international competitions conference 2016 experimenting

Citation:Stott, CR and Warren, S (2016) Experimenting with Alumni Pedagogy. In: ICC 2016 The CompetitionMesh: Experimenting with and within Architecture Competitions, 27 October 2016 - 29 October2016, Leeds Beckett University.

Link to Leeds Beckett Repository record:https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/4802/

Document Version:Conference or Workshop Item (Accepted Version)

The aim of the Leeds Beckett Repository is to provide open access to our research, as required byfunder policies and permitted by publishers and copyright law.

The Leeds Beckett repository holds a wide range of publications, each of which has beenchecked for copyright and the relevant embargo period has been applied by the Research Servicesteam.

We operate on a standard take-down policy. If you are the author or publisher of an outputand you would like it removed from the repository, please contact us and we will investigate on acase-by-case basis.

Each thesis in the repository has been cleared where necessary by the author for third partycopyright. If you would like a thesis to be removed from the repository or believe there is an issuewith copyright, please contact us on [email protected] and we will investigate on acase-by-case basis.

https://eprints.leedsbeckett.ac.uk/id/eprint/4802/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

International Competitions Conference 2016 Experimenting with Alumni Pedagogy

Experimenting with Alumni Pedagogy Craig Stott & Simon Warren

Leeds Beckett University

Abstract

Project Office, Leeds Beckett University’s in-house staff and student led architectural practice launched an alumni ideascompetitionfortheSustainableTechnologiesandLandscapeResearchCentre(STaLRC).Thewinningentryestablishedthedesignandthewinningteamwereengagedinadesignconsultancyroleforfurtherdevelopmentofthework.

Thiscasestudydescribesanexplorationofthearchitecturalcompetitionformatthroughexperimentingwithalumnipedagogy.

The institution’s association with its students is almost severed once they become alumni. By extending pedagogy, through acompetition,newpossibilitieshavearisenbetweenthisSchoolofArchitectureand its recent formerstudents,andforacademiaandpractice.

ThecasestudyexplainsaproceduralexplorationthroughtheSTaLRCcompetition,startingwithdefiningthecompetitionthroughaDesignGuide‘brief’producedbysecondyearundergraduatestudentsofarchitecture.TheroleofProjectOfficeastheeducationalandpracticechoreographersetsthedistinctiveanchoringoftheproject.Thecompetitionprocess,managedbythewriters,dealswiththedualityofprovidinga ‘winning’designthatmeetsclient’scomplexrequirementse.g.affordability,andthesettingofanequallyimportanteducationalpurpose.

Thispaperconsidershowanarchitecturalcompetition,usedasapedagogictool,isharnessedinapostformaleducationalsetting.Anoutputforexampleisthatalumnicompetitionscanbelegitimatelysituatedinthe(ContinuingProfessionalDevelopment)CPDframework,viablyenablingUKschoolsofarchitecturetoparticipate,fulfillingaprofessionaldevelopmentalremit.

Inconclusion,as theSTaLRCcompetition is framed inaneducational setting, the learningoutcomesofparticipantsareofequalimportancetothequalityofentries.Thismethodologyensurescontinuedpedagogicalvalueinthetransitionbetweeneducationand profession. Recent alumni are vital and unencumbered, fledgling professionals and through the setting of this competitionhavebeenprovidedwiththeirspacetofledge.

Keywords:LiveProjectPedagogy,PracticeRelatedResearch,Alumni,Architecture,Competitions

Introduction

In Experimenting with Alumni Pedagogy the authorsextendedsixyearsofworkingwitharchitecture liveprojectsthrough the competition format with undergraduate andpostgraduate students to recent alumni of Leeds BeckettUniversity’s (formerly Leeds Metropolitan University). Thisseeminglysmall transitionhasmadean important impact tothe way Project Office considers its relationship to thearchitectural community and pedagogy. The paper is a casestudy that develops amethodology for alumni engagementthroughpedagogicallydrivendesigncompetitions.

ProjectBackground

Followingguidanceinthe2011HEFCEreport‘PerformanceinHigher Education Estates’ Leeds Beckett University wererequired to ensure 100%of their Estate ratedA – B on theRICS Condition Standards (2005). Rated in the lowestcategory D “Inoperable, or serious risk of failure or majorbreakdown”, the existing Landscape Resource Centre (LRC)building based at Leeds Beckett’sHeadingley Campus is thepenultimatetobeupgraded.

Nestled in the woods the LRC is a unique teaching andresearchspacethathousesLandscapeArchitecturestudents.With bio wildlife habitats, mature and freshly createdexperimentalgardens studentscangainvaluableexperienceworkingwithplants,plantingdesign,ecology,environmentalart and construction. It is located at the far end of thecampusandcurrentlyaccessedbyanunmaderoadknownasQueensWalk. The track terminates atVictoriaArch,MP forRiponWilliam Beckett’s 1858 tribute toQueen Victoria andhervisittoLeeds,nowisolatedindensewoodland.

