunity to do so

because of required humanities and technology classes in Elective Studies.

See attached graphics for detailed structure of these models.

foundationstudio I

found.studio II(on site)

technology I tech I

history / theory theory -analysis

electiveor additional

representationcourses





3+ a

nd

BA su

mm

er c

ou

rsew

ork

12 cr

15 cr

09 cr

06 cr

BA and 3+ Students

BDA and Accelerated Students

B.S. Students

year one year two year threesummer

MODEL A: HORIZONTAL STRANDS

03 cr

fall fall fallspring

ad

viso

r / m

. arc

h c

om

mitt

ee

spring spring

studio

technology II

urbanism

technicallycomprehensive

studio

technology II advancedstudy electives

advancedstudy electives

history / theory

pro practice

studio: 24 cr.technology: 12 cr.humanities: 12 cr.

pro. practice: 03 cr.

credit foundation: 51 cr.

elective studio / open elective: 39 cr.

possiblefound.

studyabroad

elective studioor thesis


(minimum 2 semesters in electivestudy studios, if chosen over thesis)

APPENDICES

5-9

humanity studio I tech studio 1

humanity I technology I

humanity I technology I

3+ a

nd

BA su

mm

er c

ou

rsew

ork

12 cr

15 cr

09 cr

06 cr

BA and 3+ Students



MODEL B: VERTICAL STRANDS

03 cr

fall fall fallspringspring spring

humanity studio II

humanity II

humanity II

tech studio II

technology II

technology II

pro practice

vertically integrated,

student initiated5th semester

vertically integrated,

student initiated5th semester





elective studyor open elective






B.S. Students *

* B.S. students might take semesters 1 and 3 or 4 rather than semesters 3 and 4.







foundation studio foundation studio

technology I technoloogy I-2

history I history II

theory

work shopstudios

ABC

comprehensive studio

technology II technology II-2

professional practice

computer methods Iworkshop

computer methods IIworkshop

m-te

rm stu

dy a

bro

ad

offe

ring

s

3+ a

nd

BA su

mm

er c

ou

rsew

ork

12 cr

15 cr

09 cr

06 cr

BA and 3+ Students

BDA Students


MODEL C: DISPERSED CORE

computer methods III

workshop

03 cr

fall fall springspring





fall spring

advancedstudy

elective

advancedstudy

elective

advancedstudy

elective

advancedstudy

elective

advancedstudy

elective

advancedstudy

elective









B.S. Students *




(minimum 2 semesters in elective study studios, if chosen over thesis)

APPENDICES

5-10

studio 1

humanity I

technology I

humanity I

technology I

3+

an

d B

A su

mm

er c

ou

rsew

ork

BA and 3+ Students



MODEL D: Design Emphasized

fall fall fallspringspring spring

studio 1 comprehensive

studio

humanity I

technology II minimum of 1

required

advanced study

elective in

technology

minimum of 1

required

advanced study

elective in

humanities

12 cr

15 cr

09 cr

06 cr

03 cr

minimum of 1

professional

practice course

required

elective studio

studio: 27 cr.

technology: 09 cr.

humanities: 09 cr.




B.S. Students *


elective studio

or thesis

elective studio

or thesis

(minimum 2 semesters in elective

study studios, if chosen over thesis)

foundation

studio I

technology I

humanities I

topic

seminar

09 cr

06 cr

BA and 3+ Students


B.S. Students *

year one year two year three

MODEL E: ALTERNATING RHYTHM

03 cr

studio: 24 cr.

technology: 12 cr.

humanities: 12 cr.





Spring semester topics studio must include: Comprehensive Studio

Plan A or B Thesis project or papter

may include: Study Abroad

topics seminar: at least one Pro Practice

4 + 2 students take year one and three

09 cr

06 cr

03 cr

fall

spring

technology II

humanities II

topics studio

(mixed cohort of students - 1st and 2nd year)

topic

seminar

topic

seminar

topic

seminar

technology III

humanities III

design core studio

(mixed cohort of students - 2nd and 3rd year)

technology IV

humanities IV

topic

seminar

topic

seminar

topical

thesis

(10 credits)

APPENDICES

5-11

To: Governing faculty

From: Renee Cheng

Re: Graduate Professional Curriculum Discussion

Date: Jan 10, 2007

Context:

There are changes in the demand for professionally trained architects. The traditional

path to a traditional practice will always have value, but there is likely to be a significant

contraction in the number of people needed. While a traditional stream may be greatly

reduced, there seems to be a simultaneous increase in the value of “design thinking” in

the “design economy”. Books like Daniel Pink’s A Whole New Mind, discuss the

importance of open-ended creative thinking typically found in design training. While

there are many vehicles for design education, architecture is uniquely positioned to

address a wide range of scales, social/human dimensions, technical and philosophical

issues.

Ironically, to prepare graduates for this new and unfamiliar future, long-established

architectural principles are more important than ever. Architecture and buildings must be

understood from their social and historical context as well as aesthetic and technical

issues. Teaching the maddeningly slow-to-learn process of design – resolving seemingly

contradictory demands – is essential. A successful program in the future will offer a

fundamentally sound architectural education yet prepare graduates with design skills that

might be applied to fields outside those traditionally defined as architecture.

