FBE Architecture Program

ARCH 7111/12

Architectural Design Studio 2

Session 1, 2011

1
CONTENTS

Course staff
Course Information
Assessment
Course schedule & exercises
Resources for students
Academic honesty and plagiarism
Continual course improvement
Administrative matters

Course staff

Convener: Dr. Dijana Alic, Senior Lecturer, Architecture Program, room 2008,
Phone no: 9385 4817, FBE UNSW, email: D.Alic@unsw.edu.au

Time Table: Monday 9am – 2pm room

RC 5008

Course information

Units of credit: UOC 6

Educational Framework: As one of the elective studios, the Architectural Design Studio 2 is
concerned with consolidating, through demonstration, your learning undertaken in the
previous design workshop and studio courses. It is concerned with establishing the
parameters for the expected educational achievement necessary to sustain independent,
academic success in the subsequent elective Architectural Design Studios and finally, in the
Graduation Year courses. Demonstration of thoughtful considered and articulated
engagement with an architectural design process and design resolution that responds
eloquently as well as instrumentally to the differing spatial needs of unfamiliar client groups.

Course summary / project abstract: The Transformable House

The design studio program explores the complex and often ambiguous relationship between the public
and private spheres. It does so by focusing on two independent but closely related design projects: the
Sub-Urban House and Transformable House. Both projects introduce the act of design as a discursive
process and one that questions the relationship between architectural production and the broader socio-
political context.

Project one, the Sub-Urban House, explores the impact of broader political, economic and cultural
issues on what is considered as the private space of the house. Through analysis of architectural
elements such as the boundary condition, siting, and room organisation the project acknowledges the
complex interrelationships and interdependencies between the private and public spheres. Project two,
the Transformable House, extends the debate by considering the complexities involved in imposing
(architectural or otherwise) limits on the continuously fluctuating relationships between the public and
private. It encourages the students to conceive of design as a process that aims to accommodate these
changes. It favours transient and transformative qualities of design that are able to respond to the
various uses of the built fabric and changing conceptions of family in our societies. The Transformable
House questions the binary opposition between public and private and suggests the difficulties involved
in attempting to separate the two within the increasingly ‘un-private’ world. Finally, the absence of a
‘particular’ client provides an initial investigation into the effects, limits and accountability of architectural
practices.

Overall the design studio project aims to allow the students to enter the selected architectural debates at
various scales of enquiry as well as explore a range of graphic and conceptual experiences. The
presentation techniques used in the studio range from full-scale installations to orthographic drawings
and scaled modelling. In their broad approaches the projects foreground socio-cultural issues and
emphasise programming and planning. Being offered at the post graduate level of studies, the projects
are structured to serve both a reflective and anticipatory function with respect to the final year of
architectural studies.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 2
Introduction: home sweet home

The private house has remained unchallenged as the most desired mode of living for the vast
majority of people. Despite its relatively small size, the house occupies a very significant
space in cultural imaginations and has historically been perceived as one of the fundamental
blocks of the built environment.

Within the context of architectural design, the house is and has been one of the supremely
privileged sites for architectonic experimentation. Throughout history, architects have
considered the family home as central to the development and discussion of broader issues
concerning society, culture and the built environment. For the design of a house - as home –
not only provides a context for exploration of the possibilities and ideas used in the
development of dwellings; but also provides the context for understanding of the relationship
between broader social, political and cultural forces and the basic unit of our society – the
family.1

The design studio program explores the complex and often ambiguous relationship between
the public and private spheres. It does so by focusing on two independent but closely related
design projects: the Sub-Urban House and Transformable House. Both projects introduce the
act of design as a discursive process and one that questions the relationship between
architectural production and the broader socio-political context.

Project one, the Sub-Urban House, explores the impact of broader political, economic and
cultural issues on what is considered as the private space of the house. Through analysis of
architectural elements such as the boundary condition, siting, and room organisation the
project acknowledges the complex interrelationships and interdependencies between the
private and public spheres. Project two, the Transformable House, extends the debate by
considering the complexities involved in imposing (architectural or otherwise) limits on the
continuously fluctuating relationships between the public and private. It encourages the
students to conceive of design as a process that aims to accommodate these changes. It
favours transient and transformative qualities of design that are able to respond to the various
uses of the built fabric and changing conceptions of family in our societies. The
Transformable House questions the binary opposition between public and private and
suggests the difficulties involved in attempting to separate the two within the increasingly ‘un-
private’ world. Finally, the absence of a ‘particular’ client provides an initial investigation into
the effects, limits and accountability of architectural practices.

