Impressions from ALADlabs’ Visit to the School of Architecture and Community Design at the University of South Florida
Our first encounter with the school was through the workshop located in the basement of the building, which even extends into the underpass for certain activities. Thus, the very first impression upon arrival is that of a workshop — a highly positive image for an architecture school, where knowledge is transferred primarily through learning by doing.
Open-air subway workshop.
We arrived during the final two weeks of the term, when all students were busy polishing their projects for the final critiques. Students came from across the Americas. The studio-centric approach is also evident in the layout of the building, where large studio spaces on the perimeter surround smaller interior spaces for critiques.
As is common in architecture, students progress through a sequence of studio classes. At the School of Architecture and Community Design, these appear, at first glance, as a series of studios that, one after another, build upon a thorough investigation of a specific compositional grammar: fragmentation and collage, hierarchy of systems, non-linear geometry, dynamic axes and vectors, surfaces as fields, and ambiguity of scale — as exemplified, for instance, in the work of Morphosis (founded by Thom Mayne and Michael Rotondi in Los Angeles in 1972).
In the classes we visited, the predominant form of presentation consisted of black-and-white analytical, formal, compositional, schematic, and diagrammatic drawings. The advantage of such a trajectory, where studios share a similar approach, is the possibility of developing certain skills to a high level of refinement. The drawback, however, is that experimentation and change become more difficult to pursue.
In this highly linguistic approach — animated by ubiquitous digital tools such as personal computers, 3D printers, and laser cutters, present at practically every corner — we missed (or perhaps simply did not encounter) an equivalent emphasis on materials. The combination of a compositional-graphical approach with powerful digital representation tools tends to obscure alternative processes. Once all models are printed in a homogeneous plastic material, are we not back to the problematic foam-board models of the past, where all walls had the same width and the architecture seemed reduced to cardboard constructions? When every model looks the same, do we still discover inside it something unexpected, as happens when two different materials are combined and a new architecture emerges?
Ultimately, is architecture the consequence of an idea that is transferred into a drawing — classical or anti-classical, it does not matter — and only then turned into a model? Or can other processes exist? How do we foster alternative approaches where discoveries are made continuously, allowing the project to emerge inside the drawing, inside the model — in other words, through drawing and making alike?
Studio & Critic
The current structure of the course of study follows the classical American combination of minor + major. This resembles a continuous, consecutive program of study such as the former pre-Bologna German Diplom, the Italian Laurea (vecchio ordinamento, 4–6 years), or the Spanish Licenciatura (4–6 years), Ingeniería (5–6 years), and Arquitectura (5–6 years). These were one-tier programs divided into a coordinated foundational phase (usually two years) and a main phase, mostly phased out during the Bologna process in favor of two-tier programs.
The results of this reform are mixed in highly integrated subjects, where knowledge must be approached through successive phases of coordinated study. Consider the progression from mathematics → statics → structural mechanics (isostatic) → structural mechanics (hyperstatic, or indeterminate) → FEM, which depending on the school took at least four years. Such depth of knowledge cannot realistically be compressed into a three-year program, especially when the thesis, which typically takes at least half a year, is included within those three years.
Another key difference is the role of fundamentals (Grundlagen). The Minor or Vordiplom phase was devoted to fundamentals, while the main phase consolidated and specialized these skills and knowledge. As a general side note (and not related to the school): It appears to be a common development globally that fundamentals are not taught any longer, specialisation is in command for the time being.
The school is now beginning the transition from a minor/major structure to a two-tier BA–MA system. The decision to run the BA for four years is, in this respect, a very positive one. We are confident that both faculty and students will master the changes ahead skilfully.
Places such as this do not appear out of nowhere; they are the product of careful and dedicated work by a group of people over an extended period. The environment we visited testifies to the success of this effort: thoughtful decisions have been made, coordinated, and implemented — from the minor/major structure, to the workshop atmosphere, to studio-based learning, and, above all, a thorough training in composition. In an era when this skill is increasingly threatened by the continuous replication of the same model, image, or reference, such commitment is remarkable.
And for that reason: let us not forget experimentation!
Everyone is having a break.
Everyone is having a break.
Traces of intensive work, in other words: we learn by doing.