UMN identity:

Our faculty and students have diverse expertise, backgrounds and goals, making

agreement on a monolithic curriculum is impossible. However, we can agree on some

required common courses and opportunities for clear elective choices. There are values

we share: design is at the heart of architecture; architecture has ethical implications;

professional practice/buildings are relevant to architectural education

Proposed Core Models:

The Ad-hoc committee proposal outlines 4 models, two of which strengthen the existing

strategies (A/B), two are significantly different from our current curriculum (C/D). An

additional model E has been proposed as well as several modifications to model A.

All models provide a structure that has a “core” or shared curriculum and creates room

for advanced topics or streams. Streams provide vehicles for advanced design training by

going deeply with specificity into one topic – topics themselves may change as the

faculty and the professional context evolves. While each stream may lead to a MS degree

and/or specialized area of expertise, the goal in creating streams is simply to have a

vehicle through which design can be taught. Streams are created by a group of faculty for

a cohort of students. Each faculty group organizes a holistic curriculum that addresses a

specific knowledge area to complement a shared curriculum.

APPENDICES

5-12

APPENDICES

5-13

APPENDIX C: FACULTY WHITE PAPER ON DESIGN + TECHNOLOGY

Design+Technology Whitepaper

12/11/07

submitted by Lance Lavine

The Design+Technology Whitepaper committee met four times for 1-! hours each in late

October and early November.. The meetings were well attended and discussion was

lively and illuminating, but the committee disbanded after these four meetings because

they were not able to come to conclusions concerning the relationship of technology to

design in our new curriculum. The following notes are, therefore, personal comments

though they are primarily based on committee discussions.

My understanding of the problems that have grown between design and technology

faculty about their respective roles in our curriculum begins with a staffing policy that the

faculty enacted 20 years ago. Before that time, our technology classes were often taught

by teachers from engineering departments. Our conclusion about that education was that

while it established a physics-based understanding of technological issues in architecture,

it did little to incorporate these issues in design thought. Steve Weeks became our model

of design-oriented faculty teaching technology. Steve taught building systems as organic

to design thought – not as a technical skill necessary to completion of construction

documents. Faculty who had a design-based vision of technological issues in architecture

became our standard for new hires. Mary Guzowski, Sharon Roe, Renee Cheng, and

Bruno Frank all fit this mold. As a result, this technology faculty taught their respective

specialties as if they were design thought rather than an independent form of knowledge.

This pedagogy soon became competitive with design studios, as it required much the

same kind of effort from our students. I believe that our curricular issues stem from this

unanticipated outcome of a conscious hiring and pedagogical policy.

Renee and I met to attempt to sort out this issue in our new curriculum. The issues we

considered were:

• Many profound changes facing the profession and education are directly linked to

Building Technology, Design or a combination of the two.

• The balance between required and elective technology coursework is consistent

with our new curriculum’s emphasis on both core and elective coursework

• A curriculum policy takes note of particular proclivities of individual faculty

members – our education is most effective when individual faculty are teaching

material in a circumstance that mirrors their values

• Student work overloading means inadequate attention to either selected subjects

or across the board

• The importance understanding the difference between the possible and the ideal

to make concrete progress toward instituting a new curriculum.

APPENDICES

5-14

Our conclusion is pragmatic: we observed that there are four types of building technology

+ design integration currently being pursued or planned. Each of these has underlying

values that we respect and wish to honor. The four types of technology + design are:

1. design and tech taught with overlapping design projects - GD1 Fall

2. design creates the need to know, tech supports as needed - GD2 fall

3. technology taught as design and visa-versa - current 5513/14

4. design provides the basis for technological development - proposed CompDesign

We propose:

• GDI continue its experiment in collaboration by overlapping a design problem

during the final six weeks of the studio with building systems. This experiment is

possible because faculty are willing and able to provide the very large time and

energy commitment to make it possible. It is being piloted this Fall. We should

await results of this experiment before deciding on its future.

• GDII+structures represents a different problem in terms of collaboration between

design and technology. Here four instructors follow very different paths toward a

common end. Unlike the common problem model of the GDI studio, four

different design and pedagogical models emerge from this studio. Common

connections with technology classes are made difficult by this model. Instead

design might interface with technology here on an “as needed” basis or by

creating a “need to know”. Design instructors might individually dip down into

the structures curriculum as they saw fit in terms of the role of structures in their

particular project and pedagogy.

• We also propose requiring a 7 week, double module, 6 credit, Environmental

Technology class in the Spring of the first year. This module incorporates design

as a part of the technology curriculum in itself. Environmental Technology

cannot be left out of our Core curriculum. Much time and effort has been spent

developing this class. It should be supported by our new curriculum.

• Finally, we propose a modified Comprehensive Requirement course. Like

Environmental Technology this class should be offered in the Spring of year II.

Its connection to the design studio is that it will be used to develop a project

already designed in the preceding semester as a base for an in depth

consideration of technical issues.

This strategy envisions four different approaches to collaboration between technology

and design curriculum. Three of these four attempts to find common ground between

technology and design will be piloted this year. The GDII+technology will probably

develop when our search identifies a new technology faculty member.