Overall the design studio project aims to allow the students to enter the selected architectural
debates at various scales of enquiry as well as explore a range of graphic and conceptual
experiences. The presentation techniques used in the studio range from full-scale installations
to orthographic drawings and scaled modelling. In their broad approaches the projects
foreground socio-cultural issues and emphasise programming and planning. Being offered at
the post graduate level of studies, the projects are structured to serve both a reflective and
anticipatory function with respect to the final year of architectural studies.

1
Two architectural publications have provided inspiration for this project Architectural Design, The
Transformable House, Guest-edited by Jonathan Bell & sally Godwin, Wiley-Academy, Vol 70, No. 4
and ‘The un-private house’ UCLA Hammer Museum, October 4, 2000 – January 7, 2001. The exhibition
organised by The Museum of Modern Art, New York. Curator Terence Riley, Exhibition Brochure. Other
readings include: Lily Chi, ‘Boundary Studies’, in Journal of Architectural Education, November 1999,
Vol 53, No 2, 115-121; and ‘Transparency and Architecture’, Journal of Architectural Education, Vol 56,
no 4, May 2003.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 3
Week 1: Studio Screen

You never look at me from the same place from which I see you.

Program
You are asked to design and build a studio screen that acts as a boundary between you and
the group in the studio environment. The screen has to provide for various modes of studio
interaction i.e. working on your own, in pairs, in small groups and/or in a large group etc.

1 In groups of 3-4 discuss various modes of negotiation between private and public
practices that take place within the studio setting.
2 Consider boundary not only in terms of division and limit, but also in its potential to
mediate, connect, and provide for dialogue.
3 Acknowledging that boundaries, like clothing, collude in the construction of identities
and relationships, consider your design as a representation of the individual’s identity
and the individual’s relation to the broader community.
4 Focus on the detailed resolution of the boundary/threshold condition between the
private and public realm and identify architectural strategies for accommodating the
desired spatial qualities.
5 Present your discussions through diagrams and annotated sketches.

You are expected to work in groups, but the final submission is individual submission.

Final submission (due at 1pm week 1):

Model of the Studio Screen (‘usable’ scale, i.e. 1:1 or 1:2)

1 x A4 statement of the design rational that presents the relationship between the design
intentions and the final product. Please note that this should not be a description of the design
but a discussion of the issues considered. The statement is due in week 2.

Material: cardboard, and various kinds of recyclable paper

Final Assessment:
Model: visual literacy & craft practices
Design Statement: design enquiry

satisfactory / unsatisfactory

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 4
PROJECT ONE The Sub-Urban House
Weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

‘Each family asked, when the day’s work was done, for isolation from the next family. Each
member asked for the possibility of privacy from the remainder of the family. The nation was
built on the principle that from every family there should be a separate house and for every
person there should be a separate room.’ Robin Boyd, Australia’s Home, Why Australians
Built The Way They Did, Pelican books, 1968, p.11. (first published 1952)

‘The suburb was a major element of Australian society. Factory, shop, office, theatre and
restaurant were not radically different the world over. The interior of an Australian house could
be given any atmosphere; it might be no different from the interior of an apartment in Rome or
a flat in Regent’s Park, London. But in the suburb was experienced that essentially Australian
part of town life which lay between work and home.’2

Project description:
A ‘generic suburban block’ in the suburb of Kensington, Sydney, is the subject of exploration
of this three-week design exercise. The students are asked to undertake a study of this
suburban condition; the cultural, political and architectural forces that have influenced its
establishment as well as its development; and through a series of studies offer their own set
of design explorations of this condition.

Three aspect of a ‘generic suburban block’ interest us in this project: (1) the front yard; (2) the
house; and (3) the back yard.

(1) Front yard - a negative space that mediates the relationship between the public space
of the street and the public/private nature of the house. The front yard and the front
elevation of the house are considered the public interfaces that negotiate the
relationship between the house and the street.
(2) The house (a generic bungalow type) is a place of domesticity and family life, and its
design is considered in relation to the functions and other aspects of daily life as well
as in its relation to the surrounding site and the broader cultural and physical
landscape. (Consider the layout and the spatial arrangements, gendered spaces,
structure/construction, scale, importance of different spaces, inside/outside of the
house).
(3) The back of the house as well as the back yard are subsequently more private and
secluded domestic spaces that address the issues of domesticity and private family
life.

The overall condition of the suburban block is primarily determined by the relationship
between the front and the back of the block. It is through this basic relationship that many
other aspects of design are determined, and are often either compromised or enhanced by
the powerful and dominant front/ back relationship.

The main focus of your exploration is the relationships between the ‘dominant’ powers/ orders
that have influenced the development of this suburban condition and architectural ways of
‘subverting or challenging’ the dominant orders. (It is important to highlight that ‘subverting’
the dominant order does NOT always have negative connotations)

2
Robin Boyd, Australia’s Home, Why Australians built the way they did, Pelican books, 1968, p.12 (first
published 1952)

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 5
D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 6
Week 2: Analysis of Multiple Orders

You are asked to identify the multiple orders that play a role in the design of a ‘generic
suburban block’ - the house and the surrounding landscape. The discussion of the multiple
orders and the ways they impact on one another, compromising/enhancing aspects of the
design should be addressed through the following themes:

• Front / back (in relationship to the entire suburban block, the front yard, the house,
the back yard, etc)
• Public / private (in relationship to the entire suburban block, the front yard, the house,
the back yard, etc)
• Inside / outside (in relationship to the entire suburban block, the front yard, the house,
the back yard, etc)

The aim is to identify the orders that take place in relation to:
• Street layout / land subdivision
• Siting of house on the block of land
• The internal layout of the house
• The external form of the house

Reflection statement / inquiry submission:

Investigate the ways in which the above orders exist within the site and identify the
significance of each, their interrelationships and the contradictions and support for each other.
In the analysis of the suburb pay attention to the existing examples that challenge the
‘generic’ suburban condition.

Submission requirements:
The study is to be undertaken by groups of three students. The presentation will consist of 3 x
A3 sheets presented during the class and will allow for group discussion. Group submission.

Week 3: Transformation 1: Planning Considerations

A model of the re-designed house 1,

‘single’ ‘storey’ ‘suburban’ ‘detached’ ‘bungalow’ ‘house’

Extend the findings of week one and build a model of the re-designed house which
maintains/strengthens/enhances/harmonises or eradicates the various orders in place. You
are asked to present a model of the re-designed house that offers alternative spatial
relationships between the house (built fabric) and the surrounding landscape through
addressing the issues of multiple orders. (Emphasis is on house).

Submission requirements:
1. Make a model of the existing site/house. (Individual submission)
2. Make a model of your design proposal Transformation 1. The model has to fit on 1 x A3
sheet/ board, the roof has to come off and the internal arrangements of rooms have to be
clearly shown, with only the built fabric – the walls, columns and other built in elements on the
block (no furniture). The emphasis is on the massing, and the spatial relationship of the
design. However it is important to choose your materials carefully as they have to represent
your broader design ideas. The model has to represent the building in plan and on the site
(viewed from above). The built fabric of your design should not exceed the floor to site ratio of
the existing house and/ or can be reduced by a maximum of 20% of the existing house. The
house has to remain single storey and cannot exceed overall volume of the existing house.
Individual submission 10%.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 7
Week 4: Transformation 2: Sectional Considerations

‘double story’ ‘suburban’ ‘detached’ ‘bungalow’ ‘house’ ‘middle suburbs of Sydney’

The second exercise asks you to explore similar sets of issues as in exercise one but rethink
the relationship between the site and the house by considering the opportunities that arise by
the ability to organise the building to extend over various levels. Question the notions of
privacy, utilitarian space and the relationships between the back and front yard.

A model of the re-designed house Transformation 2, sectional considerations

The students are asked to present a sectional model (side view) of the building emphasising
the relationship between the building and the site (the block itself and its relation to the
street). Note dominant aspects of the power relationship in place: scale, organisation,
functions etc. on the design of the house as well as the surrounding landscape.

Submission requirements: The submission consists of a sectional model of the house and
site that has to fit on 1 x A 3 sheet. While the house in this instance can make use of a
second level its overall volume should not exceed the volume of the original house by more
than 10 % and/or should not be smaller than the original house by more than 20%.
Individual submission 10%

Week 5: Transformation 3: Model of Your Design Proposal

Submission requirements:
The third transformation exercise asks you to explore similar sets of issues as in the first two,
taking into account the following two points:

• Rethink the relationship between the site and the house by considering the
opportunities that arise by privileging the landscape over the built fabric.
• Present a synthesis of the issues considered in the previous two exercises: the
relationship between the broader context and the specifics of your designs (back/
front, etc.), the relationship between planning and sectional design arrangements,
etc. (subsequently the house could be one or more storeys).

