COURSE CHANGE COVER SHEET Use this form to propose changes to an existing course or to discontinue an existing course.

Course Change Department: Course Designator: Program:

Effective Term: (must be a future term) Career: Undergraduate Graduate Course Number: Submission Date: Submission from:

Required: Academic Support Resources (ASR) Needed Libraries Computer Lab Digifab Lab Goldstein Imaging Lab Other Technology Workshop ASR Support not needed.

I. Does this change the program? No Yes. If so, also submit Program Change.

II. Does this change involve Credit change Cross-Listing Course Dropped

III. Briefly summarize proposed changes and rationale. (Executive Summary in Workflow Gen)

IV. Consultation: Will students in other programs be affected by this change? If so, indicate faculty and academic advisers consulted, the program represented, and provide a summary of consultation and/or e-mail documentation.

Departmental Faculty Vote: Ayes _______ Nays _______ Abstain _______

Spring 2019

Architecture

ARCH

M.Arch 8254

2/27/17

DGS

This proposal reduces the number of credits for ARCH 8254 from 4 to 3. This reduction is part of a program change that 1) provides room for additional required courses and 2) creates consistency between all graduate studios, now 6-credits full semester equivalent (this is a project module, or half-semester studio, so 3-credits). The change also brings our overall percentage of studio credits into closer alignment with other M.Arch programs.

This change is the result of the work of four ad hoc committees, established in Fall 2015, who reviewed our M.Arch curriculum. The determination to reduce studios to 6-credits (full semester equivalent) allows for the addition of fundamental required courses and brings our program into closer alignment with competing programs.

5 0 0

School of Architecture College of Design University of Minnesota ARCH 8254: Technical Applications in Design 3 credits Prerequisites: M.ARCH, ARCH 8253, or permission of Director of Graduate Studies Format: half-semester module, instructors will vary Common Syllabus, MWF 1:30-5:30 The intimacy between architecture and construction has been broken. This intimacy was once the very nature of the architectural work and somehow was always manifested in its appearance. We know that a deterministic discourse doesn't explain architecture, but we admit that architects should accept techniques and use building systems for starting the process of the formal invention that ends in architecture. Even an architecture such as LeCorbusier's should be seen in the light of the time-honored acceptance of building technologies as the base for the formal proposal. And to be and architect, therefore, has traditionally implied being a builder; that is, explaining to other how to build. The knowledge (when not the mastery) of the building techniques was always implicit in the idea of producing architecture. The knowledge of construction principles would be so thorough as to allow the architect the formal invention that always precedes the fact of the construction itself. It should appear as if the techniques imposed have come to accept form's boundaries, for it is the acknowledgment of these limits that renders so explicit the presence of building procedures in architecture. Paradoxically, it is technical flexibility that allows architects to forget the presence of technique. The flexibility of today's techniques has resulted in their disappearance, either in architecture itself of in the process of thinking about it. This is something new. Architects in the past were both architects and builders Before the present disassociation, the invention of form was also the invention of its construction. One implied the other.

Rafael Moneo, The Solitude of Buildings, 1985

I do not like ducts, I do not like pipes. I hate them really thoroughly, but because I hate them so thoroughly, I feel that they have to be given their place. If I just hated them and took no care, I think that they would invade the building and completely destroy it.

Louis I. Kahn

COURSE 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.

SCOPE OF WORK

The typical projects in the Technical Applications in Design module are Instructor provided schematic design proposals that will be further explored through integrated development of the material, environmental and technical qualities of the site and building. Exercises encourage students to understand the basic design premise and expand the ideas though the technical resolution of the scheme.

The following are the abilities students will demonstrate to successfully meet the requirements of the Technical Applications in Design module. Please see the detailed list below for specific conditions.

• Design Ability: The ability for one to comprehensively speculate and critically distill relevant ideas into effective design and technical propositions will be a commonly demonstrated ability; processes will vary by project.

• Building Systems Integration: The ability for one to explore and evaluate alternative structural &

HVAC means to achieve stated building design goals and to develop one’s chosen approach to a satisfactory level of resolution.

• Detail Design Development of Enclosure: To understand and respond to the thermal & moisture

challenges associated with your design by exploring at least two aspects of an enclosure envelope system and choosing one to develop and demonstrate your understanding of the building’s superior envelop design integrity.

• Technical Documentation: All students will be required to use effective methods to document and

convey the technical considerations of their work. Students will study issues in drawings, models or various digital media simulations.

• Regulatory Compliance: All designs will address life/safety and public interest considerations

through the use of applicable building codes, and through the review and responsible engagement of applicable zoning ordinances. In addition, a special emphasis on accessibility considerations –using the universal design code, will be featured.

• Cost/Value Considerations: All studios/students will be required to prepare a preliminary summary of

cost/value considerations and a final statement of probable cost for their design projects. Course Requirements

• Program and Building Types: project will be developed from previous studio semester design

projects. Note: whenever possible, projects should be of at least 10,000 -25,000 square feet, minimum of two stories and have at least one long span space.