The strength of this strategy is that it makes possible a set of feasible collaborative efforts

between technology and design curriculum. Like design, it asks only that foundation

issues be covered by Core technology classes. Like design, it allows students and faculty

thereafter to take up issues that are of paramount interest. It treats our faculty as

APPENDICES

5-15

individuals acknowledging their individual insights in terms of the content and pedagogy

of our curriculum. Where each technology class sits in our curricular framework is

determined by clearly stating the nature of design+technology collaborations. Building

systems is taught in parallel to GDI because they will treat a design project in common.

Environmental Technology and the Comprehensive Requirement occupy a duel !

semester module allowing students to avoid taking another design based class at the same

time ameliorating student overload that occurs when they take two studio like classes at

the same time.

This is an imperfect solution to a curricular debate that will undoubtedly continue for the

foreseeable future. It might be considered a compromise to lose the clarity of a common

design+technology pedagogy and the division between Fall as Core curriculum and

Spring as Elective curriculum in the Model T. However, the major asset of this proposal

is that it allows our new curriculum to move forward as we learn about it.

APPENDICES

5-16

APPENDICES

5-17

APPENDIX D: MEMOS REGARDING THESIS CHANGES FOR 2009

To: Current GD2 students

From: Renee Cheng, Steve Weeks

Re: 2008-9 Thesis

Date: May 12, 2008

For 2008-9 Thesis, there will be adjustments to the sequence and expectations of work.

The following remains the same as in the previous years:

• The overall goal of thesis is for students to do work independent from

faculty-defined agendas. The written and design proposal should demonstrate

strategically applied design methodologies, including some form of research.

See below for more context on goals and expectations.

• Plan A Thesis is required for all M.Arch students – this includes:

- a thesis document described by the Graduate School [link] with the

following adaptations for the M.Arch [link]

- Enrollment for ARCH8777 (12credits) – no grade

- Master’s Examining Committee is comprised of Chair and two Examining

Members

• Spring semester Thesis studio will be taught in 4 sections, with 4 faculty

studio leaders

• Students may request chairs or committee members from outside the studio

leader group and outside the School of Architecture faculty. Approval by the

DGS remains required.

• Typically, GD3 students take ARCH5621, Professional Practice (T,TH 12:45-

2:10). If any GD3 student is not planning to enroll in this course, please

contact Steve or Renee

These are the adjustments:

• Students will be enrolled for all 12 credits of ARCH8777 during the spring

semester. This course work will include 9 credits of design, 1.5 credits of

Research Methods, 1.5 credits of Document Production

• During the Fall semester, preparatory work will take the form of 8 symposia–

4 in October and 4 in November. Symposia will be included in the coursework

and class meeting times of ARCH5621. See below for more information.

• Symposia, advising, committee assignments and chair assignments will be

arranged along the lines of the four “fields of study” outlined below.

APPENDICES

5-18

Four fields of study are described below, most full time faculty work in several fields of

study, however, for the purposes of advising thesis students, they will divide as listed:

1. Emerging Practices: the practice of architecture is rapidly changing. Digital

technology enables integrated collaborative practices that require non-

traditional representation and development and delivery. Thesis work in this

topic area may incorporate practice issues, representation or digital fabrication.

Lee Anderson

Renée Cheng

Andrzej Piotrowski

Ozayr Saloojee

Marc Swackhamer

New Fac Product Design

2. History/Theory/Culture: the context of architecture is rapidly changing.

Perspective of understanding the historical, theoretical and cultural setting of

the past, present or speculation on the future is ever more important during

times of change. Thesis work in this topic area may incorporate historical

methodologies, theoretical explorations or cultural analysis.

Ritu Bhatt

Arthur Chen

Gunter Dittmar

Tom Fisher

Leon Satkowski

Kate Solomonson

Leslie Van Duzer

New Fac – Heritage Preserv

3. Sustainable Design and Building Technology: technological advances related to

building technology are rapidly changing. Understanding performance of new

and existing technologies are critical to achieving the goals of Architecture

2030 – zero-energy buildings. Thesis work in this topic may address building

performance, building technology, structural performance, energy, lighting or

materials.

Mary Guzowski

Sharon Roe

Steve Weeks

New Fac Sust #1

New Fac Sust #2

4. Urban/Suburban/Rural: the built environment is rapidly changing. Understanding

of the formal, political and social realities of human habitation has always been

an important part of architectural education. Thesis work in this topic may

include, density, land use, housing, emergency shelter.

Bill Conway

John Comazzi

Cynthia Jara

Lance Lavine

Julia Robinson

New Fac MDC

APPENDICES

5-19

Fall Semester:

ARCH5621 (3cr) is revised and taught by Renée Cheng (UMN) and Vince James (VJAA).

Time in class will be set aside for two cycles of discussion arranged around the four

fields of study. For example, emerging practices will meet in October and again in

November. Students attend all sessions, faculty will attend according to their advisory

listings above. For each symposium session, faculty will provide an overview of the

current state and trajectory for research and design in the field of study. Students

working within that field of study will prepare materials for discussion by the whole

group.

Symposium Cycle One (October), students must choose one of the four fields of study –

switching will be allowed at any time after this point. Faculty will give a brief overview of

current and emerging topics in the field of study. General discussion will follow based on

the student writing circulated in advance. Bibilography and precedent suggestions will be

discussed, possible grouping of interests among students will be identified. Each student

should prepare the following:

- 300 word text describing an issue, problem or topic they think is relevant for

discussion

- 300 word review of an academic book or article addressing the issue, problem or

topic

- 300 word review of a popular press article addressing the issue, problem or topic

Symposium Cycle Two (November), students must choose one of the four fields of

study. Faculty will briefly present exemplar syllabi that frame questions in that field of

study. General discussion will follow based on the student material circulated in advance.