The primarily focus of the submission is the examination of the nature of external space within
the block; with a secondary concern for the relationship between external private and internal
private space, and the public space of the street. The design should present an insight into
the meaning of private external space, and its differentiation into subspaces. By taking the
block in its entirety your design is expected to question the traditional boundaries and
stereotypes such as front and back yard, as well as the stereotypical understanding of the
house (based on the rooms) and propose alternative arrangements between the two.

Presentation requirements: The submission consists of a 3D pull-apart model, built in such

a way that parts could be dismantled in order to (and to the extent needed to) demonstrate
aspects significant to your design.

The 3D pull-apart model is to be trimmed back to the exact edges of the block.
All previous models have to be presented as a part of the final (P1) presentation.
The assessment criteria will address the issues mentioned above.
Individual submission 20 %

General Guidelines:
There is no specific client for this project and the assessment criteria will address the issues
related to the ability of your design proposal to accommodate multiple and diverse users.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 8
The first submission is the only groups study undertaken in Project One. All other
submissions are individual.

Each week all previous submissions / models should also be brought to the class.

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA FOR THE FINAL SUBMISSION OF PROJECT ONE

Preliminary Analysis satisfactory / unsatisfactory

Transformation 1 10%
Transformation 2 10%
Transformation 3 20%

Final model should be complemented with a verbal presentation that:

• Demonstrate development of ideas and their relationship to ‘transformations’

• Discusses the relationship between the initial analysis of the existing condition and
the proposed ‘transformations’

• Articulates modelling techniques in relation to the strategies discussed above

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 9
PROJECT TWO

DARE TO BE SIMILAR: The Transformable House

Weeks 5-13

The Project
‘Project homes’ occupy 80 % of housing market in Sydney.3 Supposedly designed for a
‘conventional’ (nuclear) family living in a ‘conventional’ suburb, the project homes aim to
appeal to a large number of people who, for whatever reasons, do not want (or are not able)
to enter into the high-price architectural market. Despite the popularity and appeal of the
project home, it is commonly perceived that project homes are the product of an inherently
conservative property market that by its very nature discourages architectural innovation and
experimentation.

Therefore the Transformable house calls for a design that responds to the continuously
changing notions of family structure and daily life and offers an alternative design agenda to
the mainstream project homes on the market. Located in HomeWorld 4, in Kellyville the
Transformable House is your design contribution to ‘The Largest Display Village in the World’.
HomeWorld 4, is a display centre of project homes, designed and built by various building
companies (i.e. Masterton, Mirvac, Merit, etc), visited by more than 10,000 people every
week. With such a significant percentage of new homes in Sydney being project homes,
HomeWorld is a site of high importance for the future development of our cities.

The Transformable House has two major roles (or purposes). Firstly, it is a display home that
in a variety of ways represents your architectural response to the selected architectural,
social, political, and ecological issues. Therefore its design has to deal with the issues of
domestic life, privacy and living.

Secondly, the Transformable House is a public space – an information centre for the
HomeWorld site. While on the site in Kellyville (next 10 years) the building will be used as an
information centre for the HomeWorld development. Its purpose is to act as a showroom for
architectural ideas as well as showroom of building materials and construction techniques
associated with the building of houses. The methods of display are left to your own discretion
and should form an integral part of the architectural response. After 10 years on the Kellyville
site the house will be sold off, and the public spaces used in the information centre will have
to be modified for the new, more private, use.

Thus the Transformable House by its very nature is a forum for an exploration of architectural
ideas and changing relationships between private & public, inside & outside, private &
collective, etc.

The following parameters should define / frame your design approach:

smaller block bigger house:

The primary design task for Transformable House is to address the contemporary issue of the
relationship between the size of the block and the size of the house on the block.

block: The size of most blocks of land in Sydney’s new fringe suburbs range between 300 to
500 square metres, a decrease in size by almost half from the traditional 600 square meters
block.