• Graphic Conveyances: Required documents include site plans; building plans, building sections, wall details, 1/2” models and drawings, structural and HVAC. Lighting and integration documents. Studios/students may approach the question of how the ideas are to be explored, developed and conveyed as part of the design and theoretical proposition underlying the work; e.g., CAAD drawings may be restricted in order to allow a specific means of experimentation, discussion or debate.

• Research: The building’s purpose and typology is such that research into construction systems and

possible tectonic orders are consistent with generating rich architectural possibilities rather than meeting conventional conceptions or expectations. Research into structural, aesthetic, informational, environmental controls, accessibility, building codes and egress are areas of particular responsibility. Research into programmatic issues, materials and system will require concentrated time commitments and outcomes that are cached into compressed sequential or overlapping efforts. Module groups will approach the question of where, what, and when the insight and knowledge their one’s work relies on comes into play and how one goes about unearthing or discovering it.

• Critical Thinking: The building’s design development will depend on thinking and logic traceable

through the precision of craft and assembly. Student’s exercises ideas will rely on appropriate use of representation and modeling of construction systems developed thoroughly and in a complete manner, as appropriate to the studio pedagogy. While there is no choice of whether or not some form of critical agency is taken into account, how it is done, and to what extent, is an open question.

• Architectural Expression: The approaches studio takes to questions of architectural expression

(character, complexity, sophistication, etc) are open to individual or group experimentation, argumentation and debate. This does not mean that simply anything goes or is automatically acceptable, for compelling critical arguments (pragmatic or theoretical) will be necessary.

• Site and Context Conditions: The site and context information will be developed resolve existing

issues and problems that affect structural principles, building systems selection, environmental imperatives, accessibility and long-term performance. The physical and geographical circumstances for each design work has been chosen to allow independent development.

• Ethical and Professional Judgments: Because all design work is ultimately value laden and open to

far-reaching ethical assessments and debates, it is of course a variable of considerable importance. How much and what kind of ethical consideration is given the design work is a studio/student variable.

Readings

Required Reading:

Allen, E., Architectural Detailing: function, constructability, aesthetics, Wiley, NY, 1993 Banz, H., Building Construction Details, Practical Drawings, VNR, NY, 1983 Brand, R., Architectural Details for Insulated Buildings, VNR, NY, 1990 Brookes, Allan, Cladding of Buildings,, Construction Press, NY, 1983 Brookes, A., and Grech, C., The Building Envelope, Butterworth Architecture, MA,

1990 Brookes, Allan, and Grech, Chris, Connections, Butterworth Architecture, MA, 1992

Denkin, Joseph, ed with AIA, Environmental Resource Guide, Wiley, NY 1996 Ford, R., The Details of Modern Architecture, Vol II, MIT, MA, 1997 Ford, R., The Details of Modern Architecture, Vol I, MIT, MA, 1990 Nashed, Fred, Time-Saver Standards for Exterior Wall Design, McGraw–Hill, NY 1996 Orton, Andrew, The Way We Build Now; form, scale and technique, VNR, London,

1988 Rush, Richard, The Building Systems Integration Handbook, Wiley, NY, 1989 Sands, Herman, Wall Systems, Analysis by Detail, McGraw-Hill, NY, 1993 Steele, James, Sustainable Architecture, McGraw Hill, NY, 1997 Zahner, L. William, Architectural Metals , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, 1995

Background reading: Allen, E., Fundamentals of Building Construction, 3rd ed, Wiley, NY, 2002 Allen, Ed, Iano, J., The Architect's Studio Companion, 3rd ed., New York, Wiley, 2001 Ching. Francis D. K., Building Construction Illustrated,. 2nd ed., New York, VNR, 2001

All of the above books are on reserve at the Architecture Library for your use. Grading

Grades will be on a hundred point system. Points will be determined by how well the objectives of the exercise are defined and met and the quality of the execution of those objectives. It is extremely important that you ask questions to clarify the intentions and ground rules for each assignment. Late submissions are accepted at the discretion of the instructor and are subject to a 20% grade reduction. The team projects will be graded by team, and it is important that work is coordinated between individuals and that each team member participates fully. Criteria for grading will be specified in each assignment, but overall criteria can be grouped into three main areas:

• Breadth of Consideration: (simultaneous consideration of functional, social, theoretical/philosophical, cultural/ethical, economic and professional factors)

• Depth of Investigation: (smaller scale building circumstances to be developed in greater depth and detail)

• Integration of Variables: (effective reconciliation of the inevitable, competing “goods” associated with various design propositions)

The grading for the course is broken down as follows:

Mid-term evaluation 15% Final evaluation 85%

5xxx: Technical Design Development Spring SCHEDULE

Week # Monday 1:30-5:30 Wednesday Friday Week 1 Introduction, analysis of previous studio

project

Week 2 Pin up: envelope study ½” scale Detail studies 1” and 3” scale

Week 3 Cost/code/egress analysis

Week 4 mid-review

Week 5 Energy: lighting and thermal systems

Week 6 Pin-up technical development

Week 7 Final review of first module

Relevant NAAB Criteria 21. Building Envelope Systems Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of building envelope materials and assemblies 22. Building Service Systems Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of plumbing, electrical, vertical transportation, communication, security, and fire protection systems 23. Building Systems Integration Ability to assess, select, and conceptually integrate structural systems, building envelope systems, environmental systems, life-safety systems, and building service systems into building design 25. Construction Cost Control Understanding of the fundamentals of building cost, life-cycle cost, and construction estimating 26. Technical Documentation Ability to make technically precise drawings and write outline specifications for a proposed design 28. Comprehensive Design Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project based on a building program and site that includes development of programmed spaces demonstrating an understanding of structural and environmental systems, building envelope systems, life-safety provisions, wall sections and building assemblies and the principles of sustainability Refer to the University of Minnesota website for policies and requirements relevant to this class http://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/academic/Conduct.htm l

