The Design Studio as Public Provocateur

CONNECTED 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN EDUCATION SYDNEY 2010

WWW.CONNECTED2010.COM.AU

28 JUNE–1 JULY 2010

CONFERENCE PROGRAM HOSTED BY

Faculty of Built Environment Faculty of Engineering College of Fine Arts

WELCOME to connected 2010

Welcome to Sydney and to ConnectED 2010 International Conference on Design Education. This is the 2nd ConnectED conference, and follows on from the very successful and exciting 2007 ConnectED, and is a collaboration of three University of New South Wales faculties – College of Fine Arts, Engineering and Built Environment. Like the 2007 conference ConnectED 2010 will continue the groundbreaking work of bringing together a broad multidisciplinary spectrum in the context of design and design education. This second ConnectED conference has attracted delegates from over 25 countries and, with the combination of refereed conference papers, exhibitions, workshops and roundtables, will involve over 200 participants from around the globe. It will be an opportunity to renew existing collegial networks and to build new ones that reflect ConnectED’s multinational and multidisciplinary nature and, above all, to learn about and discuss developments at the cutting edge of design education. The University of New South Wales, one of Australia’s leading research universities with over 40,000 students, is again the host for ConnectED. On behalf of the Organising Committee I am delighted to welcome you to ConnectED 2010 – we hope you enjoy the Conference and your stay in Sydney. Graham Forsyth Chair, ConnectED2010 Organising Committee

Conference organising committee Graham Forsyth (Convenor) College of Fine Arts, UNSW

Bob Zehner Built Environment, UNSW

Carl Reidsema Engineering

Steve Ward

Kana Kanapathipillai

Vaughan Rees

Engineering

College of Fine Arts, UNSW

Leong Chan

Sue Gillard

College of Fine Arts, UNSW

CLEMS (Conference Links & Event Management Services)

Ken Freidman Swinburne University

Russell Rodrigo Built Environment, UNSW

Built Environment, UNSW

28 JUNE –1 JULY 2010 WWW.CONNECTED2010.COM.AU

03

CONNECTED 2010 – 2ND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON DESIGN EDUCATION 28 JUNE - 1 JULY 2010, UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES, SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA

The Design Studio as Public Provocateur Chris Ford University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Fig. 1. Design materials by student Ryan Henrickson for a 4th year undergraduate design studio administered in the Fall 2007 semester. The design problem was for a new military cyber command post for the US Air Force in Bellevue NE (Offutt AFB).

KEYWORDS Architecture, Design Studio, Teaching pedagogy, Public Service, Service Learning ABSTRACT

Optimized educational value cannot be found in an academic studio that simulates the realities of the architectural profession. Therefore, for the architectural educator, are service-learning design problems a reasonable strategy for design studios when the students themselves will spend their professional lifetimes engaged in realities of architectural practice? One alternative to conventional service-learning design problems does not simulate likely constraints in professional design problems, but rather, suspends such constraints towards exploiting the opportunities afforded by the academic arena. After all, one must remember that a complete architectural education is the result of both our discipline’s academy and profession,

together. Each serves a different role and as such, teaches the future architect in different, yet equally beneficial ways. If an academic design studio can incorporate a servicebased design problem as a vehicle for fulfilling stated curricular goals, then in what way(s) should the studio incorporate this project? This forthcoming paper shall examine an array of issues with beneficial and detrimental effect to service-learning projects in the design studio. Specifically, three design problems from annually-successive 4th Year design studios at the University of Nebraska will be presented in terms of their fulfillment of curricular goals and the transcended public value generated beyond the extent of their respective semesters. In these cases, service-learning studio problems can act as Provocateurs as these three studio problems are framed from a deliberate entrepreneurial sensibility. The projects featured are a Museum of Agricultural Technology, a Center for Energy Sciences Research, and a US Air Force Cyber Command military facility.