Each student or student group should prepare:

- draft syllabus of a hypothetical design studio, outline must include: conceptual

goals, design methodology, provocations - exercises and readings, bibliography,

schedule, site, program, deliverables

At the end of November, students will be matched with their chairs and committee

members.

Spring Semester:

ARCH8777 (12 cr) will have a 9 credit design studio component lead by four faculty.

Though this might change, it is expected that Sharon Roe, Ozayr Saloojee and Dave

Dimond will be in this group. There will be a 1.5 credit research methods component that

will meet in four sections, divided by field of study. There will be a 1.5 credit document

production component that will meet in both large group and individual sessions.

Schedule of the semester will be adjusted to allow design time and document production

through early May. Documents will be turned in at the beginning of the final

presentation.

APPENDICES

5-20

General information regarding the M.Arch Thesis:

The M.ARCH Thesis measures the student’s knowledge in the field, the ability to conduct

research leading to a design proposal, and the ability to communicate architecture’s

discipline in visual and written representations. Students are expected to integrate the

design, research and document production for a simultaneous presentation in May – the

Thesis document and the design are completed at the same time.

To be considered satisfactory for the completion of the Master’s of Architecture

curriculum, the student’s Thesis direction and viability must be established several ways,

as evaluated by the student’s 3-member Master’s Examining Committee:

clarity of the thesis statement, the strategy for the investigation and its

development at an advanced level of inquiry and representation.

evidence of a research effort and a pattern of working that effectively

resolves scope of the issues.

the potential for the project to proceed to a reasonable conclusion or

implementation.

the project’s relevance to the discipline of architecture and it’s emerging

practices.

APPENDICES

5-21

Thesis 2008-9 (September 17, 2008)

Premise:

Thesis should be a student led independent project.

The written document should meet graduate school standards but not be allowed to

drive the design process

Context:

All students currently in GD3 will complete their program under the Plan A thesis. Pre-thesis as a formal

class was eliminated from the fall semester. During the spring semester, they enroll in ARCH8777 12

credits. This course is subdivided into a 9 credit design component and a 3 credit research/document

production component. No significant writing is expected in the fall semester, however it is expected that

thesis questions will be honed and ready for exploration at the beginning of the spring semester.

To support fall thesis prep, GD3 students will complete two exercises embedded in the research segment

of ARCH5621 Professional Practice. After completing those exercises they will enter into a process that

leads to a match of thesis chair and committee members for the spring semester.

On the faculty side of the equation: there are three Faculty Advisory Groups – History/Theory/Culture,

Sustainable Building Design, Urban/Suburban/Rural. These groups were formed for curriculum review but

could expand to form the basis of an advising and thesis support system.

There are currently 3 faculty assigned to lead thesis studios, Ozayr Saloojee, Sharon Roe, Dave Dimond.

An additional adjunct faculty can be added if needed. It was discussed that Ozayr would take student in

the HTC area, Sharon for SBT and Dave for USB.

Gayla Lindt will be involved in the fall and spring to support the students in defining their thesis question

and the process leading to the production of the final document meeting graduate school standards.

Sequence:

Sept 23-Oct 9: Propractice exercise #1 (GD2 and GD3 students all working individually) Identify a

question and use three different approaches. Write 3 short essays describing the question

and approach. Feedback provided in class and support through research workshops lead by

Gayla Lindt.

Oct 9: GD3 students choose one of their three essays for faculty feedback. Gayla and Renee sort

into 3 groups for the 3 faculty areas for faculty review.

Oct 13: Faculty Advisory Groups meet with students to suggest readings and precedents – likely

this is not individual but clusters of interests found within the student essays

Oct 7-30: Propractice exercise #2, (GD2 and GD3 student pairs) Students asked to write a

hypothetical studio brief including site, program, method, bibliography, precedents. Feedback

provided in class and through office hours by Gayla

Nov 6: GD3 students submit one page stating proposed thesis title, methodology, project

description

Nov 7-8: Gayla, Renee, Ozayr, Sharon and Dave (in consultation with Steve) sort thesis

statements into 3 groups for faculty review. Additional adjunct faculty needs assessed as we

see range and distribution of student thesis topics.

Nov 10-15: Faculty Advisory Groups (fac only discussion) meet to discuss statements, re-

categorize as needed and make suggestions for committee members.

Nov 14: Students will file their Graduate Degree Program form with Terry Rafferty; download the

form from the Graduate School under Current Students - Forms;. Turn in a current internal

transcript and a completely filled out School of Architecture Program Plan. Terry will enter

the Chair and Examining Committee member names after the selection is completed on

November 30.

Nov 17: Students given match information on topic area and related chair assignment. Students

given suggestion for committee members with information on why the faculty was suggested

- ideally faculty self-identify that the statement is an area they can make a contribution.

Some switching of chairs can be negotiated at this time.

Nov 30: Students confirm with Gayla and Steve on their chair and committee members.