In an additional University strand, the success of LeedsSustainability Institute led to a need for amaterials testinglaboratory for the advancement of new technologies. Thesolution is to combine the two functions in the proposedSustainable Technologies and Landscape Resource Centre(STaLRC)toreplacetheexistingLRCbuilding.

Giventhesuccessfuldeliveryof theBIGLottery fundedNewWortley Community Centre (NWCC) by Leeds BeckettUniversity’s in house Architectural consultancy practiceProject Office (PO), co-directed by Architecture LecturersCraigStottandSimonWarren,theUniversityappointedPOtoactasArchitectsandContractAdministratorforallRIBAWorkStagesoftheSTaLRC,beginningatStage1withdefinitionof


thebriefandatotalbudgetof£819,000.“ProjectOffice isadesignandresearchcollaborationofstaffandstudentsbasedwithin the Leeds School of Architecture, Leeds BeckettUniversity. It is an architecture consultancy concerned withethical,socialandresilientarchitectureanddesign.Weworkwithlike-mindedcommunities,organisationsandindividuals.”(Warren&Stott,2014)

ExistingLRCBuilding.PhotobyPO

At approx. 200m2 the building is to contain a laboratoryallowing an environmental chamber to be installed forclimatic testing of building materials, a teaching spacedesigned to open out onto the surrounding landscape, anofficewithkitchenettefor6membersofstaff,andsufficientstoragetomeetClientneeds.Inlate2015POwereaskedtoproduceafeasibilitystudybaseduponthem2costofNWCC’srecently completed building. The exercise suggested thatwhilst extremely tight, the project was possible for thebudget, and POwere subsequently appointed to deliver onthatexpectation.

The programme is complicated by the two users being fordifferent, and previously unlinked, departments.ConsequentlytheStakeholderteamPOassembledtodelivertheprojectincorporatesrepresentationfrombothfactions.Afurther necessity is the consultation of students from thecoursesdesignatedtopopulatethespace.Onceestablished,POoversaw simplification and amendments to the strategicbrief such that it became achievable within budget whilstretainingtheaspirationalnotionstheprojectdemands.

ProjectOfficeoperateasaconduittoprovidestudentswithaconstruction led education through the vehicle of LiveProjects,definedbyRachelSara(2006)as:

“atypeofdesignprojectthatisdistinctfromatypicalstudioprojectinit’sengagementofrealclientsorusers,inrealtimesettings. Students are taken out of the studio setting, andrepositioned in the ‘real-world’. This external involvementtends to result in students producing something that is ofvaluetotheclient/usergroup,whichmightrangefromideas,feasibilityreports,orresearch,toacompleteddesignscheme,aconstructionorotherintervention.”

POhas12 ‘RulesofAgency’,whichdemonstrate theethicalprinciples and approach to occupying a space concurrentlywithin the academic institution and architecture practice.Oneoftheserulesstates“Tocreateopportunitiesforstudentand alumni engagement with a range of educational andformative experiences.” (Warren & Stott 2016) Further PObelieves that architectural educators have a societalresponsibility to not only “expose students to the socialimpact of their practice but also to make it the heart ofpedagogicpurpose.”Thislearningdoesnotendatgraduation,but continues through the fostering of an ongoingrelationshipanddialoguebetweentheSchoolofArchitectureanditsalumni.Theintentionbeingthatthe‘practicerelatedresearch’(Candy,2006)atthecoreofPO’shasasignificantlypositivesocial impactboththroughtheworkof thepracticeitselfbutalsothroughtheengagementofalumniinthewiderarchitecturalfield.

Through discussion it was determined that due to the tighttimescales involved, the scale and complexityof theprojectbeingappropriate,andtheopportunityforPOtoappointthewinning team as consultants, that the concept design stagefor STaLRC should be realised through a competition forLeeds School of Architecture, and Landscape Architecture,alumni. A prize fund of £500 was made available to bedistributedatthejudges’discretion,andthewinningentrantwould be invited to work as a consultant to PO on theremainderoftheproject.

CompletedNWCCBuilding.PhotobyPO

TheNotionofCompetitionsinArchitecturalEducation

In proposing a competition the writers were aware of theparadoxical situation that they had created. As FarshidMoussavi (2013) writes: “Competitions are driven by thedesire to go beyond what already exists − unthought-ofarchitecture − whereas commissions are mostly demand-driven and often by those of themarket.”With STaLRC thewritershadcreatedaconditionwherebothco-exist.