3/15/2017 ECAS View Course Proposal

https://onestop2.umn.edu/ecas/viewCourseProposal.jsp?EcasId=27078&seq=5 1/9

Electronic Course Authorization System (ECAS)

ARCH 8254 ­ VIEW COURSE PROPOSAL

Back to Proposal List

Approvals Received: Department on 03­15­17

by Nicole Kennedy

(kenne814@umn.edu)

Approvals Pending: College/Dean

Effective Status: Active

Effective Term: New: 1189 ­ Fall 2018 Old: 1153 ­ Spring 2015

Course: ARCH 8254

Institution:Campus:

UMNTC ­ Twin Cities/Rochester UMNTC ­ Twin Cities

Career: GRAD

College: TALA ­ College of Design

Department: 10827 ­ School of Architecture

General

Course Title Short: Tech Applications in Design

Course Title Long: Technical Applications in Design

Max­Min Creditsfor Course:

New: 3.0 to 3.0 credit(s)Old: 4.0 to 4.0 credit(s)

CatalogDescription:

Design potential inherent in technical development process of design project. Testing concepts,developing details, integrating building systems. Structural bay enclosure, cost considerations,regulatory compliance. Building­information modeling, analog/digital representations inarchitecture document production.

prereq: [8253, MArch major] or dept consent

Print in Catalog?: Yes

Grading Basis: A­F or Aud

Topics Course: No

Online Course: No

Freshman Seminar: No

Is any portion of this course taught outside of the United States?:

No

Community Engaged Learning (CEL): None

InstructorContact Hours:

New: 3.0 hours per weekOld: 8.0 hours per week

Course Typically Offered: Every Fall

Component 1 : LEC (with final exam)

Component 2 : LAB (no final exam)

Auto­EnrollCourse:

Yes

GradedComponent:

LAB

Academic New: Not allowed to bypass limits.

Campuses: Twin Cities Crookston Duluth Morris Rochester Other LocationsSigned in as: kenne814 | Sign out

Go

to

the

U

Search U of M Web sites

3/15/2017 ECAS View Course Proposal

https://onestop2.umn.edu/ecas/viewCourseProposal.jsp?EcasId=27078&seq=5 2/9

Progress Units: 3.0 credit(s)Old: Not allowed to bypass limits. 4.0 credit(s)

Financial AidProgress Units:

New: Not allowed to bypass limits. 3.0 credit(s)Old: Not allowed to bypass limits. 4.0 credit(s)

Repetition ofCourse:

New: Allow up to 2 repetition(s) totalling up to 6.0 credit(s). Allow multiple enrollments in a single term. Old: Allow up to 2 repetition(s) totalling up to 8.0 credit(s). Allow multiple enrollments in a single term.

QuarterPrerequisite:

8254

CoursePrerequisitesfor Catalog:

<no text provided>

CourseEquivalency:

No course equivalencies

Cross­listings: No cross­listings

Add ConsentRequirement:

No required consent

Drop ConsentRequirement:

No required consent

EnforcedPrerequisites: (course­based ornon­course­based)

002765 ­ Arch 8253, M Arch

Editor Comments: New: <no text provided> Old: Added revised syllabus and modified instructor contact hours commensurate with changesdescribed in memo of 9/2/2008 from S. Weeks to V. Field. (V. Field, 11/13/08)

Proposal Changes: New: This proposal reduces the number of credits for ARCH 8254 from 4 to 3. This reduction ispart of a program change that 1) provides room for additional required courses and 2) createsconsistency between all graduate studios, now 6­credits full semester equivalent (this is a projectmodule, or half­semester studio, so 3­credits). The change also brings our overall percentage ofstudio credits into closer alignment with other M.Arch programs. Old: <no text provided>

History Information: <no text provided>

Graduate School

FacultySponsor Name:

New: Blaine BrownellOld: Renee Cheng

Director ofGraduate StudiesName:

New: Blaine BrownellOld: J. Stephen Weeks

Director ofGraduate StudiesE­mail Address:

New: brownell@umn.eduOld: weeks001@umn.edu

AdditionalFaculty TeachingThis Course:

New: Varies each year Old: Sharon Roe, Lance Lavine, Gunter Dittmar

Is this course orchange temporary?

No

ProposedChange:

What is the course change being proposed (title, course content, number ofcredits, etc.)? Clearly indicate the rationale for proposing the change. If this isonly a change in credits, please provide information justifying such a creditaddition or reduction using specific examples from current and proposed syllabi,and answer completely the questions about course objectives and syllabusbelow. The University policy on credits is found under Section 4A of "Standardsfor Semester Conversion" athttp://www.policy.umn.edu/Policies/Education/Education/STUDENTWORK.html.

