11273 Architectural Studio 1
Warning: The information on this page is indicative. The subject outline for a
particular session, location and mode of offering is the authoritative source
of all information about the subject for that offering. Required texts, recommended texts and references in particular are likely to change. Students will be provided with a subject outline once they enrol in the subject.
Subject handbook information prior to 2025 is available in the Archives.
Credit points: 12 cp
Result type: Grade and marks
There are course requisites for this subject. See access conditions.
Description
The architectural design studio provides the creative framework for students to explore the motivations, techniques, contexts, constraints and opportunities that inform design inquiry. The primordial studio delivers the structure to learn essential techniques around the production of space, as well as strategic development of critical and analytical thinking. The following themes introduced in STUDIO 1, serve as a common knowledge base critical to the practice of architecture as well as providing a primer for the architectural pedagogical evolution in the sequence of studios ahead.
As the Foundation Studio, STUDIO 1 introduces Students to fundamental architectural logic; points, lines + planes, scale + proportion, solid + void, light + shadow. Through prescriptive exercises, students conduct iterative experiments that follow clear methodology in order to distil and compose an order of spatial relationships, curated as a catalogue for ongoing reference.
Through each project brief, students learn to deploy various analogue and digital techniques, developing an understanding of design thinking using both two- and three-dimensional mediums; sketching, drawing, making, documenting, and curating, along with clear verbal and written descriptions of the intentions and processes that generated them. These techniques and iterative design tactics, supported by lectures and assigned readings, enable students to translate concepts into foundational architectural propositions.
Subject learning objectives (SLOs)
On successful completion of this subject, students should be able to:
| 1. | Demonstrate a clear understanding and deployment of fundamental architectural spatial logic |
|---|---|
| 2. | Use an iterative design process informed by critical reflection |
| 3. | Demonstrate command of architectural representation techniques and conventions with appropriate precision and care |
| 4. | Clearly communicate the intentions and design processes that have generated an architectural proposal |
| 5. | Engage with and contribute to peer-to-peer learning through processes of collaboration, reflection and debate |
Course intended learning outcomes (CILOs)
This subject also contributes to the following Course Intended Learning Outcomes:
- Recognise and appreciate local and global cultural diversities and values (A.2)
- Work cooperatively and professionally as part of a team (C.1)
- Communicate ideas professionally and effectively through a variety of mediums: oral, written, visual, physical and digital (C.2)
- Understand and challenge disciplinary conventions through an engagement with emergent forms of architectural practice, technologies and modes of production (P.1)
- Respond to a comprehensive brief within the disciplinary context (P.3)
- Evidence a three-dimensional understanding of spatial sequence and organisation (P.4)
- Integrate an understanding of a relationship between form, materiality, structure and construction within design thinking (P.5)
- Evidence disciplinary knowledge through the application of physical and/or digital mediums (P.6)
Contribution to the development of graduate attributes
The term CAPRI is used for the five Design, Architecture and Building faculty graduate attribute categories where:
C = communication and groupwork
A = attitudes and values
P = practical and professional
R = research and critique
I = innovation and creativity.
Course intended learning outcomes (CILOs) are linked to these categories using codes (e.g. C-1, A-3, P-4, etc.).
Teaching and learning strategies
Lectures
Lectures, twice a week, will introduce broader themes associated with each Assessment Task, as well as contributing to the foundational knowledge of your architectural education. Students will be introduced to architectural themes, theories, precedents, practices, and terminology. It is expected that students take notes during the lecture and revisit these throughout the semester (and beyond), as well as engage with the material, drawing from the thematics, when composing a conceptual framing for each design task response. Assigned readings will be unpacked in the Lectures and it is understood that students read these prior to the corresponding lecture.
Design Studio
Design studios are a distinctive component of your education. The term ‘studio’ refers to a particular type of physical space, a distinct approach to teaching and learning, and a particular set of working practices. These intersect to produce an environment in which making, experimentation, collaboration, discussion and display are highly valued.
The studio is a space for ongoing exploration, reflection, and conversation. You will be expected to engage with weekly studio tasks set and ongoing project development, review of work and tutor-to-peer, and peer-to-peer learning and engagement in the allocated studio time.
Workload
For each hour spent in studio, it is expected that an additional two hours of independent work be completed specific to assigned weekly exercises and Assessment Tasks. This unsupervised work should include collaborative skill-sharing, feedback and discussion with peers, and we encourage you to make use of the shared studio environment, soft model workshop, fabrication workshop and DAB computer lab when these spaces are available around formal classes.
Feedback
Students will receive ongoing verbal feedback in each studio session – whether that be individual or collective, provided during the learning process when work for an assessment task is in production. This formative feedback takes the form of comments, suggestions and directions, given in class to assist students refine and improve their work prior to submission.