1

I. INTRODUCTION As members of the smallest College in our State’s largest university, how might individual faculty of a College of Architecture increase the efficiency with which they pursue their Teaching, Research, and Public Service as autonomous individuals? Furthermore, how might a College of Architecture in the American Midwest maximize its influence at both a local and regional scale? Finally, how might a College of Architecture organize itself to act as a provocateur in a region where “Old” is equated with Good, and “New” is equated with Bad? II. PUBLIC SERVICE AS AN INDIVIDUAL The University of Nebraska, situated in the state capital of Lincoln, is a federal land grant institution. Its “Role of the University” statement emphasizes a tripartite approach to the fulfillment of its mission: These parts of the University’s educational mission – Teaching, Research and Public Service -- are interdependent, and form the basis for the University’s contributions to the State of Nebraska. Beyond the required internal service obligations that we have to our College of Architecture, (such as serving on curricular, lecture or search committees) faculty members consider their responsibility of Public Service very seriously. More than half of our faculty hold voluntary positions of leadership in the public realm. Furthermore, these specific positions often resonate with the professional or scholarly interests of that particular faculty member, which in turn, create intellectual conduits from their respective research interests to their service. This increases the efficiency of ideological exchange, whether it be the formal environs of a classroom or a boardroom. III. THE DESIGN STUDIO AS PUBLIC SERVICE

number of faculty have used service-learning projects in their 3rd, 4th, and 5th year studios thereby merging the needs of fulfilling curricular goals with assignments that will also yield solutions responding to very real architectural needs. However, what should remain paramount is the fit between the identified curricular goals of the studio and the agility with which a particular service-learning project can address those curricular goals. The initiating “client” often benefits since the academic studios generate a high number of reasonably resolved architectural options for consideration. While these servicelearning projects are not a professional armature of the College of Architecture, it is fair to speculate that with studio enrollments of (15) students, the range of student-generated architectural options exceeds the range of schematic designs by a commissioned service-based firm. These academic efforts should be considered as a very preliminary design effort, where the process of running through the entire architectural problem creates a client entity with an enriched understanding of its architectural needs, is better equipped with a design vocabulary, and ultimately exits the relationship with a broader understanding of architectural possibility. In some cases, there are measurable drawbacks to incorporating service-learning projects in an architectural design studio. While these detrimental effects are less common at the higher level studios, these projects pose problems for the young designer looking to negotiate those defining constraints of an architectural design problem with their own expectations. Since they are neither experienced problem solvers nor experienced design thinkers, it is completely understandable why students may regard the client entity as an authority of the problem at hand. The introduction of an authority figure, in combination with that figure’s personality, can unfortunately steer the student designer to address their architectural design as the rendering of a service instead of the submission of a product. In such scenarios, the young designer often lacks the confidence necessary to postulate anything outside of a perceived status quo and enters into a speculative guessing-game of which design decisions they believe the authority figure will be most supportive and appreciative. In a theoretical worsecase-scenario, the faculty member for the design studio reinforces this dynamic by raising awareness to the constraints of cost, schedule, means of construction, and client aesthetic preferences, which propagates an ill-founded belief in what constitutes the success of such projects. IV. THE DESIGN STUDIO AS PROVOCATEUR

Fig. 1. Fire Station / Community Center, Panama NE, Spring 2007, by M.Arch student Evan Gunn. (Professor Nate Krug, Instructor)

Despite these efforts at an individual level, the more popular model of public service in our College emerges from our design studios. Over the past five years, a growing

Optimized educational value can not be found in any academic studio that simulates the realities of the architectural profession. We must recognize that students shall spend their professional lifetimes familiarizing themselves with the realities of the architectural profession. Therefore, is the simulation of those realities appropriate for the administration of one’s design studio? After all, one must remember that a complete architectural education is the result of both our discipline’s academy and profession, together. Each serves a different role and, as such, teaches