APPENDICES

5-22

APPENDICES

5-23

APPENDIX F: 3 YEAR WORKPLAN FOR FACULTY

The following fold out pages show our working documents for planning faculty teaching,

service and research for 2008-2011. 2008-9 reflects current workload, 09-10 and 10-11 are in

planning stages and may change.

APPENDICES

5-24

APPENDICES

5-25

APPENDIX G: ALUMNI SURVEY 2008

The following pages summarize responses to the recent online alumni survey. There were

312 respondants.

APPENDICES

5-26

APPENDICES

5-27

APPENDIX H: TRANFORMING THE U AND COLLEGE OF DESIGN TASK FORCE

6 Wave One Colleges, substantially changed in 2006 College of Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences (CoFES); accepts Food Science

Nutrition from CHE College of Architecture and Landscape Architecture; accepts Design Housing and Apparel

(DHA) from former CHE College of Education and Human Development; accepts Family Social Science and the

School of Social Work from CHE College of Human Ecology (CHE); College eliminated, units shifted to other colleges College of Natural Resources; moved to CoFES General College: College eliminated, units shifted to other colleges Overall effort: 34 task forces, 300 faculty and staff

APPENDICES

5-28

APPENDICES

5-29

APPENDIX I: REVIT SUCCESS STORY FOR COMPREHENSIVE STUDIO

The SchoolThe School of Architecture at the University of Minnesota prepares young architects and designers for successful careers by helping them to build a foundation in the fundamentals of the profession and by providing instruction in cutting-edge, innovative technologies and trends, including sustainable design and building information modeling (BIM). That’s why the university began integrating Revit® Architecture BIM software into its curriculum more than four years ago—well in advance of most other architectural programs. “We decided to teach Revit Architecture in several distinct ways,” says Renée Cheng, Head of the School of Architecture. “For example, I co-teach a required construction systems lecture that includes a one-credit, complementary BIM course taught by an architect from a local design firm, Hammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.” HGA architects also teach BIM in upper-level graduate courses. In response to strong interest from students in the Bachelor of Science program, the department o!ers an undergraduate lecture that carefully introduces Revit in the broader context of the digital environment of contemporary design.

The Challenge“We were interested in introducing Revit Architecture across the curriculum in just one or two years in a way that leverages our approach to design,” says Cheng. “That’s why we started with a two-pronged approach—a crash course for upper-level graduate students who had never worked with the software, and introductory courses for undergraduates and first-year graduate students.”

Gradual Introduction of BIM“For example, using a series of tutorials I created, I taught a one-credit Revit Architecture class that went hand-in-hand with a graduate-level construction methods and materials class,” says Scott Davidson, AIA, at HGA. “Throughout the curriculum, the goal is to teach a little bit at a time, so that the students can really get into the theory behind BIM later at the end of their second year of graduate study.”

Inspire. Educate. Succeed.

University of Minnesota integrates Revit® Architecture software as part of its commitment to producing versatile, skilled architects.

University of MinnesotaEducation Success Story

Revit® Architecture

“Using Revit Architecture… we could cut sections, move in, move out, and really understand what the students were doing. I found that to be absolutely delightful—especially since we were only eight weeks into a Studio with a program many of them had never seen before the class. It was amazing.”—Bill Blanski, AIA

ArchitectHammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.

Image courtesy of Brady Bussler—University of Minnesota

APPENDICES

5-30

The InquiryThis year, the students designed an annex for a Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) project site. “Using Revit Architecture, they were able to create buildings that not only looked good, but were also buildable if taken to the next level,” says Davidson.

Work FasterIn the studio, Davidson had the students create a Revit Architecture model of the MPR site and the 15 surrounding city blocks. “It was a very complicated site,” says Davidson. “Yet, using Revit Architecture, we could sit down with the students and simultaneously look at their preliminary designs, plans, sections, elevations, and perspectives all at the same time.”

“We could cut sections, move in, move out, and really understand what they were doing,” says Blanski. “I found that to be absolutely delightful—especially since we were only eight weeks into a Studio with a program many of them had never seen before the class. It was amazing.”

Understand BetterBetter still, with the increase in speed also came greater understanding. “In the Revit Architecture model, every line means something,” says Cheng.

“More than pure geometry, it actually shows us a lot of information during the design process. We are hopeful that this will help create better architecture and more versatile, skilled architects.”

Design for the Real World“The students also talked about an increased level of specificity,” says Cheng. “For example, Revit Architecture enabled them to see what was not realistic in their designs.”

A Digitally Fluent Generation“Our students grew up using computers,” says Cheng. “They are incredibly fluid about moving between software applications. On one project, they can go from Revit Architecture to Photoshop to Illustrator and back to Revit Architecture.” Unfortunately, this approach can sometimes be ine!cient but, as Cheng says, “we believe it is possible that the BIM environment can provide opportunities for better interaction between Autodesk products and other analysis tools.”

Prepare for Sustainable Practice “We’re also very committed to sustainable design,” says Cheng. “In fact, our M.S. in architecture—sustainable design track has been cited as a model program by AIA COTE. With Revit Architecture and its parametric, data-based milieu, we see a huge opportunity to use performance-based analysis as a design tool with Revit and IES or other applications we are currently using.”

