Volume I Number 2 Fall 1992

A Forum for Teachers of Technology in Schools of Architecture

"There must be more generalists ... "

Dear Colleagues: I was particularly inter­ested in John Reynolds's idea and Tom Peters's model that technology teaching be an integral part of the design studio and not separate "service" courses. In order to accomplish this model, it would seem that the Deans would have to provide the direction, stimulus, and energies within the various schools.

John's comments stimulated me to consider how valuable are these "special­ized, advanced" seminars. I think that their value must be seen in the light of how well they support the undergradu­ate or graduate generalized Environmen­tal Controls Systems courses. From these specialized courses we see the future ECS teachers develop, and the content of the generalized courses evolve and formalize. Therefore, they are important and necessary to our agenda.

The issue is, as John states, how do we do this with limited resources? I have three thoughts that start to tie together Tom's model and John'S ques­tions:

1. There must be more generalists on architectural faculties capable of teach­ing design process in the architectural sense, as well as what we have come to know as environmental control systems. People who are not willing to accept and include technology will not help nor will people who are so focused on one area that they cannot accommodate all of ECS and the architectural design process.

2. The large lecture format class size that John describes poses a real danger that this technology will only be an abstract idea. How does Oregon pro­

3. Should a separate or single studio be devoted to climatic and energy issues? Isn't this reinforcing the common no­tion that these areas are peripheral to design? It is an accomplishment to have such as studio, as many programs,

Technology teachers can simplify their lives and help the cause of

technical education by staying out of the architectural design studios.

Studio teachers don't appreciate competition from technology

teachers for their students' time and attention. Students see

technology teachers as second-rate technicians of marginal relevance in the studio environment, sources ofpetty irritation that may safely

be ignored. Such a situation leads to the devaluing of technical

subject matter in students' minds. Better that we should stay in our

classrooms and laboratories, where we are in control and can do the

best possible job ofpresenting our subject matter, rather than become

mired in the foreign environment of the studios.

Cap.-/OOOcull

From Hool &Johnson, Handbook ofBuilding Construction, 1920 Courtesy ofSeth Warner, Charlottesville, Virginia

Polarities: Teaching in the Design Studio

including Kent State, do not offer such an experience. But our goals are to have a deeper and broader integration. Jack Kremers, School ofArchitecture, Kent State University, Kent, OR 44242

The design studio is by far the most effective place in which to teach the technology of architecture. Our mission is to teach students to DESIGN structures, environmental control systems, and details of buildings, not merely to run numbers on them. What better place to teach design than a studio? Teachers of technical subjects should run their own studios whenever possible, using ongoing design projects to create in each student a desire to acquire the technical knowledge needed to complete the project successfully. And a consulting role in the traditional studios offers another great opportunity to teach students to design technical systems simultaneously with architectural form and space.

vide for individual student problem Where do your thoughts lie on the spectrum between these poles? We will print the most exercises that apply the information? interesting responses.

Connector Fall 1992 Page 2

Under the Umbrella of Design Studio

Dear Colleagues: I am a strong advocate of the philosophy that an architectural program should be taught under the umbrella of design studio as Tom Peters expressed in the last issue of Connec­tor. Although the program in our school is traditional in that the so-called "service" courses are taught separately from design studio, I have structured my studio by writing a series of exercis­es that build upon each other and inte­grate the "service" courses into the se­mester long program. A number of these exercises require the students to investigate possible structural systems and the methods and materials of con­structing a portion of their building. I work with the philosophy that these systems are an integral part of the de­sign process and are not something to be considered after the project is com­pleted.

To enhance the research of the design process I have also incorporated the computer into the studio. This has enabled us to build three-dimensional models of portions of the designs and view them at virtually any angle. Once the models are constructed in the com­puter we have the capability of assign­ing different materials, textures, colors,

From Charles P. Graves, Jr., Kent State University

and lighting to any portion of the mockup.