3
‘The (new) Great Australian Dream, Be it ever so humungous’, by Janet Hawley, Good Weekend, The
Sydney Morning Herald Magazine, August 23, 2003, 24-30.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 10
house: Despite the decrease in the size of an average block, the average size of a house has
increased by almost 60 per cent, from 169 square metres in 1990 to 270 square metres in
2001.

transformability: Today the concept of a transformable house, in the wide spectrum of its
interpretations – transformability within a plan, transformability within a type, transformability
within a use – forms the basis of many architectural designs.
Most notably architect such as Shigeru Ban, Steven Holl, MVRDV, Rem Koolhaas, Kazuyo
Sejima, etc have attempted to address the issues of privacy, technology and transformable
spaces of the house.

The Transformable House site/program/agenda

Site: The site for your design - the Transformable House - is located on Vernonia Avenue,
HomeWorld Village, Kellyville. The site position provides for easy access to the large car park
(located between Honey Myrtle Road and River Ok Circuit) and Village Green area. A mini
bus service circulates around HomeWorld and stops on the Vernonia Ave, just across the
street from the site. The site is 15m wide and 30 m deep, a total of 450 square metres in area.

Program: The overall floor area of the Transformable House must be between 300 and 350
metre square.

While the specific space/program requirements are to be determined by each student

dependent on the approach taken and the selection of issues considered, the following spatial
and programmatic requirements have to be included:

Private house/ family home

• Spaces for interaction:
Places for socialising & entertainment

Places for public presentations & entertainment for up to 20 people at one time.
Range of outdoor spaces for leisure & entertainment

• Private Spaces:
Places for sleeping for 4-5 people of various ages and sex.
Places for eating
Places for food preparation
Range of outdoor spaces

Information/display centre:
• Spaces for interaction:
Places for socialising & entertainment
Places for various kinds of display, exhibition, viewing
Places for public presentations & entertainment for up to 20 people at one time.
Range of outdoor spaces for leisure & entertainment

• Private Spaces:
Rooms for private consultations

• Other:
Car spaces
Services
Storage
Amenities

Your design task is to explore various strategies that allow for the multiple and changing use
of the building. Explore the potential of overlapping of uses and programs.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 11
D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 12
INVESTIGATIONS:

Weeks 6-9: Constructing project

The project aims to draw inspiration from a wide variety of sources – historical, contemporary,
built and unbuilt – in an attempt to identify a particular approach to architecture that is most
inclusive of the wide range of ideas under consideration.

1. siting/rooms/boundaries

Historical and architectural context

In order to acknowledge the architectural and historical context of your work, the
siting/rooms/boundaries project asks you to select a range of:
1. Architect designed projects (project homes & one off designs)
2. Project homes designed by building companies (without acknowledgment of architect
if one was involved)

1920s 1960s Contemporary

Architect designed (1) (2) (3)
houses One off houses Project homes One off houses

Non-architect (4) (5) (6)

designed houses Builders homes Builder homes / Project homes
(Federation, project homes
Californian
bungalow, etc)

(1)
One off architectural homes from the 1920s

References:
Graham Jahn, Sydney Architecture, The Watermark Press, Sydney, Australia, 1997, 113. (i.e.
Walter Burley Griffin, Leslie Wilkinson, etc)

(2)
These project homes grew out of collaboration between architects and developer. Broadly the
sales were directed to the middle class buyers who desired something distinct and different
from generally available housing stock, but did not want to enter into the costs and process
associated with the individually designed architect home.

In 1950 and 1960s a number of progressive project house companies in Sydney and
Melbourne encouraged young designers to consider the task of designing project home.4
In 1953 Robin Boyd designed Australia’s first project house ‘Peninsular House’, for
Contemporary Homes Ltd. The design was presented to the public in the Carlingford
Exhibition Village in Sydney in 1961. At Carlingford several of the now leading architects
presented their designs - Harry Seidler, Donald Gazzard, Neville Gruzman and Ken Woolley
with Michael Dysart.

The search for easily adaptable designs continued and in 1970 Ken Woolley, who became a
principle of Sydney’s firm of project builders Pettit and Sevitt, designed the popular ‘Lowline’
project home and in 1976 the ‘Liner House’.

4
Taylor J., Australian Architecture Since 1960, 142.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 13
Terry Dorrough’s ‘Open House’ was designed for a competition run by Merchant Builders in
Melbourne in 1971; in 1974 Robin Cooks and Peter Carmichael of Melbourne designed the
‘Growth House’ for Civic Constructions; and in the late 1970s Peter Crone designed some
houses for Landmark Builders.

Focused more on the use of solar energy Cocks and Carmichael designed the ‘Solar House’
in 1978 for Landmark Builders, and Cole and Rosier designed the ‘Solar G2 House’ for
Harrison Homes.5 For a variety of reasons direct architectural involvement (of
significant/signature architects) in the design of project homes died down in the 1980s.