The Result“We first introduced Revit Architecture into the curriculum four years ago,” says Cheng. “We understand better now its strengths and weaknesses, and, after seeing the results in the first studio, we have a great deal of confidence that by introducing it early in the curriculum, we will produce highly skilled, critical-thinking architects.”

Better-Prepared Students“Many of the firms in town are using Revit Architecture software,” says Cheng. “That’s partly why our undergrads really want to learn Revit Architecture. They can see the demand. With Revit Architecture, we not only meet the demands of the market but create the next generation of architects that will use these tools in innovative ways and bring the profession into the future.”

Autodesk and Revit are registered trademarks or trademarks of Autodesk, Inc., in the USA and/or other countries. All other brand names, product names, or trademarks belong to their respective holders. Autodesk reserves the right to alter product o"erings and specifications at any time without notice, and is not responsible for typographical or graphical errors that may appear in this document.

© 2007 Autodesk, Inc. All rights reserved. ############$$%&#'

To learn more about Revit Architecture, visit www.autodesk.com/revitarchitecture. To learn more about the Autodesk Student Engineering and Design Community, visit www.students.autodesk.com. To learn more about the School of Architecture, College of Design, University of Minnesota, visit http://arch.cdes.umn.edu.

“By using Revit Architecture, students were able to create buildings that not only looked good, but were also buildable if taken to the next level.”—Scott Davidson, AIA

ArchitectHammel, Green and Abrahamson, Inc.

Image courtesy of Brady Bussler—University of Minnesota

APPENDICES

5-31

APPENDIX J: GRADUATE STUDENT HANDBOOK

APPENDICES

5-32

APPENDICES

5-33

APPENDIX L: ADJUNCT FACULTY POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

Included in this appendix are three documents relevant to adjunct and term faculty: 7.12

Promotion Procedures, Term faculty compensation rates, Professor in Practice policy.


College of Design

Supplement to the Standards for Promotion and Tenure Required by

Section 7.12 of

Regulations Concerning Faculty Tenure

(Adopted by vote of the regular faculty on 12 January 2005, updated 10, October 2008 to reflect

College name change and change from Dept to School)

I. Introductory Statement

This document describes with greater specificity the indices and standards which will be used to

evaluate adjunct faculty for promotion.

II. Promotion Criteria

The School of Architecture’s policies on promotion follow those of other departments, with one

notable exception. It has long employed adjunct faculty drawn from the professional and

scholarly community in the Twin cities to contribute to its school mission. The contributions of

its adjunct faculty are recognized by the school in the promotion of their members according to

the Criteria outlined below. The final review of their candidacy for promotion is made by the

Dean of the College.

Although no specific form of teaching or number of scholarly or creative work is mandated, the

clear expectation is that adjunct faculty members show qualitative distinction in their

achievements and evidence of continuous and active contributions to the School’s mission.

Unless specified otherwise in this document, the 7.12 document for regular faculty establishes

guidelines for the presentation of evidence and its evaluation in the promotion of adjunct faculty.

A. To Assistant Professor

For adjunct faculty, the change in status from Lecturer to Adjunct Assistant Professor comes after

an initial period of service when faculty are evaluated by the Head for their teaching and potential

for advancement.

B. To Associate Professor

Promotion to Adjunct Associate Professor can be made at a time when there is a body of evidence

demonstrating achievements in the following areas: effectiveness in teaching; professional

APPENDICES

5-34

2

distinction in scholarship and research, artistic creation, or professional achievement; and

contributions in service. The criteria used in adjunct faculty promotion differs from those used

for regular faculty. The primary criterion is effectiveness in teaching. Those criteria related to

scholarship and research, artistic creation, professional achievement, or service (as defined in the

7.12 document) may be considered. It is assumed that a candidate's distinction and pattern of

activity in these areas promise to continue into the future.

C. To Professor

For adjunct faculty, promotion to Adjunct Professor normally comes after a period when a

candidate has demonstrated continuous and significant contributions to the mission of the School.

The decision is based on continued distinction and productivity in the three criteria for promotion.

The criteria used in adjunct faculty promotion differs from those used for regular faculty. The

primary criterion is effectiveness in teaching. Those criteria related to scholarship and research,

artistic creation, professional achievement, or service (as defined in the 7.12 document) may be

considered. Promotion to the rank of Adjunct Professor also assumes qualitative and quantitative

achievements in addition to those justifying the promotion to Adjunct Associate Professor. It is

understood that a candidate's pattern of activity in these areas promises to continue well into the

future.

D. Procedures

For the promotion of adjunct faculty, to Adjunct Associate Professor or Adjunct Professor all

regular and adjunct faculty at a rank higher than that of the candidate are eligible to vote on

decisions.

E. Documentation

The minimum requirements for the promotion dossier of adjunct faculty are three external letters

of evaluation (solicited by the School Head), student evaluations for all courses taught in the

previous five years, and a portfolio containing personal work (scholarly, creative, or professional

practice as applicable to the candidate) and student work (as applicable to the courses taught by

the candidate). Refer to the 7.12 document for a list of what may be considered.

APPENDICES

5-35


Term Faculty Compensation Policy

(June 2008)

Adjunct Studio Faculty calculated at FLAT RATE per studio

• $9,500 - Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience

• $10,500 - At least three semesters teaching in our curriculum and proven leadership

• $12,000 - Teaching experience and/or established national reputation

Adjunct Three-Credit Small Lecture or Three-Credit Drawing Course

calculated at FLAT RATE per course

• $5,500 - Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience.

