Keywords

1 Unveiling Crisis and Architectural Education

Architectural practice is influenced by various dynamics of daily life, including climatic emergencies, pandemics, political transformations, economic issues, social inequalities, globalization, and its challenges. However, in the Anthropocene era, where human-made elements dominate, there is a contradiction in the exclusion of society and other biotas from constructing the urban environment. Architects play a crucial role in re-establishing the relationship between the city and society. The social aspect of architecture has been emerging since the early 1900s, with different causes and solutions. In this Anthropocene age, the roles and responsibilities of architects have significantly transformed. Instead of solely adhering to traditional design practices, architects now find themselves at the intersection of complexity.

They must have proficiency in understanding intricate systems and collaborating with professionals from diverse disciplines. The profession requires continuous self-updating as architects respond to ever-shifting needs, conditions, and the broader socio—economic dynamics shaping our societies. Architects have become proactive learners, constantly seeking ways to enhance their practices in light of the evolving environment. To thrive in this era of rapid change, architects have embraced the philosophy of perpetual learning, recognizing that becoming digitally literate is not just a choice but a necessity They must adapt to emerging technologies, incorporate sustainable practices, and address dynamic user needs [1, 2].

The contemporary architect is a multifaceted professional with creativity, adaptability, and a profound sense of responsibility. This changing role of architects must be addressed from the very beginning, starting with architectural education. The global issues mentioned earlier have compressed architectural practices into a limited field, giving rise to a “crisis” A crisis, in its etymological definition, is a moment when inevitable change prompts a reevaluation of the current situation. It is crucial to address this emphasis on change from the outset, starting with architectural education. The design studio presents an opportunity to incorporate influences from everyday life into the curriculum while adhering to specific criteria.

Moreover, it can deploy practical tools and chart a meaningful course for society, contributing to local spatial production processes. Therefore, it is imperative to consider the transformative potential of education on society as an opportunity and ask the question: How should architectural pedagogy be adapted to restructure the responsibilities of architects in a world undergoing crisis?

In the aftermath of the pandemic, there is a paradigm shift in all realms of education. This study focuses on the role of the design studio within this rapidly changing crisis environment and reexamines the roles that architectural education assumes. As the circumstances of our era demand a reconsideration of design education and pedagogies, this paper explores two distinct approaches to addressing these crises and consolidates their potential contributions towards fostering a responsive, resilient, and inclusive learning environment for architectural education.

2 Educator Approaches: A Spectrum of Responses

In the realm of education, where responses to the ever-evolving challenges of climate change, pandemics, political shifts, globalization, and social inequalities are imperative, this chapter navigates through the diverse landscape of educator approaches, focusing on two distinct paradigms within architecture education: the pragmatic, hands-on ethos of design-built studios and the academically engaged conceptual exploration within conventional studios. Design-built studios are characterized by spatial initiatives rooted in overcoming real-world constraints. In this experience, rational and dynamic ways of building a bridge are chosen by bringing theory and practice closer together. On the other hand, conventional design studios draw upon a diverse spectrum of academic and philosophical insights, guiding spatialization processes. Within this framework, design problems are systematically addressed, undergoing structured resolution as a result of the conceptual discourse.

While acknowledging the nuanced nature of design studios, it is evident that instances arise where these models converge. The study was initiated to select studios from two different models concerned with one of the problems called crisis, to compare and compile their solutions, and to draw certain conclusions from this. The objective is to illuminate their potential in addressing crises and to contemplate the possibilities of a novel approach. This examination aims to shed light on moments of alignment between these distinct paradigms and explore prospective avenues of operation.

In this chapter, it is embarked on a comparative analysis of two distinct design studio paradigms. Through an examination of both literature and practical case studies, we delve into the nuanced differences between design-build studios and traditional studio practices. Our investigation encompasses a detailed exploration of their respective effectiveness, particularly within the context of the current crisis in architectural education.

2.1 Embracing Real-World Challenges: Design-Build Studios

Design-built studios emerge as more than a curriculum—they embody a philosophy. This immersive learning-by-doing approach transcends the traditional boundaries of the studio with a dynamic process. This approach carries an occasionally unpredictable nature due to the multitude of variables inherent within its contextual framework, extending well beyond the confines of the studio. Students not only gain technical knowledge on a tangible and haptic level—encompassing aspects such as site, structure, materials, and building details—but also undergo a genuine building experience involving skills such as communication and negotiation. These processes go beyond the student-teacher binary and include encounters with people outside the school such as user groups, NGOs, other professionals, and contractors. With technical tours and site visits, the construction process goes through many stages such as material selection, fundraising, costing, negotiations with users, marketing, and collaborating when necessary [3].