The results have been that the profes­sors teaching the "service" courses have taken on an active role of critiquing in my design studio, and the students do not view courses outside the studio as a secondary part of their education but as an integral part of becoming an archi­tect. Charles P. Graves, Jr., Kent State Univmity, Kent, OH 44242-0001, (216) 672-2869 work, CGRAVES@KENTVM. BITNET

FlO. 20.-Havemeyer ban.

Structures Teaching Polarities: Seven Teachers' Responses

" Ochshom: "Perhaps there is a more useful framework within which the teaching of structures can be debat­ed••• " It is curious that both poles of the argument seem to regard structural "intuition" as a natural outcome of their pedagogy. At one pole, the presump­tion is that mathematics foster "an intuitive sense of how structures work." But the types of mathematical models architecture students are likely to en­counter (statics of determinate struc­tures; simple shear and bending stress) will elucidate only a limited subset of structural types. Furthermore, being truly creative with structures requires, as Candela has said, years of effort and study.

At the other pole, intuition is pre­sumably gained through direct observa­tion. But examining instances of struc­tural behavior, whether through mod­els, case studies, etc., will not by itself foster intuition about structure; at best it will only serve to canonize that par­ticular selection of structural types. It is certainly true that one gains insight into the behavior of a frame, for exam­ple, by subjecting it to various loads and watching it deform. No one would

argue that this type of investigation should only proceed by mathematical modeling. What is not at all self-evi­dent, however, is that in the absence of a more rigorous mathematical appren­ticeship, students can extrapolate from these specific cases to create new, signif­icant or even appropriate structural form in situations that they have not previously encountered.

While it is true that the creation of innovative structural form may not be an issue in the vast majority of build­ings that are actually designed and constructed, and that the pragmatic selection of appropriate standard sys­tems and sizes is a legitimate concern, our responsibility as educators goes beyond providing guidelines for off-the­shelf structures and the packaging of conventional wisdom that passes for "intuition." At the same time, engen­dering a false sense of competence by providing a superficial mathematical gloss on the subject is not a satisfactory response. The issue of how to teach highly technical subjects is often formu­lated in terms of the polarities presented in the first issue, i.e., math vs. intuition, or real world vs. abstract theory. Per­haps there is a more useful framework within which the teaching of structures can be debated. As I stated in a paper on this subject presented at the 1990 ACSA Technology Conference, we should attempt to define what exactly constitutes structural literacy for our students; and to make the careful dis­tinction between literacy and the idea (ideal?) of structural competence. As Leon Trilling has written: "We are literate in a discipline when we under­stand its presuppositions, its research techniques and some of its more impor­tant results. We are competent in it when we are able to use it for our own purposes." If, in fact, literacy in struc­tures is the goal of our teaching, then elements drawn from both mathemati­cal and physical modeling (one pole), as well as some distillation of the conven­tional wisdom about "real-world" con­cepts (the other pole), would necessarily be included within the structures curric­ulum, each to the extent that they reinforce this goal. Jonathan Ochsh0 rn, Department ofArchitecture, 143 E. Sibley Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

FIG. 3S.-Kahn system.

From Hool & Johnson, Handbook ofBuilding Construction, 1920 Cour~ ofSeth Warner, Charlottesville, Virginia

Gami: "•••1 believe that neither struc­tural design concepts alone nor the mere introduction of analytical proce­dures are sufficient in themselves. What 1 attempt to communicate in my structures course is the dynamic balance between structural concepts and analytical procedures .••"Bharat M. .Gami, School of Architecture, NJIT, University Heights, Newark, NJ 07102.

Warner: "Teaching any of the techni­cal curriculum has the potential for remaking the perception of mathe­matics ... " The "Polarities" seem to pose a false dilemma. In my view, the polarization of the discussion becomes destructive if allowed to be more than an heuristic device.

Both the stated positions are sound. The question posed, however, assumes that education is mainly the accumula­tion of particles of knowledge. I pro­pose that if we consider the role of education as enabling modes of thought, that this dilemma will cease to have a hold on our discussion.

The mathematical underpinnings of structural design are indeed wonderfully elegant and clear. Mathematics, unfor­tunately, is not perceived as an agent of this clarity and elegance by the majori­ty. I believe that this missed perception has its roots in the insecurities and narrow focus of those who teach math, particularly in the early years. "Math"

frequently becomes something compli­cated, difficult and remote.