The competition format is important for producing cultureand moments of knowledge. ‘Some competitions act as


controversial moments, while others, as experimentalmoments in the design disciplines’ (Cucuzzella & Chupin,2016citingYaneva,2012;Lipstadt,1989,1991).Competitionscanprovideavaluablestrategywithinarchitecturaleducationfor they expose the entrant to the canon of advancingarchitecturalknowledgeandempower themwith theabilityto challenge the architectural establishment. Consequentlythe architectural competition is a relevant tool to push theboundaries of live project education as it confronts thecontradictions of advancing architectural knowledge,experimentation and production of a realwork for a client.Theparadoxicalisaconditionoftheliveproject.

‘Paradoxesare thesimultaneouspresenceof contradictions’(Sundaramurthy&Lewis,2003citedinVera&Crossan2007).“Improvisation is the spontaneous and creative process ofattempting to achieve an objective in a new way” (Vera &Crossan, 2004, 2005 cited in Vera & Crossan 2007). In liveproject paradoxes, one method of reconciling them isthroughlearningtothinkanddothroughimprovisation.Thedefining paradox of the live project is the simultaneousamalgamation of academy and practice, beneath whichfurthermultifariousparadoxesemerge.Theserangefromtheprosaic to philosophical thinking. Architecture is notstraightforward, and this messy learning environment ispedagogicallysignificant.

POexistsbecausetheauthorsbelievethecomplexitiesfacingarchitectsareoftenoversimplified inarchitecturaleducationso that the skills, problem solving methods, peoplerelationships, and real life complexities necessary tosuccessfully navigate a life in practice are not sufficientlylearned, and are therefore, neither framed nor reflecteduponintellectually.TheworkPOundertakesandtherelatedsituated learning in design studio are intended to addressthese shortfalls, with competitions forming part of thestrategyastheformat isapracticalwaytodelivertheinitialdesign work of a live project, but it is also motivated bypedagogyinthatthelearningenvironmentsimulatesaspectsofarchitecturalpractice.

POhasbeencombiningthearchitecturalcompetitionandliveprojecttosituatebespokelearningenvironmentssince2009with undergraduate and postgraduate students. These areusually done over a short period of time within a designstudio module and students achieve credits for theirendeavours. Students often work in teams and a judgingpanelof tutors and clients rank thework. Todate, POhaveoverseen the construction of three winning competitiondesigns,providinga rangeofstudents invaluableexperiencerelating to design, construction detailing, hands onconstruction,andthebolsteringofCVs.

MorleyNewlands Playscape; a previousAlumni competition.PhotobyPO

AlumniCompetitions

The research undertaken in support of this paper hassuggested that the notion of architectural alumnicompetitions to design live projects is currently unique toProjectOfficeandtheLeedsSchoolofArchitecture.

Evidenceofengagementwith recentgraduateselsewhere isminimal. The RIBA occasionally runs ideas competitions forstudents and recent graduates and websites are emergingwhere interested parties are setting student competitions,which sometimes are extended to recent graduates. Forexample Young Architects Competitions, its website states,“YACisanassociationwhoseaimistopromotearchitecturalcompetitions amongst young designers – no matter ifgraduatesorstudents.”Howeverthewritershavenotedthattherulesofcompetitionstatethat ineligibilityoccurs if“Theteamdoesnotincludeacompetitoryoungerthan35.”

An exciting website is www.120hours.no. Magnus AskerPettersen, founder and director, in discussion with thewriters wrote, “When we first started 120 HOURS, themotivation was to establish an arena where students couldchallengetheinstitutionalestablishment.Inthiscasethiswasthe Norwegian architectural education system. As our webpage states: ‘In 2010, three students at the Oslo School ofArchitectureandDesignwantedtocreateanewarenawhereNorwegian students could introduce themselves to theindustry. They wanted to challenge, motivate and promotethemost skilled,most innovativeandcommittedstudents inthe architecture profession. The result was the studentcompetition120HOURS’.Oneofthemost importantaspects


of thepedagogical part of 120HOURS is topromote criticalthinkingandtheoryincontemporaryarchitecture.”

There are a few other Europeanmodels relating to studentinvolvement in competitions, but involvement of recentalumniisminimal.

Following PO’s successful use of competitions forundergraduate and postgraduate architecture students, itstandstoreason,andtheresearchundertakenforthispapersupportsthesuggestion,thatalumnicompetitionsareagoodplatform for continued engagement with students postgraduation. There sits a unique moment of critical thinkingwhere new knowledge can be generated as academicorganisers engage with the creative power of fledginggraduates,beforetheyhavebeencoercedintothenormsofpractice.

A competition needs to define itself very clearly; itsparametersarestrictlysetout.Thismeansthatthroughclearcommunication,recentgraduatescancompeteequallyintheprocesswherevertheyhaveendedupaftertheirstudies.

Jean LaveandEtienneWenger (1995) argue that learning isnecessarily situated, a process of participation incommunities of practice, and that newcomers join suchcommunities via a process of ‘legitimate peripheralparticipation’ - or learning by immersion in the newcommunityandabsorbingitsmodesofactionandmeaningasapartoftheprocessofbecomingacommunitymember.Theinterest here is in a new community of practice, thatwhichbringstogetherrecentalumniandtheacademy.

As a continuation of the live project work which occupiesbothacademicandpractice territories itbecameobvious toextend this to recent graduates as they sit at the paradox’sapex. They are the most affected by tensions andcontradictions of practice versus academy, having landed inpractice with the realities of financial and client pressuresafterpreviouslyspending fiveyears in full timearchitecturaleducation. The juxtaposition is severe, meaning recentgraduates are a fertile educational opportunity.Experimentation with a new learning community of alumniaffords the prospect to encounter previously unexploredsubjects.

HereinliestheparadoxoftheSTaLRCliveprojectandalumnicompetition. The project in its academic context wants tocreatesomethingnewinthedisciplinebutasliveprojectitisa real commission with a client. The contradiction isembraced.PO’s intention is tocontinue theenrichmentandknowledge development of its alumni by encouraging theirengagementinaparadoxicallearningenvironment.

ProductionoftheCompetition

To initiate the alumni competition a briefing pack neededproducing for distribution. Continuing PO’s pedagogical

approach of live project learning, the necessity became anopportunity.AspartofLeedsBeckett’sFuturesFest,aseriesofeventsdesignedtoequipstudentswithemployabilityandenterprise related skills held every January, PO organisedwork placement opportunities at Leeds city regionarchitecture practices for BA2 & 3 undergraduatearchitecture students, including PO itself as a participatingpractice.InJanuary2016thefiveBA2studentswhochosetoundergo theirplacementwithPOwere taskedwithcreatingthe briefing pack for the competition. Through undertakingthe required initial research, site enquiries and collatingexistingdata and reports the students constructed aDesignGuidewhichactedascompetitionbrief tobesentout toallalumnialongsidetheRulesofEngagementandadetailedcadmapof the site.Thiswasdistributedviaemail inearlyApril2016toallalumnifromParts1,2&3fromthepreviousfiveyears.

DesignGuideReviewSession.PhotobyPO

Alex, a mature BA2 student who took part reflectedafterwards,“Onthefirstdayweweregivenabriefaskingusto create a Design Guide for an alumni competition whilemakingtheendgoalveryclear.Iquicklylearnedhowtoworkin a teambymatching up taskswith individual strengths toachieve our collective end goal. PO taught us some of theskillsandmethodsnecessarytoaccomplishthis, forexamplehow to interact with a client and prepare for meetings tomakethemrunsmoothly.”

Alex also said “The opportunity to work with Project Officewas a really rewarding one. Being 29, I have experiencedother professions but this was my first experience of anarchitectural work place which was a completely new sidecompared with education. A great deal of emphasis wasplaced on how to behave professionally in order to worksuccessfully.”

Another student Jamil, focused on a particular learningoutcome,“itwasthepaceofproductionthatsurprisedme.Ispent the first two days producing three sketches of theexistingsiteuntilSimontoldmethatwasn’tgoodenough.Wediscussed prioritising tasks and outputs to maximise returnandfromthenonIdidmuchmore.Irealisedmystrugglesin


DesignStudioweredowntotimekeepinganddecision-makingratherthantalent.ThisreallyhelpedmeinSemester2.”

Thestudentsclearlyvaluetheopportunityofferedthemandappeartohavelearntvaluablelessonshelpingpreparethemfor future employment. In the case of Jamil, the placementalsohadapositiveeffectonhis studies,activelyalteringhisapproach to Design Studio for the module succeeding histimewithPO.

Verification of the document quality produced by the BA2placementstudentscamefromalumniRachel,whosaid“theinitial briefing document was informative and also quiteimpartialinthatitdidn'tleadyoudownanyparticularpath.Itwasleftopenenoughforustosuggestsomethinguniqueandyetitstillfeltveryreal.”Thishighlightsanimportantelementwithin the paradoxical relationship of alumni competitions;impartiality. PO attempted to remain independent of theprocess,wantingtheDesignGuidetobeinformativebutnotcommanding, allowing the entrants free reign for creativityandinspiration.ThisisextremelydifficultasPOhadopinionsrelatingtodesignphilosophy,butalsothenecessitytoobtainan entry which was theoretically conceived, aestheticallyengaging, practically functional, and deliverable for thebudget.

Ultimately PO trusted the process, believing the enigmawouldberesolvedbytheentrants’owncapabilities.