New: This proposal reduces the number of credits for ARCH 8254 from 4 to 3. This reduction ispart of a program change that 1) provides room for additional required courses and 2) createsconsistency between all graduate studios, now 6­credits full semester equivalent (this is a projectmodule, or half­semester studio, so 3­credits). The change also brings our overall percentage of

3/15/2017 ECAS View Course Proposal

https://onestop2.umn.edu/ecas/viewCourseProposal.jsp?EcasId=27078&seq=5 3/9

module, or half­semester studio, so 3­credits). The change also brings our overall percentage ofstudio credits into closer alignment with other M.Arch programs. Old: Credits from 6 to 4 since projects will accomplish goals based on work completed in adifferent studio, either Arch 8251 or 8253.

Rationale for8xxx­Level:

What is the rationale for proposing this course at the 8xxx­level rather than the5xxx­level? Courses proposed at the 8xxx­level are for graduate students;courses at the 5xxx­level are primarily for graduate students, but third­ andfourth­year undergraduates may also enroll.

Core design course required for all professional Master's of Architecture degree students.

Role of Coursein Program:

What role in the program's curriculum is this course designed to fill (area of expertise innew faculty hire, fills gap in sequence, students' demand, follow­up to another course,other)? In other words, why does the program need this course? What is the relationshipof this course to existing courses within the program/department? Will the course be acore requirement or optional? If there appears to be duplication or overlap with existingprogram courses, please explain.

Core requirement in architectural design and its relationship to design thought and methods,material culture, and landscape.

Relationshipto CoursesOutside Program:

What is the relationship of this course to courses outside the program, includingcourses in other units (departments, programs, schools, colleges) of theUniversity? Please provide a list of any similar courses that includes the coursedesignators, numbers, and titles. If there is any duplication or overlap, pleaseexplain.

n/a

OverlapConsultation:

Have other programs been consulted where such duplication, overlap, and/or similaritymight appear to exist? Please identify the individual(s) consulted and the nature and resultof this consultation.

n/a

Evaluation ofCourse andInstructor:

How will the course and the instructor be evaluated?

Student design projects, student interviews, and evaluation forms.

CourseObjectives:

The typical projects in the Technical Applications in Design module are Instructor providedschematic design proposals that will be further explored through integrated development of thematerial, environmental and technical qualities of the site and building. The following are theabilities students will demonstrate to successfully meet the requirements of the TechnicalApplications in Design module. Please see the detailed list below for specific conditions.

¿Design Ability: The ability for one to comprehensively speculate and critically distill relevantideas into effective design and technical propositions.

¿Building Systems Integration: The ability for one to explore and evaluate alternative structural &HVAC means to achieve stated building design goals and to develop one¿s chosen approach to asatisfactory level of resolution.

¿Detail Design Development of Enclosure: To understand and respond to the thermal & moisturechallenges associated with your design by exploring at least two aspects of an enclosureenvelope system.

¿Technical Documentation: To document and convey the technical considerations in drawings,models or various digital media simulations.

¿Regulatory Compliance: To address life/safety and public interest considerations through the useof building codes, zoning ordinances, accessibility, and universal design.

¿Cost/Value Considerations: to prepare a preliminary summary of cost/value considerations and afinal statement of probable cost for their design projects.

ProvisionalSyllabus:

Please provide a provisional syllabus for new courses and courses in which changes incontent and/or description and/or credits are proposed that include the followinginformation: course goals and description; format/structure of the course (proposednumber of instructor contact hours per week, student workload effort per week, etc.);topics to be covered; scope and nature of assigned readings (texts, authors, frequency,amount per week); required course assignments; nature of any student projects; and howstudents will be evaluated.

The University policy on credits is found under Section 4A of "Standards for SemesterConversion" athttp://www.policy.umn.edu/Policies/Education/Education/STUDENTWORK.html .Provisional course syllabus information will be retained in this system until new syllabusinformation is entered with the next major course modification, This provisional coursesyllabus information may not correspond to the course as offered in a particular semester.