Reference: Jennifer Taylor, Australian Architecture Since 1960, The Law Book Company,
1986, 142.

The interest in project homes, as future homes, or modular homes, etc. has also provided
inspiration to architects such as Bruce Rickard; Russell Jack, Don Gazzard, Glenn Murcutt,
Gabriel Poole, etc.

(3)
Contemporary architecture: One off design of Sydney’s leading architects

Many books have been published on Sydney contemporary architecture, i.e.

Sydney Houses, edited by Paco Asensio, teNeues Publishing Company, New York, 2003,
142, & New Australian Style 2, inner city living, etc.

As well as monographs on individual architects, such as Glenn Murcutt, Allen Jack and
Cottier, Alex Popov, etc.

(4)
Books that deal with ‘standard’ builders homes could be used, i.e.

Hugh Fraser, Ray Joyce, The Federation House, Australia’s Own Style, Lansdowne, Sydney,
Australia, 2000, 92.

(5)
Housing types presented in the journals of associations such as Master Building Association,
Housing Industry Association could be used (home awards, etc).

‘For a shallow site’, Australian Women’s Weekly, December 1959 & ‘Two Houses From One
Plan’, The Australian Women’s Weekly, November 25, 1959, 65.

(6)
HomeWorld homes – range of project homes on display in HomeWorld.
http://www.homeworld.com.au

Task 1 description/submission requirements

In working groups of 3-4 students you are required to compare, discuss and evaluate selected
design approaches based on the following criteria:
• Siting and site organisation
• Organisation of rooms (outdoor and indoor; critical link between siting and room,
courtyards light etc)
• The boundary condition (in/out, courtyards, urban qualities, 2 storeys, out looking /
inward looking)
Based on the above criteria consider the changes in siting, organisation of rooms and
boundary conditions in the following ways:
(a) Across the time span – identify changes over time
(b) Compare architect designed and non architect designed
(c) Conclude

5
Jennifer Taylor, Australian Architecture Since 1960, 142.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 14
Presentation: Present up to 6 x A3 sheets, one sheet per issue (siting, rooms, boundaries) +
conclusion. The assignment favours the interpretative over descriptive approach to the topic
and asks the students to present their findings primarily in the form of annotated diagrams &
sketches.

Assessment: satisfactory / unsatisfactory + a part of the final submission

Task 2 values/ qualities

In working groups of 3-4 students you are required to identify values and approaches taken in
different designs (i.e. exposed and hidden values, your own understanding of schemes, etc)
in the last category (3) & (6) of the Task 1 – contemporary architect designs and non-architect
designs. Use article ‘Dreams on Display: Suburban Ideology in the Model Home’, by Kim
Dovey, published in Beasts of Suburbia, Reinterpreting Cultures in Australian Suburbs, edited
by Sarah Ferber, Chris Healy and Chris McAuliffe, Melbourne University Press, 1994, 127-
147 as a model for analysis (copy available in RC resource centre).

Presentation: 2 x A3 sheet of analysis, annotated diagrams and sketches.

Assessment: satisfactory / unsatisfactory + a part of the final submission

Task 3 precedents / case studies

Precedents: In working groups of 3-4 students you are required to select between 9-12
(approximately 3 per student) architectural precedents relevant to your studies. In the rational
for selecting the particular examples you are asked to demonstrate the relevance of the
precedents based on the:
• Spatial or conceptual relationship between the selected cases and your architectural
explorations (questions under consideration);
• Ways by which these architectural examples question or reinstate the architectural
issues selected by the students.
If possible
• Identify the way by which the selected projects promote ‘different’, ‘unique’ ‘avant
guard’, ‘radical’ or ‘challenging’ approaches to design.

The selected precedents are to be drawn from the published literature, and should cover
international and national examples. The selected examples could include built and unbuilt
projects; and cover a wide range or related building types (i.e. domestic spaces, communal
spaces, spaces for entertainment, etc)

Presentation: 2 x A3 sheet of analysis, annotated diagrams and sketches.

