How Shall We Teach Architectural Design? Issues in Architectural Design Studios and the Transpiring of Form

Abstract

Every fifty years or so, the design professors face a conundrum of how we shall proceed to teach design in the studios. During the Bauhaus, the principles were evident, and design tools had an anteriority. Gropius had made it very clear. By collaborating with the industry that provided the necessary technological advancements, the designs were based on previous models but simplified in many respects: purist and minimalist. 

Around the 1970s, we were faced with another debate concerning the techniques. Many scholars got involved in the discussions of clarifying the phases and steps of design following the seminal work of Christopher Alexander. He suggested de-composition of the problem and re-composition in terms of form in his doctoral study. De-composition was understandable based on human sciences knowledge, but many debatable unconvincing techniques were set forward, and much scholarly energy was wasted in re-composition.

The third wave came along after the discovery of computer-aided design. Tools of rendering and submitting design have changed. It was soon followed by parametric design, which involved drawing and presentation and the conception of the design problem and its design. Few people realize that it is simply a technique, nothing more. By learning parametric design, no one can learn how to produce healthy and enduring architecture. It is just a technique based on complex technologies.

Therefore, we should distinguish between the essence and techniques of teaching architecture. In teaching architectural studio, we must differentiate between the methods of approach to architectural problem definition and the techniques involved in visualizations and drawing. The value of this essay resides in its approach to understanding what architecture is and exploring ways of making it clear to the future generations of architects. In other words, it makes clear what architecture is.