Formal feedback for each Assessment Task submission will be uploaded to ReView, including nominal grade against each Assessment Criteria. This summative feedback will provide an explanation for the grade issued, reflecting on the quality of the work submitted and the student's performance leading up to submission. Students are also provided with strategies for improving aspects warranting attention, or the further advancement of identified strengths.
SOA Public Lectures
All students should habitually attend the School of Architecture Public Lecture Series. These lectures provide further conversation and insights on contemporary discourse + practice and will contribute to the broader understanding of the discipline of Architecture.
Content (topics)
- Iterative and generative design processes
- Analogue and digital drawing + physical modelling techniques
- Skills of observation, interpretation and translation
- Representational forms and techniques for describing temporal and spatial characteristics
Assessment
Assessment task 1: THE TANGIBLE
| Intent: | The first in a sequence of design exercises, students will be introduced to experiments of TANGIBLE SPACE, scale and proportion, the grid, and points, lines + planes. Refer to the detailed Assessment Task I Handout, with weekly deliverables, on CANVAS. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective(s): | This task addresses the following subject learning objectives: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.): C.1, C.2, P.1, P.4, P.5 and P.6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type: | Project | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Groupwork: | Individual | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Weight: | 20% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Criteria linkages: |
SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes |
Assessment task 2: THE EPHEMERAL
| Intent: | The second task in the sequence of design exercises, students will be introduced to experiments with THE EPHEMERAL elements of space; light + shadow, wet + dry. Refer to the detailed Assessment Task II Handout, with weekly deliverables, on CANVAS. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective(s): | This task addresses the following subject learning objectives: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.): C.1, C.2, P.1, P.4, P.5 and P.6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type: | Project | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Groupwork: | Individual | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Weight: | 30% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Criteria linkages: |
SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes |
Assessment task 3: THE PERFORMANCE
| Intent: | Final assessment task THE PERFORMANCE draws on knowledge from Assessment Tasks I + II and the synthesis of these, now responding to a brief for a micro architectural intervention with one simple, assigned program. Refer to the detailed Assessment Task III Handout, with weekly deliverables, on CANVAS.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Objective(s): | This task addresses the following subject learning objectives: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 This task also addresses the following course intended learning outcomes that are linked with a code to indicate one of the five CAPRI graduate attribute categories (e.g. C.1, A.3, P.4, etc.): A.2, C.1, C.2, P.3, P.5 and P.6 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Type: | Project | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Groupwork: | Individual | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Weight: | 50% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Criteria linkages: |
SLOs: subject learning objectives CILOs: course intended learning outcomes |
Minimum requirements
Attendance
The DAB attendance policy requires students to attend no less than 80% of formal teaching sessions (lectures and tutorials) for each class they are enrolled in to remain eligible for assessment.
Pursuant to "UTS Rule 3.8.2", students who do not satisfy attendance requirements, may be refused permission by the
Responsible Academic Officer to be considered for assessment for this subject.
Students can make themselves familiar with all University rules here: https://www.uts.edu.au/about/uts-governance/rules/uts-student-rules
Students who are unable to attend for personal reasons (e.g. sickness) are to notify the subject's coordinators by email on the day of absence.
Late and Incomplete Assignments
A non-attendance at Assessment Submission Presentations without reasonable substantiated documented evidence, signed off by the Subject Coordinator, will be an automatic non-assessment.
Digital upload of Assignments submitted after the due time/date will incur the late penalties listed below unless a formal extension of time has been granted by the Subject Coordinator. This should be approved BEFORE the submission deadline where possible. Work submitted more than 5 working days after the stated submission date, will not be accepted for assessment unless a formal extension of time has been granted by the Subject Coordinator on receipt of a Special Consideration Form. (Please refer to the “Exemptions and Absence” and “Special Consideration” sections of the DAB Subject Information Book).
Late digital submissions will incur the following penalties -
Up to 1 day late: 10% late reduction **(24 hours from the specified deadline)
Up to 2 days late: 20% late reduction
Up to 3 days late: 30% late reduction
Up to 4 days late: 40% late reduction
Up to 5 days late: 50% late reduction
Over 5 days late: NOT ACCEPTED
** Where no exact time is specified for a deadline it will be assumed that the deadline is 9am on the date specified.
OPELA
It is a requirement of this subject that all students complete OPELA [or a written diagnostic task]. Students who received a Basic grade in the OPELA [or the written diagnostic task] are required to attend 80% of the Language Development Tutorials in order to pass the subject. Students who do not complete the OPELA and/or do not attend 80% of the Language Development Tutorials will receive a Fail X grade.