• $6,100 - At least three semesters teaching in the curriculum and proven leadership.


Adjunct Four-Credit Drawing Course calculated at FLAT RATE per course




Adjunct Three-Credit Large Lecture or Required Graduate Course

calculated at FLAT RATE per course




Adjunct Four-Credit Workshop

• $5,500- Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience.

• $6,100- At least three semesters teaching in the curriculum and proven leadership.

• $6,500- Teaching experience and/or established national reputation

APPENDICES

5-36

Adjunct Two-Credit Workshop

• $3,000- Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience.

• $3,500- At least three semesters teaching in the curriculum and proven leadership.

• $4,000-Teaching experience and/or established national reputation

Adjunct Catalyst

• $2,500 – Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience

• $3,500 – At least three semesters teaching in the curriculum and proven leadership

• $4,000 – Teaching experience and/or established national reputation

Modules

Project Based Tech – ET ! semester

• 9,500 – Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience

• 10,500 – At least three semesters teaching in the curriculum and proven leadership.

• 12,000 – Teaching experience and/or established national reputation

Project Based Tech – Comp or Elective ! semester – 3 credit • 4,500 – Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience

• 5,500 – At least three semesters teaching in the curriculum and proven leadership.

• 6,500 – Teaching experience and/or established national reputation

Seminar Based Elective ! semester • $3,500 – Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience

• $4,500 – At least three semesters teaching in the curriculum and proven leadership.


Lecture Based Elective ! semester • $4,000 – Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience



Final Project

• $9,500 – Newly hired, limited or no teaching experience



APPENDICES

5-37

“Cass Gilbert Professor in Practice” and “Professor in Practice”, Position Descriptions

approved by vote of the Governing faculty (May 18, 2005).

We are looking for candidates that will meet the following criteria for Professor in Practice positions:

• national reputation for design excellence as an individual or associated with a firm • ability to contribute to the curriculum following guidelines set by the department

• established leadership role in a firm and in the profession sustained for significant amount of time.

This would be measured in terms of the number of design awards received, articles or books published about or by

them, widely recognized expertise in an area of design, and prior experience teaching here or in other schools.

In addition to the above criteria, Cass Gilbert Professor in Practice candidates are nominated by faculty in the Department, and asked to supply a letter of interest along with a CV and brief portfolio of work. The governing

faculty will review the submissions and make recommendations to the Department Head decision and negotiation with candidates.

Cass Gilbert Professors in Practice and Professors in Practice will serve on an advisory board, meeting with the Department Head on a regular basis (approximately 3 times per year). The advisory board would have input on overall

direction of the department, curricular changes and the relationship between the department and the profession.

Appointments and workload assignments for both positions will be for a one to three-year period, with renewal possible as long as mutually agreeable to both parties, based on a review process similar to post-tenure review at the

end of each appointment period. It is expected that the workload will need to be worked out individually with the Department Head. Some Professor in Practice or Cass Gilbert Professors in Practice would teach one course per year;

others would teach one course every three or four semesters. Some will teach a studio and others only seminar, but

likely not both during the same semester.

Base pay for a Professor in Practice for a 6-credit studio (graduate or undergraduate) is $11,000. Cass Gilbert Professor in Practice have additional salary, for the duration of their term, of $2,000-5,000 per studio.

Cass Gilbert Professor in Practice positions will be promoted with an individual lecture and an exhibit with a small

publication of the work. All Professors in Practice will be invited to participate in a bi-annual panel discussion and

exhibition. Announcement of the positions will occur in late Spring semester 2006 or early Fall 2007, with the first starting in Fall 07 or Spring 08.

APPENDICES

5-38

APPENDICES

5-39

APPENDIX M: M.ARCH ADMISSIONS STANDARDS

For all students except the 3+ students, the standards of admission require 24-27 credits of

architecture undergraduate credits. This leaves approximately 63-66 credits for non-

architecture courses

Applicants applying to the M. Arch Program are technically applying to the Graduate School of the University of Min-nesota. Thus, all application materials are submitted through the Graduate School except for the Portfolio which is sent directly to the School of Architecture as described below.

CHECKLIST OF APPLICATION MATERIALS

1. Graduate School Application Form Complete the application online at:

http://www.grad.umn.edu/prospective_students/

2. Transcripts O!cial transcripts of all college/university coursework. Transcripts must be forwarded directly to the Graduate School at the address below.

3. EssayUpload the essays to your online application at the “personal statement” button. (Upload them together as one document at the same button .)Please write two brief essays, each one no more than 500 words, selecting from two of the following three options:

A. Write about a formative personal experience that helped to inspire your interest in pursuing the professional study of ar-chitecture and the built environment. B. Describe a place that is meaningful and state why you find it meaningful.C. Describe an object (at any scale) that you find sublime, grotesque or culturally significant and state why.

4. Graduate Record Examination (GRE) Applicants should take the general test and submit scores for verbal, quantitative and analytical skills. The UMN-Twin Cities Graduate School code is 6874.

5. TOEFL (International Applicants) Submit scores from one of the four English language tests. Applicants must have a minimum score of 550 (TOEFL paper test); 213 (TOEFL computer test); 6.5 (IELTS Test); or, 80 (MELAB test). Preference is given to applicants with an equivalent TOEFL paper test score of 600 or higher.