2

the future architect in different, yet equally beneficial ways (Ford 2005). If an academic design studio can incorporate a servicebased design problem as a vehicle for fulfilling stated curricular goals, then in what way(s) should the studio incorporate this project? The three following projects are from annually-successive 4th Year design studios with a curricular focus on Tectonics. While all three of these projects stem from a service-learning sensibility, they are instead framed as entrepreneurial endeavors. None of these studio projects originated from the specific request of an identified client entity, but arose instead out of the Instructor’s individual interest and opportunistic circumstances. While each studio problem was written in a way to engage likely programmatic needs and fabricated site parameters, the constraints of cost, schedule, and client preferences were intentionally suspended for greater academic affect. Beyond the fulfillment of curricular goals, these design studio problems, once publicly disseminated, generated additional value as an architectural provocateur in the regional public realm not familiar with speculative design provocations. PROJECT 01: Museum of Agricultural Technology (MoAT), Fall 2005, Lincoln NE

Jeremy Steele, a new museum associate, served as liaison between the Larsen Museum and our ARCH 410 design studio. While I appreciated having a contact with the existing Larsen Tractor Museum, it became important to establish a healthy separation in the students’ minds between accommodating the stakeholders’ requests and more importantly, surpassing them altogether in the pursuit of concept realization. This thirteen week design problem was punctuated on December 07 2005 with a Final Jury that was open to the public. Through the economic generosity of two donors, I was able to invite out-of-town architects to participate as jurors in this event. While it was good to have visiting architects, we also had a number of non-architects as well. These visitors include family members of the students, staff from the University Library, a representative from the office of our region’s Congressman, Larsen Museum volunteers, and a few newspaper reporters. The story of our project experience was featured in several articles including the Omaha World Herald (Hammel 2005), the Lincoln Journal Star (Hovey 2005), and the university’s student newspaper (Nieland 2005). Since this initial exposure, some of the student work has been re-formatted as a museum exhibit, is on display throughout the year, and is part of the Museum’s traveling exhibit at the annual Nebraska State Fair. Although this student work was executed as an academic exercise, I hoped this exhibit would spark a dialogue about the feasibility of such a premiere facility in forthcoming years and there is strong evidence that this dialogue is well underway. Since this event in Dec 2005, visitorship has climbed from sub-100 to just over 2400 patrons for the 2007 calendar year. Furthermore, approximately $600,000 has been raised towards facility improvement. Finally, in January 2008, I accepted an invitation to join the Larson museum’s Board of Directors, and I currently have the honor of serving as President for the 2010 calendar year. PROJECT 02: Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research (NCESR), Fall 2006, Lincoln NE

Fig 02. Museum of Agricultural Technology, Fall 2005, by Arch 410 students Troy Fosler (left) and Cole Wycoff (right).

In terms of its mission, the Lester F. Larsen Tractor Test and Power Museum is unique. There is no other public museum in the United States dedicated to showcasing tractors that are either historically-significant themselves (such as the 1909 Minneapolis Ford B), or feature technological breakthroughs in tractor design (such as the Allis Chalmers WC). However, the building in which the museum is housed is a garage -- There is a measurable disconnect between the cultural significance of the Larsen and its current facility. When approaching the museum to express my academic intent to design a successor facility, I also made a personal pledge. In return for their cooperation and heightened attention to my studio’s questions, I offered to serve as an advocate for the Museum at anytime in the future for improvements to their facilities. The museum’s leadership was supportive of this preliminary interest, and

Fig 03. Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research, Fall 2006, by Arch 410 students Brandon Reimers (top) and Alex Turner (bottom).