Teaching any of the technical curric­ulum has the potential for remaking the perception of mathematics for these students. Just as matpematical formulae are the abstractions of physical phenom­ena, so too can the understanding of physical phenomena provide the models upon which the insights about abstract relationships are based. The symbiosis of the technical subjects with the math­ematical abstractions can provide an opportunity for students to finally break through the obtuse drilling of their early schooling and to embrace the elegance and utility that mathemat­ics is all about. My hope is that a clear conceptual understanding of the materi­al will enable the insights necessary for the students to achieve a fluency in algebra and trigonometry at least.

The technical courses have a critical role to play in reshaping the curricu­lum. I believe that we have the respon­sibility to ground the courses not only in the physical and abstract principles which have been their focus, but also in an understanding of issues of coordina­tion, management and liability. Seth Warner, 113 Fourth Street NE, Char­lottesville, VA 22901.

Shaeffer: "Who would teach struc­tures in the future?" I believe that it is necessary to use a quantitative ap-

Connector Fall 1992 Page 3 proach when teaching the behavior of some elements and systems of building structures. The main problem is that of keeping the numbers from becoming ends in themselves.

I wish to submit two thoughts (which are less likely to be redundant with reasons put forth by others than my usual justifications) in support of an "at least partly numerical approach" to teaching structures.

1. For very good reasons, much of the subject matter in architectural courses deals with problems that have more than one correct answer; indeed, some problems have many correct answers. (This is, of course, true for some struc­tural problems as well, but students usually do not recognize this during their beginning academic years). It has been said that if there were no required structures courses, architecture students would invent them merely so they could fall asleep in the wee hours of the morning knowing that they solved some problem and got a 100 percent correct answer, with which no one could argue!

2. It may be possible to teach the sub­ject with no numbers at all. One could certainly grasp the fundamentals of most principles and learn "rules of thumb" for the magnitudes of loads and spans. {It must be noted that intuition cannot be taught, however, as that is gained only by experience}. I think that one could be quite successful in teaching the very important topic of system appropriateness, for example, using no numbers. There is one very serious long-term drawback to a strictly qualitative approach, however, and that is: Who would teach structures in the future? Would those interested in teaching structures be willing to go for a Masters in engineering so they could answer questions and explain concepts with "Professorial authority?" I think very few. R.E. Shaeffer, School ofArchi­tecture, Florida A&M University, Talla­hassee, FL 32307.

Engel: " ... we as educators have a more important mission than to train peo­ple to work in an office••• " As I'm sure you know, this is a classic argu­

Connector Fall 1992 Page 4

ment. Everybody, it seems, whether they're in the unique arena of teaching structures to students of architecture or involved in some other fact of the architectural curriculum, has an opinion about how it should be done. It seems that those who know least about the subject have the most fiery opinions. This has been going on for a long time, certainly since I began teaching about 24 years ago. I'rri sure that every one of us who teaches structures has wres­tled with the question about what the architect needs to know. What do we include? What do we ignore? More computational work, or less? We do this because of the limited time given to the subject in the typical architectural curriculum, and the unique character of the audience that we're addressing.

The idea of the "no math" approach got a big shot in the arm with Professor Salvadori's beautifully-done book Struc­ture in A rchitecture which, I believe, was first published in the mid '60's. Several other books of the "no math" variety followed. Unfortunately, there were (and still are) architectural educators who saw this "no math" approach as an end and not the means to an end, or, perhaps more appropriately, the means to a beginning. This approach, I be­lieve, is perfectly fine purely as an introduction for beginning students of architecture. It's a good way to prime them for the work that is to come, and to suggest the role that structure plays in architectural design. However, when we get to teaching fundamentals of structural design and behavior, that's another story. I'm convinced that, at a university, we as educators have a more important mission than to train people· to work in an office, or to provide them with ways to come up with quick solutions (or selections) for a studio design project, without understanding the background for the rationale used in making the decisions. C'mon, you know what I'm talking about! Well, as far as I'm concerned, an educator is obliged to educate people. In learning about structures I think it should be realized that this is a physical science, with certain established truths (princi­

