architecture schools. The 1958 Conference on Architectural Education aimed to address this. Reported in Parnell, 2008.
79 SEE ALSO: http://www.spatialagency.net/database/architects.revolutionary.council.arc Last accessed 09/10/2012
80 * -based community engaged architect-led endeavours; in the 1950-
Corbusier (through CIAM) as well as Gropius were committed to a similar program of architecture as a tool for greater social equity.
of the profession as that engendered by Charles Moore at the Yale Building Project during Awan et al, 2011).
2.6 Consolidated characteristics: emergent terminologies
Until quite recently, teaching practices that consolidate most if not all of the five characteristics have transcended an agreed and single defining terminology. Whilst the definition of Live Projects is considered in Chapter One, 1.4.2, it is important to note that between the UK and the US, there are different terminologies in use to describe the same activity. In the US, the at-scale prototyping that typified the Bauhaus and Taliesin Studio would fall under the title of design-build projects which is characterised by the delivery of
community, and aesthetic objectives as equally valuable components of the design process (Pearson and Robbins, 2002, p.14; Gjertson, 2011, p.23). In the UK, the parallel approach to design-build that emerges in the early 1960s was often evident in what was typically defined
as uni (Smith, 1962). The Welsh School of Architecture was
one of many that established a Live Project office to undertake the practice from a position within the academy. However this, as well as others, did not survive. Those associated with -fide design practice from within architecture s (Forster et al, 2008, p.363)
say failure) of the Project Office in UK Schools of architecture was paralleled by the rise of the subject specialist over the architect generalist as the demands of returnable outputs
pressured research based schools of architectur (Forster et al,
2008, p.366). However this assessment of the failure rests on two assumptions, one that the activities of a school project office should be indistinguishable f
project offices were and are those who have successfully integrated research into their activities, and emphasise brief defining and process as core activities of equal value (Morrow and Brown, 2012, p.278; Chiles and Holder, 2008, p.197). [81
was the obvious platform through which to deliver projects which engendered most of the characteristics, many similar projects have taken place outside of any formalised portal. The colloquial term for these endeavours is Live Projects, a term that is becoming more
[82] the School of Architecture at Birmingham University was the first to conspicuously use the term, in reference to a row of terraced houses that the students built themselves in a small town known as Water Orton (Brown, 2009). Although in this case the designs were based upon the designs of a contractor rather than their own ideas, Birmingham had been
successfully running a variety of Live Projects for almost a decade at this point, encompassing most of the characteristics previously explored (Architect and Building News, 1951, p.734- 735; Architects' Journal 1951, p.701; Builder ,1951, p.830-831).
In the battle for precedence of terminology, it seems reasonable to assume that the UK preference for the term Live Project over design-build might be explained by the need to distinguish it from the professional practice meaning of and build
form of procurement and a type of contractor-led project (Chappell and Willis, 2010, p.170). Furthermore, Live Projects places explicit emphasis on differentiating it from the more static mimicry associated with Design Studio.
81 Failure is expected and even
Chiles and Holder, 2008, p.197
82 of
2.7 Summary of Conclusions
This chapter examined the evidence from literature concerning the development of Live Projects within UK and US-based architectural education, examining how Live Projects have evolved in parallel within the two locations with a view to understanding both the key similarities and differences between them, particularly in relation to the different social, economic and cultural context in which they operate. The purpose of doing this is to examine
within the limitations of a two-country and criteria comparative analysis - but also as a means to identify the extent to which contextual factors such as curricula and legislation influence the extent to which they are adopted as a learning vehicle for architectural education. Furthermore, this chapter made direct comparisons with Design Studio teaching; firstly, as a means to better identify what Live Projects are potentially reacting against, and secondly; as a means to identify that whilst both Live Projects and Design do deliver NAAB and RIBA requirements, neither one nor the other can deliver all of the skills needed. This highlights an interdependency between the two learning vehicles. Finally, after an appraisal of the NAAB and RIBA criteria in relation to the emergent skillsets identified in the first stage of the literature review (Chapter One), this chapter took the first step in examining to what extent Live Projects are able to enable students to learn interdisciplinary teamwork, client interaction and risk taking and
management; identifying the shared characteristics between UK- and US-situated Live Projects and how these align with the NAAB and NCARB criteria.
- In general, multifarious aspects identify that there is greater endorsement for Live Projects in the USA than in the UK. These include; (1) that the agencies involved in higher education are more inclined to recognise and reward Live Projects, further highlighting their status and importance and inevitably encouraging wider adoption; (2) the validating criteria of NCARB, whose Intern Development Program allows students to count Live Projects experience towards their professional practice accreditation an option which is not available to UK students; (3) the legislative endorsement via the Land Grant system provides US institutions with a funded vehicle for civic engagement that encompasses Live Project activity an resource that is not unavailable to UK schools; (4) the US cultural tradition of emphasizing the value of practical skills, which
were essential to the have influenced a general
perception that a builder is of roughly equal status to a builder; another factor which accounts for the wider proliferation and acceptability of Live Projects in the USA. - t architectural education from Building Colleges into
Universities resulted in a greater obligation towards
some benefits - such as increased opportunities for an acknowledgement of research outputs,
Whilst Live Projects could therefore be construed as an attempt to reengage these practical activities it is worth noting that the contemporary perspective is that the
boundaries between are increasingly
considered to be either invented, invisible or undesirable.
- Live Projects in both the UK and the US do share core characteristics, despite the contrasting circumstances in which they are delivered and even though they were until
quite recently often defined using other terms. It is also noted that whilst there are regional differences (as outlined above) the general diversity of Live Projects appears to transcend location.
- Whilst the term Live Projects is relatively new, there are examples of teaching that date back almost 100 years that share the qualifying attributes of Live Projects, but were defined differently.
- The literature evidence suggests that the validating criteria provided by the RIBA and the NAAB and NCARB can be effectively met within Live Projects. Yet, at the time of writing, the researcher could not identify a school in either the UK or US where the Live Project had entirely superseded Design Studio. Whilst this could be construed as an advocacy for Design Studio, it might instead be a simple matter of institutional constraints. It is therefore hard to draw any firm conclusions on the efficacy of Design Studio. The scale and scope of analysis needed to make these judgments would require an entirely separate enquiry. However, the question remains as to whether it is preferable for Live Projects to retain their autonomy from design studio since this offers certain freedoms and allows them to maintain their responsiveness to the communities in which they are situated and by implication offer more relevant learning to architecture students.
- concerning interdisciplinary teamwork, client interaction and risk taking and management far supersede the recent global economic shifts. Instead, their acquisition has been a preoccupation for educators for several decades.
The next step will be to consider what learning theories are in action within a Live Project in other words the pedagogic integrity of Live Projects. This will be the focus in the following chapter.