3

For Fall 2006, the same Tectonic studio designed a freestanding research / educational facility for the Nebraska Center for Energy Sciences Research (NCESR). The overall goal of the NCESR is to foster research and education in energy sciences by encouraging collaboration among University of Nebraska faculty and other public- and privatesector organizations working in energy sciences. While the NCESR currently awards grants for energy-based research, an expanded NCESR mission would prompt its own freestanding facility tailored to its specific spatial and technological needs. I believed the NCESR would serve as a good curricular vehicle for the design studio. Upon contacting Mr. Ken Cassman, Director of the NCESR, he expressed an interest in sharing information, but was otherwise hard pressed for time by his own teaching responsibilities. While Mr. Cassman was able to join us for the project kick-off in which he gave a Powerpoint presentation framing the agenda for the NCESR, he was unable to join us for additional meetings. Instead, Ms. Ann Selzer, Program Manager for the NCESR, served as liaison. Beyond likely architectural needs, I wanted to create an opportunity for students to consider site strategies and architectural tectonics on a more environmentally-responsible level, but without explicitly requiring it. Furthermore, it was important to me that students did not approach the design of this research / educational facility as if it were a commissioned project. To assist them in exploiting this design opportunity, I arranged an overnight trip to Denver CO to tour the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), regarded as the premiere research facility of its kind in the United States. Also, trips were taken to visit the Denver Art Museum addition (2006) designed by Studio Daniel Libeskind, and the Coors Brewing Company in Boulder CO. The final jury was held on 06 December 2006 in the Gallery of Architecture Hall. Mr. Alan Dostal from the NPPD was in attendance and requested some of the student work to show at his next board meeting. Ms. Ann Selzer from the NCESR also requested some of the student work for future NCESR use. Our jury event was also covered by the local Lincoln Journal Star newspaper. While the NCESR student designs did not have the same public exposure as the MoAT proposals from the year before, the idea of a freestanding research facility has been publically breached. Today, the NCESR is currently being relocated to a larger suite of offices to better pursue its mission and to accommodate an increase in office staff. PROJECT 03: US Air Force Cyber Command (AFCYBER), Fall 2007, Bellevue NE On 07 December 2005, the United States Air Force released a revised mission statement. It reads: “Deliver sovereign options for the defense of the United States of America and its global interests – to fly and fight in Air, Space and Cyberspace.”

It is important to note the US Air Force’s interest in cyberspace is not casual. Their declared interest is not in a

single mission or operation, but for them, “cyberspace is a strategic, operational, and tactical warfighting domain.” (Lopez 2006). The US Air Force believes the next arena for global warfare will be cyberspace, particularly considering the asymmetric opportunities it presents to cyber-vigilantes. To spearhead this effort, the US Air Force announced the formation of the Air Force Cyber Command (AFCYBER). According to a July 23, 2007 article by the Associated Press, at least three USAF bases were in the running for this new Cyber Command including Offutt AFB in Bellevue NE, Lackland AFB in San Antonio TX, and Barksdale AFB in Bossier City LA, which has been named the location of an interim Cyber Command operational since Sept 18 2007. Since the awarding of this Command would have a positive economic impact upon one of these regions, this project presented a premiere opportunity to serve the curricular goals of “ARCH 410: Tectonics” while also producing speculative student-generated designs that would resonate with an invested public interest.

Fig 04. US Air Force Cyber Command @ Offutt AFB, Fall 2007, by Arch 410 students Ryan Henrickson (top) and Xin Zhao (bottom).

Due to Pentagon policies created to protect against tax dollar waste, individual bases are not permitted to lobby or compete against each other for pending strategic assignments or potential physical amenities. Therefore, any lobbying to persuade decision makers must be done by non-military entities. Due to the beneficial economic impact of the AFCYBER in a new community, the Chambers of Commerce for both Bellevue NE and Omaha NE coordinated their efforts and submitted a proposal to the US Air Force for consideration. My interest in incorporating this design project was several fold. First, since our current students have never known life without access to a personal computer, I believed the subject of cyber warfare would be of high interest to them. Second, at presumably over 100,000sf, I believed it would prompt new design strategies for tectonic solutions compared to previous design studios. Third, the heightened need for security introduced a welcome level of complexity. Finally, I believed that out of the (13) AFCYBER proposals, several of the student projects would be of publishable quality that