more importantly, they provide us with a rich heritage from which we may develop our ability for analytical think­ing. This can be the basis for a variety of activities to employ in the learning process, perhaps comparative analyses of a variety of conditions, as well as the ability to deal with an infinite variety of "what if" and "why" questions. For example, why does a continuous beam usually require less material than a series of simple spans to cover the same space? What are the ideal proportions of cantilever length to span length for a single cantilever? For a double cantile- . ver? Really! Why? But. ..wait a min­ute ... what about a different load pat­tern? What if you have combinations of point loads and uniform loads? What if this? What if that? Face it...the answers to the infinite variety of possibilities can only be found through the wonderful world of mathematics. Another way to do this is simply to give the student answers by proclaiming them to be the truth, and absolute. Then, of course, we can eliminate the use of mathematical procedures, which apparently some think of as evil! Well,

in my opinion, that may be coaching, but it sure ain't teaching.

I could go on, but space and time are getting short. There's one more issue I want to touch on. That's the idea of teaching structures for the pur­pose of passing the licensing examina­tion. This kind of approach, as a con­scious goal, is repulsive. The kind of course that would be developed for this purpose could not, I believe, be up to the level of scholarship that should be expected at the collegiate level. If a course is well developed and taught in a manner that's consistent with what a university education is all about, then the ability to pass a licensing examina­tion should be an automatic benefit, and for most students "a piece of cake." It works for me. lrv Engel, School of Architecture, TVashington University, St. Louis, MO 63130.

lano: " ... the use of the slide rule could encourage the student to develop a structural intuition, not in opposition to an understanding of numbers, but in support of it... " In response to

"Polarities: Teaching Structure" (with

Shaff aid base - Beaded flVles E;"levation

Shaft-wilti recessed fluleS Elevation

ples). These provide us with the means From Hool & Johnson, Handbook ofBuilding Constrnctioll, 1920 for verification of certain decisions and, Courtesy ofSeth Warner, Charlottes'lJille, Virginia

both poles of which I readily agree!), I would like to propose and invite com­ments on a suggestion for a specific teaching technique that addresses the issue raised.

My suggestion is inspired by a piece in To Engineer Is Human, in which Henry Petroski discusses the relative virtues of learning to perform engineer­ing calculations using the slide rule rather than an electronic calculator. Beyond the nostalgic aspects of such a view, Petroski raises several points:

1. Using a slide rule requires locating the decimal point in an answer separate­ly from performing the actual calcula­tion. Doing so trains the student to independently keep track of the order of magnitude of a problem.

2. Calculations performed with the slide rule do not generate long strings of nonsignificant digits. In fact, students trained to use slide rules were routinely expected to know how many digits should be represented in an answer.

Petroski argues that using the slide rule results in an enhanced appreciation of the role of calculations in engineering design--that is that calculations are approximate, and that the engineer or architect remains responsible for under­standing the magnitude of a result re­gardless of any answer provided by a calculating device.

My proposition is teach the first semester of a structures sequence requir­ing the use of slide rules for performing calculations. "Polarities" suggests that the use of mathematics in structural design is opposed to the understanding structural behavior. One side argues that calculations should be de-empha­sized to allow a fuller development of a structural intuition, one more appropri­ate to the real-world experience of designers. The other pole argues that the inner mysteries of structure are only revealed through the language of mathematics, and to omit this language is to dilute the essence of the discipline.

Perhaps training students in the use of slide rules could help to bridge these two poles. Using the slide rule could reinforce the practical nature of calcula­tions, their" real-world" usefulness. At the same time, the use of the slide rule

Connector Fall 1992 Page 5

f;:::F'"f;;;:1= F i=

~~~~ === 0~I .c:::;: ~

~ ~ ~ = .. ~~ n ~

ij ~ .-­"""

l~

.L.LZN FIG. 46.-Shop fabricated reinforcement system.

From Hool & Johnson, Handbook o/Building Constl'ltction, 1920 Courtesy ofSeth Warner, Charlottesville, Virginia

Off and Running: An Editorial

The first issue o{ Connector went out last Spring to every individual who is listed by ACSA as being a teacher of technology in schools of architecture in the U.S. and Canada, 870 of us in all. As you can see, plenty of material was contributed subsequently to fill a second issue, some of it in response to letters in the first issue, some of it initiating new topics of discussion. A number of people wrote to offer strong encouragement. All this is good. We're off and running. Our primary continuing need is for your written contributions of ideas, experiences, and arguments to fill the upcoming issues. Please join the fray!

Less encouraging was the number of people, just under 10% of the recipients, who took time to send a note verifying that they want to subscribe. This degree of response would be wonderful for a random mailing selling household gadgets, but it's low for a no-cost publication that is so precisely aimed at the interests of its subscribers. Does it reflect a 90% apathy rate among tech teachers? Or is Connector really missing the mark in some important way? Please write and tell us.

We need to begin thinking about whether and how we can keep this newsletter going a year from now when the one-time grant that supports it expires. The actual cost of printing and mailing one issue is about 75¢ per subscriber for 870 copies, but would be more than this for fewer subscribers. In 1994, if Connector continues, we need to have a plan in place to furnish this money. There is also the matter of personnel. At the moment production and mailing are a one-person effort. That person mayor may not have the energy and enthusiasm to continue after another year, and in any case, this is the type of publication that should be created and sustained by many hands and minds. Perhaps we need a steering group from among the subscribers that will decide matters of editorial policy. Yet it is attractive to think that the usual bureaucracy could be avoided in some way. What are your ideas?

Connector Fall 1992 Page 6

could encourage the student to develop a structural intuition, not in opposition to an understanding of numbers, but in support of it. The development of such a numerical intuition may be the most promising way to open a student's eyes to the inner simplicity of structural analysis that appeals to all of us who devote ourselves to this subject. From this point of view, we need not set learning to calculate against learning to conceptualize. Rather we should teach that these two parts of structural design should be mutually supportive. P.S. Does anyone know where to find a source of slide rules? Joseph lano, c/o Connector, or (617)227-6716, fax (617)227-6306, CompuServe 70511,2151.

Benjamin: " ... there are teachers who can communicate their enthusiasm for structures ... " A polarity in any sub­ject, let alone structures, violates con­cepts of good architectural education. A polarized architect is dysfunctional­so bent on pursuing his own goals he forgets the constituency he is obligated to serve. So, too, it is with the teaching of structures. And therein lies the problem; not the subject matter, nor the willing student--but the teacher.

Teachers of structures can come in two polarized varieties. The first vari­ety are engineers given full rein by a faculty that would rather not exercise control over a subject matter that is frightening even to trained architects.

"Let the engineer teach the students what he or she will," they say. "I don't remember a damn thing, so why should they? As soon as they pass their regis­tration exams-and I dido-they can con­sign their calculations to the dung heap! Should we waste time agonizing over a subject, the vague nuances of which are all that will remain with the student in his productive years?"

The second polarized variety are also engineers, masquerading as teachers, who are so hopelessly convinced that their students just don't have what it takes to understand the subject matter that they water it down to the level of design by generalized span/depth ratios that they are ashamed of and would rather not discuss.