New: School of Architecture College of Design University of Minnesota

3/15/2017 ECAS View Course Proposal

https://onestop2.umn.edu/ecas/viewCourseProposal.jsp?EcasId=27078&seq=5 4/9

ARCH 8254: Technical Applications in Design 3 credits Prerequisites: M.ARCH, ARCH 8253, or permission of Director of Graduate Studies Format: half­semester module, instructors will vary Common Syllabus, MWF 1:30­5:30 The intimacy between architecture and construction has been broken. This intimacy was once thevery nature of the architectural work and somehow was always manifested in its appearance. Weknow that a deterministic discourse doesn't explain architecture, but we admit that architectsshould accept techniques and use building systems for starting the process of the formalinvention that ends in architecture. Even an architecture such as LeCorbusier's should be seen inthe light of the time­honored acceptance of building technologies as the base for the formalproposal. And to be and architect, therefore, has traditionally implied being a builder; that is,explaining to other how to build. The knowledge (when not the mastery) of the buildingtechniques was always implicit in the idea of producing architecture. The knowledge ofconstruction principles would be so thorough as to allow the architect the formal invention thatalways precedes the fact of the construction itself. It should appear as if the techniques imposedhave come to accept form's boundaries, for it is the acknowledgment of these limits that rendersso explicit the presence of building procedures in architecture. Paradoxically, it is technicalflexibility that allows architects to forget the presence of technique. The flexibility of today'stechniques has resulted in their disappearance, either in architecture itself of in the process ofthinking about it. This is something new. Architects in the past were both architects and buildersBefore the present disassociation, the invention of form was also the invention of its construction.One implied the other. Rafael Moneo, The Solitude of Buildings, 1985 I do not like ducts, I do not like pipes. I hate them really thoroughly, but because I hate them sothoroughly, I feel that they have to be given their place. If I just hated them and took no care, Ithink that they would invade the building and completely destroy it. Louis I. Kahn COURSE OBJECTIVESThe objective of this course is to explore the design potential inherent in technical developmentof a design project. Course work will test design concepts by developing details, integration ofbuilding systems, structural bay, enclosure, cost considerations and regulatory compliance.Exercises are intended to encourage students to expand projects from previous studio semestersto a high degree of technical competence.SCOPE OF WORKThe typical projects in the Technical Applications in Design module are Instructor providedschematic design proposals that will be further explored through integrated development of thematerial, environmental and technical qualities of the site and building. Exercises encouragestudents to understand the basic design premise and expand the ideas though the technicalresolution of the scheme.The following are the abilities students will demonstrate to successfully meet the requirements ofthe Technical Applications in Design module. Please see the detailed list below for specificconditions.• Design Ability: The ability for one to comprehensively speculate and critically distill relevantideas into effective design and technical propositions will be a commonly demonstrated ability;processes will vary by project. • Building Systems Integration: The ability for one to explore and evaluate alternative structural& HVAC means to achieve stated building design goals and to develop one’s chosen approach to asatisfactory level of resolution. • Detail Design Development of Enclosure: To understand and respond to the thermal & moisturechallenges associated with your design by exploring at least two aspects of an enclosureenvelope system and choosing one to develop and demonstrate your understanding of thebuilding’s superior envelop design integrity. • Technical Documentation: All students will be required to use effective methods to documentand convey the technical considerations of their work. Students will study issues in drawings,models or various digital media simulations. • Regulatory Compliance: All designs will address life/safety and public interest considerationsthrough the use of applicable building codes, and through the review and responsible engagementof applicable zoning ordinances. In addition, a special emphasis on accessibility considerations –using the universal design code, will be featured. • Cost/Value Considerations: All studios/students will be required to prepare a preliminarysummary of cost/value considerations and a final statement of probable cost for their designprojects.Course Requirements • Program and Building Types: project will be developed from previous studio semester designprojects. Note: whenever possible, projects should be of at least 10,000 ­25,000 square feet,minimum of two stories and have at least one long span space. • Graphic Conveyances: Required documents include site plans; building plans, building sections,wall details, 1/2” models and drawings, structural and HVAC. Lighting and integration documents.Studios/students may approach the question of how the ideas are to be explored, developed andconveyed as part of the design and theoretical proposition underlying the work; e.g., CAADdrawings may be restricted in order to allow a specific means of experimentation, discussion ordebate.• Research: The building’s purpose and typology is such that research into construction systemsand possible tectonic orders are consistent with generating rich architectural possibilities ratherthan meeting conventional conceptions or expectations. Research into structural, aesthetic,informational, environmental controls, accessibility, building codes and egress are areas ofparticular responsibility. Research into programmatic issues, materials and system will require