4

could be used for strategically bolstering Offutt AFB in its bid for this new AFCYBER command. During my planning for this project, I contacted the Public Affairs Office of Offutt AFB to measure the level of interest and base accessibility that may be permitted to my design studio. I was politely denied access to the base due to a concern that cooperation may be interpreted as an outright endorsement of the student proposals. While cooperation with Offutt AFB leadership and Public Affairs would have been ideal, it was not a requirement for continuing with the project -- I understood their position. Furthermore, the AFCYBER site to be issued was 135 acres immediately south of Offutt AFB, and was not yet base property (Associated Press 2007). At the end of this thirteen week project, I wanted to hold the studio final jury in a public venue that would be physically closer to Offutt AFB stakeholders so as to increase public turnout. The Strategic Air & Space Museum in Ashland NE, located nearly equidistant between the cities of Lincoln and Omaha, permitted us to use their lobby space as the venue for both our Dec 12 2007 event and a four day exhibit of the AFCYBER student proposals. While two groups of students presented their work simultaneously to two different jury panels, museum patrons would also pause to consider the student work. Mr. Ned Holmes, Military Affairs contact for the Greater Omaha Chamber of Commerce, attended the event and asked for copies of the student work to share with some of his Chamber colleagues. Furthermore, an Omaha developer with an ownership stake in properties adjacent to the proposed AFCYBER site was also in attendance for the event. Press for this studio project included “Welcome to Cyberwar Country USA” by Marty Graham for WIRED.com. A final announcement regarding the location of this Command was expected from the USAF sometime early Winter 2008, but was postponed several times due to leadership changes in the US Department of Defense. In May 2009, the USAF announced the 24th Air Force Cyber Command would be located at Lackland AFB in San Antonio TX. V. CONCLUSION By using inventive service-learning projects as vehicles for fulfilling curricular goals, studio instructors are able to introduce personified “client” stakeholders as informational resources. While this enables student designers to develop certain interpersonal skills that would otherwise not be possible with a hypothetical non-personified client, it remains of imperative importance for studio instructors to assure a healthy disconnect between the stakeholders’ stated needs, and the adoption of these needs as the students’ intent behind their own creative work. Furthermore, it is imperative that students do not approach the design of these projects as if they were commissioned works – The young design student is often unable to differentiate between the informative needs of a client, and a personal expectation for architectural design. Whereas speculative design problems are more commonly found in schools of architecture, executing a service-learning design problem in a design studio can be of both beneficial

and detrimental value. While these projects may lend themselves to the pursuit of certain curricular goals, they can also build additional value beyond their fulfillment. At their worst, such design problems create working situations that are both confusing to younger students and are missed opportunities to exploit the autonomy afforded by the academic realm. However, at their best, such servicelearning projects transcend curricular goals and can act as provocateurs for change in a larger and more inclusive public realm. If the content generated resonates with a particular community, or responds to a demonstrated architectural need in an opportunistic way, then the student work can provoke a public dialogue about the feasibility of such a project beyond the extents of the semester in which it was issued. In so doing, faculty can more fully serve their respective obligations to the tri-partite mission of teaching, research and service.

Fig 05. US Air Force Cyber Command, Final Jury and Exhibit at Strategic Air & Space Museum, Ashland NE, 12 December 2007.

REFERENCES

Associated Press. “Land buy meant to give edge to Offutt AFB.” Posted: Monday July 23 2007. Ford, Chris. “The Gap and Its Effect on Architectural Education,” Proceedings from Finishing School: 2003 ACSA-SE Regional Meeting. p76. Hammel, Paul. “Harvest of Ideas: UNL Weighs Options for Housing Old Tractors.” Omaha World-Herald. 07 December 2005, p1,2. Holmes, Erik. “Lord to Oversee Cyber Command.” Air Force Times, Wednesday, Sept 26 2007. Hovey, Art. “Crafting a New Vision,” Lincoln Journal Star. 11 December 2005. p 1C. Lopez, Staff Sgt. C. Todd. “Senior Leaders discuss fighting in Cyberspace.” Air Force Print News Today, November 01, 2006. Nieland, Katie. “Project Spurs Interest in New Museum Design.” Daily Nebraskan. p 1, 2.

5