The foundations of the first 1:1 scale design studio practice in an institutionalized architecture school were laid in the Bauhaus. Considering the Bauhaus’ educational mediums and strategies, it can also be claimed that it was the first design-and-build studio [4]. While it began to spread with the Yale Building Project in the late 1960s as a reaction to the aesthetically-oriented, elitist, two-dimensional approaches of the Ecole de Beaux-art, it can be said that many schools today are striving to create new pedagogies and programs in this regard [5]. Based on this view, one of the most iconic of these is the Rural Studio in Alabama which prioritized addressing community issues through environmentally and socially sustainable solutions. Mockbee takes action not only out of a conscientious reflex but also with the idea that the profession should challenge the status quo to make responsible environmental and social changes. He proposes expanding the architectural education curriculum from paper architecture to creating real buildings and instilling a sense of community service [6]. Similarly, Bennett and Reynolds [7] highlighted this studio’s possibility of threatening the status quo via social and cultural intervention.

The concept of design-build studios and the pursuit of disrupting the norms can be juxtaposed with Ivan Illich’s revolutionary notion of “unschooling” Just as Mockbee assists hands-on architectural experiences, Illich advocates for a paradigm shift in education, encouraging us to question conventional learning methods and embrace experiential, self-directed pathways to knowledge. In this context, design-build studios can be considered as a practice of unschooling, inspiring new and radical ways to tackle the crisis. Illich presents the idea of liberalizing the process of teaching and learning, advocating for a broader spectrum of individuals to take on the role of educators, and advocating for an increase in the availability of educational opportunities [8]. Furthermore, Illich’s perspective shares certain resemblances with design-build studios. These studios encompass avenues such as learning through civic engagement, and learning from each other/peer learning, which are notably prominent in design-built studios [9]. These characteristics serve to distribute the power and authority of the instructors to base, thereby reflecting the principles advocated by Illich. The concept of ambiguity, which defines design-built projects as both a weakness and strength, contrasts with the more structured nature of conventional studios. Illich’s criticism revolves around the idea that educational systems often prioritize skill acquisition and development through repetitive processes. However, this adherence to predictability becomes problematic when conditions shift, rendering the acquired skills less effective.

Unlike the controlled environment of a studio, where outcomes can be managed, the design-built project atmosphere is marked by a multitude of inputs that introduce unpredictability. It offers a platform for students to navigate and embrace uncertainty, thereby cultivating skills beyond the boundaries of expectables. While traditional institutional education may be criticized for its potential limitations in preparing students to face the ever-evolving challenges of the professional world, design-built studios stand as a testament to the effectiveness of learning through ambiguity. On the other hand, the open-ended nature of these projects can make it difficult to define clear goals and criteria for success. This ambiguity might pose challenges when assessing student performance and evaluating project effectiveness. Moreover, the iterative design and construction process inherent in such projects might extend project timelines, potentially clashing with academic schedules and resource constraints. Risk management also becomes critical, as ambiguity can lead to unexpected design changes, unforeseen challenges, and construction delays. When all of these challenges are addressed, the will to make this system maintain for many years may break down [10]. According to Illich, the school combines the student’s growing up with a sense of weakness stemming from ignorance with the obligation to make a humiliating commitment to the teacher. This can actually be linked to Chris Argyris[11]’ mystery—mastery term, which has been much debated in architectural education. On the other hand, creating a tangible product, seeing it being used, or solving a problem, can distract students from this feeling. In design-built studios a top-down hierarchical scheme of education is replaced by the side-by-side that collective productions require. Therefore, the unquestionable positionality of the educator disappears.

Power issues in education can be reviewed not only in terms of educator roles but also in terms of cultural trends, iconic figures, and even East-West examples and approaches. Golzari et al. [12] says they have developed various teaching tactics to raise awareness of this issue. Instead of the usual master plans, there should be encouragement to get closer to the local, 1:1 scale, contextual research instead of form, and study of the neighborhood are some of them. They also advocate low-cost, low-technology environmental and economic design. In this way, they have taken a step to relieve their concerns about climate change. In essence, the benefit of focusing on the environment and ecology is the research of the local conditions of the design site and the development of a design that respects them. They add that while rejecting global icons through collaborative work on site, they emphasize the cultural realities and socio-economic needs of silent or invisible urban communities.