AlumniCompetitionSiteVisit.PhotobyPO

EntriesintotheCompetition

Competitors, able to work as individuals or in teams, hadthree weeks to produce 4 x A3 concept design sheets.Content was at the entrants discretion but guidancesuggestedtoincluderelevantinformationallowingthejudgesa clear understanding of the project, plus clearly expressedideas for minimising both cost and energy consumptionduringconstructionandin-usewillbefavourablyconsidered.An open site visit was organised for the end of week onewhichwaswell attendedandoffered the competitors a key

insightintotheuniquelocationoftheprojectandthebeautyin which their proposition would nestle. This provedsignificant as four of the five shortlisted schemes weresubmittedbythosewhovisitedthesiteandenteredsolutionswhichtrulysought toembedthemselvesaselementswithinthelandscape.

The timescale was purposefully tight. Given themajority ofentrants would be employed full time, PO estimated threeweeksoffreetimewasanalogoustoahigh-pressuredofficesituation producing a feasibility study. 4 x A3 sheetsmeantthe output was not significant and again in keeping withoffice procedure. General feedback suggested the projectframeworkhadthedesiredeffectwithentrantStevensaying“The Briefing document and information was well preparedand the sitevisit enjoyableand informative, thesemade theprojecteasytodiveinto.FormeandBoitwasanirresistiblebrief, and I am quite green-eyed at the winners. The shorttimescalewasperhapschallenging,butitdidattractustotheproject thinking this shouldbe funandquick,and itallowedideas tocometo the fore.Digital submissionandnumberofboardswasgood.”

AnaspectleftopenbyPO,butwhichprovedtobesignificant,wasthecompositionofteams.Noneoftheshortlistedentriesweresubmittedbyindividuals.Inpracticeitisrareforyoungarchitectsintheearlystagesoftheircareertobeworkinginisolation. The reasons are plentiful, with the adage of twoheads being better than one ringing true. It was a factornoted by Martin, an alumni who entered as an individual;“The main mistake I made was not collaborating, whichallowsmoremanhoursoverallandabroader rangeofskillsfeeding into the project. My approach was to do my owndesign and sit down with friends for a discussion, but thissimplydidnotworkaswellashavingacompatriottoworkonthe project with. I'd definitely like to enter anothercompetition if the opportunity arose, and if I was doing itagainI'daimtoworkaspartofateam.”

This reflects another virtue of the live project environmentthat collaboration is at the heart of the production asopposed to the singular authorship of traditional designstudio. In the paper ’The impact of social interaction onstudent learning’, (Hurst et al. 2013) provide evidence ofdeveloping social interaction strategies to their teaching.Students on three courses participated and were consultedfor feedback, “The findings reveal that students in all threecourses perceived that social interaction improved theirlearning by enhancing their knowledge of literacy andteachingandtheircriticalthinkingandproblem-solvingskills.”ThesefindingssupporttheoutcomeswitnessedbyPOfortheSTaLRC competition where the successful entrants selfselectedgroupswithintheiralumnitoworktogether.


CompetitionJudgingEvent.PhotobyPO

JudgingoftheCompetition

Thirteenentrieswerereceivedfromastrongarrayofalumni.To celebrate and judge the work PO organised, with helpfromEnterprise,apubliclyopenandadvertisedawardsnightwhere all schemes entered into the competition weredisplayed and their contributors invited. Prior to the eventthe steering group under the guidance of PO, selected fiveshortlisted schemes to present their project at the awardsevening. Each team had their A3 sheets projected and 10minutes to talk through their proposal, followed by a 10minutesessionwherethejudgesaskeddifficultquestionstoensure they fully understood the scheme. One of thepresentations required a Skype call to St Lucia as theshortlisted entry was submitted by two graduates nowworkingintheCaribbean.

A reflectionmadebyvirtuallyeveryoneof theparticipatingalumnihasbeenthesocialaspectofthejudgingeventbeinga highlight. Bongani said “I really enjoyed the alumnicompetition. Firstly it was great to catch-up with oldcolleagues/friendsfromLeedsandformeanexcusetovisitacitythatIloveandhavegoodmemoriesof.”Antoniaagreed,“Theeveningwasgreatandweallenjoyedit!Greattoseeoldfriends and catch-up.” The authors feel this is an aspectusually overlooked within education, social interaction andenjoyment,butonewhichclearlyplayedasignificantrolefortheSTaLRCcompetitionparticipantsandislikelylinkedtothesuccessfulteaminteractionoftheshortlistedschemes.

Bonganisoughttogoevenfurtherwithhisdissectionof thejudging event, suggesting that the collegiate approach andsupportive network developed by PO had potentiallysignificantlearningoutcomesfortheprofessionatlarge,“Thepresentationeveningwasverygoodandwellattended,ifthiswas the norm for architectural competitions then I wouldimagine that the public / users and other architects wouldcertainlyunderstandeachotherbetter–andwemightevendiscover shared values or ideas! We definitely learnedsomethingfromtherelaxedstyleofthewinningpresentationwhich seemed to resonate with the honest, collaborative,give-a-damn, ethos of Project Office and in the end – theclient group. If there’s another competition opportunity, I’d

lovetobeinvolved.”POhadnotanticipatedsuchanoutcome,butBongani’scommentexemplifiestheparadoxinwhichthealumni competition format exists; straddling practice andacademia for the benefit and continued learning of thosewillingtoengageintheprocess.

