UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO
	ARCH 553  Comprehensive Design Studio Haglund Fall 2009

Engineering Innovation Building

This project is the third in a series of comprehensive studios undertaken in response to Ed Mazria's challenge to the architecture profession to produce carbon neutral buildings by 2030. His case is well-articulated on his web site www.architecture2030.com. Both the AIA and the Association of US Mayors have endorsed Mazria's challenge. Mazria reckons that each year in the U.S. we tear down about 1.75 billion square feet; renovate 5 billion, and build 5 billion. Therefore, in 30 years 300 billion square feet will be renovated or built new; that's about 75% of the built environment. If this is accomplished with carbon in mind, global warming can be controlled. 

The studio work on the proposed UI Engineering Innovation Building. This project is an on-going effort. The firm of Patano+Hafermann Architects has developed three schematic design proposals for the building. Each design team will act as site architect to further develop one of the schematics to fulfill the requirements of our comprehensive design studio. Principals from Patano+Hafermann, serving as design architects, will visit the studio on Mondays to critique student work and help with design development.

Schematic design proposals and other site and building info is available on the shared drive S:\CAA\Shared\Arch553-Haglund.

Chris Patano's thoughts on the studio:

"The studio will be an integrated studio comprised of architecture, landscape architecture and engineering students. The working groups would be put together similar to consultant teams in the professional world, but with less definition of roles (at the beginning).  An EIB program and schematic design proposal would be given to each student team.  There are two points of emphasis that I would like the studio to focus on:   

1. Integrated Design - different disciplines working together to generate a design solution for the EIB.  I anticipate that once the teams selected a design direction and began developing the project, the architects would have to keep the overall project moving forward and coordinated while the landscape architects would develop the site and the engineering students would be charges with testing and analysis of the proposed solutions.  We obviously need to talk more about this and work with C of E to ensure the proper role for the engineering students and task them with work they can perform. 
2. Schedule/Generating Work – eschewing a traditional academic studio schedule and implementing a working schedule that more closely resembles the professional world.  Less time to generate design options, shorter duration to react to comments and generate new solutions and more emphasis on testing and analyzing the proposed design solution.  Your studios have always been great at producing ‘product’.  I would like to provide the students a taste of a real (ish) project schedule with deliverables as I believe this will provide greater exposure to the professions they are entering.
1. Weeks 1-2 – get familiar with program and site and generate Integrated Project Goals.
2. Weeks 2-5 – produce design options that meet the program and performance goals.  Meet with design architect (me) and present.  Adjust to client needs and feedback.
3. Weeks 6-8 – select a design option and building systems, develop and quantify.  Present to client and outside critics.
4. Weeks 9-10 – Each discipline refines and completes their work, integrates into project and tests, analyzes and quantifies.  Stormwater calculations, solar calculations, daylighting studies, energy performance studies, (anything else that we think the students can study and produce results).
5. Weeks 11-14 – produce final renderings, plans, models, material studies, energy use - energy generation results.  Final presentations w/ critics from Seattle, Portland and Spokane. 

My initial thoughts are that I would come out to Moscow once a week (Monday) for deck crits, reviews and to act in a sense as design architect, changing project goals, changing my mind and requiring them to react to my comments as well as working in a traditional studio sense and talking about design and process and building systems. The overall goal is to dispel the myth of the architect as the lone creative genius and replace it with a team focused, integrated process that relies more on team work, testing and research that on the elusive perfect idea."

Our goal is to meet or exceed the project goals and to work toward carbon neutrality and zero net energy.

Students will accomplish a comprehensive design project in two phases (which fits Patano's ideas above): 

• Collective Research and Planning Phase (8 weeks) 
  
• Team Comprehensive Design Phase (7 weeks). 
  

Collective Research and Planning Requirements

This phase simulates the work of an integrated practice where architects, engineers, and landscape architects and their clients and consultants initiate a project and develop its master plan. We'll seek out experts on campus and beyond as well as with our client group and carbon-neutral collaborators to help form our design solutions. 

Each student will have the opportunity to present her/his research to the group and will be required to provide a hard copy for the studio. The research reports should include photo credits, references, and sources of further information. Two to five pages are expected. The Druk White Lotus School case study draft is a pertinent example.

Comprehensive Design Requirements

NAAB defines comprehensive design as, "Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project based on a building program and site that includes development of programmed spaces demonstrating an understanding of structural and environmental systems, building envelope systems, life safety provisions, wall sections and building assemblies and the principles of sustainability."

This class meets the following NAAB Student Performance Criteria (2004) in whole or in part: 1. Speaking and Writing Skills, 2. Critical Thinking Skills, 3. Graphic Skills, 5. Formal Ordering Skills, 6. Fundamental Design Skills, 7. Collaborative Skills, 15. Sustainable Design, 16. Program Preparation, 17. Site Conditions, 19. Environmental Systems, 20. Life Safety/Egress, 21. Building Envelope Systems, 22. Building Service Systems, 23. Building Systems Integration, 24. Building Materials and Assembly, 26. Technical Documentation, 27. Client Role in Architecture, 28. Comprehensive Design.

Comprehensive design seeks to integrate all major building systems. A successful project will have well-developed and well-integrated schemes for:

Carbon Neutral Design Requirements

What is your carbon emissions intent for this project? How do you define success relative to this intent? What evidence that this intent has been successfully met can be found in this project? 

Show how your project meets Mazria's requirements in all phases of the construction process.

Final Presentation Guidelines

The final critique will allow for 20-minute presentations of each individual project. Each designer may choose any combination of media appropriate to her/his project, anything from water colors to physical models, to digital media.

Presentations must address the systems listed above and demonstrate their integration and achievement of carbon emission reduction. A CD containing the final presentation (if digital—ppt or html) and images of all drawings, models, and other materials in jpg or pdf format must be turned in by Dec 11.

Last Updated on 08/10/09 by Bruce