One of the most important achievements of such projects is that the academy creates points of opening up to the community, where not only the student but also the community meets and reproduces knowledge. Working with a diverse group can be seen as breaking of environmental uniformity for the student’s world, enriching perspective and natural development of critical thinking. As cited by Guaita and others [13], the process of 3 Swiss architecture schools invited to work on a building project in Open City El Portico in 2014 is described as follows: drawing and construction are connected through the construction process. They are creating tacit and embodied knowledge at this moment, obliging students to critically engage with all the realities of the building (material, human, and temporal), creating a circular process that also connects the community and the environment. Another essential achievement emphasized in their article could be the reinterpretation of techne and poesis through the design-built project. Interpreted as a fusion of techne (technical skill) and poiesis (creative expression), students’ time and effort in construction underlines the synthesis of practical and creative elements in the learning process. The ongoing construction process serves as a platform for continuous learning and knowledge production. This implies that the act of building itself contributes to the design process and provides opportunities to refine and redefine the project’s potential. Hence, there is an understanding of the continuous learning inherent in construction processes and the integration of technical skills with creative expression for a holistic educational experience [13].

2.2 Tradition Evolved: Inquiring the Traditional Studios

In education, each discipline possesses its unique characteristics, requisites, and principles. Architectural education, for instance, places a strong emphasis on observation, tactile experience, and physical perception. A cornerstone of this type of education involves learning by doing within a studio environment, where practical application is the key. Historically, architectural education evolved from the master-apprentice relationship into more formalized structures. The Ecole de Beaux Art is an early and influential example, infusing architectural education with a corporate identity and laying the groundwork for the studio culture. This model and its associated culture have been disseminated globally, occasionally transforming. Many subjects specific to the design studio, such as the unquestionable authority established by the critics, long working hours, and juries, are Ecole De Beaux-Art’s legacy [14]. In the 1920s, critiquing the Ecole de Beaux Art for its detachment from the human dimension, excessive emphasis on aesthetics, and pedagogy focused on competition victories rather than learning prompted a new European approach to education, culminating in establishing the Bauhaus. The Bauhaus curriculum prioritized collaborative work, innovation over imitation, and the practical design and creation of tangible structures within workshops and laboratories. The school’s holistic design approach offered students an academic atmosphere and an immersive living environment, blurring the lines between studio and life [15]. These two foundational institutions have evolved yet retain relevance in various aspects of architectural education.

To grasp the essence of the design studio, one must go beyond surface-level definitions and narrow interpretations. Two pivotal institutions from history, the École des Beaux-Arts, and the Bauhaus, form the foundation of the modern design studio, each with its unique approach. These institutions continue to exert significant influence, shaping aspects like curriculum organization and preserving traditions. Institutions like the École des Beaux-Arts and the Bauhaus have a lasting impact on the pedagogical approaches of the modern design studio. The Bauhaus, for instance, encouraged hands-on problem solving and practical experimentation, as reflected in Donald Schön’s depiction.

Similarly, the concept of the hidden curriculum, as highlighted by Dutton [16], is seen in the perpetuation of traditions and rituals within the design studio, maintaining connections to broader cultural, social, and power dynamics. It also touches upon the impact of the hidden curriculum on relationships within the studio and its hindrance to learning, a viewpoint shared by Jeremy Till [17] and Garry Stevens [18], who criticize the hierarchical and elitist norms in architectural education.. In the evolving landscape of architectural education, there’s a growing recognition of the need to address pressing social and humanitarian challenges. The following examples show pioneering design studios committed to making a meaningful societal impact through innovative and socially conscious architectural practices.

It could be argued that the pedagogical approach of the educator and many decisions regarding the project are, in a sense, interconnected by an invisible thread. Elitist and masculine attitudes in education can play a decisive role in every aspect of the studio, from the choice of the project topic to the selection of the project area and the target audience. For this reason, the infiltration of radical pedagogies into the design studio, which has become highly visible, especially in the previous few years, has had a very positive impact. Within these concerns, the global housing project at Tu Delft, as reported by Mota and Gameren [19], is a multicultural project that covers specific challenges addressing the housing crisis and socio-spatial inequalities. The teaching method employed in the Global Housing studio aims to address the widespread uniformity in thinking by fostering the growth of critical awareness concerning evolving social dynamics, challenges, and experiences in an ever-changing world. One of the approaches that both reinforces inclusivity and proposes an alternative by subverting the ongoing power relations within the studio is the autobiographical spatial narratives that Aykaç [20] uses as a radical pedagogy in the design studio. Studio work of this nature, conducted through participatory processes that prioritize inclusivity over dominance, holds the potential to challenge prevailing power dynamics. Simultaneously, it addresses pressing social issues by deeply comprehending and assimilating the nuances of the local context.

In today’s Anthropocene age, a project that can develop a solution via social/humanitarian problem at an urban scale and within a specific time limit should be recognized as the success and sensitivity of the design studio. Conventional design studio provides a controlled and focused environment where students can immerse themselves fully in the design process. This focused setting allows for deeper exploration and experimentation, fostering a more comprehensive understanding of design principles and strategies. Particularly those grounded in ethnographic narratives have the potential to spark self-reflection and stimulate fresh inquiries into the students’ core identity. In doing so, they can lay the foundation for a new portrayal, dismantling the conventional archetype of the architect—a figure often burdened with lofty titles like star or leader because this traditional identity is increasingly under scrutiny, particularly within the context of radical pedagogies. The studio format encourages iterative design processes, where students can continually refine their ideas and solutions. This iterative approach enables students to explore various design options, leading to more robust and refined outcomes. Studios often integrate various skills, from concept development and visualization to presentation techniques. This holistic approach equips students with a well-rounded skill set that applies to various aspects of architectural practice. And maybe the most potent part as the conventional studio encourages the exploration of conceptual ideas and theories, allowing students to delve into design philosophies and ideologies that may not be as readily addressed in live projects with practical constraints. Students in a conventional studio have greater freedom to experiment and take creative risks without the immediate real-world consequences that live projects may entail.

3 Speculating for Building an Inclusive, Socially Engaged, Anti-crisis Design Practice

The traditional studio and the design and build studio, often perceived as divergent educational models, possess a nuanced and interrelated nature that challenges categorical distinctions. They share common ground in experiential education, enabling both to engage with real-world problems. While design-build studios operate amidst uncertainty and actual variables, traditional studios function within more controlled environments and established frameworks. Both models impart valuable skills, yet a distinction arises regarding knowledge transfer: traditional studios emphasize a defined, direct, and hierarchical approach, while design-build studios foster multidirectional and unpredictable information flow. Active participation remains integral to both models. Upon comparing these two educational approaches, it becomes evident that design-build studios play a vital role in addressing crises. Therefore, recognizing the distinctions between vocational schools and academies, it is essential to incorporate design-build studios into the curriculum. However, implementing such projects in a curriculum necessitates thorough administrative preparation. Communication, technical details, site arrangements, and resource allocation are among the initial prerequisites. Consequently, educators must undergo training and establish networks before students engage in these endeavors. Furthermore, defining assessment criteria poses a challenge in this context. Methods such as observation, self-assessment, and peer assessment gain prominence. However, the inherent uncertainty of the process complicates the objectivity and fairness of assessments. Effective architectural practice necessitates strong communication skills. However, within the educational setting, communication typically occurs primarily between students, instructors, or peers. Live projects introduce an element of unpredictability, fostering unexpected encounters and enhancing understanding of diversity. This sense of community engagement can contribute to addressing specific issues related to crises. In contemporary society, globalization’s rising tide of individualism has led to passive citizenship. Collaborative endeavors that bring individuals together to create not only benefit students but also educate communities about social inequalities. It is essential to leverage local knowledge without romanticizing or fetishizing it.

Today, with the advent of artificial intelligence, access to academic knowledge has become more attainable, thanks to the ability to access information in a synthesized and categorized manner, provided the suitable script is applied. Therefore, incorporating personal narratives and indigenous wisdom into the studio environment extends beyond technical and theoretical realms, enriching students’learning experiences with diverse perspectives. The role of academia extends beyond the education of its students. Indeed, one of the most crucial dimensions of live projects, particularly within underdeveloped societies, is the transmission of architectural culture to the broader community. These projects facilitate the public’s comprehension of the distinction between exemplary and substandard architecture, promote mutual learning, and enable society to engage with this culture, even from its periphery. Consequently, live projects hold significance in fostering a society that actively seeks superior, inclusive, humanitarian designs globally.

In establishing an educational practice resilient against crises, one of the most crucial means of fostering awareness of these issues involves the early internalization and unwavering ommitment to professional ethics within the educational domain. Ethical considerations must be addressed unequivocally and comprehensively. An all-encompassing approach to ethics is imperative. For instance, it is considered unacceptable for a building to prioritize clean energy while neglecting accessibility for individuals with disabilities. Similarly, a project cannot claim humanitarian values while exploiting the labor processes involving stakeholders and architects. The acceptance of a merely superficial commitment to ethics should be discouraged.

Contemporary discussions underscore the prominence of radical pedagogies within the educational landscape. Integrating these approaches into the studio allows for the introduction of stimulating topics and mini-projects. It is imperative to acknowledge that the era of a monotonous architectural culture has passed. Instead of adhering to a single narrative, canon, or myth, embracing diversity by respecting individual uniqueness, worlds, lives, and stories becomes essential. From this perspective, valuable lessons can be derived. Allocating space within the studio for students’ narratives and fostering a pluralistic attitude may yield more attuned and socially aware graduates.