RealisationoftheCompetition

The event was a tremendous success, with the UniversityHeadofEstates,ProViceChancellorandDeanofAETFacultybeing included asmembers of the judging panel.A teamofthreealumniwereunanimouslychosenwinners.Allmembersare currently employed in architecture practices across theNorthofEnglandandundertooktheirPart1,2andcurrentlystudyingPart3attheLeedsSchoolofArchitecture.ThethreealumniarenowworkingaspaidconsultantstoPO,uponthePlanning Design phase, with a submission intended forOctober2016.

Gareth said: “This projectwas a collaborative effort.We allgottogetherandworkedthroughallofthevariousaspectsofthe design, producing the drawings along the way. Theinspirationbehind‘ThePottingSheds’wastocreateapieceoffunctional architecture which sits harmoniously within itssurroundings.Aftervisitingthesite,wefelt thattherewasanaturalspinetothesiteandthishelpeddefinethelocationofour design proposal. By positioning our design on thenorthern boundarywe created both a visual reference fromthe approach to the site and a gateway to the StaLRC.Additionally, this also meant that there would be minimaldisruption to the landscape. Our design creates a positiveconnectionwiththelandscapeandthisissomethingwhichwefeltwasessentialforthoseusingthebuilding.”

CompetitionWinners.PhotobyPO

Nickcommented:“It’s fantastic tobechosenas thewinningteam,especiallywhenthequalityoftheotherentriesistakeninto consideration. We are all extremely proud of what wehaveachieved in sucha short spaceof timeandare lookingforwardtoseeingtheprojecttakenforwardandconstructed.”

Danieladded:“Wewould like to thanktheProjectOffice fortheopportunitytoenterthiscompetitionandseetheproject


realised in the not too distant future. The PO is a fantasticadditiontonotonlythearchitecturalcourseatLeedsBeckettbut also to the entire university. Through giving studentsexposureto liveprojects itoffersan insight intoprofessionalpractice and this is something which is not always easy toachieve.Finally,wewouldliketosayhowgooditfeelstogivesomething back to the university now that we areapproachingtheconclusionofourstudiesatLeedsBeckett.”

AfterhavingworkedtogetherdevelopingthedesignreadyforPlanning,thewinningteamwereaskedabouthowtheysawthe relationship between themselves and PO. The responsestated, “We are enjoying the experience of workingcollaboratively with the project office. The relationship isdifficult to define however. It feels as though it is the nextprogressioninthestudent-tutorrelationship.Forexample,atMasters it felt as though the students were given greaterfreedomtoexplore theirown ideasandencouraged tohavethe confidence to translate these ideas into architecturalsolutions with far less input from tutors than what weexperienced at Undergraduate. Working with the ProjectOfficeisthenextprogressionanditfeelsverymuchthattheyhavetheconfidenceinustoproduceanarchitecturalsolutionwhich will perform well and that they are wanting to workalongsideusratherthanaboveustocreateapieceof reallygood architecture. It now feels as though we are equalcollaboratorsandthisisoneofthebestaspectsoftheproject.However,whendeadlinescomearound,thismayormaynotshiftmore towards ‘employers incharge’as itwould inday-to-dayarchitecturalpractice.”

ProjectDevelopmentMeeting.PhotobyPO

The relationship the alumni describe is almost identical tothatwhichSusanImelespouseswhenexplainingtheconceptofCollaborativeLearning inAdultEducation (1991).Thekeyconcepts relate to the hierarchy between facilitators andlearnersbeingeliminatedandinsodoingbothbecomeactiveparticipants in the educational process. In such anarrangement Imel suggests thatwhilst both the “facilitatorsand learners are jointly responsible for establishing theenvironment for activity, it is the responsibility of thefacilitator to take the lead.” This is exactly the situation PO

and the winning alumni team are currently in, workingtogether as a team continually attempting to address theparadox of continued alumni educationwith the realisationofliveprojectdelivery.

PO’s circadian rhythmwithin the paradox being set forth inthis paper is captured by Brookfield (1986) who observedthatoneofthefacilitator'smostdemandingtasksis"toassistin the development of a group culture inwhich participantscan feel free to challenge one another and feel comfortablewith being challenged. Without such an environment,CollaborativeLearningcannotoccur.”

ExampleFeedbackSheet.PO

FeedbacktoAlumniCompetitors

Architecture competitions have also long been criticised forthewayittakesadvantageofwellmeaningarchitectsanditswastefulness of unsuccessful entries. In the educationalsettingthisisavoidedasthewholeprocessisaboutlearningand the PO and client respected the process by paying ahonorariumtoallentrants.