3/15/2017 ECAS View Course Proposal

https://onestop2.umn.edu/ecas/viewCourseProposal.jsp?EcasId=27078&seq=5 5/9

concentrated time commitments and outcomes that are cached into compressed sequential oroverlapping efforts. Module groups will approach the question of where, what, and when theinsight and knowledge their one’s work relies on comes into play and how one goes aboutunearthing or discovering it. • Critical Thinking: The building’s design development will depend on thinking and logic traceablethrough the precision of craft and assembly. Student’s exercises ideas will rely on appropriateuse of representation and modeling of construction systems developed thoroughly and in acomplete manner, as appropriate to the studio pedagogy. While there is no choice of whether ornot some form of critical agency is taken into account, how it is done, and to what extent, is anopen question.• Architectural Expression: The approaches studio takes to questions of architectural expression(character, complexity, sophistication, etc) are open to individual or group experimentation,argumentation and debate. This does not mean that simply anything goes or is automaticallyacceptable, for compelling critical arguments (pragmatic or theoretical) will be necessary. • Site and Context Conditions: The site and context information will be developed resolve existingissues and problems that affect structural principles, building systems selection, environmentalimperatives, accessibility and long­term performance. The physical and geographicalcircumstances for each design work has been chosen to allow independent development. • Ethical and Professional Judgments: Because all design work is ultimately value laden and opento far­reaching ethical assessments and debates, it is of course a variable of considerableimportance. How much and what kind of ethical consideration is given the design work is astudio/student variable. Readings Required Reading: Allen, E., Architectural Detailing: function, constructability, aesthetics, Wiley, NY, 1993 Banz, H., Building Construction Details, Practical Drawings, VNR, NY, 1983 Brand, R., Architectural Details for Insulated Buildings, VNR, NY, 1990 Brookes, Allan, Cladding of Buildings,, Construction Press, NY, 1983 Brookes, A., and Grech, C., The Building Envelope, Butterworth Architecture, MA, 1990 Brookes, Allan, and Grech, Chris, Connections, Butterworth Architecture, MA, 1992 Denkin, Joseph, ed with AIA, Environmental Resource Guide, Wiley, NY 1996 Ford, R., The Details of Modern Architecture, Vol II, MIT, MA, 1997 Ford, R., The Details of Modern Architecture, Vol I, MIT, MA, 1990 Nashed, Fred, Time­Saver Standards for Exterior Wall Design, McGraw–Hill, NY 1996 Orton, Andrew, The Way We Build Now; form, scale and technique, VNR, London, 1988 Rush, Richard, The Building Systems Integration Handbook, Wiley, NY, 1989 Sands, Herman, Wall Systems, Analysis by Detail, McGraw­Hill, NY, 1993 Steele, James, Sustainable Architecture, McGraw Hill, NY, 1997 Zahner, L. William, Architectural Metals , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, 1995 Background reading:Allen, E., Fundamentals of Building Construction, 3rd ed, Wiley, NY, 2002 Allen, Ed, Iano, J., The Architect's Studio Companion, 3rd ed., New York, Wiley, 2001Ching. Francis D. K., Building Construction Illustrated,. 2nd ed., New York, VNR, 2001 All of the above books are on reserve at the Architecture Library for your use. Grading Grades will be on a hundred point system. Points will be determined by how well the objectivesof the exercise are defined and met and the quality of the execution of those objectives. It isextremely important that you ask questions to clarify the intentions and ground rules for eachassignment. Late submissions are accepted at the discretion of the instructor and are subject to a20% grade reduction. The team projects will be graded by team, and it is important that work is coordinated betweenindividuals and that each team member participates fully. Criteria for grading will be specified in each assignment, but overall criteria can be grouped intothree main areas:• Breadth of Consideration: (simultaneous consideration of functional, social,theoretical/philosophical, cultural/ethical, economic and professional factors) • Depth of Investigation: (smaller scale building circumstances to be developed in greater depthand detail)• Integration of Variables: (effective reconciliation of the inevitable, competing “goods”associated with various design propositions) The grading for the course is broken down as follows: Mid­term evaluation 15% Final evaluation 85% 5xxx: Technical Design Development Spring SCHEDULE Week # Monday 1:30­5:30 Wednesday Friday Week 1 Introduction, analysis of previous studio projectWeek 2 Pin up: envelope study ½” scale Detail studies 1” and 3” scaleWeek 3 Cost/code/egress analysisWeek 4 mid­review

3/15/2017 ECAS View Course Proposal

https://onestop2.umn.edu/ecas/viewCourseProposal.jsp?EcasId=27078&seq=5 6/9

Week 5 Energy: lighting and thermal systemsWeek 6 Pin­up technical development Week 7 Final review of first moduleRelevant NAAB Criteria 21. Building Envelope Systems Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of buildingenvelope materials and assemblies 22. Building Service Systems Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of plumbing,electrical, vertical transportation, communication, security, and fire protection systems 23. Building Systems Integration Ability to assess, select, and conceptually integrate structural systems, building envelopesystems, environmental systems, life­safety systems, and building service systems into buildingdesign25. Construction Cost ControlUnderstanding of the fundamentals of building cost, life­cycle cost, and construction estimating 26. Technical Documentation Ability to make technically precise drawings and write outline specifications for a proposed design 28. Comprehensive Design Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project based on a building program and sitethat includes development of programmed spaces demonstrating an understanding of structuraland environmental systems, building envelope systems, life­safety provisions, wall sections andbuilding assemblies and the principles of sustainability Refer to the University of Minnesota website for policies and requirements relevant to this classhttp://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/academic/Conduct.htm lOld: School of Architecture College of Design University of Minnesota

ARCH 8254: Technical Applications in Design 4 credits Spring 2009 Prerequisites: M.ARCH, ARCH 8253, or permission of Director of Graduate Studies Module offered both first and second half, instructors will vary Common Syllabus, MW 1:30­5:30 NAAB Criteria: 21,22,23,25,26,28

The intimacy between architecture and construction has been broken. This intimacy was once thevery nature of the architectural work and somehow was always manifested in its appearance. We know that a deterministic discourse doesn't explain architecture, but we admit that architectsshould accept techniques and use building systems for starting the process of the formalinvention that ends in architecture. Even an architecture such as LeCorbusier's should be seen inthe light of the time­honored acceptance of building technologies as the base for the formalproposal. And to be and architect, therefore, has traditionally implied being a builder; that is,explaining to other how to build. The knowledge (when not the mastery) of the buildingtechniques was always implicit in the idea of producing architecture. The knowledge ofconstruction principles would be so thorough as to allow the architect the formal invention thatalways precedes the fact of the construction itself. It should appear as if the techniques imposedhave come to accept form's boundaries, for it is the acknowledgment of these limits that rendersso explicit the presence of building procedures in architecture. Paradoxically, it is technicalflexibility that allows architects to forget the presence of technique. The flexibility of today'stechniques has resulted in their disappearance, either in architecture itself of in the process ofthinking about it. This is something new. Architects in the past were both architects and builders Before the present disassociation, the invention of form was also the invention of itsconstruction. One implied the other. Rafael Moneo, The Solitude of Buildings, 1985