Assessment: satisfactory / unsatisfactory + a part of the final submission

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 15
Week 9 Studio review cutting edge cookie cutters
poster (5% of the studio mark)
cutting edge/ cookies cutters
Individual student poster. 1 x A2 (could be 3D) sheet of paper that represents a summary of
issues considered and their relationship to the initial exploration of design possibilities. The
poster has to reflect the issues & ideas considered in Tasks 1, 2 & 3; state the individual
student’s brief; and state (sketches and notes) the relationship between the brief, and the
design proposals. The poster should include 400 words statements of your design intent
outlining your design approach/ intent (not a description but a statement/manifesto), be fully
and properly referenced, include a small (thumbnail) model of a building/precedent that you
consider important to your approach, and present an initial set of images that contribute to the
communication of your approach/intend. The ‘cutting edge cookie cutters’ poster should be
re-worked to form a part of the final design studio presentation.

Format and layout of the poster to be selected by the student to best represent his or her
design intentions and the depth of theoretical considerations.

Esquisse 1 privileging site

Presentation requirements: in this design esquisse the primary consideration should be given
to the outdoor areas. Consider all the external spaces as a series of ‘rooms’ connected
(conceptually or physically) to one another and to the interior spaces.

Week 10 Design studio Pin up – Tasks 1,2,3

Week 11 Esquisse 2 privileging flexibility

Presentation requirements: in this design esquisse the primary consideration should be given
to the flexibility of design. Identify levels of flexibility relevant to your design.
(i. e. typological, spatial, material, etc)

Week 12 Final Design Assessment

Presentation requirements to be announced later in the session.
Design presentation + re-worked poster + design report

Week 13/15 Final submission 55% of the studio mark

Presentation requirements to be announced later in the session.
Design presentation + re-worked poster + design report + construction (arch 1371)

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 16
DESIGN RESEARCH REPORT
‘More than 10,000 people visit the village every week, and given that more than 80 per cent of
new homes built in Sydney are project homes, the designs that sell at HomeWorld will shape
the future look of the city.’6

• Theoretical position/ readings/ approaches/ strategies.

To be developed individually by each student.
Identify a minimum of three issues of importance to your design approach.

• Site analysis: Kellyville, HomeWorld

Commonly site analysis includes the factual information about the site as well as subjective
interpretation of the given conditions. In this instance the site on which the building is located
is only one of the possible placements of the design. Therefore the site analysis should
include:
(1) Site analysis of the Kellyville site (council requirements, setbacks etc. – specific for
the Kellyville site should be noted but a broader discussion on the issues should be
presented)
(2) Discussion (visual and annotated) of other possible sites and their suitability to the
design approach chosen.

For the recent discussions in papers see the recommended readings list.

• Procedural and regulatory analysis boundaries/ regulations

Legal requirements of the Building Code of Australia for the class of building; fire rating and
fire prevention; entry and egress, acoustic separation; lighting and ventilation, room sizes, rise
in storeys, etc.

Legal requirements of the Commonwealth of Australia Disability and Discrimination Act,

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissions; Requirements of the NSW Planning
document, Council regulations and other relevant material.

• Sustainability sustainability/construction
The investigative process requires each student to work independently and present a
summary report specific to his or her own design approach. The final submission brings
together the various kinds of knowledge acquired:

• The investigation of broader cultural and political issues that impact/ influence/ define
architectural creations. (Project 1, Project , Tasks 1,2,3)
• The investigation into architectural and professional contexts and the ways of
approaching design tasks (Project 1,Task 1 &2)
• The investigation into regulatory and professional documentation. (Project 2, Design
Report)
• An evaluation of the specific design and site requirement and the broader ramification
of the siting and regulatory issues. (Project 1, & Design Report, Project 3)
• Individual student’s research and reflections on previous design experiences.

Assessment: (detailed assessment criteria to be announced closer to the submission date)

The assessment criteria consider the following aspects:
• Depth of your design enquiry and the ability to reinterpret the acquired knowledge.
Presence of the issues considered in the previous tasks and your ability to integrate
practical and theoretical knowledge.
• Visual literacy, and clarity of presentation both visual and textual, material and
technique used.
• Craft practices – precision, clarity and execution of all the submission parts.

6
‘The (new) Great Australian Dream, Be it ever so humungous’, by Janet Hawley, Good Weekend, The
Sydney Morning Herald Magazine, August 23, 2003, 24-30.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 17
Essential Readings: to be developed by each student
Topics/Themes
Readings/Books/Articles/Essays

Recommended readings

• Architectural theory / architectural agenda

Jonathan Bell & Sally Godwin (guest-editors), The Transformable House, Architectural
Design, Wiley-Academy, Vol 70, No. 4

Krista Sykes (editor), Constructing A New Agenda, Architectural Theory 1993-2009, Princeton
Architectural Press, 2010.