ThefinalelementofPO’sapproachtoalumnicompetition isthe giving of detailed and individual feedback. Normalcompetitionentrantsdonotexpect to receiveany feedbackfrom the competition organisers about the merits of theirwork.However,itisnotunusualforwinners,runners-upandcommended entries to receive some commentary on theirendeavoursthroughbrieffeedback.Inthissituationfeedbackhas two purposes; firstly the dissemination of thecompetition to a wider audience through press release ormagazine articles, secondly for the non-winning but placedentrants,tosoftentheblowofnotwinning.

A completely different use of feedback is required in thealumnicompetitionwheretheentrantslearningexperienceisof at least equal, if not greater importance, than the workproduced.ConsequentlyfeedbackfortheSTaLRCprojectwas

Project Office is a design and research collaboration of staff and students. It

is an architecture consultancy concerned with

ethical, social and resilient architecture and design. We work with like-

minded communities, organisations and

individuals.

Project Office Leeds Beckett University B504 Broadcasting Place

Woodhouse Lane Leeds

LS2 9EN

[email protected] +44(0)113 81 26752

cagd.co.uk/projectoffice

Project Office Feedback Sheet

STaLRC FEEDBACK SHEET Entrant Name: Edward Shallcross Scheme: Landscape Chambers

Positive Aspects • The proposal is affordable within the construction budget • The scheme responds well to the content of the brief. • Good use of sustainable technologies, and excellent straw bale detail • Clear presentation

Areas to Develop • The project lacks a cohesive conceptual driver (other than sustainability) • The panel felt that the architecture was not inspiring enough to take forward to the shortlist. • You do not provide any visuals of the internal spaces.

Additional Comments • The shortlisting panel was impressed with the entrants understanding of strawbale technology, which is

appropriate for this competition. The lesson is that it is always good to play to your strengths. If you enter any competitions in the future you should look for a similar good fit to your interests. It would have been useful for this presentation to integrate the technology into the visuals of the scheme in some way (section / sectional perspective) so we could really get a sense of the idea insitu. The architecture, despite the technological approach, could be more effusive, so in an ideas competition you can push the boundaries of the technology.

Signed

Date 12th May 2016


written indetailbyPOforeachof thethirteenentries.Asalearningexerciseforalumniitwasessentialthatfeedbackontheirentrieswasdiligentlyundertakenandusefulforthemincritiquingtheirworkanddevelopingasyoungprofessionals.

Thefeedbackwassplitintothreecategories:PositiveAspects,Areas to Develop and Additional Comments. The writerswantedeachcompetitortobenefitfromthejudges’viewbutalsohaveanappraisalof theirworkas ifPOwasacting inamodifiedtutor/studentrelationship.The feedback is in theof a formative assessment tradition, defined here as ‘theprocess used by teachers and students to recognise andrespondtostudentlearninginordertoenhancethatlearning,duringthelearning’(Cowie&Bell,1999)consistentinschoolsofarchitecturethatalumniwouldhavebeenfamiliarwithintheir 5 years of formal architectural education. Continuingthisintoalumnieducationappearsatoddswiththeirfledging,but the authors think that formative feedback could becontinued in amore structuredway inworking life perhapslinkedintoanannualreviewsystembytheemployers.

Anexampleofthetypeoffeedbackprovidedwas:

“The shortlisting panel was impressed with the entrantsunderstandingofstrawbaletechnology,which isappropriatefor this competition. The lesson is that it is always good toplay to your strengths. If you enter any competitions in thefutureyoushouldlookforasimilargoodfittoyourinterests.It would have been useful for this presentation to integratethe technology into the visuals of the scheme in some way(section/sectionalperspective)sowecouldreallygetasenseofthe idea insitu.Thearchitecture,despitethetechnologicalapproach,couldbemoreeffusive,soinanideascompetitionyoucanpushtheboundariesofthetechnology.”

Genenan andAndrea responded to receiving their feedbackbywriting,“Wereallyappreciatethetimetakentoprovideuswith this valuable feedback and take onboard everythingthat’swasmentioned.”

Antonio also replied, “Thanks very much for the quickfeedback.Veryusefulaswell.Youwereright,wedidn’thaveenoughtimetoproducesomethingmoreindepth.WewouldhavelovedtobeshortlistedbutIrecognisedthattheleveloftheotherentrieswasreallygood.”

FutureoftheCompetition

This paper has provided a case study in Leeds BeckettUniversity Project Office’s use of alumni competition toprovide the initial design stage for the SustainableTechnology and Landscape Resource Centre to beconstructed at the Headingley campus in 2017. Through

charting the competition stages and reflections ofparticipants this paper acts as the first step in developingPO’s methodology for alumni engagement throughpedagogicallydrivendesigncompetitions.