I do not like ducts, I do not like pipes. I hate them really thoroughly, but because I hate them sothoroughly, I feel that they have to be given their place. If I just hated them and took no care, Ithink that they would invade the building and completely destroy it. Louis I. Kahn COURSE OBJECTIVESExplorations of the design potential inherent in the technical development process of a designproject. Individual tests of the performance of design concepts by developing details, integrationof building systems, structural bay, enclosure, cost considerations and regulatory compliance.Building information modeling, analog and digital representations common in architecturedocument production.

SCOPE OF WORKThe professional architect¿s services include five phases of delivery: schematic design, designdevelopment, construction documents, bidding/negotiations, and construction. This 4­creditcourse will focus on design development. The typical projects in the Technical Applications inDesign module are Instructor provided schematic design proposals that will be further exploredthrough integrated development of the material, environmental and technical qualities of the siteand building. Exercises encourage students to understand the basic design premise and expandthe ideas though the technical resolution of the scheme.The following are the abilities students will demonstrate to successfully meet the requirements ofthe Technical Applications in Design module. Please see the detailed list below for specificconditions.

3/15/2017 ECAS View Course Proposal

https://onestop2.umn.edu/ecas/viewCourseProposal.jsp?EcasId=27078&seq=5 7/9

¿ Design Ability: The ability for one to comprehensively speculate and critically distillrelevant ideas into effective design and technical propositions will be a commonly demonstratedability; processes will vary by project. ¿ Building Systems Integration: The ability for one to explore and evaluate alternativestructural & HVAC means to achieve stated building design goals and to develop one¿s chosenapproach to a satisfactory level of resolution. ¿ Detail Design Development of Enclosure: To understand and respond to the thermal &moisture challenges associated with your design by exploring at least two aspects of an enclosureenvelope system and choosing one to develop and demonstrate your understanding of thebuilding¿s superior envelop design integrity. ¿ Technical Documentation: All students will be required to use effective methods todocument and convey the technical considerations of their work. Students will study issues indrawings, models or various digital media simulations. ¿ Regulatory Compliance: All designs will address life/safety and public interestconsiderations through the use of applicable building codes, and through the review andresponsible engagement of applicable zoning ordinances. In addition, a special emphasis onaccessibility considerations ¿using the universal design code, will be featured. ¿ Cost/Value Considerations: All studios/students will be required to prepare a preliminarysummary of cost/value considerations and a final statement of probable cost for their designprojects.

¿ Course Requirements ¿ Program and Building Types: project will be developed from previous studio semesterdesign projects. Note: whenever possible, projects should be of at least 10,000 ­25,000 squarefeet, minimum of two stories and have at least one long span space. ¿ Graphic Conveyances: Required documents include site plans; building plans, buildingsections, wall details, 1/2¿ models and drawings, structural and HVAC. Lighting and integrationdocuments. Studios/students may approach the question of how the ideas are to be explored,developed and conveyed as part of the design and theoretical proposition underlying the work;e.g., CAAD drawings may be restricted in order to allow a specific means of experimentation,discussion or debate. ¿ Research: The building¿s purpose and typology is such that research into constructionsystems and possible tectonic orders are consistent with generating rich architectural possibilitiesrather than meeting conventional conceptions or expectations. Research into structural,aesthetic, informational, environmental controls, accessibility, building codes and egress areareas of particular responsibility. Research into programmatic issues, materials and system willrequire concentrated time commitments and outcomes that are cached into compressedsequential or overlapping efforts. Module groups will approach the question of where, what, andwhen the insight and knowledge their one¿s work relies on comes into play and how one goesabout unearthing or discovering it. ¿ Critical Thinking: The building¿s design development will depend on thinking and logictraceable through the precision of craft and assembly. Student¿s exercises ideas will rely onappropriate use of representation and modeling of construction systems developed thoroughlyand in a complete manner, as appropriate to the studio pedagogy. While there is no choice ofwhether or not some form of critical agency is taken into account, how it is done, and to whatextent, is an open question. ¿ Architectural Expression: The approaches studio takes to questions of architecturalexpression (character, complexity, sophistication, etc) are open to individual or groupexperimentation, argumentation and debate. This does not mean that simply anything goes or isautomatically acceptable, for compelling critical arguments (pragmatic or theoretical) will benecessary. ¿ Site and Context Conditions: The site and context information will be developed resolveexisting issues and problems that affect structural principles, building systems selection,environmental imperatives, accessibility and long­term performance. The physical andgeographical circumstances for each design work has been chosen to allow independentdevelopment. ¿ Ethical and Professional Judgments: Because all design work is ultimately value laden andopen to far­reaching ethical assessments and debates, it is of course a variable of considerableimportance. How much and what kind of ethical consideration is given the design work is astudio/student variable.