• Social history and suburbia:

Kim Dovey, ‘Dreams on Display: Suburban Ideology in the Model Home, in Sarah Ferber,
Chris Healy, Chris McAuliffe, Beasts of Suburbia, Reinterpreting Cultures in Australian
Suburbs, Melbourne University Press, 1994, 127-147. (Available on BB)

Robin Boyd, Australia’s Home, Why Australians built the way they did, Pelican books, 1968,
p.12 (first published 1952)

Robert Fishman, Bourgeois Utopia, The Rise and Fall of Suburbia, Basic Books, New York,
1978.

George Seddon, Landprints, Reflections on place and landscape, Cambridge University

Press, 1997. & ‘The Australian backyard’, 153-163.

Roger Silverstone (ed.), Visions of Suburbia, Routledge, London, 1997.

David Thorns, Suburbia, Paladin, Frogmore, 1972.

• Sydney (urban and social history)

Robert Freestone, Bill Randolph, Caroline Butler-Bowdon, Talking about Sydney, Population,
community and culture in contemporary Sydney, UNSW Press, 2006.

Peter Spearritt, Sydney Since the Twenties, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney, 1978

Jill Roe (ed.), Twentieth Century Sydney, Hale & Iremonger, The Sydney History Group,
Sydney, 1980.

H. Grace, G. Hage, L. Johnson, J. Langsworth, M. Symonds, Home/world, Pluto Press,

Annandale, 1997.

Malcolm Quantrill, Bruce Webb, Urban Forms, Suburban Dreams, Texas A&M University
Press, College Station, 1993.

• Sydney/ Australian architecture

Graham Jahn, Sydney Architecture, The Watermark Press, Sydney, Australia, 1997.

Howard Tanner, Australian Housing the Seventies, Ure Smith, Sydney, 1976.

H. Fraser, R. Joyce, The Federation House, Australia’s Own Style, Lansdowne, Sydney,
1994.

Jennifer Taylor, Australian Architecture Since 1960, The Law Book Company, 1986.

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 18
Patrick Troy, A History of European Housing in Australia, Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Peter Goodall, High Culture, Popular Culture, The Long Debate, Allen & Unwin, 1995.

• Other readings
The catalogue of the exhibition organised by The Museum of Modern Art, New York ‘The un-
private house’ UCLA Hammer Museum, October 4, 2000 – January 7, 2001. Curator Terence
Riley.(http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/1999/un-privatehouse/contents.html)

Lars Lerup, Planned Assaults, The Nofamily House, Love/House, Texas Zero, Canadian
Centre for Architecture, Montreal, Distributed by The MIT Press, Cambridge, 1987.

G.B. Nalbantoglu, C. T. Wong (ed.), Postcolonial Space(s), Princeton Architectural Press,

New York, 1997.

Ghassan Hage, White Nation, Fantasies of White supremacy in a multicultural society, Pluto
Press, 1998.

D. Agrest, P. Conway, L.K. Weisman (editors) The Sex of Architecture, Harry N. Abrahams
Inc. New York, 1996.

• Sites of interest
HomeWorld site
http://www.homeworld.com.au

MOMA
http://www.moma.org/exhibitions/1999/un-privatehouse/contents.html

Australian Bureau of Statistics

http://www.abs.gov.au

• Recent articles – housing

Linda Morris, ‘Giant houses on council's hit list’, SMH, February 9, 2004
URL: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/08/1076175034354.html

Claire O'Rourke and Alexandra Smith, ‘Let there be light - and a tree or two, please’, SMH,
February 5, 2004
URL: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/04/1075853939364.html

Janet Hawley, ‘The (new) Great Australian Dream, Be it ever so humungous’, Good
Weekend, The Sydney Morning Herald Magazine, August 23, 2003, 24-30.

William Verity, SMH, 22 March 2003, ‘Downsizing the Aussie Dream’

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/1047749941887.html

Real Estate Institute of Australia...http://www.reiaustralia.com.au/...includes buying market

reports...

Commercial Price Guide...http://www.commercialpriceguide.com.au/...includes

snapshot by post code...

Department of Housing...http://www.housing.nsw.gov.au/...click rent and

sales reports...

Department of Lands Fast Facts...

Land Valuations...http://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au/facts/realestatevalues.html

D.Alic@unsw.edu.au 19