And then, of course, between these polarized extremes, there are teachers who can communicate their enthusiasm for structures to students who are more than eager to acquire a competency in the subject that far outstrips that of their architectural instructors. And what is this competency? A freedom to identify suitable structural systems that would integrate well into their architec­tural design--not at some later date when they might shoehorn it in, but at those precise moments when they for­malize their concepts. An ability to use simple principles of statics to analyze the structural system, thereby fully understanding how it will behave under the applied loads. Sufficient knowledge of the strength of materials to be able to make informed ch~ices of the most suitable materials. And, finally, some knowledge of codes of practice in steel, concrete, and timber to determine a few tentative sizes--if for no other reason than to establish the feasibility of the system being suggested in the materials being used.

And all of this is so very possible-­with a good teacher. It is more likely that the polarized teacher--and there is no polarized structures, only polarized teachers!--will get so wrapped up in the beauty of his own mathematics or the simplicity of his own ratios, that he is a menace in the classroom.

Of which, I have to say, with deep regret, there are so many. B. S. Benja­min, School ofArchitecture, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045.

F,O. 30.-Hy-rih.

Joining "Design" and "Building"

Dear Colleagues: As a teacher of both design studio and materials, I have great sympathy for Tom Peters's comments in the Winter 1992 issue. Unfortunate­ly, I now see considerable signs that we are separating "design" from "building" even further in our field. I offer only two ideas for your consideration:

1. In my materials and methods of construction course, I use what I believe to be one of the better textbooks, but I do not use it as the basis of my lectures. The students know they are expected to read it and have some understanding of it. However, I use the notes I have developed in my forty year professional career as a basis for my class. My lectures are full of things I have learned from field experience and my long experience in investigating building failures. Oh yes, I also include some of my own classic screwups. I'm told this makes the lectures far more relevant to what the students will be facing in the future.

2. In one of my upper division design studios each year I require each team to do a crude set of contract documents for their design concept. This includes:

a. Architectural plans, elevations, and sections .

b. Architectural details (usually roof and exterior wall condi­tions)

c. Schematic structural, mechani­cal, electrical, and hydraulic diagrams

This contract document phase takes up two-thirds of the semester.

The students clearly begin to see how the so-called technical issues influence and often dictate design considerations. The kids love it. So do 1. Elmer E.

FIG. 43.-Pin-connected system. Botsai, 321 Wailupe Circle, Honolulu, HI From Hoot & Johnson, Handbook ofBuilding Construction, 1920 96821 Courtesy 0/Seth Warner, Charlottesville, Virginia

Building Forensics as a Teaching Tool

Dear Colleagues: Learning and under­standing about the principles of build­ing construction requires more than memorizing facts. Understanding is best acquired through visualization, application of principles and role play­ing. Students in my building science courses since the mid 1970's have been challenged with a class project which puts them in the role of a "building scientist", to investigate a building failure that is creating some degree of hardship for the owner or occupants of a building. By investigating a real-life problem, determining its cause or caus­es, and devising a solution to the prob­lem, the students learn from other people's mistakes. Building failures become less mysterious and the students become more confident about designing buildings.

Eleven criteria for learning are identi­fied and incorporated into a class assign­ment:

1. Visualization 2. Relevance to the discipline 3. Principles illustrated clearly 4. Opportunity for discovery 5. Relationship to reality and

practise 6. How the topic fits into the

overall scheme 7. Learning from other people's

mistakes 8. Case study 9. Team work 10. Role playing 11. Sharing of knowledge acquired

The class assignment simply asks the student to investigate a building failure, identify the clues, determine the cause or causes, develop a remedial measure, and finally, develop a preventive design that would have avoided the failure in the first instance. Students investigate, analyze and document the building failure under the following headings:

1) Symptoms Initial examination of the building failure may reveal visual, tactile or other clues such as discoloura­

may not be related to the failure. Doc­ument each clue with sketches, pho­tographs, measurements, etc., describing for example its size, location, shape, and colour. Other symptoms may be less noticeable and require probing with instruments or removing materials to locate clues. Comments from the archi­tect, builder, manufacturers, owners, and occupants are important.

2) Causes Students must be able to analyze and explain the failure using principles of building science. Each cause must be quantified, ie. relative humidity levels, air pressures, sound transmission, heat flow, etc., in order to assess its degree of contribution to the failure. Some causes may require em­pirical procedures or consultation with others in the building industry to verify conditions.