6. Three Letters of Recommendation Letters of recommendation are processed through the online application. For details, visit web site listed above.Applicants are encouraged to submit 2 of the 3 letters from faculty members who are familiar with their aptitude for academic work. If an applicant majored in architecture as an undergraduate, then faculty letters should be from design studio faculty.

7. PortfolioApplicants to the standard 3-year program and those for advanced standing should submit a portfolio that indicates an ability to produce drawings of architectural form and space, as well as a broader design sensitivity. Architectural drawings and de-sign studio work should be included. Other work showing artistic or design ability or facility with digital technology may also be included. The portfolio must be bound and no larger than 8.5 x 11 inches. Please do not send slides or CDs.

3+ Option Portfolio Applicants for the 3+ Option Program should submit a portfolio of 5-15 pages. The portfolio should indicate design ability through drawing, painting, sculpture, graphic art, industrial design, or photography (2 pages of photographs maximum). The portfolio must include a hand-drawn self portrait. The drawing must not be copied from a photograph. The portfolio must be bound and no larger than 8.5 x 11 inches. Please do not send slides or CDs.

Send portfolio directly to the School of Architecture at the address below. Portfolios will be returned to applicants only if a self-addressed mailer and su!cient postage is included.

SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

Page One

APPENDICES

5-40

APPENDICES

5-41

APPENDIX N: LIST OF PRACITIONERS TEACHING COMPREHENSIVE STUDIO

comprehensive studio teaching by professors in practice 2003-2008 Note that studios taught by faculty from the same office in the same semester are co-taught, each faculty attends at least 2/3 of the class meeting times. Official title of Professor in Practice not in use until Fall 2005, given to those senior practitioners with regional or national reputation. Fall 2003 Mic Johnson, AIA, Principal, RSP Architects, Adjunct Assistant Professor Fall 2004 Mic Johnson, AIA, Principal, RSP Architects, Adjunct Assistant Professor Spring 2005 Kara Hill, AIA, Senior Design Architect, HGA Architects and Engineers, Adjunct

Assistant Professor Robert Lundgren, AIA, Senior Project Architect, HGA Architects and Engineers,

Adjunct Instructor Mohamad Lawal, AIA, RAIC, Principal and Senior Associate, KKE Architects,

Adjunct Instructor Wynne Yelland, AIA, Principal, Locus Architects, Professor in Practice Paul Neseth, AIA, Principal, Locus Architects, Professor in Practice Fall 2005 Mic Johnson, AIA, Principal, RSP Architects, Professor in Practice John Cook, AIA, Senior Project Architect HGA Architects and Engineers, Professor

in Practice Joan Soranno, AIA, Senior Design Architect HGA Architects and Engineers,

Professor in Practice Spring 2006 Tom Meyer, FAIA, Principal Meyer, Scherer & Rockcastle, LTD, Professor in Practice Fall 2006 Mic Johnson, AIA, Design Principal, Ellerbe Becket, Professor in Practice Bill Blanski, AIA, Senior Design Architect, HGA Architects and Engineers, Professor

in Practice Scott Davidson, AIA, Project Architect, HGA Architects and Engineers, Adjunct

Instructor Spring 2007 Christian Dean, AIA, Principal, CityDesk Studio, Adjunct Assistant Professor Todd Rhoades, AIA, Principal, Cermak Rhoades Architects, Adjunct Associate

Professor Mic Johnson, AIA, Design Principal, Ellerbe Becket, Professor in Practice

APPENDICES

5-42

Fall 2007 Julie Snow, FAIA, , CEO, Principal, Julie Snow Architects, Professor in Practice Mic Johnson, AIA, Design Principal, Ellerbe Becket, Professor in Practice Loren Ahles, FAIA, Senior Design Architect, HGA Architects and Engineers,

Professor in Practice John Dwyer, AIA, Principal, Shelter Architecture, Adjunct Assistant Professor Spring 2008 Christian Dean, AIA, Principal, CityDesk Studio, Adjunct Assistant Professor Todd Rhoades, AIA, Principal, Cermak Rhoades Architects, Adjunct Associate

Professor Mic Johnson, AIA, Design Principal, Ellerbe Becket, Professor in Practice Fall 2008 Mic Johnson, AIA, Design Principal, Ellerbe Becket, Professor in Practice Spring 2009 Steve Dwyer, Design Architect, HGA Architects and Engineers, Adjunct Instructor Eric Amel, Design Architect, HGA Architects and Engineers, Adjunct Instructor Victor Pechaty, AIA, Partner, BKV Group, Professor in Practice

APPENDICES

5-43

APPENDIX O: DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO PROMOTION AND TENURE

Documents related to promotion and tenure of regular faculty include University Promotion

and Tenure Policy, for which sections 9.2 and 7.11 are specifically on tenure and promotion.

The School follows a departmental 7.12 document for promotion and tenure.

APPENDICES

5-44

APPENDICES

5-45

APPENDIX P: FACULTY HANDBOOK INCLUDING STUDIO POLICIES

APPENDICES

5-46

APPENDICES

5-47

APPENDIX Q: GRADUATE ADVISORY CHARGE AND LIST OF STUDENTS