Required Reading Allen, E., Architectural Detailing: function, constructability, aesthetics, Wiley, NY, 1993 Banz, H., Building Construction Details, Practical Drawings, VNR, NY, 1983 Brand, R., Architectural Details for Insulated Buildings, VNR, NY, 1990 Brookes, Allan, Cladding of Buildings,, Construction Press, NY, 1983 Brookes, A., and Grech, C., The Building Envelope, Butterworth Architecture, MA, 1990 Brookes, Allan, and Grech, Chris, Connections, Butterworth Architecture, MA, 1992 Denkin, Joseph, ed with AIA, Environmental Resource Guide, Wiley, NY 1996 Ford, R., The Details of Modern Architecture, Vol II, MIT, MA, 1997 Ford, R., The Details of Modern Architecture, Vol I, MIT, MA, 1990 Nashed, Fred, Time­Saver Standards for Exterior Wall Design, McGraw¿Hill, NY 1996 Orton, Andrew, The Way We Build Now; form, scale and technique, VNR, London, 1988 Rush, Richard, The Building Systems Integration Handbook, Wiley, NY, 1989 Sands, Herman, Wall Systems, Analysis by Detail, McGraw­Hill, NY, 1993 Steele, James, Sustainable Architecture, McGraw Hill, NY, 1997 Zahner, L. William, Architectural Metals , John Wiley & Sons, Inc., NY, 1995

3/15/2017 ECAS View Course Proposal

https://onestop2.umn.edu/ecas/viewCourseProposal.jsp?EcasId=27078&seq=5 8/9

Background reading: Allen, E., Fundamentals of Building Construction, 3rd ed, Wiley, NY, 2002 Allen, Ed, Iano, J., The Architect's Studio Companion, 3rd ed., New York, Wiley, 2001Ching. Francis D. K., Building Construction Illustrated,. 2nd ed., New York, VNR, 2001 All of the above books are on reserve at the Architecture Library for your use.

Grading Grades will be on a hundred point system. Points will be determined by how well the objectivesof the exercise are defined and met and the quality of the execution of those objectives. It isextremely important that you ask questions to clarify the intentions and ground rules for eachassignment. Late submissions are accepted at the discretion of the instructor and are subject to a20% grade reduction. The team projects will be graded by team, and it is important that work is coordinated betweenindividuals and that each team member participates fully. Criteria for grading will be specified in each assignment, but overall criteria can be grouped intothree main areas:Breadth of Consideration: (simultaneous consideration of functional, social,theoretical/philosophical, cultural/ethical, economic and professional factors) Depth of Investigation: (smaller scale building circumstances to be developed in greater depthand detail) Integration of Variables: (effective reconciliation of the inevitable, competing ¿goods¿ associatedwith various design propositions) The grading for the course is broken down as follows: Mid­term evaluation 15% Final evaluation 85%

5xxx: Technical Design Development 2009 Spring SCHEDULE Week # Monday 1:30­5:30 Wednesday Week 1 Introduction, analysis of previous studio project Jan 21/23 Week 2 Pin up: envelope study ¿¿ scale Detail studies 1¿ and 3¿ scale Jan 26/28/30 Week 3 Individual critique with instructor Cost/code/egress analysis Feb 2/4/6 Week 4 Individual critique with instructor mid­review Feb 9/11/13 Week 5 Individual critique with instructor Energy: lighting and thermal systems Feb 16/18/20 Week 6 Individual critique with instructor Pin­up technical development Feb 23/25/27 Week 7 Individual critique with instructor Final review of first module Mar 2/4/6

Refer to the University of Minnesota website for policies and requirements relevant to this classhttp://www1.umn.edu/regents/policies/academic/Conduct.htm l

Strategic Objectives & Consultation

Name of Department ChairApprover:

New: Marc Swackhamer Old: <no text provided>

Strategic Objectives ­Curricular Objectives:

How does adding this course improve the overall curricular objectives oftheunit?

<no text provided>

Strategic Objectives ­ CoreCurriculum:

Does the unit consider this course to be part of its core curriculum?

<no text provided>

Strategic Objectives ­ Consultation with OtherUnits:

Before submitting a new course proposal in ECAS, circulate the proposedsyllabus to department chairs in relevant units and copy affiliated associatedean(s). Consultation prevents course overlap and informs other departmentsof new course offerings. If you determine that consultation with units inexternal college(s) is unnecessary, include a description of the steps taken toreach that conclusion (e.g., catalog key word search, conversation withcollegiate curriculum committee, knowledge of current curriculum in relatedunits, etc.). Include documentation of all consultation here, to be referencedduring CCC review. If email correspondence is too long to fit in the spaceprovided, paraphrase it here and send the full transcript to the CCC staff person.Please also send a Word or PDF version of the proposed syllabus to the CCCstaff person.

<no text provided>

3/15/2017 ECAS View Course Proposal

https://onestop2.umn.edu/ecas/viewCourseProposal.jsp?EcasId=27078&seq=5 9/9

<no text provided>

Back to Proposal List

Contact Us

© 2014 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer

Information current as of March 15, 2017

Twin Cities Campus: Parking & Transportation Maps & Directions

Directories Contact U of M Privacy