ResearchsuggestsPOistheonlyoperativeofferingitsalumnithe opportunity to continue their architectural educationpost graduation through the delivery of live projectcompetitions. In parallel PO are the only UniversityArchitecturedepartmentundertakingContractorconstructedcommissions with student-designed projects for genuineexternal Clientswith Contract values in excess of £500,000.HereinliesthekeypedagogicelementinPO’smethodology,the paradox of simultaneously occupying academia andpractice.

The STaLRC alumni competition proved a success on bothsides of the paradox. Inmaintaining contactwith its alumniPOhavemanagedtoextendstandardarchitecturalpedagogybyplacing a valueon the transitionbetweeneducation andprofession. Fledgling professionals unencumbered by thespecificity ofARB criteria, nor thepressures of practice, arefreetoexpandandtesttheirabilitieswithina frameworkoftrust. The learning outcomes of participants are of equalimportance to the quality of entries, thus withcomprehensive feedback provided every entrant is able tousetheprocesstofurthertheirabilitiesandunderstanding.

Moussavi’s “desire to go beyond what already exists” ismanifest in theprocess itself,asdescribed in thepaper,butalso in the architectural innovation explicit in some of theexcellentcompetitionentries.

Through collaborative learning PO are both facilitators andlearners, the duality enabling a continued development ofthepedagogicaltoolsappliedwhilstsimultaneouslyprovidinga rangeof thoughtprovokingandarchitecturally consideredsolutionsforaClientwithverydefiniterequirements.

Toconclude, theauthorswouldargue theprocesshasbeenverysuccessful,andisonewhichwillbeusedagainwiththeintention of engaging an even greater number of alumniparticipants. The final words being those of shortlistedentrant Steven, “I think Project Office understands theeducationandnurturingofyoungtalent,anddoesagoodjobto promote it by actively demonstrating the value ofarchitecture.WewereexpectingagoodcontestandfeedbackfromallatLeedsbecausethewaythatSimonandCraighaveset-up the conversationover recent years.Hopefullyall yourstudentsgottolookattheboards,andseethatit ispossibletohavegreatideasanddothedrawingsinjusttwoweekends–NoExcuses!”


WinningEntry.Roberts,Wallace&Wright

References

Brookfield,S.D.(1986)UnderstandingandFacilitatingAdultLearning.SanFrancisco,CA:Jossey-Bass

Candy,L.(2006)PracticeBasedResearch:AGuide.[online]Availableat:http://www.creativityandcognition.com/resources/PBR%20Guide-1.1-2006.pdf[Accessed23June2016]

Chupin, J-P. & Cucuzzella, C. (2016) Observing Juries in Architectural Competitions: Experts and Qualitative Judgement.InternationalConference,ArquitectonicsNetwork:Mind,LandandSociety[online]Availableat:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303853685_Observing_Juries_in_Architectural_Competitions_Experts_and_Qualitative_Judgement[Accessed2September2016]

Cowie,B.&Bell,B.(1999)AModelofFormativeAssessmentinScienceEducation.Volume6,Number1,1March1999Routledge,London

HEFCE(2011)PerformanceinHigherEducationEstates.[online]Availableat:http://www.hefce.ac.uk/media/hefce1/pubs/hefce/2011/1117/11_17.pdf

Imel,S.(1991)CollaborativeLearninginAdultEducation.ERICDigestNo.113.RetrievedfromERICdatabase.(ED334469)

Lave,J.andWenger,E.(1995)SituatedLearning:legitimateperipheralparticipation.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress

Moussavi, F. (2013) Viewpoints: Farshid Moussavi on Competitions. The Architectural Review, [online] Available at:https://www.architectural-review.com/view/viewpoints/viewpoint-farshid-moussavi/8641757.article?blocktitle=Viewpoints&contentID=6120[Accessed7September2016]

RICS(2005)StockConditionSurveys,RICSGuidanceNote.RICSBooks,London.

Sara,R.(2006)LiveProjectGoodPractice:AGuidefortheImplementationofLiveProjects.York:HigherEducationAcademy


Vera, D. & Crossan,M. (2007) Reconciling Learning Paradoxes Through Improvisation. Conference Proceedings; OrganizationalLearning, Knowledge and Capabilities– “Learning Fusion” 2007, London, CanadaJune 14-17, 2007. [online] Available at:http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/wbs/conf/olkc/archive/olkc2/papers/vera_and_crossan.pdf[Accessed7September2016]

Warren,S.&Stott,C.(2014)ProjectOfficeVol1.Leeds:(s.n.)

Warren,S.&Stott,C.(2016)UnleashingaForceforGood.ConferenceProceedings;Value&VirtueConference2016,YorkStJohnUniversity.SeptemberBooks

international competitions conference 2016 experimenting

Documents