3) Remedy Each student must describe methods to remedy the failure, repair the damage, and prevent further fail­ures. Methods propose4 must be practi­cal and minimize disruption of normal occupant actlvltles. Remedies may require repairing or replacing a compo­nent, or adding other materials such as insulation, dampproofing, air barriers, flashings, weeping tiles, or reinforce­ments. The solution may simply be to remove loads or stresses, or to place the component in a more hospitable envi­ronment. Recommendations must be

Connector Fall 1992 Page 7

carefully written, describing precisely the procedures and anticipated results.

4) Preventive Design Finally, students must redesign the building component based on the results of the previous steps. The intent is to develop a com­ponent, system, process, etc., which, if constructed in this manner, would have avoided the failure. The redesign must not change the original function of the component nor be more expensive unless clearly justified as the best possi­ble solution.

Teaching technical subjects has and will always be challenging. The success­ful teacher must make the subject rele­vant, and exciting. A stimulating lec­ture by itself is insufficient for students to acquire a good understanding of the subject. Application of the principles taught in class must follow. The stu­dent must be able to rigorously apply those principles learned in class before true understanding and retention of such skill and knowledge is possible. The role playing involved in investigat­ing an actual building failure is a power­ful pedagogical tool.

I would be most interested in hearing from fellow teachers who use building forensics as a teaching tool. Tang G. Lee, Faculty of Environmental Design, The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta CANADA, T2N 1N4. (403)220­6601. (Also Faculty of Architecture, The University ofManitoba)

tion of materials, cracks, moisture, or From Hool & Johnson, Handbook ofBuilding Construction, 1920

excessively high fuel bills that mayor Courtesy ofSeth Warner, Charlotresville, Virginia

Connector Fall 1992 Page 8

Want-Ads

Teachers Using Graphic Statics: I am devel­oping materialfor a book on graphic statics for architecture. Ifyou use graphic statics in your structures c&.ss and/or in your studio, please write or call me in order to exchange experi­ences and ideas. You are also invited to send examples of classroom/studio exercises for inclusion in the book. Bharat Gami, NJIT School of Architecture, Newark NJ 07102, phone and fax {201}866-4819.

Computer Design Tools for Energy Efficien­cy: Eight IBM/Mac computer programs for plotting weatl1er data, computing California electric rates, plotting hourly flows of solar heat, calculating effects of internal mass, plot­ting sunlight patterns through a window, calculating heat flow through wall or roof, and plotting daylighting levels in a room, $35 each_ Send for detailed listing. Murray Milne, Graduate School ofArch and Urban Planning, B315 Perloff Hall, UCLA, Los Angeles, C4 90024-1467.

Illustrations needed for Connector: Line drawings from your classes, old book illus­trations. 129 Eliot St., S. Natick MA 01760

Connector 129 Eliot Street South Natick MA 01760 U.S.A.

Write To Us Write to us! Connector is composed entirely of very short contributions, either letters or want-ads, from its readers. A letter should fit easily on a single typewritten page. It should be composed with a hot drink at your elbow and your feet up on a table. Think of it not as an essay or paper, but as a letter to a friend. Append your name and address, and telephone, fax, or network numbers if you wish. If possible, submit on an ffiM-compatible diskette, either size, Word Perfect or ASen, as well as in hard copy. A single small line drawing may also be submitted.

Want-ads are free. You may charge for any item you offer in an ad or letter, but

Frank Lloyd Wright: Anyone willing to have their slides ofFrank Lloyd Wright architecture published please let me know. Persons having knowledge ofas-built conditions ofany Wright buildings and willing to proofread part of a manuscript, please contact me. Terry Patter­son, College of Architecture, 830 Van Vleet Oval, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK 73019, {405}325-2444.

'.

only to the extent of its actual cost. Royalty-earning or profit-making products may not be advertised or mentioned. You may wish to ask respondents to send self­addressed, stamped envelopes. Be sure to specify the size of envelope and the amount of postage. Keep your ad as short as possible, and include your name, mailing address, and telephone number. Submit on an ffiM-compatible diskette if possible-see the paragraph above.

Send all contributions and correspondence to Edward Allen, Acting Editor, Connector, 129 Eliot Street, South Natick, MA 01760, voice and fax (508)653­3852.

Ifyou want to stay on the mailing list, please write and say so. The subscription is free. Edward Allen, Acting Editor, Connector, 129 Eliot St., South Natick, MA 01760.

BULK RATE

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

NATICK, MA PERMIT NO. 1 12