References
Assigned Readings will be uploaded to CANVAS will specific directives, made available when required.
In addition to these, the following are general references_
Form + Space
Blanciak, Francois, 'Siteless: 1001 building forms'. 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2009.
Ching, F.D.K, ‘Architecture: Form, space, and order’, 3rd edn. New York, NY, United States: Wiley, John & Sons, 2007.
Di Mari, Anthony. and Yoo, Nora, 'Operative design: A catalogue of spatial verbs.' 2nd edn. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Consortium Book Sales & Dist, 2013.
Di Mari, Anthony, ‘Conditional design: An introduction to elemental architecture’, Netherlands: BIS Publishers B.V., 2014.
Forty, Adrian, 'Form', Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 2000, pp.149-172.
Moussavi, Farshid, 'The function of form' Barcelona: Actar and Harvard Graduate School of Design, 2009.
Perec, Georges, ‘Species of spaces and other pieces’, London, England: Penguin Classics, 1997.
Body
Corbusier, Le, 'The Modular', London: Faber and Faber Limited, 1961, pp25-68.
Davidson, C. 'Anybody', Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1997.
Schlemmer, Oskar, Moholy-Nagy, Laszlo, Molnar, Ferenc, 'The Theater of the Bauhaus', London: Eyre Methuen, 1979, pp.17-46.
Neufert, E., Neufert, P., Kister, J., Sturge, D. and Baiche, B, Architects’ data. 4th edn. Ames, IA: Wiley-Blackwell (an imprint of John Wiley & Sons Ltd), 2012. A PDF can be found on UTS Online under 11211 > Subject Documents > Readings.
Organisation
Allen, Stan, 'Diagrams matter', ANY 23: Diagram Work: Data Mechanics for a Topological Age, New York: Anyone Corporation, 1998, pp.16-19.
Allen, Stan, Agrest, Diana, 'Mapping the Unmappable on Notation', Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation, New York: Routledge, 2000, p.31-45.
Allen, Stan, Points and lines: Diagrams and projects for the city, New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press, 1999.
Evans, Robins, 'Figures, Doors, Passages', Translations from Drawing to Building and Other Essays, Mass.: MIT Press, 2005, pp.55-91.
Forty, Adrian, 'Order', Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 2000, pp.240-248.
Lawrence, Amanda Reeser, & Schafer, Ashley, 'Re:Programming', Praxis Journal of Writing + Building, Issue 8: RE: Programming, Columbus & Boston: Praxis Inc., 2010.
Milijacki, A., Lawrence, Amanda Reeser, & Schafer, Ashley, '2 Architects 10 Questions on Program Rem Koolhaas + Bernard Tschumi', Praxis Journal of Writing + Building, Issue 8: RE: Programming, Columbus & Boston: Praxis Inc., 2010.
Tschumi, Bernard, 'Sequences', Architecture and Disjunction, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996, pp.153-168.
Tschumi, Bernard, 'Introduction + Boarder Manhattan Transcripts, London: Academy Editions, 1994.
Tufte, Edward, 'Layering and Separation', Envisioning Information, Cheshire, Conn.: Graphics Press, 1990, pp.53-65.
UN Studio, "Diagrams", Move, Amsterdam: UN Studio and Goose Press, 1999, pp.19-25.
Wood, D & Andraos, A., 'Program Primer v1.0: A Manual for Architects', Reeser, A. & Schafer, A., Praxis Journal of Writing + Building, Issue 6: New Technologies://New Architectures, Columbus & Boston: Praxis Inc., 2009.
Context
Corner, James, 'The Agency of Mapping: Speculation, Critique and Invention', Cosgrove, D. (ed.) Mappings, London: Reaktion Books, 1999, pp.213-252.
Corner, James, The landscape imagination: Collected essays of James Corner, 1990-2010. Edited by Alison Duncan Hirsch. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2014.
Forty, Adrian, 'Context', Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture, London: Thames and Hudson, 2000, pp.132-135.
Knabb, Ken, 'Theory of the Derivê', Situationist International Anthology, Berkeley, Calif. : Bureau of Public Secrets, 2002, pp.50-54.
Tschumi, Bernard, 'Concept vs Context vs Content', Event- Cities 3, Mass. : MIT Press, 2005, pp.11-15.
Relationship between Architecture/Landscape Architecture
Birkstead, Jan, Relating Architecture to Landscape, London, E & FN Spon, 1999, pp.1-11
Eckbo, Garrett, Is Landscape Architecture? in C.Waldheim & G Dohery (eds), ‘Is Landscape…?’, Oxon, Routledge, 2016, pp.9-12
Robin Boyd, The Australian ugliness (Architecture, environment and planning), Melbourne, Penguin, 1972.