Advertisement

Nexus Network Journal

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 283–302 | Cite as

Domestic Prototypes Co-Designed Through Experimental 1 m3 Topological Cubes

  • Virginia De Jorge-Huertas
  • Justo De Jorge Moreno
Didactics

Abstract

This paper shows a prototyping project carried out with first-year architecture students at the University of Alcalá. The project starts with the development of a 1 m3 prototype associated to a micro-domestic space for each student, generating forty-five microarchitectures. The main objective for all students is domesticity. Students interpret their domestic intimate space developed in a 1 m3 cube. The aim of this paper is to test the learning process on domestic layout through a prototyping approach. The approach is based on twenty-five previously selected architectural references, and proceeds through a process of co-design learning and design thinking to the translation and experimental approach of ten prototypes constructed at a scale of 1:1. This paper focuses on the learning process carried out with the DPM (diagram, plan, model) methodology and patterns generated by the students’ architectural projects through the development of prototypes.

Keywords

Architectural education Co-design Domestic prototypes DPM (diagram, plan, model) methodology Project-based learning (PBL) 

Notes

Acknowledgements

On the one hand, thanks to the forty-five students of The School of Architecture (ETSA-UAH) of the University of Alcalá (UAH) for their effort and hard work. On the other hand, thanks to the teachers of “Grupo Taller UAH”, FINSA Madrid (Finsa 21) and technical assistants. The experimental project has been financed by an innovative teaching project from the Institute of Education Sciences, University of Alcalá (ICE UAH), called “Development of spatial capacities by applying the 1 m3 cube in variable and experimental domestic environments”. Links to the project course: https://www.virginiadejorge.com/teaching. https://grupotallerblog.wordpress.com/proyectos-1/. The project is based on the first part of the ongoing Ph.D. research on experimental housing and its thresholds of the first author. It has been possible thanks to the funds of an 4-year excellence pre-doctoral contract (FPU-MECD) of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sport from the Spanish government. The authors thank the comments and suggestions by the editor and the reviewers who have helped to improve this work. The responsibility for any mistakes made is solely the responsibility of the authors. All images and photos shown here are by the authors.

References

  1. Alexander, Christopher et al. 1977. A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Blumberg, Melvin and Charles Pringle. 1982. The Missing Opportunity in Organizational Research: Some Implications for a Theory of Work Performance. Academy of Management Review 7(4): 560–569.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, Elisabeth. 1994. Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups. Review of Educational Research 64(1): 1–35.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cialdini, Robert. 2005. What’s the Best Secret Device for Engaging Student Interest? The Answer is in the Title. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 24(1): 22–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Jorge-Moreno, Justo. 2012. Using Social Network and Dropbox in Blended Learning: An Application to University Education. Business, Management and Education 10(2).Google Scholar
  6. Dym, Clive, Alice Agogino, Ozgur Eris, Daniel Frey and Larry Leifer. 2005. Engineering design thinking, teaching and learning. Journal of Engineering Education 94(1): 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duvernoy, Sylvie. 2008. Leonardo and Theoretical Mathematics. Nexus Network Journal 10(1): 39–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-007-0055-9.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Hejduk, John. 1971. Education of an Architect: A Point of View. An exhibition by the at Cooper Union School of Art & Architecture at the museum of Modern Art, New York City. USA.Google Scholar
  9. Heron, John and Reason, Peter. 2008. Extending epistemology within co-operative inquiry. Handbook of Action Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Ito, Toyo. 2000. Escritos. Maite Shigeko Suzuki, trans. Murcia: Colegio Oficial de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos de Murcia.Google Scholar
  11. Kiatake, Marly and Petreche, Diego. 2012. A case study on the application of the theory of inventive problem solving in architecture. Architectural Engineering and Design Management 8(2): 90–102.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17452007.2012.659504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Laban, Rudolf. 1966. Choreutics. London: MacDonald and Evans.Google Scholar
  13. LeWitt, Sol. 2001. Incomplete Open Cubes. Exhibition catalogue. Hartford, Ct: Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art.Google Scholar
  14. Minneman, Scott. 1991. The social construction of a technical reality. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  15. Milligan, Andy and Ron Rogers. 2006. Experience design and artefacts after the fact. CoDesign 2(2): 89–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pérez Piñero, Emilio. 1965. Folding three-dimensional reticular structure. US US 3185164A. https://www.google.com/patents/US3185164, accessed 11 Nov 2017.
  17. Pinho, Eliana Manuel and Joao Pedro Xavier. 2013. Grid-Based Design in Roman Villas: A Method of Analysis. Nexus Network Journal 15(1): 83–103.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-012-0138-0.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Rozhkovskaya, Natasha and Michael Reb. 2015. Is the List of Incomplete Open Cubes Complete? Nexus Network Journal 17(3): 913–9twenty-five  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-015-0twenty-five4-8.
  19. Rybczynski, Witold. 1986. Home: A Short Story of an Idea. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  20. Sanders, Elizabeth and Pieter Jan Stappers. 2008. Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign 4(1): 5–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sleeswijk et al. 2005. Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign 1(2): 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stappers, Pieter Jan. 2007. Doing Design as a Part of Doing Research. Pp. 81–91 in Design Research Now, Ralf Michel, ed. Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  23. Steen, Marc, Menno Manschot and Nicole De Koning. 2011. Benefits of Co-Design in Service Design Projects. International Journal of Design 5(2): 53–60.Google Scholar
  24. Tepavčević, Bojan and Vesna Stojaković. 2014. Representation of Non-Metric Concepts of Space in Architectural Design Theories. Nexus Network Journal 16(2): 285–297  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00004-014-0194-8.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Welford. John. 2004. Brainware, The Imaginative Curriculum: Creativity, Taught & Caught. University of Strathclyde. http://www.jwelford.demon.co.uk/brainwaremap/.

Copyright information

© Kim Williams Books, Turin 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture (ETSA-UAH)University of AlcalaMadridSpain
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics, Business and TourismUniversity of AlcalaMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations