II - Scholarship

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle AIA LEED AP

Assistant Professor of Architecture

College of Design Iowa State University

Scholarship

Portfolio

CV Section II

Table of Contents | Linked

04 Awards

12 Public Lectures & Symposia

18 Grants

28 Exhibitions

36 Competitions

42 Journal Articles

152 Book Chapters

218 Conference Proceedings

322 Events

330 Workshop

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle | 3




Review of Tenure-Eligible Faculty

Iowa State University 2020

Awards

Back to Table

of Contents

Association for Collegiate Schools of Architecture

Creative Achievement Award

www.acsa-arch.org/awards_archives/2020-architecturaleducation-award-winners/

Candidates in the area of teaching shall have had a positive

stimulating influence upon students through a full course,

course project, or course module. Candidates in areas

of design, scholarship, or research shall have created

a work or a project that provides significant insight into

the understanding and advancement of architecture and

architectural education. Candidates in the area of service

shall have significant impact fostering and creating a work

or project that provides a healthy environment for learning

led to an understanding and appreciation of architectural

education in the community at large.

Many programs have developed fabrication laboratories

over the last decade, and many have employed the tools

in these laboratories for design-build projects, studio

support, and individual experimentation. When Shelby

was hired, the University recognized the woeful state of

our existing fabrication facilities—a few laser cutters, juryrigged

3-D printers, and an antiquated CNC router—and

provided startup funds for Prof. Doyle and two other new

faculty members to pursue a laboratory that would reflect

the department’s history of broad, integrative approaches

and the University’s land grand missions of equality of

access and engagement with the community.

From the beginning, Shelby has brought a critical stance to

how things are made and who makes them. The CCL has

looked for technologies that can connect our department

with others on campus—ceramics and fine arts, in

particular—and that leverage resources in sustainable and

fair ways. Their early purchase of budget-level machines

exemplified another strain of ethical thinking, in that this

decision guaranteed access to all of our students. Rather

than pooling a large sum of money into a single, expensive

machine, the CCL could afford dozens of desktop tools

that could be easily understood by novice students.

-Thomas Leslie, Iowa State University


Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture

Emerging Research Award


Building Technology Educators’ Society

Emerging Faculty Award

Directory | Workday | Access+ | CyBox | Privacy Policy

Search

APPLY NOW

FUTURE STUDENTS

CURRENT STUDENTS

DEPARTMENTS AND DEGREES

NEWS & EVENTS

ABOUT THE COLLEGE

RESEARCH

OUTREACH & EXTENSION

FACULTY & STAFF RESOURCES

ALUMNI & FRIENDS

EMPLOYERS

NEWS & EVENTS

NEWS ITEMS

COLLEGE EVENTS

CALENDAR VIEW

HONORS & AWARDS

ANNOUNCEMENTS

STUDENT NEWS

DEAN’S CHARRETTE

THIS WEEK IN THE COLLEGE OF DESIGN

INSPIRE ALUMNI NEWSLETTER

SHARE WITH US

Iowa State architecture professor honored by


06/26/19

AMES, Iowa — Shelby Doyle, an assistant professor of architecture at Iowa State

University, received the Emerging Faculty Award from the Building Technology

Educators’ Society Friday, June 21, at its biennial conference in Amherst,

Massachusetts.

The award recognizes building technology educators who display excellence and

innovation in their teaching performance, methods and subject matter early in

their careers, inspiring student engagement in building technology and its impact

on design.

Doyle received a bachelor of science in architecture with honors from the

University of Virginia in 2004 and a master of architecture from the Harvard

Graduate School of Design in 2011. She joined the Iowa State faculty in 2015 as a

presidential high-impact hire in design-build and digital fabrication and was

awarded the ISU Department of Architecture’s inaugural Daniel J. Huberty Faculty

Fellowship in 2016.

Together with assistant professor Nick Senske and lecturer Leslie Forehand, Doyle

established the architecture department’s Computation and Construction Lab

(CCL). She has helped secure funding for a broad range of contemporary tools,

including a $50,000 grant from the ISU Computation Advisory Committee and

matching funds from the ISU College of Design to purchase two industrial robotic

arms recently installed in the CCL.

Doyle and Senske also received an Upjohn Research Initiative Grant from the

American Institute of Architects (AIA) and a Research Incentive Award from the

Architectural Research Centers Consortium (ARCC) for their research to develop

water-soluble and biodegradable concrete formworks through additive

manufacturing (3D printing).

“Professor Doyle sees ‘building technology education’ not simply as a noun, but as

a verb. She simultaneously explores how tools are learned and used, the

expanded possibilities of artifacts created by these tools, the way these artifacts

can influence public environments, and the cultural conditions that complicate

who participates in the design and production of architecture,” Whitehead said.

“Of particular importance is Professor Doyle’s ability to frame design practices

and service as forums to critique and improve societal issues of equity. Who holds

the pen, the mouse or the hammer shouldn’t be a decision based on gender, and

I’ve seen her actively work to address and improve these conditions; our students

benefit greatly from her advocacy,” he said.

Prior to joining the Iowa State faculty, Doyle was a visiting assistant professor in

the Louisiana State University School of Architecture and a research fellow with

the LSU Coastal Sustainability Studio. She also served as an instructor with the

University of Houston Pan Asia Mekong Summer Program, Parsons The New

School for Design, and Urban Lab Phnom Penh and Limkokwing University Faculty

for the Built Environment, both in Cambodia.

A licensed architect and a LEED Accredited Professional, she is a member of the

AIA and Iowa Women in Architecture. She formerly served on the BTES board of

directors and co-organized the 2017 BTES conference in Des Moines.

Contacts

Shelby Doyle, Architecture, (515) 294-8711, doyle@iastate.edu

Rob Whitehead, Architecture, (515) 294-8276, rwhitehd@iastate.edu

Heather Sauer, Design Communications, (515) 294-9289, hsauer@iastate.edu

-30-

June 26, 2019 12:10 pm

Tags: Awards

Doyle believes in exposing students to the potentials of technology and design as

tools of both critique and public engagement. Her recent studios and seminars

have investigated design ideas across scales, mining the relationships between

architecture, infrastructure and fabrication. Her students have designed and

constructed permanent structures for the Iowa Arboretum, Des Moines Social

Club and Urbandale Parks and Recreation Department and temporary pavilions

for the 80/35 Music Festival, Flyover Fashion Festival and Iowa State University

exhibit at the Iowa State Fair.

Advocacy and impact

Doyle transforms her classroom into a creative workshop where students can

engage difficult problems through design iteration and “learn how to use tools that

help them become informed and passionate explorers,” said associate professor

Rob Whitehead, the inaugural recipient of the BTES Emerging Faculty Award in

2011, in nominating Doyle for this year’s award.

Related Events







Public Lectures &

Symposia

Back to Table

of Contents

Moving Toward Gender Equity in Architecture

The gender chasm in architecture persists. Students

see it in their mentors, practitioners experience it in the

office, and media representation of the profession follows

in kind. While schools of architecture are more and

more demographically gender-balanced in their student

populations, faculty and the practice both remain vastly

skewed, indicating that programming in schools may be

“losing” certain populations along the way, or that the

bridge between academia and practice is broken. Without

equal representation of all genders in the profession,

it is virtually impossible that the practice of architecture

as a whole is serving its clients and communities equitably.

It takes a multitude of perspectives to serve diverse

communities thoughtfully and effectively, and it is architecture’s

charge to do so.

This dialogue series aims to address issues that are

important to students, that they face in studio every day,

and put people in conversation with them who can help

them understand how to clarify and use their voices for

the betterment of their experience in school, and of the

profession they are bringing their voices into.

This event is made possible by the Austin Foundation for

Architecture.

1-3pm | Panel discussion

3-3:30pm | Coffee break

3:30-5pm | Panel discussion

Panelists:

Grace La, Harvard Graduate School of Design; Principal,

La Dallman Architects

Shelby Doyle, Iowa State University College of Design;

Founder, Computation and Construction Lab

Mabel O. Wilson, Columbia University; Principal, Studio &

Damon Leverett, National Architecture Accrediting Board;

The University of Arizona College of Architecture

Friday, February 7 at 1:00pm to 5:00pm

https://soa.utexas.edu/events/moving-towards-genderequity-architecture

LINK TO LECTURE

LINK TO EVENT PUBLICATION

Homing the Machine: A symposium on how

architectural designers orient their work in digital

fabrication.

In the last two decades, architectural designers have

identified, problematized, hacked, and mastered the

rules, constraints, and performances of digital fabrication

technologies. This expansive experimentation has revealed

a broad spectrum of conceptual approaches to digital

fabrication, yet the field is still taxonomized according to

its toolkit—by what tools we use instead of how we use

them. Architectural design, on the other hand, is defined

not by the tools at its disposal but the ways in which those

tools are deployed in design processes. This friction has

made it difficult to locate digital fabrication’s place within

the architectural discipline: Is it merely another tool? Or is

it a design technology? A way of thinking? A construction

technique? A new form of craft? A discipline within the

discipline? How do we—as architectural practitioners,

researchers, thinkers, and educators, as well as active

participants in this nascent discourse—approach

digital fabrication? And, further, how do we envision

our approaches will contribute to architectural design

innovation?

homingthemachine.com

This symposium is an invitation to step back from the

entanglement of architect-machine configurations;

to survey our various trajectories thus far; to situate

ourselves and our work in particular social, political, and

environmental contexts and their limits; to specify our

audiences; to reorient, and perhaps rephysicalize, the

machine. Here, we will reflect on recent work in digital

fabrication in order to orientate its discourse around the

how and why—not the what. From this new starting point,

we will aim to discern what guides and grounds our current

and future positions in a field that is fixated on moving

forward. Which themes, patterns, habits, or curiosities

should we choose to advance? Which should we choose

to revisit? What should be our evaluative criteria for making

these choices? And to what extent should these criteria

be informed by the discipline of architectural design?

Free and open to the public.

Galo Canizares, Christos Yessios Visiting Assistant

Professor, Knowlton School

Zach Cohen, Christos Yessios Visiting Assistant Professor,

Knowlton School

LINK TO LECTURE


LINK TO LECTURE







Grants

Back to Table

of Contents

Social Media SignOns Feedback News Events Directory Index

serving as an officer in the US Navy Seabees for three years. He then was an architect‐in‐training with Smith Hinchman Grylls (The

About News and Events Design Facilities Study Abroad Contact

Smith Group) for three years. Huberty joined ZGF Architects in 1972; he became a partner with the firm in 1982 and a managing

partner of the Seattle office in 1989. He retired in 2015. Huberty served on the ISU Department of Architecture's Architecture

Advisory Council from 2005 to 2008.

D O Y L E N A M E D F I R S T D A N I E L J . H U B E R T Y F A C U L T Y F E L L O W I N I S U D E P A R T M E N T O F

A R C H I T E C T U R E

06/09/16

AMES, Iowa — Shelby Doyle, an Iowa State University assistant professor of

architecture, is the inaugural recipient of the Daniel J. Huberty Faculty Fellowship in

the ISU Department of Architecture.

Iowa State alumnus Daniel Huberty, a retired partner and project manager with ZGF

Architects LLP in Seattle, created the annual fellowship to help faculty in the

architecture department reach their professional potential and to recognize those

who show tremendous promise. Huberty received a Bachelor of Architecture degree

from ISU in 1966.

"I have been very fortunate in my life and career and sought to do something to

give back to the university," Huberty said. "I had a very good education, and I was

inspired as a student by two young faculty who were enthusiastic about teaching.

I'm pleased to be able to support current faculty members with this fellowship."

The Daniel J. Huberty Faculty Fellowship was established through a gift made through the Iowa State University Foundation, a

private, nonprofit corporation dedicated to securing and managing gifts and grants that benefit Iowa State University.

Contacts:

Shelby Doyle, Assistant Professor, Architecture, (515) 294‐8711, doyle@iastate.edu

Deborah Hauptmann, Chair, Architecture, (515) 294‐7185, deborah@iastate.edu

Karen Simon, ISU Foundation, (515) 294‐7263, kasimon@iastate.edu

Heather Sauer, Design Communications, (515) 294‐9289, hsauer@iastate.edu

‐30‐

Like Nadia Anderson, Bambi L Yost and 106 others like this.

Interdisciplinary research

Doyle is using the fellowship funds in part to further an interdisciplinary research

effort with colleagues in architecture and materials science and engineering to

develop a sturdy, nontoxic, waterproof paper for potential use in construction of

temporary structures ranging from music‐festival tents to disaster‐relief shelters.

Iowa State architecture alumnus Dan Huberty, left,

and Huberty Faculty Fellowship recipient Shelby

Doyle. Photo by Alison Weidemann.

"We're exploring the viability of hydrophobic (water‐repellent/resistant) paper as an alternative to plastic and other

nonbiodegradable materials in the construction of temporary structures that often are discarded after use," Doyle said. "We're

taking digital design strategies — something that's often theoretical — and researching practical applications for real needs."

Student design‐build seminar

Funds also will go toward material exploration and experimentation for a fall‐semester design‐build seminar Doyle will co‐lead

with architecture Lecturer Leslie Forehand. Their students' project, based on the waterproof paper research, will be displayed at an

Iowa State workshop at the 2016 Venice Biennale in Italy this October. The workshop will examine the role of architecture in

addressing underserved populations and large‐scale social issues through design and construction of temporary structures, Doyle

said.

"Many students don't enroll in fabrication courses because of the additional costs," Doyle said. "Many also have financial concerns

related to study abroad. By subsidizing material and fabrication costs, the Huberty Fellowship will allow more students to

participate in the Venice Biennale ISU workshop. It also supports a departmental effort to increase student awareness of and access

to computation and digital fabrication."

The fellowship also will fund two undergraduate research assistants who will work with Doyle and Forehand in the design research

for the fall class.

About Doyle

Doyle joined the Iowa State architecture faculty in August 2015 as an ISU Presidential High Impact Hire in design‐build and digital

fabrication. Her research and teaching focus on digital fabrication and mapping, environmental sustainability and public

engagement through architecture. She holds a Bachelor of Science in architecture with honors from the University of Virginia,

Charlottesville, and a Master of Architecture from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, Massachusetts. A

licensed architect and a LEED Accredited Professional, Doyle is a member of the American Institute of Architects and Iowa Women in

Architecture.

Doyle previously was a visiting assistant professor in the Louisiana State University School of Architecture and a research fellow

with the LSU Coastal Sustainability Studio, both in Baton Rouge; an instructor with the University of Houston Pan Asia Mekong

Summer Program (Cambodia, Myanmar, Thailand, Vietnam), Parsons The New School for Design, New York City; Urban Lab Phnom

Penh, Cambodia, and Limkokwing University Faculty for the Built Environment, Phnom Penh; and a fabrication lab assistant for the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology Media Lab at Haystack Mountain School of Crafts, Deer Isle, Maine.

About Huberty

Following graduation from Iowa State, Huberty worked briefly as a junior city engineer for the City of Detroit, Michigan, before


CAC Grants $50,000 for College of Design Robotic

Arm

Nov 29, 2018

News

Iowa State University’s Computation Advisory Committee (CAC) recently approved a $50,000 funding request from the College of

Design to purchase a robotic arm to advance teaching within the Department of Architecture.

After joining the university in 2015, architecture assistant professors Shelby Doyle and Nick Senske co-founded the ISU

Computation + Construction Lab (CCL), designed to bring the latest tools and technologies into their department, from 3D printers

to plasma cutters. The pair took another step forward with the initiative during CAC’s Oct. 25 meeting, where they presented a

proposal to purchase and install a six-axis, 10-kilogram payload industrial robotic arm.

Since the early 1990s, CAC has overseen expenditures of the university’s student technology fee, and the committee’s

approximately 20 faculty, staff, and student members approved the $50,000 proposal for a robotic arm as its next supported project

the same night it was presented.

The project received final approval from university President Wendy Wintersteen in early November.

“We focus on funding opportunities that support technology and education, and the use of robotics is where the architecture field is

headed,” said Alex Ramirez, CAC chair and associate professor in veterinary diagnostic and production animal medicine. “We need

to be leaders for our students by exposing them to new technologies and preparing them for the future.”

The robotic arm will initially be housed in the CCL, where it will impact approximately 50 graduate and undergraduate students each

semester through the development of architectural robotics seminars and workshops. When Iowa State’s future Student Innovation

Center opens, the arm will be moved to the College of Design’s design-build studio space in the new building to increase exposure

to students and the university community.

The robotic arm will be used to print and carve a wide range of materials, from rigid foam and clay to dissolvable plastics. It will

also be used for innovative construction processes such as 3D printing, bending, weaving and drawing.

Pending the development of workflows and safety protocols, Doyle plans to teach an architectural robotics design-build course in

spring 2020.

“It has always been a goal of ours to bring a robotic arm into the department; robots are the future of construction, and we need to

expose our students to them early in their education,” Senske said. “CAC has been supportive of the College of Design for years.

They have helped us build labs, improve our classrooms, and upgrade equipment. We are grateful the university understands our

needs and that CAC exists to provide internal funding for requests like ours.”

The CAC funding will be used to purchase the robotic arm, teaching pendant, adjustable stand, software, and safety equipment, as

well as cover installation and introductory training. To maximize teaching and learning opportunities, the College of Design has

agreed to provide $50,000 in matching funds to acquire a second robotic arm. Having two arms on campus will allow for larger

classes and more machine time, along with the ability to complete more sophisticated fabrication projects by using the robots

simultaneously and collaboratively, Doyle said.

Initial project timelines estimate that an Introduction to Architectural Robotics class could be held as soon as fall 2019, followed by

both robots moving to the Student Innovation Center in spring 2020. However, specific details of implementation are being finalized

with College of Design administration.

“This is truly the kind of innovative project CAC is proud to support,” said Interim Vice President and CIO Kristen Constant, who

serves on the committee. “Experience in digital fabrication will provide students with tremendous creative opportunities and a

competitive advantage, allowing them to hone a modern skillset before leaving Iowa State and entering the professional workforce.”


BIG 12 FACULTY FELLOWSHIP

University of Kansas Studio 804

A primary goal of this fellowship was to develop an exchange

with the Kansas University Studio 804. I toured the Design/Build

facilities, met with Studio 804 Director Dan Rockill and associated

faculty, met with students, and sought out other faculty to

participate in studio reviews. Additionally, this visit coincided with

the Scholarship of Social Engagement Symposium hosted by the

University of Kansas when I presented a paper. This symposium

seeks to to investigate the theoretical underpinnings of such

work and translate these action-based community efforts into

interdisciplinary and theoretically-based scholarship

projects, both rigorous environmental standards for buildings.

Studio 804 produces one building per year, and it is through

the support of organizations and individuals committed to

environmental stewardship that the Studio is able to continue its

service to the community at large.

Date: April 21, 2016

To:

From:

Subject:

Shelby Doyle

Assistant Professor

Architecture

162 Design

Dawn BratschPrince

Associate Provost

Big 12 Faculty Fellowship

I am pleased to inform you that your application for a Big 12 Faculty Fellowship has been approved. This program enables up to ten ISU faculty members per

year to spend up to two weeks at another Big 12 institution pursing a variety of projects. We are eager to provide you with this opportunity to develop expertise

in areas related to your academic interests.

Studio 804, Inc. is a not-for-profit 501(c)3 corporation committed

to the continued research and development of sustainable,

affordable, and inventive building solutions. This is done by

examining, on all levels, the standards of human comfort and the

nature of urban spaces. The organization is a comprehensive

education opportunity for graduate students entering the final

year of the Master of Architecture program at the University of

Kansas School of Architecture, Design and Planning. The goal

of each year is to provide students an experience encompassing

all aspects of the design and construction process: from

working with building code and zoning officials to hiring third

party inspectors, from communicating with engineers and

neighborhood associations to signing contracts, from doing

estimates to driving nails. To date the studio has completed

seven LEED Platinum projects and two Passive House certified

You should take the initiative to inform your host institution about this award. The Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost will fund your project up to

$2,000 and reimburse you for reasonable travel, lodging and meal expenses related to the visit. All reimbursement of allowable expenses will be according to

state travel policies and procedures. Upon completion of your travel, please enter your electronic reimbursement into AccessPlus using 7211815 as the cost

center and send original receipts via campus mail to 1550 Beardshear to the attention of Siti SabtuSchaper. Funds should be expended by June 30, 2017.

Please submit a brief written report to Megan Peterson at meganmp@iastate.edu at the end of the experience. The report should indicate the outcomes of the

visit’s activities and interactions and the potential for future collaboration between ISU and the host institution.

Congratulations on this award. I am confident that your visit to the University of Kansas will be beneficial to your teaching and research programs.

Have a productive fellowship.

cc:

Deborah Hauptmann

Connie Bates

Siti SabtuSchaper


ARCC

AWARDEES, AWARDS, NEWS

2019 RESEARCH INCENTIVE AWARD

Press release

AIA awards four projects

with research grants

Press contacts

Jessie Cornelius

Email >

Grant recipients to receive up to $30,000 to

study projects that will advance the future of

architecture.

Matt Tinder

Email >

Ben Wills

Email >

Social media

Twitter

Follow us >

WASHINGTON – May 3, 2019 – The American Institute of Architects (AIA) today

announced recipients of its Upjohn Research Initiative grants.

.

Four projects will each receive up to $30,000 in grants for research that will advance the

future of architectural design and practice.

Official project titles and principal investigators for this year’s grant recipients are:

• Nexus between Sustainable Buildings and Human Health: Quantifying EEG

Responses to Virtual Environments to Inform Design | Ming Hu and Madlen Simon,

AIA | University of Maryland

• Retooling Bamboo Tectonics: From Vernacular Aesthetics to Milled Material

System | Jonas Hauptman; Katie MacDonald, Assoc. AIA; and Kyle Schumann |

Virginia Tech

• Polycasting: Multi-material 3D Printed Formwork for Reinforced Concrete | Shelby

Doyle, AIA, and Nicholas Senske | Iowa State University

• Development of Artificial Leaf-based Façade Cladding (ALFC) Systems for Energy

Production and Carbon Sequestration | Rahman Azari, Ph.D., and Mohammad Asadi,

Ph.D. | Illinois Institute of Technology

A detailed synopsis for each applied research project can be found on AIA’s website.

Grant recipients were selected this year by a seven-member jury comprised of members

from the AIA College of Fellows and Board Knowledge Committee.

Learn more about AIA’s Upjohn Research Initiative, now in its twelfth year, and Upjohnfunded

research on AIA’s website.

About AIA

Founded in 1857, AIA consistently works to create more valuable, healthy, secure, and

sustainable buildings, neighborhoods, and communities. Through more than 200

international, state and local chapters, AIA advocates for public policies that promote

economic vitality and public wellbeing.

AIA provides members with tools and resources to assist them in their careers and business

as well as engaging civic and government leaders and the public to find solutions to

pressing issues facing our communities, institutions, nation, and world. Members adhere to

a code of ethics and conduct to ensure the highest professional standards.

Contact

Ben Wills

202-626-7448

EMAIL

TWITTER


Shelby Elizabeth Doyle AIA NCARB LEED AP





Exhibitions

Back to Table

of Contents

Both/And Fabricating Potentials

Rhode Island School of Design

Invited Exhibition


American Wild: A Memorial

Finalist for Van Alen Institute Memorial for the Future Competition

Exhibition at the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts

with Forbes Lipschitz, Justine Holzman, and Halina Steiner


Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture

Conference Exhibition 2017, 2018, 2019

MELTING

1

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle

Iowa State University

Melting is a continuation of prior research

conducted in the paper “Dissolvable 3D Printed

Formwork: Exploring Additive Manufacturing

1. Left to right: Diagram of Form A column

formwork, rendering of column, elevation

denoting the path of the reinforcement, and

for Reinforced Concrete” (Doyle & Hunt 2019).

Resulting HEC cast column.

Erin Linsey Hunt


The paper proposes simultaneously printing two

systems—polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) formwork and

steel PLA tensile reinforcement—to produce a

water-soluble concrete formwork with integrated

2. Left to right: Diagram of Form B-1+2 column

formwork, rendering of column, elevation

denoting the path of the reinforcement, Form B-1

column cast in Quikrete Fast-Setting Concrete

reinforcement. One conclusion of the paper is that

with the aggregate sifted out, and Form B-2

the complete elimination of formwork may continue

column cast using two-parts fine sand one-

to be more preferable than the introduction of

part cement and one-part water. Image of PVA

biodegradable or water-soluble formworks,

formwork dissolving off of a cast column.

and that the most promising application for

3. Image of PVA formwork dissolving off of a cast

these methods might be the augmentation of

column.

traditional formwork. The prototypes explored

4. Custom PVA formwork and steel PLA rebar

here use the methods developed in “Dissolvable

printing on a LulzBot TAZ 6

3D Printed Formwork” to augment typical concrete

5. Interior image of a cast column.

construction methods with moments of unique

geometry that would be difficult to fabricate using

other concrete formwork methods (Asprone 2018).

2 3 4

WAFT

SHELBY ELIZABETH DOYLE


WAFT is an interdisciplinary collaboration

between researchers in architecture, computation,

and ceramics. The project integrates traditional

1. WAFT completed assembly.

2. Color variation gradients were produced by

altering the quantity of glaze additives.

slump molding techniques and handmade glazes

3. A full-scale substructure was constructed using

ERIN LINSEY HUNT

with computationally designed and 3D printed

ceramic tiles and CNC milled molds. WAFT is the

Plasma CNC cut steel and off-the-shelf hardware

to allow for testing tile assemblies and the


result of an ongoing partnership at the Iowa State

University (ISU) Computation + Construction Lab

developlement of attachment details. The tiles

were hung from lightest to darkest glazing and

(CCL) between the departments of Architecture and

from smallest curvature to greatest curvature

KELLY DEVITT


Arts & Visual Culture at ISU’s College of Design. The

project relies upon digitally assisted fabrication:

the combination of manual and digital fabrication

4. Hardware was attached to the fired tiles using

apoxie clay. From the non-glazed (interior) a

variety of light conditions and views are created.

practices. WAFT leverages both ceramic knowledge

and digital fabrication capabilities to create designs

that neither discipline could produce in isolation. Or

in the terms of this conference: “mediating between

an ‘ideal’ precision/accuracy obtainable through

digital methodologies, and the imprecision and

infidelity of the physical/material world around

us, simultaneously acknowledging the interrelated

importance of both analog and digital processes,

MIT / Cambridge 2017

and privileging neither one over the other.”

1

Mexico City 2018

Austin 2019

2

3

4 5







Competitions

Back to Table

of Contents

American Wild: A Memorial

Finalist for Van Alen Institute Memorial for the Future Competition

with Forbes Lipschitz, Justine Holzman, and Halina Steiner

During the National Park Service Centennial, the Van Alen

Institute, the National Park Service, and the National Capital

Planning Commission collaborated on an ideas competition to

reimagine how we think about, feel, and experience memorials.

Finalists for the competition were exhibited at the John F.

Kennedy Center for Performing Arts and findings summarized in

a widely published report – Not Set in Stone.

Finalist: American Wild

The National Parks are a living memorial to a uniquely American

idea of wilderness. In celebration of the National Parks Centennial,

American Wild captures the majesty of the nation’s landscape

and brings it to its capital. Located in the L’Enfant Plaza Station,

American Wild generates civic pride by connecting the distinctive

architecture of the Washington DC Metro to the National Parks.

Using ultra-high-definition video, recordings of each 59 National

Parks are projection-mapped at full scale. The memorial lasts for

59 days – one day for each park. This timeline of the National

Park Service’s 100-year history advocates for their next 100

years. In so doing, the memorial for the future is no longer a

steward of the past but a steward of the future.


Parting the Curtain: Fabrication a Bespoke Domesticity

Finalist for 3D Printed House Competition, with Leslie Forehand

Parting the Curtain examines the possibilities of 3D printing homes

by embedding multiple materials and functions into a single

structural surface. The aim is to demonstrate that 3D printing is not

only a representational medium but also a construction medium.

This application allows for customized furniture, counters, and

bookcases to be printed as an extension of the structural spine

of the project. Fixtures (toilet, sinks, etc.), windows, and doors

are off-the-shelf and once selected the form can be calibrated

to the unique dimensions and specifications of these elements.

This design presents a method for democratizing customized

living, typically a luxury and pleasure of the wealthy. Through this

process 3D printing transitions from a generic material practice

into one which has functional and programmatic potential driven

by personal expression.

The form of the project began with an 800 square foot shotgun

house. The shotgun typology emerged from the necessity for

low-cost housing in the rural south and its simple peaked roof

is embedded in our collective image of ‘a house’. The essential

elements of the shotgun are: pitched roof to shed water,

continuous floor plan for efficient circulation, and porches for

shading and solar control. Here the shotgun roof is inverted and

structural efficiency created through a serpentine structural spine

that draws upon Thomas Jefferson’s serpentine brick walls at

the University of Virginia and demonstrate that a single thickness

of material can find strength through geometric balance and

calibration. These seemingly low-tech precedents provide a

parametric foundation for the project and the serpentine sine

curve produces a thin yet dimensionally stable profile. This

profile becomes the functional spine of the house. The resulting

aesthetic form - one not previously readily available - can easily

be manipulated, customized, and fabricated through digital

modeling and 3D printing.

The inverted roof also functions at the scale of the site to capture

and return rainwater to the adjacent landscape. A series of

trees shade the structure and the thickness of the roof provides

insulation from the Tennessee sun. The porches provide an

exterior social space as well as an opportunity for passive cooling

and ventilation that can be optimized through the selection and

placement of operable windows. The form is tuned to the reach

of the robotic arm and this allows for the full scale construction

of vaulting and similar structural methods which would have

previously depended upon support material at a representation

scale and at full scale would have depended upon form work

or the use of one material system to produce another material

system. The combination of carbon fiber and robotic mobility

provides a more direct construction of material from the digital

model. This developing technology allows us to counteract

the placelessness of globalization through customization of

architectural space: fabricating a bespoke domesticity.







Journal

Articles

Back to Table

of Contents

800887JAC0010.1177/1478077118800887International Journal of Architectural ComputingDoyle and Senske

research-article2018

272 International Journal of Architectural Computing 16(4)

Article

Digital provenance and material

metadata: Attribution and

co-authorship in the age of

artificial intelligence

Shelby Doyle and Nick Senske

Introduction

International Journal of

Architectural Computing

2018, Vol. 16(4) 271 –280

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/1478077118800887

DOI: journals.sagepub.com/home/jac

Abstract

This speculative essay examines a single drawing, produced in a collaboration between the authors and a Turtle robot,

in a search for methods to evaluate and document provenance in artificial intelligence and robotic design. Reflecting

upon the layers of authorship in our case study reveals the complex relationship that already exists between human

and machine collaborators. In response to this unseen provenance, we propose new modes to document the full range

of creative contribution to the design and production of artifacts from intellectual inputs to digital representations

to physical labor. A more comprehensive system for artificial intelligence/robotic attribution could produce counternarratives

to technological development which more fully acknowledge the contributions of both humans and machines.

As artificially intelligent design technologies distinguish themselves with distinct capabilities and eventual autonomy, a

system of embedded attribution becomes the basis for human–machine collaboration, indeterminacy, and unexpected

new applications for existing tools and methods.

Keywords

Artificial intelligence, robotics, metadata, attribution, co-authorship, ethics

In 1979, Atari programmer Warren Robinett created a secret room within the video game Adventure: when the

player interacted with a pixel in a specific way, the programmer’s name and credit would appear: “Created by

Warren Robinett.” Robinett wrote this into the game because he was neither credited with nor paid any royalties

for Adventure. 1 This early “Easter egg” is both written in computer code and a reflection about the nature of code

itself; a “signature” integrated into the procedural description of Adventure that is only unlocked through deliberate

interaction with the work. As this example illustrates, the distribution and attribution of digital knowledge

and digital creation is fraught as it cannot rely upon pre-digital modes of authorship. At the same time, rethinking

Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

Corresponding author:

Nick Senske, 158 College of Design, 715 Bissell Road, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011-1066, USA.

Email: nsenske@iastate.edu

attribution creates new opportunities for understanding and learning from the creative act. The presence of the

Easter egg impacts the esthetic of Adventure beyond the surface qualities of the game, while also revealing

something about its design and implementation. But what about works by artificial intelligences and robots

which combine physical artifacts, procedural descriptions, and human and machine labor? As Nicholas

Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Lab, writes, “a man-machine dialogue has no history.” Therein lies the

possibility for reconsidering what it means to attribute creative processes achieved with artificial intelligence

(AI) and robotics: to acknowledge these entities not as “perfect slaves” but rather as cooperative partners. 2

Digital provenance

Provenance is typically associated with hand-crafted products—such as paintings, manuscripts, or artisanal

food—and not mass-produced artifacts such as those made by machines in factories. However, if we examine

the idea with respect to digital fabrication in architecture, the notion of digital provenance has relevance

to designers and researchers in the field. Provenance refers to the sources, such as individuals and processes,

involved in producing or delivering an artifact. It provides a basis for attribution, measurement of quality

(e.g. the reputation and/or trustworthiness of a source), and cues for locating and integrating other sources

(e.g. other works by the same author; sources from the same region, etc.). Thus, provenance—the signature

of origin—forms a basis for appreciation and critique, as well as the development of scholarship and craft.

In the history of design and manufacturing, robotically produced artifacts are noteworthy because they

are perhaps the first physical objects that could potentially retain an account of their own creation and use.

This trend is often referred to as the “Internet of Things” or IoT. 3 While an object’s record is unlikely to be

comprehensive (it is unlikely it could, for instance, capture the designer’s intent or hand tooling, etc.), it

nevertheless could entail digital models, software operations, algorithms employed, previous versions of the

design, bills of materials, toolpaths, robotic simulations of fabrication and assembly, and so on. Thus, like

DNA, it would be possible to store information within a robotically produced object (and copies of this

information, elsewhere) that represents both the information about the object and the information needed to

recreate the object, provided one has the proper tools and materials. And, also similar to DNA, this information

could be examined, copied, and edited, so it could be studied by both designers and computers to

improve designs and create new ones. However, the most provocative attribute of digital provenance is that

it has the potential to establish a more complete record of authorship and labor within the architectural process.

Herein lies the potential to challenge the status quo; to acknowledge those who are often disenfranchised

and the role of non-professional labor, and, ultimately, to make space for the future authorship and

labor of artificial intelligences.

Material metadata

A primary challenge of provenance in robotically fabricated objects is how intellectual and creative attribution

is attached or embedded into the object and not only the software or machine which generated the

object. Several options for embedding metadata in software processes and data already exist. These include

blockchain, steganography, digital watermarking, and so on. Metadata, at its most basic level, describes

properties of objects. It only becomes part of establishing provenance when it also describes the relationship

of that data to the fabrication process of an object, since this type of data reveal how, why, what, and who

contributed to the object. This type of attribution creates space for people, AIs, and machines to be fully

acknowledged for their intellectual and physical contributions to these objects and to be (hopefully) represented

accurately in future histories of technology.

Another challenge to establishing intellectual property rights occurs when digitally created knowledge or

information is brought into the physical world. The metadata and other digital identifiers embedded in the


Doyle and Senske 273


associated software or data do not currently transfer to the physical object. Existing legal systems, such as

copyright, design protection, patents, and registered trademarks, address the resulting physical objects.

However, there are few legal constructs which directly connect digital and physical provenance. Radiofrequency

identification (RFID) tags provide a possible strategy to bridge the two. These tags contain electronically

stored information which is “read” by electromagnetic fields to automatically identify and track

the object. However, as this method relies upon a physical object (the RFID) being adhered to the digitally

fabricated object, it is contingent upon the end-user’s commitment to ethical attribution rather than directly

embedding attribution and provenance into the physical object. To overcome this limitation, new technologies

could be developed so that metadata is automatically incorporated to physical objects as part of the

fabrication process. For example, a unique “makers mark” inscribed somewhere on the object that can be

read by machine vision and linked to an attribution repository (see discussion in Bradshaw et al. 4 ). As fabrication

and scanning technology advances into smaller scales, it may even be possible to physically embed

this information into materials: subtly encrypted into grain structures, fiber patterns, or arrangements of

crystal lattices. This speculative material metadata would bring us closer to the metaphor of design artifacts

that contain their own creative and technical “DNA.”

Case study: the drawing

The inspiration for this essay is a 2017 exhibition of robotically executed drawings and paintings. As the

authors wrote descriptions for the pieces, they reflected upon the collection of hardware, software, and ideas

required to produce the work—particularly the ways that the quirks of the individual robots influenced each

piece. This led us to speculate upon the question: “How should we attribute artifacts that include robotic

labor?” The designer (or team) at the end of the process typically receives the credit, but if it were possible

to dig deeper into the history of an object’s creation, there are undoubtedly several layers of attribution possible.

To be clear: we make no claims that the technology and its application here are particularly innovative;

that is not what is being studied in our narrative. Rather, by tracing the provenance of a seemingly straightforward

drawing, this case study illuminates the ways in which, through digital means, elements of process

and intellectual and physical labors reveal the signature of multiple authors in a full accounting of the work.

We propose that this corpus of overlooked data can be used—and creatively misused—by humans and artificial

intelligences as a basis for future innovations.

Introduction

In the fall of 2017, the authors produced a robot-assisted drawing over the course of 4 h on an 18″ × 24″

sheet of 80-pound Strathmore paper using a Crayola Super Tip marker in the color Raspberry. The drawing

was part of a workshop which introduced 20 interdisciplinary design students to robotics and coding

through drawing and painting. Examining the provenance of this drawing produces the following record

(Figure 1).

Author’s interaction and modifications

The drawing would typically be credited to one person. In this case, one of the authors modified the code

provided to the workshop, executed it with the robot, and selected the output for exhibition. While the creative

process and choices made constitutes an act of authorship, the original code and the robot were also

integral to the process and its output.

The workshop used Turtle drawing robots running Arduino software. One of the authors wrote the

Arduino Integrated Development Environment (IDE) code necessary to produce a Sierpiński triangle. The

Figure 1. This robotic drawing is the subject of the case study.

other author modified this code along with new instructions for the robot. This author’s intent was to exploit

the distortions of the triangle, due to hardware irregularities and interactions with the robot, to produce a

more interesting pattern (see Figure 2). The author iteratively re-calibrated the robot by overriding the wheel

diameter and base settings as well as the revolutions to force it to no longer create an interlocking Sierpiński.

In addition, the author picked up the Turtle and re-started the code at random intervals creating different

densities of linework.

Sierpiński triangle

The Sierpiński triangle is a well-known fractal pattern with the overall shape of an equilateral triangle, subdivided

recursively into smaller equilateral triangles. The base algorithm—its mathematical description—is

named after the Polish mathematician Wacław Sierpiński. However, the design appeared as a decorative

pattern many centuries prior to the work of Sierpiński. 5 The other author wrote a version of the Sierpiński

triangle based upon a definition on the Processing website which was modified to use Turtle instructions and

work with the Arduino IDE.

Arduino Processing framework

According to its website, Arduino is an “open-source electronics prototyping platform based on flexible,

easy-to-use hardware and software. It is intended for artists, designers, hobbyists, and anyone interested in

creating interactive objects or environments.” 6 The initial Arduino core team consisted of Massimo Banzi,

David Cuartielles, Tom Igoe, Gianluca Martino, and David Mellis. The Arduino IDE is based on Processing.

Ben Fry and Casey Reas implemented the first version of Processing in Spring 2001. The Arduino programming

language is based on Wiring also developed by Casey Reas and Ben Fry.




Figure 3. The Instructables robot design by Ken Olsen (left) from Instructables.com; Adafruit Trinket Pro microprocessor

(right) from Adafruit website.

Figure 4. Examples of LOGO code and Turtle output.

Figure 2. Modification of Sierpiński algorithm in Processing code and the author’s interaction with Turtle robot to

produce the final drawing.

Turtle robot hardware, fabrication, and assembly

Construction of the “Turtle” robot used for this drawing was based on the “Low-Cost, Arduino-Compatible

Drawing Robot” an open-source design posted by Ken Olsen on the Instructables website (Figure 3). 7 This

is a website specializing in user-created and uploaded do-it-yourself projects, which other users can comment

on and rate for quality of the instructions. Instructables was created by Eric Wilhelm and Saul

Griffith and launched in August 2005. 8 In total, 10 drawing Turtles were assembled by ISU

Computation + Construction Lab research assistants. This process relied upon in-house three-dimensional

(3D) printing on a Dremel Idea Builder 3D20 and LulzBot TAZ 6. An Adafruit Trinket Pro microprocessor,

which is an integrated circuit that contains all the functions of a central processing unit of a

computer, ran the Arduino code to operate the robot.

Turtle concept and LOGO programming language

Turtles are a special type of robot with a long history in the arts and education. A classic pedagogical tool

created by Seymour Papert at MIT, and they were designed to teach children computer programming and

procedural thinking. Turtles have a “head” and “tail” and use simple instructions to move around a surface

on two wheels while leaving a trail behind them with a marker (Figure 4).



Figure 5. Speculative diagram illustrating the layers of attribution data contained within the case study, accessible

via an RFID tag embedded in the drawing.

The programming language Logo sends simple commands for distance and rotation to an on-screen cursor

or physical Turtle robot. The educational programming language, designed in 1967 by Wally Feurzeig,

Seymour Papert, and Cynthia Solomon, was an early bridge between the digital and the physical and a potent

way to teach computing concepts. Students learn to program a Turtle by pretending to “be” the Turtle, connecting

their sense of their own body in space with that of the robot’s. Thus, “playing turtle” is a profound

way to bridge human and machine in the fundamental design act of drawing. 9

Summary

Examining a single robotic drawing reveals a wealth of connections from ideas (like the Sierpiński triangle

and Logo programming) to platforms (Processing, Arduino, Instructables, etc.), hardware (Adafruit Arduino,

LulzBot, etc.), the code copied and modified by several sources, and the labor involved—human and

robotic—to manufacture, assemble, and implement everything. Moreover, the robot itself was unique—its

gearing and wheelbase were specific to that particular Turtle. This created behavior exploited by the author

when she made the final drawing. The drawing in question is a limited example, but demonstrates the depth

of attribution possible in a robotically fabricated artifact (Figure 5). One could imagine, as in a software

project, producing “forks” or modified versions of the drawing at different points in the process, substituting

new code, machines, and authors. Thus, digital provenance is generative as well as descriptive.


Discussion and speculation

Bruce Sterling wrote, “it is mentally easier to divide humans and objects than to understand them as a comprehensive

and interdependent system.” 10 Building an attribution network would be a significant challenge.

However, as the case study illustrates, the effort to understand this system increases the value of the object

and the creative enterprise. As Sterling said of “Spimes” (a hypothetical object that can be traced in space

and time, described in the book Shaping Things): “the history of the object helps create its future.”

The unique physical properties of the Turtle robot in the case study pose another line of questioning

about the role of machines in authorship. Programmable tools, such as computers and robots, are reliably

consistent. Running a program on the same kind of machine it was written for will produce the

same result every time. But one could also imagine bespoke machines that evolved to have their own

provenance as a result of human and/or AI interventions. Ultimately, one might even consider the

agency of the robotic tool itself and whether it might constitute a collaborator or even co-author. This

is not to anthropomorphize or romanticize the robot but rather an acknowledgment that, someday,

robots might have unique (potentially proprietary) programming through machine learning and artificial

intelligence that would lend itself to attribution. Future robots, trained by and learning from architects,

might be considered partners rather than machine tools. The painting program AARON, developed

by Harold Cohen, is one example of a collaborative relationship with an autonomous system. 11 While

Cohen developed the program and helped select its output, the paintings it generates are credited to

AARON. As robots develop the ability to sense, learn, and act in automated ways, attribution protocols

are one way to recognize their potential distinctiveness as it emerges.

Establishing robotic provenance is critical to human authors as well. Without some means of identifying individual

contributions (such as those who created a core database or algorithm), works produced by algorithmic

systems and AIs may lack the requirements to be recognized as works of authorship under international laws. 12 If

robotic and artificial intelligence (at least in some instances) effaces human authorship, then the provenance of

human creative contribution becomes more pressing. One must also consider the human labor which operates

behind robotic and artificial intelligence: from the factory workers who assembly micro-processors to the truck

drivers who move materials to the computer programmers who write the software. The very notion of authorship—and

accompanying systems of rights, credit, royalties, and so on—is brought into question. 13

Although architecture is a collaborative practice, it continues to be attributed to individuals. 14 A comprehensive

and verifiable record of attribution, retrievable by anyone from any work of architecture, would

challenge this myth and reveal the web of contributions from previously overlooked authors. Looking further

ahead, attribution data will be important for both machine learning to train artificial intelligences and,

someday, to locate and enlist their unique abilities for human–machine collaborations. Cataloging design

processes promises to be the start of introducing new design trajectories beyond deterministic computing.

AIs and robots, far from being mere tools, will become part of a feedback loop between human architects

and architecture. The eventual result will not be more advanced machines, but rather co-designers with their

own agency, a new dynamic increases the potential for imprecision and emergence where today we expect

precision and control.

Conclusion

The developing fields of artificial intelligence and robotics offer space for the creation of new and novel methods

of attribution. These methods call into question conventions of attribution that restrict authorship to the last

individual in a chain of development and labor. Thus, a primary agenda for this speculative research is to dismantle

the notion of lone genius which has perpetuated “starchitecture” culture and thus denied the contributions

of both people and machines to the design and construction of the built environment. A digital attribution



framework, supported by systems like material metadata, would give architects and other agents a means to

verify, learn from, and cite designs and more fluidly translate between the physical and the digital.

Defining and implementing this framework is a substantial project that is well beyond the scope of this

essay. Our intent is to use the case study in this essay to speculate upon potentials for such a system. Once

available, attribution frameworks would help reveal the rich histories of collaboration and innovation found

in the built environment, particularly those of underrepresented and uncredited groups. At the same time,

expanding the parameters of attribution makes possible other forms of collaboration such as collective intelligences

and artificial intelligences that will lead to new ideas and innovations from old ones. While digital

provenance provides a means of sharing more comprehensive knowledge about fabricated artifacts, in the

long term, as artificial intelligences learn from this data and develop agency, the ethics of human and robotic

labor will need to be addressed.


10. Sterling B. Shaping things. Mediaworks Pamphlets. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005.

11. Holtzman S. Digital mantras: the languages of abstract and virtual worlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.

12. Ginsburg J. People not machines: authorship and what it means in the Berne convention. Int Rev Intell Property

Compet Law 2018; 49(2): 131–135.

13. Kaminski M. Authorship, disrupted: AI authors in copyright and First Amendment Law. UC Davis Law Rev 2017;

51: 17–26.

14. Willis J. Invisible contributions: the problem of history and women architects. Architect Theory Rev 1998; 3(2):

57–68.

Acknowledgements

The Cyborg Sessions Robotics Workshop which inspired this work was supported by an Iowa State University (ISU)

Women’s and Diversity grant (recently renamed the Inclusion Initiatives Grant Program) and would not have been possible

without ISU Computation + Construction Lab Associate Erin Hunt and Department of Architecture Undergraduate

Research Assistants Nick Loughrey and Sarah Schneider. The workshop culminated with a public lecture by Madeline

Gannon of ATONATON part of the ISU Architecture 2017-18 Public Programs Series: For Other Architectures. The

Cyborg Sessions Robotics Workshop was led by Shelby Doyle, Leslie Forehand, and Nick Senske and included students

from nine design disciplines: Aaron Hauptmann, Chris Perez, Alonso Ortega, Ian Dillon, Camelia Betancourt, Himali

Limbad, Katie McCoy, Kelly Devitt, Kelsey Maier, Monica Pearson, Naomi Njonjo, Patricia Mutebi, Shambhavi

Srivastava, Yichen Li, Arpit Chunawala, Melissa Miller, Krithika Mohan, Melissa Miller, Karla Ortegav, Xinman Liu,

Shan He, and Grace Reynolds. For more ISU CCL work, visit ccl.design.iastate.edu

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this

article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Nick Senske

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8867-5701

References

1. Rignall J. “Could they fire me? No!” The Warren Robinett Interview, https://www.usgamer.net/articles/warrenrobinett-interview

(2016, accessed 1 February 2018).

2. Negroponte N. Towards a humanism through machines. Technol Rev 1969; 71(6): 44–52.

3. Atzori L, Iera A and Morabito G. The Internet of Things: a survey. Comput Netw 2010; 54(15): 2787–2805.

4. Bradshaw S, Broyer A and Haufe P. The intellectual property implications of low-cost 3D printing. Scripted 2010;

7(1): 5–31.

5. Stevens R. Creating fractals (Graphics series). Newton, MA: Charles River Media, Inc., 2005.

6. Arduino Home Page, https://www.arduino.cc/en/Main/HomePage3 (2016, accessed 17 October 2017).

7. Olsen K. Low cost Arduino compatible drawing robot, http://www.instructables.com/id/Low-Cost-Arduino-

Compatible-Drawing-Robot/ (2016, accessed 17 October 2017).

8. Our Story, http://www.instructables.com/about/ (2015, accessed 17 October 2017).

9. Papert S. Beyond the cognitive: the other face of mathematics. Cambridge, MA: Epistemology & Learning Group,

Media Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1986.


Attribution and Artificial Intelligence:

Embedding Provenance with Material Metadata

When artificial intelligence participates in design, the

very notion of authorship – and accompanying systems

of rights, credit, royalties, etc. – is brought into question.

Thus, establishing provenance – the sources, such as individuals

and processes, involved in producing or delivering an

artifact – will be critical to the development of designs in the

future. Without some means of identifying the contributions

of human authors (such as those who created a core database

or algorithm), works produced by algorithmic systems and

AI’s may lack the requirements to be recognized as works of

authorship under international laws or in academic institutions.

Provenance databases of digital models, algorithms,

toolpaths, etc. can be studied by both humans and AI’s to improve

designs and create new ones.

A primary challenge of provenance in digitally fabricated

objects is how intellectual and creative attribution is attached

or embedded to the object and not only the software or machine

which generated the object. Several options for embedding

metadata in software processes and data already exist.

These include: blockchain, steganography, digital watermarking,

etc. Metadata, at its most basic, describes properties of

objects. It only becomes part of establishing provenance when

it also describes the relationship of that data to the fabrication

process of an object, since this type of data reveals how,

why, what, and who contributed to the object. This type of

attribution creates space for people and machines to be fully

acknowledged for their intellectual and physical contributions

to these objects and to be (hopefully) represented accurately

in future histories of technology.

Another challenge to establishing intellectual property

rights occurs when digitally-created knowledge or information

is brought into the physical world. The metadata and other

digital identifiers embedded in the associated software or

data do not currently transfer to the physical object. Existing

legal systems, such as copyright, design protection, patents,

and registered trademarks address the resulting physical objects.

However, there are few legal constructs which directly

connect digital and physical provenance. RFID or radiofrequency

identification tags provide a possible strategy to

bridge the two. These tags contain electronically-stored information

which is “read” by electromagnetic fields to automatically

identify and track the object. However, as this method

relies upon a physical object (the RFID) being adhered to the

digitally-fabricated object, it is contingent upon the end-user’s

commitment to ethical attribution rather than directly embedding

attribution and provenance into the physical object. To

overcome this limitation, new technologies could be developed

so that metadata is automatically incorporated to physical

objects as part of the fabrication process. For example,

a unique “makers mark” inscribed somewhere on the object

that can be read by machine vision and linked to an attribution

repository. As fabrication and scanning technology advances

into smaller scales, it may even be possible to physically

embed this information into materials: subtly encrypted

into grain structures, fiber patterns, or arrangements of crystal

lattices. This speculative material metadata would bring us

closer to the metaphor of design artifacts that contain their

own creative and technical “DNA.”


The Plan Journal 4 (2): xxx-xxx, 2019

doi: 10.15274/tpj.2019.04.02.3

Peer-Reviewed

The Plan Journal 4 (2): xxx-xxx, 2019 - doi: 10.15274/tpj.2019.04.02.3

www.theplanjournal.com

Women’s Work:

Attributing Future Histories

of the Digital in Architecture

Shelby Doyle, Nick Senske

ABSTRACT - Conventions of authorship and attribution historically

excluded or erased women’s contributions to the built environment.

As frequent co-authors and collaborators, women’s stories often do

not fit into conventional historical narratives about how architecture is

created. In response, this essay proposes a technology called “attribution

frameworks”: a digital method for creating a transparent record of

architectural labor. The authors argue that the integration of digital tools

into architectural design offers a new space for more equally attributing,

documenting, and counting labor and contributions to the discipline. This

space allows for a more rich and inclusive narrative of contributions to

architectural production for the future.

these labors, it is not only unjust – it reinforces a lack of diversity in those

recognized in the production of architecture.

As buildings and other designed objects create and share information as

part of the emergent Internet of Things (IoT), 6 the ways in which authorship

is attributed to architectural materials and processes is of increasing

importance as a social and ethical practice. Information technologies

from hyperlinks to RFID (Radio-Frequency Identification) tags to cloud

computing offer methods for changing cultural narratives about how

buildings are made and who makes them (Fig.1). Today’s architecture, like

many other fields and industries, is becoming increasingly collaborative and

multidisciplinary, as it seeks to address complex issues with more rigor than

ever before. 7 Technology has the potential to question and address these

issues of attribution and authorship for the archives of the future. This is not

to advocate for tokenism – that a few persons might stand in for the many

so that the record might seem more “equal.” Rather, there is a disciplinary

need for a more sophisticated, objective, and transparent system of

attribution, one that recognizes the distributed nature of innovation and

responsibility in today’s architecture.

This essay is a thought experiment about the potential uses of data

collection methods to provoke questions about architectural labor and its

Keywords: architectural labor, attribution frameworks, data collection,

design scholarship collaboration, gender equity

Representational inequality is recognized as a problem in architecture.

There continues to be a lack of diversity in gender (and race, class, and

other areas) among those attributed with the creation of buildings, as well

as leadership of firms and other forms of recognition. 1 The reasons for

this condition have to do with the cultural biases in architecture that have

historically limited diversity, 2 as well as the construction of architectural

attribution. 3 For example, even when women work to build or design

architecture, they are not always credited for their efforts by peers,

firms, marketers, journalists, and historians. 4 Or their roles are under- or

misreported. 5 When the discipline’s attribution methods exclude or obscure

Figure 1. In between physical artifacts such as books and buildings, and digital artifacts

such as software and simulation models, there is space to reconsider how architecture is

attributed. In this space, people are fully acknowledged for their intellectual and physical

contributions to digitally designed objects and will be represented accurately in current and

future narratives of architecture.

4/2/1

4/2/2


Shelby Elizabeth Doyle, Nick Shane Senske

Women’s Work: Attributing Future Histories




attribution, specifically questions of gendered labor and gender inequity.

While companies like Google and Facebook capture user interactions for

the purpose of advertising, a similar type of data acquisition could be used,

or is already being used, with BIM (Building Information Modeling) software

and other platforms to offer a more accurate portrait of architectural labor:

who designs, who builds, and what their process entails. Rather than

assigning credit solely through traditional means and gatekeepers (such as

editors and award committees), this information could be made available

to anyone through a comprehensive digital record assembled from various

types of data, such as design software operations, digital documents, and

communications from mobile devices. This speculative essay proposes

the development of protocols, processes, and policies – “attribution

frameworks” – with the intention of addressing inequality of authorship

through the creation of less biased, comprehensive digital narratives and

archives (Fig. 2). The integration of these technologies has the potential

to create a new space for more equitably documenting and acknowledging

architectural labor, which can frame a more rich and inclusive narrative of

contributions to architectural production in the present day and for the future.

MISSING STORIES

In architecture, as in many creative fields, there has long been a struggle

over allocation and control of intellectual property rights and over the

partition of credit for creating work. 8 Where creation is collaborative but

labor markets value individual creativity, the legal and cultural challenges

in balancing individual and collective attribution are considerable, and the

stakes are high.

Gender inequalities in architecture serve as a well-documented and specific

example of the broader issue of attribution of architectural labor. Even the

Figure 2. Embedded RFID tags or similar technology could be added to architecture to

connect materials to attribution frameworks. Digital documentation of the full contributions

and consequences of building design and construction makes space for conversations

about gender and beyond; for example, the broader impacts of buildings from the

environmental to the socio-economic.

use of gender singular, rather than as a plural, is exclusionary – it does

not acknowledge a gradient of genders. Additionally, examining gender

without intersectional context is also a form of exclusion. Feminist scholars

from Roxane Gay, to Donna Harraway, to Audre Lorde write that there is

no hierarchy of oppressions - a perspective which invites the recognition

that all oppressions (of gender, race, class, sexuality, religion, ability,

and more) are connected: commonly referred to as intersectionality. 9

This is not only a semantic and conceptual concern but also one of data

collection. There is a counterargument that these aspects of an architect’s

life should be irrelevant as they are identity markers and not architectural

content. However, as long as certain identity markers in architecture

remain avenues of privilege (i.e. white, male, cisgender, wealthy) creating

alternative narratives will remain important – and technology is a tool in the

production of these narratives.

The state of gender inequality in architecture offers an example of how

unequal authorship and attribution exist and how this affects representation

and perceptions of authorship across the built world. Women are

underrepresented in architecture, not only in professional practice but

also in its records. It is not that there are no women practicing architecture

or that there are no histories of women, but rather the way narratives of

architectural production are constructed that is responsible for the present

state of the architectural canon. 10 Conventions of authorship and attribution

tend to exclude or erase women’s contributions to the built environment.

As frequent co-authors and collaborators, women’s stories often do not fit

into traditional narratives about how architecture is created. When those

stories are not told, women are rendered invisible or obscured in the record

of architectural attribution. 11 In real terms, lack of attribution prevents

women from being promoted and awarded, and ultimately, remembered

for their contributions to the discipline. 12 And so, through these long-held

conventions and traditions of assigning credit for architectural works,

women’s lack of representation in the field has been perpetuated.

While corrective scholarship has improved the record, few historic women

architects are well-known today, particularly those practicing outside

of the last few decades, 13 while the men they collaborated with have

celebrated reputations and recognition. For example, Marion Mahony

Griffin (1871-1961) was one of the first licensed female architects in the

world. The renderings she made for Frank Lloyd Wright’s projects are

instantly recognizable, but she does not often receive credit for them,

or they are assumed to be the work of Wright. 14 Similarly, the designs

of Modernist architect Eileen Gray (1878-1976) were often attributed to

her contemporaries such as Le Corbusier. While her contributions were

significant and unmistakable, her projects were overlooked by critics

and historians of the time because she often collaborated with others. 15

Anne Tyng (1920-2011) was one of the first women to attend the Harvard

Graduate School of Design. She eventually became one of the first women

4/2/3

4/2/4







to receive a Graham Fellowship. While she produced her own innovative

designs, she is primarily remembered as an influence on Louis Kahn, whom

she worked with early in her career. 16 These women’s stories are known

due to recent corrective scholarship which aimed to reinsert them into

architectural history. Many more stories remain undiscovered and forgotten

(Fig. 3).

Figure 4. Awards such as the Pritzker Architecture Prize are typically attributed to

individuals. During the Prize’s thirty-nine-year history it has been awarded three times to

a partnership (7.6%), two times to a woman in partnership (5.1%), and once solely to a

woman (2.5%).

Figure 3. Clarifying architectural authorship involves abandoning heroic narratives in favor

of blurred, entangled, records of who makes architecture. It is a value proposition regarding

which stories are worth telling. Without an intervention, how can contributions to current

technological practices not repeat these exclusions?

This essay posits that future methods of attribution and documentation

will necessitate a change in how authorship is determined in architecture.

Ideally, the volume of data collected would make the future obfuscation

of individuals or groups unlikely. But there is still the matter of how the

data is selected and woven into narratives. Scholars such as Stratigakos,

Kingsley, and Allen document how the notion of authorship in architecture

and other fields is closely entwined with the failures to tell the histories

of underrepresented groups such as women and minorities. 17 Upon

examination of these gaps in the record, several trends in architectural

attribution emerge.

First, in the 1980s and 1990s, feminist scholars criticized historians for

emphasizing single authorship for works of architecture, disregarding

collaborations in favor of a heroic monograph. 18 The effect of this practice

excluded many women architects from history, who often could not practice

on their own at the time. Even when women were part of a full and equal

partnership with a male, the male partner tended to receive the credit for

their collaboration. 19 Perhaps the most high-profile erasure of this collective

practice is when the Pritzker Architecture Prize committee awarded the

prize only to Robert Venturi and not to his partner, Denise Scott Brown

(Fig. 4). 20 In their work together, Brown is careful to state how important

and inseparable collaborations are with respect to her ideas and practice. 21

Recognizing collective authorship remains a challenge in architecture today.

Another trend is the biased cultural attitudes that influence (and continue

to influence) the attribution of architectural works for underrepresented

groups. For decades, women were taught that self-promotion of their

contributions was inappropriate – so men took the credit. 22 Indeed, a cultural

expectation of Modernism was that only men were responsible for the creative

act. 23 Women were once excluded from the architecture workshop at the

Bauhaus due to the belief that women could think only in “two dimensions,”

while men could grapple with three. 24 Ideas like this continue to persist today.

Last year, an employee at Google wrote a manifesto arguing that there are

biological reasons why women are underrepresented in technology fields. 25

It is telling that gender representation in STEM (Science, Technology,

Engineering, and Mathematics) 26 happens to be a similar proportion to

architecture: about 20% female. 27 Biases can and do impact the development

of architectural narratives, and conversely architectural narratives can

perpetuate bias.

The third trend is the notion that a completed building or proposal itself

represents a single act for a client, rather than the labor of many individuals.

This excludes not only the collective effort but also the many types of work

processes involved, especially those roles often performed by women such

as organizational labor, care-taking labor, or factory-work. Attribution and the

historical record are entangled with the valuing and ranking of types of work.

This dialogue finds precedent in Hannah Arendt’s Animal Laborans (1958),

manual workers enslaved by necessity, and in Max Frisch’s Homo Faber

(1957), the maker freed from necessity. Architecture has long attempted to

separate itself from “animal laborans” and to firmly establish the architect as

homo faber. In doing so, the work of animal laborans is devalued as lesser

than that of homo faber. 28 This can result in those contributions which are not

“creative” not being documented fully or ignored as less valuable than the

creative act.

However, the controversy over collaboration and creative vs. other labor

may be shifting towards a broader interpretation of co-authorship. As Jeremy

Birnholtz writes: “the traditional model of authorship is fundamentally at odds

4/2/5

4/2/6







with contemporary collaboration and the nature of work.” 29 Traditions of

recognizing individual genius – however romantic they might seem – appear

to be increasingly out-of-step and inappropriate. This is illustrated by the

growth in academic co-authorship among humanities fields – including design

– where single authorship was once the norm. 30 In collaborations, diversity is

recognized not only as fair but also for its value to improving both process and

product.

While co-authorship continues to gain acceptance, the practice of attribution

remains fraught not only because of the stakes involved but also because it

can be difficult to determine how much credit to assign. Negotiating authorship

hierarchies (whose name is first, and so on) can reinforce gender, race, class,

and other inequalities through power dynamics. The order of contributors

does not always reflect the scope and impact of one’s contributions, and yet

it can influence a person’s recognition and career. And so, there is a need for

a more sophisticated and objective system of attribution, one that recognizes

the distributed nature of innovation and responsibility in today’s architecture.

ATTRIBUTION FRAMEWORKS

With today’s digital tools, it is possible to document how many people

collaborate to produce architecture and the types of labor they perform.

Traditional systems of attribution (awards, monographs, etc.), with their

emphasis upon crediting individuals for collective work, have not adjusted

to this reality. How might the full scope of architectural labor – intellectual,

physical, and emotional – be recognized? And could a new model of

attribution create a more inclusive record of the (often marginalized)

individuals who contribute to architectural work: students, interns,

draftspersons, factory workers, construction crews, and so on? This section

offers a speculative study of how technology could provide a new narrative.

As the profession has moved away from paper to digital files and the costs

of data storage decrease, architectural firms are no longer limited to crediting

work using the amount of information that can be published within a title block.

This presents an opportunity to define new attribution formats that could be

more comprehensive as well as universally accessible. As an alternative

to the current practice of assigning authorship for buildings to individuals

or firms, imagine a set of digital protocols and algorithms – “an attribution

framework” – that captures and represents the interactions of individuals

working on a project. 31 (Fig. 5) This is an extension of Bruce Sterling’s SPIME

concept in which everyday objects participating in the Internet of Things (IoT)

can be tracked in “SPace and tIME.” 32 In this version, buildings and other

designed objects would become part of the IoT and maintain a digital record

of their creation.

Attribution data could be stored within a project file, but it is more likely that it

would be saved to the cloud, 33 so it would be retrievable anywhere. A person

or an algorithm could find the data by accessing a hyperlink or through

information overlaid in physical space. Besides search engines, links could

be found on digital maps, recognized from an augmented reality scan

(e.g. your phone could tell you who made a stair detail), or connected to

RFIDs or other technologies embedded into building materials themselves.

Accounting for the accessibility of these records is important. It would not

be of much use if there were an extensive record that only a few could

access; architectural credits ought to be both human- and machinereadable

without restriction. One way to do this would be to make the

associative link for the attribution database a matter of public record. Or

to link directly to the physical artifacts of architectural production – book,

building, exhibit. In this manner, the output would be irrevocably entangled

with the documentation of its creation: a physical hyperlink to the database

of its labor. This data then could be included in project documentation,

citations in histories, and available for other purposes. Describing exactly

how the system would be implemented is beyond the scope of this essay.

However, it is possible to discuss the scope of attribution frameworks

more narrowly and to reflect on how these systems might help or hinder

addressing the issues about authorship and labor raised in the previous

section.

Attribution frameworks would help dispel the idea that architecture is the

product of a single author, or a few authors, rather than the result of a wide

range of labors from caretaking to ideation to assembly. An improvement

over the present convention would be to embed information about the full

project team into the files associated with the project. The particle-physics

group Collider Detector at Fermilab (CDF) demonstrates how such an

arrangement could work in practice. Papers authored by the facility

include an alphabetical list of all researchers, assistants, and other staff as

co-authors. 34 The list contains nearly 600 individuals on average. Persons

working at CDF remain on the list for a year after leaving the facility.

While practices like this have been criticized for straining the notion of

co-authorship and increasing the material size of publications, 35 this

practice nevertheless reflects the complexity of modern projects and serves

as a precedent for how digital information can be used to create a more

inclusive accounting of labor.

The scale and complexity of collaboration today makes it essential to

reevaluate the meaning of authorship and how credit is assigned. Papers,

such as those published by large organizations like the CDF, are not written

by hundreds of authors, so is the title of “author” appropriate? At the same

time, there are many other roles critical to CDF projects such as theorists,

mathematicians, instrument makers, programmers, and others who deserve

recognition. Differentiating between these roles, and their impact on the

final product is difficult. One model for how to approach this comes from the

film industry, which is also highly collaborative. 36 Entertainment and trade

unions have developed extensive rules about title credits, end credits, etc.

4/2/7

4/2/8







the process, which can adversely affect younger researchers, women,

minorities, and other marginalized groups. 38 Some fields have adopted

conventions to address this problem. For example, in the natural sciences

and mathematics, lists of authors are often alphabetical. 39 This convention

is more equal than arguing over priority but does not distinguish among

contributions.

Figure 5. Attribution frameworks capture raw data throughout the design process in order to

create a more comprehensive and objective record of labor. The above diagram represents

a data “stack” of potential sources of information (but is not limited to these). In this

example, sketches, conversations, texts, and software inputs are correlated and analyzed

to create a transparent account of participation, contributions, and collaboration.

And so, in an attribution framework, it could be useful to expand the

“credits” for a building similarly with job titles, assignments, and other

information. However, this idea still invites potential bias, in that some

individuals would be responsible for determining how the collaborators

are entered into the record and then for choosing how and whether to

commit the record to a database. As discussed in earlier sections, even the

notions of participants’ titles themselves are fraught with hierarchies and

the difficulties of classifying and valuing labor. Creating a more just system

would require negotiation, but the dialogue itself could be a productive

means of rethinking traditional assumptions about collective works.

As the list of designers recorded increases, this may cause problems

with how credit is assigned. Not all contributions are the same, nor do

they necessarily have the same value. For example, different tasks in a

firm might have different billable hours; licensed professionals commit

themselves to professional liability when they stamp a drawing. Moreover,

assigning authorship is important because it serves to build reputation and

identity and can be a basis for hiring, promotions, and awards. For this

reason, in academia, there are often disagreements over which person is

the first author on a research paper. Frequently, the most senior researcher

is listed as the first author or otherwise determines the order of authors

on a paper. 37 This practice is criticized as it introduces significant bias into

To address the challenges of assigning credit, some researchers have

tried to develop systems to reduce bias in determining authorship. For

example, Harvard professor emeritus Stephen Kosslyn assigns points to

collaborators for developing theory, setting up experiments, writing, and

other tasks. 40 Authorship order is determined by the number of points

awarded. Ostensibly, the use of points creates transparency and allows

for negotiation. Teams can discuss and come to an agreement about their

points. Unfortunately, the principal investigator remains responsible for

assigning the points and settling disputes, and so this system may not do

enough to address power dynamics and other implicit biases. Attempts to

remove humans from the evaluation process have been unsuccessful so

far. MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) researcher Timothy Kassis

studied the feasibility of an automated system for assigning authorship

to academic papers. Despite his effort to normalize the value of various

contributions, Kassis found this too subjective to properly quantify. The

project was abandoned. 41

The journals Nature and Rethinking Ecology use increased transparency to

address how authors are listed on a publication. As part of the submission

process, co-authors must document their contributions and certify them for

the record. 42 The implication is that there must be justification for inclusion

and for the order of authors as they appear in publication. Policies like

these can reduce some ethical problems such as senior investigators

attaching their names without participating and the promotion of “ghost”

authors, who may have written the submission but did not perform any

research. At the same time, this practice depends on honest reporting and

interpretation. As with the point systems, it is difficult to remove subjectivity

from the process.

With more information, automation could increase transparency and

remove some bias from the process of determining authorship. Instead

of depending upon reporting from collaborators, attribution frameworks

could track information collected in a raw state as project files are created

and updated. At a high level, this could mean recording an encrypted

signature from a person every time they review or save an email, model,

or other project-tagged digital files. This data would be finer-grained than

a list of collaborators and include information about access, input, team

composition, coordination, and other details. This arrangement would be

like the version control systems (VCSs) used in software development. 43

These programs track changes to programming code and require

4/2/9

4/2/10







developers to identify themselves anytime they make modifications.

Researchers have created data visualizations of VCSs to understand

the evolution of software as a reflection of organizational structure. 44

Architecture might discover similar analytical benefits. Some aspects of

version control already exist in BIM platforms and some architecture offices

already use VCSs, such as GitHub, as part of their working process. 45

A challenge would be to find ways to use this data to help interpret the

value of each collaborator’s interactions with the project. After all, the time

or effort one spends on a task is not necessarily correlated with value.

However, more transparent information could help architects

and researchers understand how designs develop organizationally,

and as attribution frameworks collect more data, it is possible that

machine-learning could help determine where credit is due.

A lower-level option would be to capture digital operations en masse:

every keystroke, line, and word produced for a project. The purpose of

this would be to build an account of the development of drawings, models,

spreadsheets, and other digital artifacts as an accumulation of inputs,

changes, and multiple authors. This would provide a more complete picture

of the true evolution of a design as the result of competing ideas, false

starts, frictions, compromises, and revisions rather than the notion of a fully

formed vision leaping off the screen and onto the project site. 46 Accounting

for the actions of individuals could allow for more rigorous and fair reporting

of attribution, not just “who works,” but how, when, and on what.

In some capacity, much of this information may already be collected from

software in the form of usage data sent to the vendor, ostensibly for bug

reporting, but also for product development. Most users agree to this

arrangement, knowingly or unknowingly, as part of the software licensing

agreement. 47 Making use of this information would require extensive

resources, but not impossibly so. Search engines and self-driving cars

already train and improve themselves by interpreting large, continuously

updated data sets. 48 Understanding discrete design operations and how

they relate to the larger architecture project could generate opportunities

for organizational improvements in efficiency, the development of expert

systems (knowledge bases and artificial intelligence to assist designers),

new conceptual theories, and more complex nuanced histories.

Regarding what is attributed, a digital-only system is limited and may overprivilege

digital labor. It would be difficult, for example, for the attribution

framework proposed so far to account for the non-digital communication

that often occurs at the beginning of a project, such as a pencil sketch

or interactions that were face-to-face. There would need to be some way

to account for this – automated through machine-vision, speech-to-text

recording. It may be possible with some future technology, but this requires

more advanced data collection than is presently available. However, it

raises another important issue with respect to marginalized groups and

labor. A problem with collecting data about labor, as a basis for determining

authorship, is that the concept of architectural labor is fraught. Because

computation requires specificity, developing attribution frameworks will

require some deep conversations about the definition and ethics of labor:

what labor truly is and what counts. For example, the current conception

of the term does not include non-architectural labor or labors of care which

make architectural work possible: feeding, clothing, housing, transportation –

types of work which are often undertaken by women, but which do not fall

under billable hours or paid work. This gap is recognized by Peggy Deamer

and the Architecture Lobby who argue for an expansion of how architectural

labor is defined. 49 Expanding the definition of architectural production – and

indeed, architecture itself – is another way that attribution frameworks could

address inequality by identifying women and women’s labor both within and

beyond the profession.

DISCUSSION

Designing and implementing a universal attribution framework would be

non-trivial, with not only technological challenges but cultural ones. Many

questions remain: How much information should be captured about work

processes? How can these systems protect privacy, even as they track

labor? How are labor roles defined, identified, tagged, and tracked? Do

open records expose individuals to liability that firm structures and systems

are meant to shield? How can we limit the bias from the programmers, the

designers, and the users of the system from propagating into the attribution

framework? None of these questions has easy answers, but one can

expect attribution frameworks will evolve and improve over time. Artificial

intelligence will be a part of the process, both to develop the system and

to help future scholars learn from it (Fig. 6). Because technology often

outpaces culture, it is critical that frameworks be open source and rigorously

reviewed to ensure the fairness and transparency of attribution data

collected.

Using the data from attribution frameworks to increase the visibility of

underrepresented work may not be enough - at least not at first, or perhaps

ever. Research has shown that transparency in attribution does not

necessarily lead to greater diversity in representation. For example,

open-source software development communities (ostensibly meritocracies,

where the community judges the quality of contributions) are even more

male-dominated than commercial software companies. 50 According to a

study by Josh Terrell, et al., when a woman’s gender is established in

open-source projects, her code is less likely to be accepted. When women

submit code anonymously, it is approved more often than men’s code. 51 This

same effect of negative gender bias has been found in academic research

papers, Wikipedia edits, and professional music auditions. 52 Attribution

frameworks for architecture can help the profession identify inequalities and

understand its problems better, as in the aforementioned studies, but the

4/2/11

4/2/12







Figure 6. The diagram proposes a potential system of machine learning and artificial

intelligence, which would underpin a new attribution framework. The attribution engine

evolves by collecting, sorting, and evaluating architectural data, then feeding these results

back into machine learning algorithms.

framework itself is not a solution. Data reveals that meritocracy, like lone

genius, is a myth. It will take new policies and changes in architecture’s

culture to act upon this information and use it to improve equity.

Even so, it is critical to begin collecting more and better data. The

stakes of failing to attribute work equally are not only gaps in the record,

but, more importantly, less inclusiveness in architecture. For example,

today more women than ever participate in architecture schools and the

profession, but the “pipeline problem” persists. Even when women do

participate, they do not receive licenses, promotions, or awards in the

same proportion as men. 53 Some reasons for this are that women do not

see themselves equitably represented in these roles. 54 Recent efforts in

STEM demonstrate how correcting the historical record has helped improve

gender equity in fields like computer science. 55 By improving the visibility

and fair representation of women’s accomplishments – and those of other

marginalized groups – there is evidence that attribution frameworks can

help architecture become more diverse and equitable.

Despite the intent to produce a database to promote equity, the result

could very well be a digital panopticon (Fig. 7). What is perhaps more

important, though, is that the panopticon is already under-construction,

regardless of whether architects or society-at-large consented. Much of this

data collection is being constructed outside of the domain of architecture.

Data is being captured on everything from how many steps we take each

day, to what we eat, to how long we spend e-mailing, or on social media.

Architecture must develop robust attitudes regarding how and what

information is recorded because neutrality is too dangerous a position.

Perhaps there also remains room to subvert the inevitability of a perfect

data collection system. Maybe the attribution machine will necessitate

Figure 7. Despite the intent to produce a database to promote equity, the result could very

well be a digital panopticon. What is perhaps more important, though, is that the panopticon

is already under-construction, regardless of whether architects or society-at-large consented.

a counter-machine, a conceptual (or literal) Faraday cage designed to

prevent the all-seeing-artificial-intelligence.

Regardless of the technical challenges and the cultural work yet to be done,

ensuring a fair record of authorship matters to those beyond the architectural

profession. Now that search engines shape so much of how algorithms – and

we, in turn – process the world, collecting good data is an important step

towards improving the state of architecture moving forward. The expansion

of data collection in architecture is inevitable, as it is increasingly exploited

to make processes more efficient and profitable. As we move forward, it is

critical to include in our conversations how this resource can and must also

be leveraged to make things more equitable for all. 56

CONCLUSION

Correcting the record is not just a question of adding a few names

or even hundreds to the history of architecture. It is not just a matter

of human justice or historical accuracy, but of opening the field to its

own productive complexity. 57 (Beatriz Colomina)

The details of attribution frameworks, such as the technologies involved

and how they are implemented, are outside the scope of this speculative

essay. However, it is safe to say that elements of the framework are already

being developed at this moment from fields outside of architecture. For this

4/2/13

4/2/14







reason, it is important to ruminate upon how a system for architectural data

(like attribution frameworks) might develop and what kinds of questions we

might ask of it – before such a system arrives without our input or consent.

The data we choose to collect tells us something about what we value and

what we are willing to measure about ourselves and our work. It is part of

a broader dialogue about data that is not collected (or cannot be) and the

limits of data itself.

Figure 8. Attribution frameworks could also be used to capture and communicate equity

successes in architecture. For example, architect Jeanne Gang closed the gender wage

gap at her firm and calls pay inequity “architecture’s great injustice.” Would we value

buildings differently if we could not view them outside of the context of whether architects

were paid fairly? Or construction workers were kept safe?

Society tends to value collective data over listening to individuals and

anecdotal stories. In a post-#metoo culture, listening is more important

than ever, but perhaps data can also lend more support to the ongoing

conversation about women’s roles and experiences in the workplace. If

women are working more billable hours, or contributing unpaid extra work,

or getting paid less, and so forth, then greater transparency about labor and

attribution can be a step toward equity (Fig. 8). At the same time, we must

be careful. It could be just as easy to collect data that do not account for

non-quantifiable labor (such as organizational labor, emotional labor, etc.

as described in earlier sections), and to use this as justification for paying

women less. Data itself is not the solution. It might also reveal truths about

architectural labor that we would prefer not to acknowledge, from underpaid

staff to enslaved construction workers (Fig. 9). Nevertheless, we cannot

change what we cannot see for ourselves. A record of attribution that is

more objective, nuanced, and timely is preferable to biased (intentional or

not) assumptions, traditions, and gatekeepers. Indeed, the former might

serve to further expose the latter.

Gender equity in architecture is a continuing challenge, and a lack of fair

attribution for labor is one of its principal causes. Research has shown

that recognizing the contributions of women – in history and in today’s

practice – improves gender representation in professional fields. Toward

this end, attribution frameworks are a proposal to apply technology to

challenge conventions of labor and authorship and address the realities of

contemporary collaboration in architecture. While data and the ways it can

be used are not free of bias, access to comprehensive and transparent

digital records will help to better define issues of gender equity and create

more opportunities for scholars, leaders, and individuals to confront biases

and correct them. Collecting digital records through attribution frameworks

can begin the process of acknowledging the broad scope of contributions

in the production of architecture that were formerly unrecognized and

undocumented. The histories of the future will be written from the records

we keep today.

Figure 9. Could attribution frameworks change the way architecture is evaluated? For

example, Junya Ishigami received the prestigious commission for the Serpentine Gallery

but was also recently criticized for using unpaid interns to document and design his firm’s

work. Do these labor practices change how architecture is viewed, valued, and credited?

What would happen if each project had a digital shadow which included a full accounting of

its creation, including the social and environmental costs?

4/2/15

4/2/16







Notes

1. “Equity in Architecture Survey 2018,” Equity by Design [EQxD] (blog), April 20, 2019,

accessed April 28, 2019, http://eqxdesign.com/; see also Marcus Fairs, “Survey of Leading

Architecture Firms Reveals ‘Quite Shocking’ Lack of Gender Diversity at Senior Levels,”

Dezeen, March 15, 2018, accessed April 28, 2019, https://www.dezeen.com/2017/11/16/

survey-leading-architecture-firms-reveals-shocking-lack-gender-diversity-senior-levels/;

and Lian Chikako Chang, “Where Are the Women? Measuring Progress on Gender in

Architecture,” the website for the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (October

2014), https://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/data-resources/where-are-the-womenmeasuring-progress-on-gender-in-architecture/.

2. Julie Willis, “Invisible Contributions: The Problem of History and Women Architects,”

Architectural Theory Review 3, no. 2 (1998): 57-68.

3. Alexandra Lange, “Has Pritzker Controversy Brought about Architecture’s Lean in

Moment?,” Metropolis, February 21, 2017, accessed January 14, 2019, https://www.

metropolismag.com/architecture/architectures-lean-in-moment/.

4. Eva Álvarez and Carlos Gómez, “The Invisible Women: How Female Architects Were

Erased from History,” Architectural Review, March 8, 2017, accessed January 4, 2019.

https://www.architectural-review.com/rethink/the-invisible-women-how-female-architectswere-erased-from-history/10017481.article#.WMszWIhSPfo.twitter.

5. Despina Stratigakos, Where are the Women Architects?, (Princeton NJ, USA: Princeton

University Press, 2016).

6. Neil Gershenfeld, Raffi Krikorian, and Danny Cohen, “The Internet of Things,” Scientific

American 291, no. 4 (2004): 76-81.

7. Kathleen M. O’Donnell, “How Many Hats Should an Architect Wear?,” the website for the

American Institute of Architects (AIA), November 28, 2019, accessed April 28, 2019, https://

www.aia.org/articles/6078524-how-many-hats-should-an-architect-wear-.

8. David Adjaye, Nikolaus Hirsch, and Jorge Otero-Pailos, “On Architecture and Authorship:

A Conversation,” Places Journal (October 2011),

https://placesjournal.org/article/on-architecture-and-authorship-a-conversation/

9. Kimberle Crenshaw, “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist

Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics,” University of

Chicago Legal Forum 1989, no. 1 (1989): 139-67.

10. Lange, “Has Pritzker Controversy.”

11. Álvarez and Gómez, “The Invisible Women.”

12. Chang, “Where Are the Women?”

13. Beatriz Colomina, “Outrage: Blindness to Women Turns out to Be Blindness to

Architecture Itself,” Architectural Review, March 8, 2018, https://www.architectural-review.

com/essays/campaigns/outrage/outrage-blindness-to-women-turns-out-to-be-blindness-toarchitecture-itself/10028680.article.

14. Alice T. Friedman, “Girl Talk: Marion Mahony Griffin, Frank Lloyd Wright and the Oak

Park Studio,” Places Journal (June 2011), https://placesjournal.org/article/marion-mahonygriffin/.

15. Greg Allen, “MoMA’s Feminist Future: A Picture of Eileen Gray,” Greg.org (blog),

February 18, 2007, accessed December 24, 2018, https://greg.org/archive/2007/02/18/

momas-feminist-future-a-picture-of-eileen-gray.html.

16. Robin Pogrebin, “Anne Tyng, Theorist of Architecture, Dies at 91,” New York Times,

January 7, 2012, accessed October 30, 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/arts/

design/anne-tyng-architect-and-partner-of-louis-kahn-dies-at-91.html.

17. Stratigakos, Where Are the Women Architects?; see also Karen Kingsley, “Rethinking

Architectural History from a Gender Perspective,” in Thomas Dutton, ed., Voices in

Architectural Education: Cultural Politics and Pedagogy (New York: Bergin and Garvey,

1991), 255-56; and Judith Allen, “Evidence and Silence: Feminism and the Limits of History,”

in Feminist Challenges: Social and Political Theory, eds. Carole Pateman and Elizabeth

Grosz (Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1986), 181 - though Allen is referencing social and political

theory as “the discipline,” the critique is just as valid for the discipline of architecture.

18. See references in Julie Willis, “Invisible Contributions”: 67, and Cheryl Buckley, “Made

in Patriarchy: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Women and Design,” Design Issues 3, no. 2

(Autumn 1986): 3-14.

19. Pola Mora, “Wang Shu’s Partner Lu Wenyu: I Never Wanted a Pritzker,” ArchDaily,

January 06, 2014, accessed January 14, 2019, https://www.archdaily.com/463985/wangshu-s-partner-lu-wenyu-i-never-wanted-a-pritzker.

20. Rose Etherington, “Pritzker Prize Jury Rejects Denise Scott Brown Petition,” Dezeen,

March 08, 2016, accessed January 14, 2019, https://www.dezeen.com/2013/06/14/pritzkerjury-rejects-denise-scott-brown-petition/.

21. Avery Trufelman, “Episode 302: Lessons from Las Vegas,” 99 Percent Invisible

(podcast), April 9, 2018, https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/lessons-from-las-vegas/;

Denise Scott Brown, “Room at the Top? Sexism and the Star System in Architecture,”

in Architecture: A Place for Women, eds. Ellen Perry Berkeley and Matilda McQuaid

(Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), 237–46.

22. Stratigakos, Where are the Women Architects?.

23. See T’asi Smith, Bauhaus Weaving Theory: From Feminine Craft to Mode of Design

(Minneapolis MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press, 2014).

24. Jonathan Glancey, “Haus Proud: The Women of Bauhaus,” The Guardian, November 07,

2009, accessed January 14, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2009/nov/07/

the-women-of-bauhaus.

25. Kate Conger, “Exclusive: Here’s the Full 10-Page Anti-Diversity Screed Circulating

Internally at Google [Updated],” Gizmodo, August 11, 2017, accessed January 14, 2019,

https://gizmodo.com/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-1797564320.

26. Sage Lazzaro, “12 Statistics About Women in Tech That Show How Big the Gender

Gap Truly Is,” The Observer, June 07, 2017, accessed January 11, 2019, https://observer.

com/2017/06/women-in-tech-statistics/.

27. Chang, “Where Are the Women?”

28. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958).

29. Jeremy Birnholtz, “When Authorship Isn’t Enough: Lessons from Cern on the Implications

of Formal and Informal Credit Attribution Mechanisms in Collaborative Research,” Journal of

Electronic Publishing 11, no. 1 (Winter 2008).

30. Ali O. Ilhan and Murat C. Oguz, “Collaboration in Design Research: An Analysis of Co-

Authorship in 13 Design Research Journals, 2000–2015,” The Design Journal 22, no. 1

(2019): 5-27.

31. See Shelby Doyle, and Nick Senske, “Digital Provenance and Material Metadata:

Attribution and Co-Authorship in the Age of Artificial Intelligence,” International Journal of

Architectural Computing 16, no. 4 (2018): 271-80.

32. Bruce Sterling, “Shaping Things” (Cambridge MA, USA: Mediaworks Pamphlets, 2005).

33. Cloud computing is the on-demand availability of computer system resources, especially

data storage and computing power, without direct active management by the user. The term

is generally used to describe data centers available to many users over the Internet.

34. Kathryn Grim, “Credit Where Credit Is Due,” Symmetry Magazine, May 1, 2009,

accessed April 28, 2019, https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/may-2009/credit-wherecredit-is-due.

35. Clarence Woodrow Von Bergen and Martin S. Bressler, “Academe’s Unspoken Ethical

Dilemma: Author Inflation in Higher Education,” Research in Higher Education Journal 32

(June 2017).

36. Beatriz Colomina, “With, or without You. The Ghosts of Modern Architecture,” in The

Chair: Rethinking Culture, Body, and Design, ed. Galen Cranz (New York: WW Norton and

Company,1998).

37. John Tehranian, “Copyright’s Male Gaze: Authorship and Inequality in a Panoptic World,”

Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, vol. 41 (June 1, 2018).

38. Nichole A. Broderick and Arturo Casadevall, “Meta-Research: Gender Inequalities

among Authors Who Contributed Equally,” eLife 8 (2019): e36399.

39. For example, see: American Mathematical Society, “The Culture of Research and

Scholarship in Mathematics: Joint Research and Its Publication,” 2015 Statement

(Providence RI, USA: American Mathematical Society, 2015), http://www.ams.org/

profession/leaders/culture/Statement_JointResearch_and_Its_Publication.pdf

40. Dalmeet Singh Chawla, “Assigning Authorship for Research Papers Can Be Tricky.

These Approaches Can Help,” Science, December 20, 2018, accessed April 28, 2019,

https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2018/12/assigning-authorship-research-papers-can-betricky-these-approaches-can-help.

4/2/17

4/2/18







41. Timothy Kassis, “How Do Research Faculty in the Biosciences Evaluate Paper

Authorship Criteria?,” PloS one 12, no. 8 (2017): e0183632.

42. Bill Tomlinson et al., “Massively Distributed Authorship of Academic Papers,” in CHI’12

Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York: ACM, 2012),

11-20; see also Stéphane Boyer et al., “Percentage-Based Author Contribution Index: A

Universal Measure of Author Contribution to Scientific Articles,” Research Integrity and Peer

Review 2, no. 1 (2017): 18.

43. Tomlinson et al., “Massively Distributed Authorship,” 11-20.

44. Michael Burch et al., “Visualizing Work Processes in Software Engineering with

Developer Rivers,” in “2015 IEEE 3rd Working Conference on Software Visualization

(VISSOFT)” (Bremen, Ger.: Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers IEEE, 2015), 116-

24.

45. See https://github.com/bvn-architecture.

46. See Federico Garcia Lammers, “Dull Professional Data from Ordinary Precedents,”

107 th ACSA National Conference, 2019.

47. For example, see Section 22: https://www.autodesk.com/company/terms-of-use/en/

general-terms and https://www.autodesk.com/company/legal-notices-trademarks/privacystatement#info-use.

48. Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and

Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2014).

49. Peggy Deamer, “Work,” in James Andrachuk et al., eds., Perspecta 47:

“Money” (Cambridge MA, USA: The MIT Press, August 2015); in Architect as Worker:

Immaterial Labor, the Creative Class, and the Politics of Design (London: Bloomsbury

Academic, 2015).

50. Mike Overby, “Open Source Has Not Failed. Don’t Cover Up Corporate Abuse of

Open Source,” Dev (blog), August 16, 2018, accessed January 14, 2019, https://dev.to/

lethargilistic/open-source-has-not-failed-dont-cover-up-corporate-abuse-of-open-source-3ffe.

51. Josh Terrell et al., “Gender Differences and Bias in Open Source: pull request

acceptance of women versus men,” PeerJ Computer Science 3 (2017): e111.

52. “Gender Bias on Wikipedia,” Wikipedia, January 08, 2019, accessed January 14,

2019. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia; see also Claudia Goldin,

and Cecilia Rouse, “Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’ Auditions on Female

Musicians,” American Economic Review 90, no. 4 (2000): 715-41.

53. Chang, “Where Are The Women?”

54. A recent Equity by Design survey revealed that almost a third of the women who had left

architecture said the lack of role models was the deciding factor, https://issuu.com/rsheng2/

docs/equityinarch2014_finalreport.

55 C. Corbett, and Catherine Hill, “Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s

Success in Engineering and Computing,” (The American Association of University Women,

2015); see also Jiyun Elizabeth L. Shin, Sheri R. Levy and Bonita London, “Effects of Role

Model Exposure on STEM and Non‐STEM Student Engagement,” Journal of Applied Social

Psychology 46, no. 7 (July 2016): 410-27.

56. For example: in the same manner that disclosing all employee’s salaries in an office can

help identify and close a gender wage gap.

57. Colomina, “Outrage.”

Credits

All images are by © the Authors.

Shelby Doyle, AIA is an Assistant Professor of Architecture with the Iowa State University

College of Design and co-founder of the ISU Computation and Construction Lab (CCL).

The CCL works to connect developments in computation to the challenges of construction

through teaching, research, and outreach. She received a Fulbright Fellowship to study in

Cambodia, a Master of Architecture from the Harvard University Graduate School of Design,

and a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the University of Virginia.

E-mail: doyle@iastate.edu

Nick Senske is an Assistant Professor of Architecture with the Iowa State University

College of Design and co-founder of the ISU Computation and Construction Lab (CCL). He

holds a Master of Science in Architectural Studies in Design Computation degree from the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Bachelor of Architecture degree from Iowa

State University. E-mail: nsenske@iastate.edu

4/2/19

4/2/20


American Wild

Digital Preservation for Changing Landscapes

Forbes Lipschitz

The Ohio State University

Shelby Doyle


Halina Steiner

The Ohio State University

Justine Holzman

University of Toronto

The National Park Service represents the nation’s

largest initiative in landscape conservation and

preservation. As both a material and cultural

construct, national parks are living memorials

to a uniquely American wilderness narrative.

In celebration of the National Park Service

Centennial, American Wild is a speculative

proposal for digital landscape preservation.

The project generates civic pride by connecting

the distinctive architecture of the Washington,

DC Metro to the national parks. Using ultra–

high-definition recordings, videos of each park are

individually projection-mapped at full scale. The

memorial creates a timeline of the National Park

Service’s 100-year history that advocates for its

next centennial.

The creation of national parks within

the United States represents the

nation’s largest ongoing initiative

for landscape conservation and

preservation.1 As both a material and

cultural construct, the 84.9 million

acres of national parks are living

memorials to a uniquely American

wilderness narrative (Figure 1).

The physical and imagined spaces

of wilderness created American

identity—distinguishing the nation

from the Old World, providing a

cache of resources to ensure its

economic ascendancy, and defining

American individualism. This same

narrative and its characterization

of the American landscape aided

the colonization of indigenous

peoples and land, the cultivation

and commodification of lands and

waters, and a view of nature as

separate from human activities.2

In this context, Woodrow Wilson

established the National Park Service

(NPS) over one century ago with the

mission “to conserve the scenery,

the natural and historic objects, and

the wildlife therein, and to provide

for the enjoyment of the same in

such manner and by such means as

will leave them unimpaired for the

enjoyment of future generations.”3

The legacy of the NPS is complex,

with laudable achievements in

environmental conservation and

historical preservation occurring

alongside the dispossession of

indigenous lands. At a time when the

country is celebrating a century of

preservation while looking toward an

uncertain future, what representations

and narratives do we call on

when advocating for the continued

preservation of national parks?

Memorialization of and for

Preservation

To mark the 2016 centennial the NPS

partnered with the National Capital

Planning Commission and the Van

Alen Institute to host Memorials for

the Future as an ideas competition to

reimagine memorials. Participants

were challenged to develop

site-specific designs for memorials in

Washington, DC, that were flexible,

temporary, virtual, or interactive.

A finalist in the competition,

American Wild is a speculative design

proposal for virtually experiencing

and digitally preserving the

national parks through an interactive

and immersive installation in

Washington, DC’s Metro stations

JAE 72:2

295


Figure 1. Opposite page, top: The creation of

national parks within the United States represents

the nation’s largest ongoing landscape conservation

and preservation initiative, encompassing 84.9

million acres of land.

Figure 2. Opposite page, bottom: Through fullscale

projection mapping, L’Enfant Plaza Station is

transformed from a space of commuting to one of

commemoration. Metro users rise through the station

beneath the formations of Arches National Park.

(Figure 2). The concept of wilderness

is commonly understood as a

landscape little touched by human

beings—or, as the US Wilderness

Act of 1964 puts it, “an area where

the earth and its community of life

are untrammeled by man, where

man himself is a visitor who does

not remain.”4 By employing the

term wild, the memorial confronts

conceptions and definitions of

wilderness through their past and

current politics, while calling on a

renewed use of wildness to describe

ecological emergence and entanglement

between perceived “artificial”

and “natural” landscape processes

and representations.5

Representation has always

been central to national park

identity—often possessing more

political agency than the physical

spaces of the parks themselves.6

Before the designation of national

parks, nineteenth-century landscape

drawings and paintings were the

first commemorations of American

national wilderness. Landscape

paintings acted as political levers that

inspired the colonial imaginary of

untouched wilderness for extraction

and settlement. These works were

then reframed to produce the

nationalist imaginary of untouched

wilderness for the preservation of

American individualism (Figure 3). As

national parks were forming alongside

Figure 3. Right, top: The Great Blue Spring of the

Lower Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park,

Thomas Moran, 1876. (Image courtesy of the

Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division of Art, Prints and

Photographs: Print Collection, The New York Public

Library.)

Figure 4. Right, bottom: Giant Geyser, Upper

Geyser Basin, Yellowstone National Park, Wyo.,

Detroit Publishing Company, 1898–1931. (Image

courtesy of the Miriam and Ira D. Wallach Division

of Art, Prints and Photographs: Photography

Collection, New York Public Library.)

296 American Wild Lipschitz, Steiner, Doyle, and Holzman

JAE 72:2

297


Figure 5. Wild Life: The National Parks Preserve

All Life, WPA poster by Frank Nicholson, 1936–40.

(Image courtesy of Library of Congress Prints and

Photographs Division, Washington, DC, Library of

Congress.)

a conservation ethic, postcards,

stamps, and posters further promoted

a sense of national pride surrounding

the importance of wilderness

preservation (Figures 4, 5). The parks

were extensively photographed,

cultivating a tradition of landscape

photography that disseminated a

romanticized wilderness aesthetic.7

Whether through the historic and

iconic photographs of Ansel Adams

or contemporary snapshots on selfiesticks,

the representations of national

parks are constantly reproduced,

replicated, and reinterpreted. Richard

Grusin argues that “the parks

themselves function as technologies

of representation, not unlike

painting, photography, cartography or

landscape architecture.”8 As “naturalized

representations,” national

parks are maintained, organized,

and curated to reproduce ecological

scenes of the past in accordance with

popular cultural values.

Simultaneously, these images

and their selective framing of the

American landscape explicitly

supported the genocide and colonization

of indigenous peoples, the

continental settlement and cultivation

of American lands, and a view

of nature as separate, sacred, and

experiential. An examination of these

representations and their associated

narratives is an opportunity to explore

underrepresented histories and foster

narratives that will promote social

and environmental justice.9 In the

current political climate, where lands

are being actively disavowed of their

protections for resource extraction,

it is worth remembering that the

national parks were founded at a

particular moment in time to preserve

the physical and ideological spaces

of wilderness and ensure ongoing

accessibility to the American public.10

A Shifting Physical and Political

Climate

Historic preservation has often

operated on the supposition that,

with effort, we can maintain historic

buildings and sites. Landscapes defy

this stasis, posing difficult questions

for their ongoing maintenance

and governance, particularly in

an unstable physical and political

climate.11 The national parks in

particular highlight the difficulties

of cultural landscape preservation.

Primarily, there is the difficulty

of maintaining a landscape that

is dependent on many interconnected

ecological systems that

may no longer be intact and that

sometimes reflect human–nature

relations that no longer take

place. Additionally, the ongoing

management and maintenance

required to address these difficulties

requires tremendous federal fiscal

and political support. In a memorandum

to Congress in 1934, wilderness

activist Bob Marshall argued that

setting aside dedicated wilderness

areas would give those landscapes

as “close an approximation to

permanence as could be realized in a

world of shifting desires.”12 Despite

these intentions, the effects of

climate change, social inequality, and

political uncertainty threaten the

national parks’ mission, impairing

ecosystems and undermining the

equity of access.

In addition, though parks

hosted a record-breaking 331 million

people in 2016, high attendance

alone is not an indicator of accessibility.13

Affluent Americans are

three times more likely to visit

national parks than those with low

incomes. Americans and parks

visitors are disproportionately white

and non-Hispanic.14 Meanwhile,

the current federal administration

has promised to roll back environmental

regulations protecting

the national parks, including the

potential opening of uranium mining

in the Grand Canyon watershed.15

As ecosystems degrade, income

gaps widen, and political opinions

shift, how can we preserve and

democratize access to the national

parks? In acknowledging the

problematic histories of colonization

and dispossession, how can we

challenge the founding principles of

preserving the wild? In a text that

marks, examines, and honors the

centennial of national parks, Terry

Tempest Williams asks the proactive

question, “Can we engage in the

restoration of a different kind of

storytelling, not the stuff of myths,

self-serving and corrupted, but

stories that foster integrity within a

fragmented nation?”16

The American Wild proposal

purposefully overlaps preservation

with memorialization to highlight

the historic and contemporary

ideologies and politics that

construct, represent, and perpetuate

the preservation of cultural

landscapes. Musing on the politics

and antipolitics of nature, Jedediah

Purdy describes this notion: “The

material world—so-called natural

and so-called artificial—that we

inhabit is in many ways a memorial

to a long-running legacy of contested

ideas about nature: how it works,

how we fit into it, and what have at

stake in doing right by it.”17 When

a landscape is preserved, we inherit

and reify its representations along

with their cultural attachments.

Representation of and for

Preservation

American Wild embraces the

multiplicity of narratives embodied

in the national parks and harnesses

the artificiality of image projections

and acoustic recordings to reimagine

Figure 6. Building on both traditional and newer

methods of representation, American Wild proposes

that each park be documented by a selected fellow

to reveal the subtleties of a day in the park. This

chronological sequence showcases an image for each

of the 59 national parks during the 59-day installation.

human–nature interactions,

representations, and histories. In

this context preservation is not an

attempt to halt the passage of time,

but rather an effort to capture the

simultaneity of the national parks’

many, and sometimes contradictory,

narratives. The memorial is curated to

last for fifty-nine days—one day for

each of the fifty-nine national parks.

The parks will be presented in order

of their establishment, creating a

timeline of the 100-year history of the

NPS. Each park will be documented

by a selected National Park Fellow

(NPF), in the legacy of the WPA

Federal Arts Program (Figure 6).

The NPFs will be invited to

respond to the powerful statement

put forward by the environmental

historian William Cronon that

“The time has come to rethink

wilderness.”18 In rethinking

wilderness, NPFs will bring historic

and contemporary narratives into the

public realm while asking important

questions about the ongoing

preservation of the parks—current

conditions, accessibility, and

management. Ultra–high-definition

video recordings of each national

park will be projection-mapped at full

scale along with audio recordings for

an engaged and visceral experience.

Throughout the duration of the

temporary memorial, viewers will

be encouraged to reflect on and

become curious about the American

landscape and the diverse environmental

narratives that produced

them. The NPFs will capture and

collect phenomenological data about

the national parks, helping build

and preserve a substantial digital

catalog of previous conditions.

298 American Wild

Lipschitz, Steiner, Doyle, and Holzman

JAE 72:2

299


Examples of NPFs’ work might

include pairing existing US National

Archive documentation and biodiversity

monitoring with contemporary

live-action footage, documenting the

melting of a glacier, real-time natural

disasters, or overlooked oral histories.

As environmental change accelerates

in unpredictable ways, current

methods for recording, visualizing,

and memorializing landscapes will

become increasingly valuable to both

historical and scientific record.

A Space for Experience

Given that openness and publicness

do not necessarily democratize

access, the memorial will offer

virtual access to the national parks

by creating an immersive installation

in L’Enfant Plaza Station of

Washington, DC’s Metro. Located

close to the monumental core, this

Metro station is high in ridership,

and connects the east–west Blue

Line and the north–south Green

Line, thereby drawing from a

diverse cross section of the area’s

population (Figures 7, 8). Projecting

NPFs’ imagery at full scale, American

Wild collapses the distance of the

national parks onto the Metro

station’s ceilings. Designed by Harry

Weese, the station provides an ideal

location, as the “indirect lighting

design by William Lam turned the

vault into an underground sky

untouched by mezzanine, signs, or

hanging lights”19 (Figure 9). The

coffered passageway connecting the

train lines offers a unique opportunity

for the memorial to occupy

a space that can be contemplative

yet not interfere with the

Metro’s operations.

The American Wild memorial

performs primarily through

projection-mapping technology,

Figure 7. Top: This diagram overlays the most

visited memorials in 2014 with Washington,

DC’s Metro stations, showing that the district’s

monumental core contains the most visited

memorials. Just as the highways connect national

parks, the Metro connects the capital’s memorial

landscape.

Figure 8. Bottom: This diagram shows that 2013

Metro ridership was highest at stations near the

monumental core. L’Enfant Plaza Station was

selected as an ideal site due to its proximity to the

monumental core, high ridership, and connection to

the east–west Blue Line and the north–south Green

Line, thereby drawing from a diverse cross section

of Washington, DC’s population.

a resource that allows video

footage to be accurately displayed

onto three-dimensional surfaces.

Specialized software remaps imagery

for projection onto a complex

surface—in this case, the coffered

concrete ceiling of the Metro station

(Figure 10). Additionally, multiple

projectors link together to create a

unified and immersive image. The

station’s vertical wayfinding pylons

serve as the infrastructure for both

the projector and sound installation

(Figure 11). Existing LCD advertising

screens and glass elevator

shafts feature additional signage for

American Wild and provide information

about how to learn more about

the parks (Figure 12). The juxtaposition

of national parks and the

Metro’s iconic architecture creates a

new dynamic space within the capital

and transforms an area of passage

into one of pause.

Digital Preservation for Cultural

Landscapes

As both immersive experience and

curated archive, American Wild expands

on the existing digitization of the

national parks. The NPS currently

has its own Instagram, Twitter, and

Facebook pages on which facts and

happenings are constantly updated.

Live webcams managed by the

parks integrate real-time video with

environmental data like weather and

air quality, which can impact visibility

of scenic vistas. Google has also

brought Street View Treks to two

Figure 9. The distinctive architecture of the Metro

was designed to be more than infrastructure. The

Metro connects public spaces on the surface to

the infrastructure below, generating a new form of

civic pride.

Figure 10. American Wild performs primarily

through projection-mapping technology, which

allows video footage to be accurately displayed

onto 3-dimensional surfaces. Multiple projectors

link to create a unified and immersive image

projected on the concrete coffered ceiling. The

vertical wayfinding pylons, identified in cyan, serve

as the infrastructure for the projector and sound

installation.

300 American Wild


JAE 72:2

301


Figure 11. The memorial offers virtual access to

national parks by creating an immersive installation

in the L’Enfant Plaza Station of Metro, located close

to the monumental core of Washington, DC.

Figure 13. Full-scale, immersive video expands

access to the national park experience, raising

awareness and creating memories that outlast the

installation itself. Top: A controlled burn in Glacier

National Park. Middle: The migration of bison in

Yellowstone National Park. Below: A view

of Yosemite National Park.

national parks, allowing online visitors

to go on 360-degree virtual hikes in

Yosemite and the Grand Canyon. As

the lead federal agency for historic

preservation in the United States, the

NPS also employs high-definition

laser scanners to record the shape and

size of historically significant objects

and render them in virtual space.

While some of these platforms are

available in real-time and integrated

with environmental sensor data,

they are only available on personal

devices such as phones and laptops,

unable to communicate the experiential

and cultural scales of these

landscapes. Through American Wild,

the immersive environment of the

Metro station expands access to both

phenomenological experience and

ecological understanding of the parks,

creating memories that will outlast

the installation itself. In so doing, the

memorial reinvigorates the ways in

which the public interacts with the

cultural and biological diversity of the

American landscape as a new model

for digital preservation.

In the essay “Preservation Is

Overtaking Us,” Rem Koolhaas

comments that “maybe we can be

the first to actually experience the

moment that preservation is no longer

a retroactive activity but becomes

a prospective activity.”20 Cultural

landscape preservationist Robert

Melnick, on the other hand, argues

that in the face of climate change, the

Figure 12. Existing advertising screens and glass

elevator shafts feature signage for American

Wild, providing details on learning more about the

parks, opportunities for advocacy, and upcoming

legislation. For more specific information, Quick

Response (QR) codes in the displays offer links to

existing national park websites and phone-based

applications.

challenge may be protection rather

than preservation.21 American Wild

finds agency in the act of preservation,

not as reactive but as politically

proactive. Rather than preserving

future buildings, sites, or landscapes

as Koolhaas fears, American Wild

instead creates space for dialogue.

The sights and sounds of American

Wild offer a new sense of place within

the L’Enfant Plaza Station, providing

a range of experiences. At its most

simple, the memorial inspires a sense

of awe, a new memory, or a break

from routine. At its most ambitious,

it is a call to action: simultaneously

memorializing past and current

national parks while petitioning for

their future preservation.

The experience may bond

the memorial viewer to the park,

sparking interest and possible future

investment. The encounter may

inspire a visit to a national park

where one might learn about the

specific challenges that park faces.

A viewer then might draft a letter to

a local congresswoman describing

issues facing that park (Figure 13).

The memorial will be viewed by

thousands of people daily, fostering

new connections to a broad and

diverse audience. Many may have a

newfound commitment to ensuring

the parks’ existence for the next

100 years, an effort accompanied by

NPS’s #100moreyears social media

campaign. A vital aspect of this

future is the public’s commitment to

policy that supports national parks.

The memorial experience offers the

viewer a new appreciation for and

awareness of the American landscape

and its environmental narratives while

contributing to its digital preservation

(Figures 14 and 15).

Author Biographies

Forbes Lipschitz is an assistant

professor of landscape architecture

at the Austin E. Knowlton School

of Architecture at The Ohio State

University. As a faculty affiliate

for the Initiative in Food and

AgriCultural Transformation, her

current research investigates the

potential of design to improve the

social and ecological dynamics of

conventional working landscapes.

She has been awarded teaching

and research grants from the

Louisiana State University Office

of Research and Development,

the Coastal Sustainability Studio,

and the Graham Foundation for

Advanced Studies in Fine Arts.

Her professional experience in

landscape architecture has spanned

a range of public, private, and

infrastructural work, including

a multiyear installation at Les

Jardins de Metis.

Halina Steiner is an assistant


at the Austin E. Knowlton School

of Architecture at The Ohio State

University (OSU). Her current

research focuses on the visualization

of transboundary hydrologic

and infrastructure systems. Prior to

her appointment at OSU, Steiner

served as the design director for

DLANDstudio Architecture +

Landscape Architecture where she

was the project manager for master

planning, green infrastructure,

temporary installations, and public

design projects. This work included

Paths to Pier 42, a three-year

pop-up park to activate underused

waterfront space impacted by

Superstorm Sandy, Public Media

Commons, The QueensWay Plan,

and HOLD System.

302 American Wild


JAE 72:2

303


Author Biographies cont.

Shelby Doyle, AIA, is an assistant

professor of architecture and Daniel

J. Huberty Faculty Fellow at the Iowa

State University (ISU) College of

Design. Her scholarship is broadly

focused on the intersection of

computation and construction and

specifically on the role of digital

craft as both a social and political

project. Doyle was hired under

the High Impact Hires Initiative

to combine digital fabrication and

design-build at ISU. This led to the

founding of the ISU Computation +

Construction Lab with Nick Senske

and Leslie Forehand.

Justine Holzman joined the University

of Toronto’s Daniels Faculty of

Architecture, Landscape, and Design

in January 2018 as an assistant


teaching visual communication, site

technologies, and studio courses.

Additionally, Holzman is a

member of the Dredge Research

Collaborative and a research affiliate

for the Responsive Environments and

Artifacts Lab at Harvard University

Graduate School of Design. She is

coauthor of Responsive Landscapes:

Strategies for Responsive Technologies

in Landscape Architecture (2016) with

Bradley Cantrell. Holzman previously

taught at The University of Tennessee

and The Robert Reich School of

Landscape Architecture at Louisiana

State University where she worked

as a research fellow with the Coastal

Sustainability Studio.

All images by authors unless

otherwise indicated.

Notes

1 The National Association for Olmsted

Parks, the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, the US National Park Service

(NPS), and Parks Canada have all significantly

contributed to the practice and discourse of

natural and cultural landscape preservation

in North America.

2 For an in-depth examination of the American

conception of “wilderness,” see Roderick

Nash, Wilderness and the American Mind (New

Haven: Yale University Press, 1967). For an

expanded environmental history of the United

States that challenges culturally dominant

American histories and conceptualizations

of nature and environment, see works by

Carolyn Merchant, William Cronon, and

Donald Worster.

3 An Act to Establish a National Park Service,

And for Other Purposes, approved August 25,

1916 (39 Stat. 535).

4 Wilderness Act of 1964, (Pub.L. 88–577).

5 Douglas Anderson references “Walking” for

Thoreau’s use of “wildness” as a political

gesture toward freedom and dissent in

“Wildness as Political Act,” The Personalist

Forum 14 (1998): 65–72. On the challenges of

defining “wilderness,” see Craig DeLancey,

“An Ecological Concept of Wilderness,” Ethics

and the Environment 17, no. 1 (2012): 25–44. In

landscape architectural discourse, see the

themed issue, Tatum Hands, ed., WILD,

LA+: Interdisciplinary Journal of Landscape

Architecture (Spring 2015).

6 Both textual and visual methods of representation

have contributed to the significant

narratives of the American environmental

Figure 14. Left: The installation on the upper level

of L’Enfant Plaza Station is visible from the platform

below. Commuters gaze beyond the platform to the

sky of Sequoia National Park.

Figure 15. Opposite page: A visitor inspired by

this memorial may travel to a national park and

be prompted to learn about that park’s specific

challenges, fostering a new appreciation for and

awareness of the American landscape.

imaginary and national parks. For canonical

textual accounts see works by Henry David

Thoreau, John Muir, Frederick Jackson

Turner, and Gifford Pinchot. These narratives

have emerged in the agendas and legal legacies

of various presidents and political leaders.

7 Kevin Michael DeLuca and Anne Teresa

Demos, “Imaging Nature: Watkins, Yosemite,

and the Birth of Environmentalism,”

Critical Studies in Media Communication 17

(2000): 241–60.

8 Richard A. Grusin, Culture, Technology, and the

Creation of America’s National Parks (Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 10.

9 See J. Scott Bryson and Carolyn Merchant,

“Partnership, Narrative, and Environmental

Justice: An Interview with Carolyn Merchant,”

Interdisciplinary Literary Studies 3, no. 1

(Spring 2001), 124–30.

10 The Trump administration has targeted

the removal of public and environmental

protections for resource extraction.

11 Robert Z. Melnick, “Climate Change and

Landscape Preservation: A Twenty-First–

Century Conundrum,” Journal of Preservation

Technology 40, no. 3/4 (2009): 35–42.

12 Bob Marshall to Secretary Harold L. Ickes,

“Suggested Program for Preservation of

Wilderness Areas,” memo, April 1934, record

group 79, National Archives, Washington, DC.

13 NPS, “Annual Visitation Highlights,” US

Department of the Interior, accessed

May 2018, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/

socialscience/annual-visitationhighlights.htm.

14 P. A. Taylor, B. D. Grandjean, and

B. Anatchkova, National Park Service

Comprehensive Survey of the American Public,

2008–2009, Natural Resource Report NPS/

NRPC/SSD/NRR, (Fort Collins, Colorado:

National Park Service, 2011), 295.

15 NPS, press release, January 27, 2016, US

Department of the Interior, accessed May

2018, https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/news/

release.htm?id=1775.

16 Terry Tempest Williams, The Hour of Land:

A Personal Topography of America’s National

Parks (New York: Farrar, Straus, and

Giroux, 2016), 11.

17 Jedidiah Purdy, After Nature: A Politics for

the Anthropocene (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press, 2015), 22–23.

18 William Cronon, “The Trouble with

Wilderness: Or, Getting Back to the Wrong

Nature,” in Uncommon Ground: Rethinking

the Human Place in Nature (New York: W. W.

Norton, 1995), 69.

19 Zachary Schrag, The Great Society Subway: A

History of the Washington Metro (Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 2014).

20 Rem Koolhaas, “Preservation Is Overtaking

Us,” Future Anterior 1, no. 2 (2004):

21 xiv, 1–3.

22 Robert Z. Melnick, “Climate Change and

Landscape Preservation: Rethinking Our

Strategies,” Change Over Time 5, no. 2, (2015):

174–79; and Robert Z. Melnick, “Deciphering

Cultural Landscape Heritage in the Time

of Climate Change,” Landscape Journal 35

(2016): 287–302.

304 American Wild


JAE 72:2

305


maTERIaLIZanDO

LO DIgITaL: La

aRQuITECTuRa

COmO InTERFaZ

MATERIA ARQUITECTURA #13 | SANTIAGO | págs. 62-75

ISSN: 0718-7033

Materializando lo digital: La arquitectura como interfaz

Materializing the Digital: Architecture as Interface

shelby Elizabeth Doyle

Department of architecture, College of Design, Iowa state university

ames, Iowa, EE.uu

doyle@iastate.edu

PALABRAS CLAVE

Computación | construcción | digital | material | social

KEYWORDS

Computation | Construction | Digital | Material | Social

Dossier

Fecha Recepción: 5 julio 2016

Fecha Aceptación: 5 agosto 2016

Resumen_

Las tecnologías digitales han reconfigurado nuestra experiencia del mundo material. En esta condición

aumentada e hibridada, la información (como la arquitectura) no tiene relevancia social a menos que sea

puesta en circulación, compartida e integrada a la vida diaria a través de interfaces entre lo digital y lo

físico. El “trabajo más serio” que se presenta aquí es el oficio digital como un método para materializar lo

digital y extender la acción del pensamiento computacional y el diseño paramétrico hacia un nuevo proyecto

social para la arquitectura. En una era de redes sociales digitales, el futuro de los espacios públicos

dependerá en gran parte de una arquitectura que pueda manejar la interfaz entre lo material y lo digital.

Abstract_

Digital technologies have reshaped our experience of the material world. In this augmented and hybridized condition, information

(and architecture) has no social relevance unless circulated, shared, and integrated into everyday life through interfaces between the

digital and physical. The ‘more serious work’ presented here is digital craft as a method for materializing the digital and extending the

agency of computational thinking and parametric design into a new social project for architecture. In an age of digital social networks,

the future of public spaces will largely depend on an architecture that navigates the interface between the material and the digital.

Pabellón 80/35. Fotografía: ISU Department of Architecture

62

63


MATERIA ARQUITECTURA #13

Dossier

«Que el parametricismo “se haya socializado” no es

una concesión a las corrientes actuales de corrección

política (que desvían y disuelven el impulso innovador

de lo arquitectónico). Es, más bien, una señal

de la madurez, confianza y disposición del parametricismo

para asumir totalmente el rol social de la

arquitectura, lo que implica la inauguración del parametricismo

2.0. (…) Después de 15 años de flexiones

musculares ya es tiempo de hacer que estas

innovaciones hagan un trabajo más serio» Patrik

Schumacher (2015: 1).

INTRODUCCIóN

La búsqueda de la autonomía de la arquitectura ha desvinculado

a la disciplina de su proyecto social al insistir

en que la arquitectura puede ser reducida a un conjunto

de elementos y operaciones formales separadas de las

influencias de lugar y tiempo y de los problemas socioculturales

y políticos (Hays, 2010). Esta dependencia del

formalismo y de un mundo dominado por el capitalismo

tardío ha dejado a la arquitectura digital sin una posición

política clara. Entendida como una forma de resistencia

al dominio de la producción capitalista, la autonomía en

la arquitectura es, en cambio, una forma de evadir su

compromiso de hacer el “trabajo serio” de hoy, el que

consiste en hacerse cargo de temas que van desde la

degradación ambiental a la desigualdad económica.

El diseño paramétrico es un método que usa parámetros

o algoritmos variables para generar geometrías y

objetos. La autonomía de la arquitectura, por lo tanto,

podría lograrse a través del diseño paramétrico como un

mecanismo interno de producción, factibilidad y justificación

arquitectónica. A continuación se sostiene que lo

paramétrico no necesita ser reducido a un proyecto formal,

que puede y debe funcionar como una herramienta

de compromiso social a través de interfaces arquitectónicas.

Básicamente, este es un llamado a desarrollar

una posición teórica más fuerte sobre la aplicación de

un diseño paramétrico avanzado, explorando cómo la

computación y la construcción pueden apoyar la acción

de la arquitectura en el desarrollo de un proyecto social.

LA ARQUITECTURA COMO UNA INTERFAZ DE

COMUNICACIóN

Las tecnologías digitales han transformado indeleblemente

el lenguaje visual del diseño en la educación y la

práctica, reemplazando los dibujos y modelos tradicionalmente

hechos a mano. El modelamiento digital y equipos

como las máquinas de control numérico computarizado

(CNC) y las impresoras 3D ponen énfasis en la excelencia

técnica de las destrezas manuales, haciendo que las

antiguas nociones de creatividad, artesanía y oficio sean

reconsideradas. Tanto McCullough (1996) como Sennet

(2008) cuestionan el hecho de que hacer algo a mano sea

un pre-requisito para el oficio y la artesanía, y proponen

marcos teóricos para reconceptualizar ambos conceptos

en un contexto de objetos diseñados digitalmente.

Al mismo tiempo, las posibilidades de colaboración y

producción que la computación abre para la arquitectura

siguen siendo de tres tipos: una consolidación que

reafirma la centralidad disciplinaria, una expansión que

diluye su especificidad, o unas redefiniciones y reconfiguraciones

transdisciplinarias que por un lado intensifican y

por otro hacen borrosos sus límites y su identidad.

De las tres posibilidades, las redefiniciones transdisciplinarias

son las más prometedoras. La computación es el

lenguaje fundacional de lo digital y este lenguaje compartido

crea oportunidades para el compromiso entre las

disciplinas de diseño y más allá de ellas. En relación con

el crecimiento de la cultura digital, la contribución de la

arquitectura puede muy bien estar en el dominio de la

realidad aumentada, es decir, en el manejo de la interfaz

entre lo físico y lo virtual, más que en enfocarse exclusivamente

en lo último. No es accidental que una institución

como el MIT Media Lab trabaje principalmente en temas

de interfaz y esté asociado a una escuela de arquitectura.

Como predijo alguna vez Nicholas Negroponte (1995), ex

director del MIT Media Lab, la interfaz se ha convertido en

un problema de arquitectura.

Antoine Picon señala en Digital Culture (2010) que el

desarrollo de las tecnologías digitales ha remodelado

nuestra experiencia del mundo físico. En esta condición

aumentada e hibridada, la información (como la

Pabellón 80/35 en el espacio del taller donde fue diseñado y construido por alumnos de Arquitectura, Diseño Industrial y

Diseño Interior de la Universidad Estatal de Iowa (2016). Fotografías: ISU Department of Architecture.

64

65



Dossier

arquitectura) no tiene relevancia social a menos que

circule y sea compartida e integrada en la vida diaria a

través de interfaces entre lo digital y lo físico. La interfaz

necesita que la arquitectura materialice lo digital de

maneras nuevas e impensadas.

PROYECTO SOCIAL CONTEMPORáNEO,

CAPITALISMO Y LA CLASE DOMINANTE

«En cierto modo, no existe algo que pudiésemos considerar

como edificios políticamente “opuestos”, ya

que los que se construyen son siempre los de la clase

dominante» Aldo Rossi (1982: 113).

El proyecto arquitectónico social contemporáneo está

separado del socialismo como estructura política, de

las ciencias sociales como estructura de información y

del modernismo como estructura teórica. Tafuri (1979)

Lefebvre (1992) e incluso Aureli (2011) expresan sus reservas

acerca del mito del arquitecto como experto o defensor

y guardián de algún “imaginario común” abstracto

(Coleman, 2015). Estas opiniones son difíciles de sostener

cuando se encuentran con declaraciones tales como las

de Architecture without Architects (Rudofsky, 1965).

Resumiendo a Tafuri, Hays comenta:

Cuando la arquitectura se resiste, cuando intenta reafirmar

su propia voz perturbadora, el capitalismo simplemente

la retira, la relega a un rincón, de manera

que las manifestaciones de los arquitectos sobre la

autonomía de sus trabajos y su distancia de la vida

degradada se hacen redundantes y triviales por adelantado

(1998: xiv).

Para Tafuri, la “vuelta a la arquitectura pura” que necesita

el capitalismo es poco más que un retorno «a la forma sin

utopía (...) a la inutilidad sublime» (citado en Hays, 1998:

xiii).

El proyecto social contemporáneo de la arquitectura

reside en gran parte en su capacidad comunicativa tanto

digital como material. «El medioambiente construido

ordena procesos sociales a través de su patrón de separaciones

y conexiones espaciales, facilitando a su vez un

patrón deseado de eventos sociales separados y conectados.

Esta es la organización social a través de la organización

espacial» (Schumacher, 2016: 109).

La arquitectura tiene el potencial de ser una gigante interfaz

navegable, llena de información que se refleja en la

creciente importancia de sucesos, eventos y escenarios.

EL VALOR DE LA ARQUITECTURA Y EL

CONOCIMIENTO ARQUITECTóNICO

Una disciplina es autónoma cuando se puede desarrollar

independientemente de otras disciplinas. Una disciplina

que no tiene autonomía es una que depende de otros

dominios teóricos para su investigación, como ocurre

con la dependencia que tiene la arquitectura de marcos

teóricos de disciplinas como la filosofía y la biología. La

búsqueda de la autonomía de la arquitectura es un síntoma

de la pérdida de confianza en la posibilidad de

una arquitectura que realmente pueda construirse y ser

al mismo tiempo culturalmente válida. Además, la arquitectura

como un proyecto construido se presenta inevitablemente

como comprometida. La arquitectura como

crítica, más que como construcción, se libera del “peso

de la utilidad y la realidad”. La utopía, como algo que no

tiene lugar, es inalcanzable y la perfección está reservada

para lo desconocido o lo que no se puede conocer, o se

logra solamente cuando el problema se ha reducido de

tal manera, o los objetivos se han puesto tan bajos, que

se pueden alcanzar (Coleman, 2015).

Un problema importante es la evaluación de la intención,

más que su efecto o impacto. Lo social ha sido disminuido

por el lenguaje de la ingenuidad, la bondad, el colonialismo

localizado o los métodos errados de gentrificación

acelerada. Además, la ética de los diseñadores que experimentan

con poblaciones en condiciones de pobreza

necesita generalmente un resultado más tradicional

y/o conocido que va en contra de un producto radical.

A pesar del contenido, estos proyectos con frecuencia

requieren un enfoque conservador puesto que la arquitectura

no puede fallar doblemente a quienes ya están en

desventaja (Ranciere, 2004). El esfuerzo de la arquitectura

por liberarse del peso de la ética llevó a la búsqueda de

Pabellón 80/35. Fotografía: ISU Department of Architecture

66

67


Vista del Pabellón 80/35 en el espacio público desde un dron. Fotografía: Dronography Iowa.

68 69



Dossier

una autonomía que podría permitir que la arquitectura

fuera juzgada en relación a sí misma en lugar de hacerlo

en relación al mundo que construye. Es un mito agradable

y reconfortante, pero un mito de todas maneras.

OFICIO

El arquitecto y teórico Stan Allen comenta en su artículo

“Ecologías artificiales” que la práctica de la arquitectura

siempre ha estado en la posición paradojal de dedicarse

a la producción de cosas reales, concretas, pero trabajando

con herramientas de representación abstracta

(dibujos, moldes, simulaciones computacionales y otros).

La paradoja hace surgir la siguiente pregunta: ¿pensar (y

sus abstracciones asociadas) o hacer (y su parte concreta)

da agenciamiento a la arquitectura? (Allen, 2003).

La capacidad de fabricar, de pensar por medio del hacer,

infunde a la arquitectura su agenciamiento explícito para

comprometerse más allá de la academia y la disciplina. La

introducción del oficio digital en la práctica contemporánea

extiende su accionar en el proyecto social (o político)

de la arquitectura en lugar de limitarlo. El proceso

de pensar por medio del hacer y el acompañamiento de

métodos no lineales deja a los arquitectos en posición de

identificar vías de pensamiento hacia temas contemporáneos,

haciendo visible lo que permanece invisible para

otras disciplinas. El hacer estimula la imaginación y a través

de ella el arquitecto entra en las esferas de la vida que

no son inmediatas a la experiencia personal: el proyecto

social (o político) de la arquitectura. Esta imaginación es

también un agente poderoso (Scarry, 1985). La habilidad

de imaginar un mundo mayor equipado con la capacidad

para actuar, es crear un objeto con intencionalidad y

propósito. A medida que la disciplina continúa luchando

con su propia identidad y la dirección de su fragmentada

autoridad, el oficio permanece como la herramienta más

valiosa a disposición del arquitecto. El oficio ubica al

arquitecto como un agente de cambio social y político y

el oficio digital es una extensión de este agenciamiento.

¿Es el dominio digital una extensión del espacio imaginario

o un reemplazo del espacio físico? ¿Y este ciberespacio

extiende el agenciamiento arquitectónico o lo limita?

Los muros digitales no protegen de la lluvia física, o como

afirma McCullough, existe la «aparente paradoja del

hacer intangible» (1996: 22). Ciertamente, podemos estar

entrando ahora en la era del maestro constructor o del

arquitecto artesano que John Ruskin (1849/1989) quiso

resucitar, pero estaríamos llegando ahí de una manera

que Ruskin no podría haber anticipado. Los temas de

dimensión, peso, textura y materialidad continúan siendo

esenciales a la arquitectura como medioambiente construido,

sin importar cuán atractivo pueda ser el mundo

pixelado. La fabricación digital y sus herramientas asociadas

proporcionan una contraparte táctil al ambiente

basado en la imagen que prevalece en el trabajo digital.

EL OFICIO DIGITAL

«La mejor manera de apreciar los méritos y consecuencias

de lo digital es reflexionar sobre las diferencias

entre bits y átomos» Nicholas Negroponte (1995:

11).

Para el propósito de este artículo, lo digital llegó a la

arquitectura a comienzos de los años noventa y se define

como la computarización del diseño, la construcción y

los procesos de fabricación. Está marcado por una transición

de los diseños basados en la cuadrilla cartesiana

hacia aquellos construidos a partir de una condición de

campo digital abstraída del espacio computacional.

Específicamente, por la introducción de ejes computacionales

continuos que son variables dentro de límites definidos

y pueden ser anotados como funciones paramétricas

o relaciones matemáticas entre las partes (Carpo, 2012).

El oficio digital surge del pensamiento computacional,

la fabricación digital y la construcción robótica, procesos

que permiten la total participación de los arquitectos en

la producción de edificios y en consecuencia expanden

la acción de la arquitectura para comprometerse en un

proyecto social y político mayor.

Por lo tanto, ¿de qué manera el oficio digital puede recoger

los mejores aspectos del oficio manual, del pensar

a través del hacer y de las capacidades de las tecnologías

digitales? Primero, el oficio digital debe aceptar las

condiciones espaciales del ambiente computacional. El

El Pabellón 80/35 completo en el Festival 80/35 de Des Moines, Iowa, EE.UU. Fotografías: ISU Department of Architecture.

70

71




Arriba: El diagrama muestra el desarrollo de la forma y la estructura del pabellón. Abajo: Corte y planta. Imágenes: ISU Department of Architecture.

término “ciberespacio” apareció por primera vez en 1982

en el cuento Burning Chrome de William Gibson, y luego

se hizo popular por su novela de 1984 Neuromancer. El

concepto de “otro” espacio está entretejido a través de

la historia y aparece en la literatura y en comentarios culturales

desde la “Alegoría de la caverna” de Platón hasta

el “genio maligno” de Descartes. Sin embargo, el concepto

de ciberespacio es único ya que ofrece no sólo un

ámbito de representación y comunicación, sino también

un ambiente social en el cual pueden existir estas actividades.

En la cultura digital hay una nueva continuidad

entre sujeto y objeto arquitectónico, sin un vacío entre

ellos, como si la distancia de visión fuera suprimida por

la textura. El oficio y su inherente materialidad crearán los

corolarios interactivos entre el ciberespacio y el espacio

físico.

COMPUTACIóN + CONSTRUCCIóN

«La computación y la materialidad ahora parecen

inseparables en todo nivel, desde lo macro hasta

lo micro y los niveles nanoscópicos» Antoine Picon

(2010: 98).

El alto modernismo prestó poca atención a las fórmulas

genéricas y algo abstractas de los temas sociales. Su

traslado al contexto norteamericano trajo consigo una

especial mezcla de idealismo y pragmatismo. Un método

distintivo de la educación moderna, el de la Bauhaus,

tenía como objetivo fusionar la enseñanza del oficio y el

diseño con una práctica artística de vanguardia. Al hacer

eso, la metodología Bauhaus de aprender haciendo

relacionaba a menudo la educación experiencial con la

agenda social de la arquitectura moderna y la experimentación

tecnológica (Bergdoll & Dickerman, 2009).

Esta pedagogía cultivaba una cultura de hacer a través

de una enseñanza basada en talleres —uno de cuyos

objetivos era entrenar diseñadores para la producción

industrial y la construcción—. Estos lugares de trabajo

colaborativo se convirtieron en los estudios de diseño

y construcción que actualmente usan herramientas digitales

(Ockman, 2012). El de diseño/construcción es un

modelo único de enseñanza de la arquitectura basado

en el aprendizaje a través de proyectos que capacitan a

los estudiantes para construir sus diseños en colaboración

con las comunidades locales. La fabricación digital

da ventajas a las tecnologías computacionales de diseño

y construcción, integrando herramientas de las industrias

aeroespaciales, automotoras y de construcción

naviera. Ha cambiado la manera en que se conciben los

edificios y se construyen. La combinación de estas disciplinas

permite una integración directa de la práctica con

las tecnologías establecidas y desafía a los estudiantes

para que exploren metodologías que tengan un impacto

innovador en el futuro de la enseñanza y la profesión de

la arquitectura.

Las preguntas que surgen de las condiciones de la práctica

contemporánea y de su continua introducción de

nuevas tecnologías exigen una arquitectura que explora

formas de mover las fronteras de los mundos físicos y

electrónicos. A medida que la pedagogía y la práctica de

la arquitectura se dedican cada vez más a la enseñanza

de métodos computacionales, la práctica de la construcción

nunca había sido un contrapunto tan importante.

Los ejemplos incluyen el aumento de grupos de investigación

interdisciplinaria (y anti-disciplinaria) de diseño,

como el MIT Media Lab, que existen al unirse la tecnología,

los multimedios, la ciencia, el arte y el diseño.

Más que el renacimiento del proyecto social del modernismo,

esta investigación considera maneras en que los

arquitectos, trabajando en la cultura digital, puedan ser

diseñadores de sistemas constructivos y proporcionen la

base de una nueva cultura tectónica.

Ejemplos de este nuevo giro incluyen las metodologías

usadas en arquitectura, los laboratorios de investigación

y los programas de postgrado que confían en la llegada,

a los departamentos de arquitectura, de talleres de

fabricación digital, así como en el surgimiento de nuevos

programas exploratorios de diseño/construcción.

Estos enfoques educacionales invierten el espacio entre

la enseñanza y la práctica profesional introduciendo un

control directo de la producción, el oficio digital, los proyectos

especulativos y los métodos para volver a centrar

el rol del arquitecto en el acto de construir más que en

la coordinación.

72

73



Dossier



LA ARQUITECTURA COMO INTERFAZ

Un ejemplo de la combinación de la computación y la

construcción es el Pabellón 80/35. El proyecto, una instalación

diseñada y construida por estudiantes para

el Festival 80/35 de Des Moines, Iowa, EE.UU., es una

estructura reactiva a la luz que brilla en respuesta a la

música que hay a su alrededor y aumenta el ambiente

festivo del evento. Como parte de un estudio optativo

interdisciplinario de cuatro meses, dieciséis estudiantes

que se especializaban en arquitectura, diseño industrial y

diseño interior, desarrollaron y fabricaron el pabellón de 3

x 6 metros, atrayendo visualmente al público y proporcionando

sombra, un lugar para sentarse y una experiencia

sensorial que combinaba diseño, música y color. El diseño

solamente exige de sus usuarios documentación, discusión

y comunicación.

El Festival 80/35 incluye un escenario para bandas nacionales

itinerantes y varias plataformas más pequeñas para

presentaciones regionales y locales. Además de música,

hay casetas para organizaciones locales, arte interactivo,

venta de comida y bebidas y lugares para descansar. El

festival ha estado atrayendo un público anual de aproximadamente

30.000 personas desde 2008. Una mezcla de

plataformas pagadas y otras libres de pago, con la colaboración

de empresas locales, organizaciones sin fines

de lucro y otras agrupaciones sociales hace del evento

una fuente de gran valor para la economía y la cultura de

Iowa. El festival tiene una presencia nacional e internacional

a través de una activa circulación medial y social y una

cobertura externa de medios de comunicación.

El festival proporcionaba un lugar ideal para un proyecto

de diseño experimental y colaborativo. Hecho de cajas

modulares construidas con paneles de madera terciada

envueltos en membranas de polietileno de alta densidad

(Tyvek), el pabellón usa software de programación para

coordinar la instalación de 6.500 piezas diferentes cortadas

con un router CNC. Cintas de LEDs (diodos emisores

de luz, por sus siglas en inglés) instaladas dentro de los

módulos fueron programadas por microcontroladores

para responder a los sonidos del festival. Cada módulo es

geométricamente único, pero representa una idea tectónica

unificada. El módulo sirve como unidad estructural y

como píxel de luz, representando tanto una idea arquitectónica

como una respuesta digital interactiva.

El proyecto fue construido en los estudios de la

Universidad Estatal de Iowa, desarmado y luego vuelto

a construir en el lugar del festival de música, que duraba

dos días. Sin embargo, el proyecto actúa como catalizador

de los medios sociales y de comunicación y su

impacto se extendió gracias a estas funciones. Después

del festival, el pabellón fue desarmado y algunos módulos

escogidos serán distribuidos junto con los microprocesadores

entre estudiantes de educación secundaria,

transfiriendo así a un público mayor el conocimiento

contenido en el proyecto.

Si el formalismo de la arquitectura puede ser fácilmente

descartado por su autoría fetichista, su activismo es a

menudo víctima de la misma tentación, aun cuando sus

intenciones son más políticas que formales (Culpers,

2014). El proyecto presentado aquí no se escapa de esta

crítica. No se propone resolver un problema o dar una

solución, sino presentar a la arquitectura como una interfaz

entre el sistema digital y el físico. El estudio, financiado

por una firma de arquitectos y sin un programa motivado

por la necesidad, consigue producir compromiso público

al ser ubicado en el ámbito público y tener amplia circulación

a través de los medios sociales.

CONCLUSIóN

Los mundos digitales no deberían ser vistos como alternativos

o sustitutos del mundo construido, sino como

una dimensión adicional que permite a los arquitectos

una nueva libertad de movimiento en el mundo físico. En

otras palabras, la trascendencia de lo físico en el mundo

digital permite a los arquitectos extender su acción en el

mundo físico (Carpo, 2012). El marco teórico presentado

aquí saca las herramientas de lo paramétrico (la computación)

y las emplea como métodos de construcción más

que para producir imágenes. Combinando la computación

y la construcción, la arquitectura materializa lo digital y funciona

como un medio participativo y social, rechazando la

AGRADECIMIENTOS

El Pabellón 80/35 fue diseñado y producido por los siguientes estudiantes

bajo la dirección del autor: Alexandra Abreu, Rahul Attraya, Cole

Davis, Shaohua Dong, Donald Hull, Kaitlin Izer, Bryan Johnson, Joshua

Neff, Nate Peters, Kelsie Stopak y Coralis Rodríguez-Torres (Licenciados

en Arquitectura); Kyle Vansice (Master en Arquitectura); Nicole Behnke,

Hannah Greenfield, Makaela Jimmerson (Licenciadas en Diseño Interior);

Tom Bos (Master en Diseño Industrial). El mayor financiamiento del proyecto

fue proporcionado por OPN Architects. Apoyo adicional fue proporcionado

por donaciones de las siguientes entidades: Fieldstead &

Company Endowment for Community Enhancement, Stan G. Thurston

Professorship in Design Build, Iowa State University College of Design,

Iowa State University Department of Architecture y Des Moines Music

Coalition 80/35 Music Festival.

REFERENCIAS

ALLEN, S. (2003). Artificial Ecologies. En V. Patteeuw (Ed.), Reading MVRDV (págs.

82-87). Róterdam, Holanda: Nai.

AURELI, P. V. (2011). The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture. Cambridge, MA,

EE.UU: MIT Press.

BERGDOLL, B., & DICKERMAN, L. (2009). Bauhaus: 1919-1933 Workshops for

Modernity. Nueva York, NY, EE.UU.: Museum of Modern Art.

CARPO, M. (2012). The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012. Chichester, Inglaterra:

Wiley.

COLEMAN, N. (2015). The Myth of Autonomy. Architecture Philosophy, 1(2), 157-178.

CULPERS, K. (2014). The Social Project: Housing Postwar France. Minneapolis, MN,

EE.UU.: University of Minnesota Press.

GIBSON, W. (1982). Burning Chrome. Omni.

GIBSON, W. (1984). Neuromancer. Nueva York, NY, EE.UU.: Ace Books.

HAYS, K. M. (1998). Oppositions Reader: Selected Essays 1973-1984. Princeton, NJ,

EE.UU.: Princeton Architectural Press.

HAYS, K. M. (2010). Architecture's Desire: Reading the Late Avant-Garde. Cambridge,

MA, EE.UU.: MIT Press.

LEFEBVRE, H. (1992). The Production of Space. (D. Nicholson-Smith, Trad.) Nueva

York, NY, EE.UU.: Wiley-Blackwell.

MCCULLOUGH, M. (1996). Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand.

Cambridge, MA, EE.UU.: MIT Press.

NEGROPONTE, N. (1995). Being Digital. Nueva York, NY, EE.UU.: Knopf.

OCKMAN, J. (2012). Architecture School: Three Centuries of Education Architects in

North America. Cambridge, MA, EE.UU.: MIT Press.

PICON, A. (2010). Digital Culture in Architecture: An Introduction for the Design

Professions. Basel, Suiza: Birkhauser.

RANCIERE, J. (2004). The Philosopher and His Poor. Durham, NC, EE.UU.: Duke

University Press.

autonomía y buscando el compromiso público. m 75

ROSSI, A. (1982). The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA, EE.UU.: MIT Press.

RUDOFSKY, B. (1965). Architecture Without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-

Pedigreed Architecture. Nueva York, NY, EE.UU.: Museum of Modern Art.

RUSKIN, J. (1849/1989). The Seven Lamps of Architecture (Revised Edition). Nueva

York, NY, EE.UU.: Dover Publications.

SCARRY, E. (1985). The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Nueva

York, NY, EE.UU.: Oxford University Press.

SCHUMACHER, P. (2015). Parametricism with Social Parameters. En I. Lazovski,

& Y. Kahlon (Eds.), The Human (Parameter): Parametric Approach in Israeli

Architecture (Online). Tel-Aviv, Israel: Paragroup-Israel.

SCHUMACHER, P. (marzo/abril de 2016). Advancing Social Functionality via Agent

Based Parametric Semiology. Architectural Design, 86(2) (Número especial:

Parametricism 2.0: Rethinking Architecture’s Agenda for the 21st Century; P.

Schumacher, Editor Invitado), 108-113.

SENNET, R. (2008). The Craftsman. New Haven, CT, EE.UU.: Yale University Press.

TAFURI, M. (1979). Architecture and Utopia: Design and Capitalist Development.

Cambridge, MA, EE.UU.: MIT Press.

74



Dossier

Translations

Materializing the Digital: Architecture as Interface

Shelby elizabeth Doyle

Department of Architecture, College of

Design, Iowa State University

Ames, Iowa, USA

doyle@iastate.edu

Keywords: Computation, Construction,

Digital, Material, Social

ABSTRACT

Digital technologies have reshaped our

experience of the material world. in this

augmented and hybridized condition,

information (and architecture) has

no social relevance unless circulated,

shared, and integrated into everyday

life through interfaces between the

digital and physical. The ‘more serious

work’ presented here is digital craft as a

method for materializing the digital and

extending the agency of computational

thinking and parametric design into a

new social project for architecture. in an

age of digital social networks, the future

of public spaces will largely depend

on an architecture that navigates the

interface between the material and

the digital.

“That parametricism ‘goes social’ is

not a concession to the prevailing

winds of political correctness (that

divert and dissolve the innovative

thrust of architectural discourse).

Rather, it is a sign of parametricism’s

maturity, confidence and readiness

to take on the full societal tasks

of architecture, i.e. it implies the

inauguration of Parametricism 2.0

(…) After 15 years of muscle flexing it

is high time to put these innovations

to more serious work” Patrik

Schumacher (2015: 1).

iNTRODuCTiON

The search for architectural autonomy

has severed the discipline from its social

project by insisting that architecture can

be reduced to a body of formal elements

and operations separate from the

influences of place, time, socio-cultural

and political concerns (Hays, 2010).

This reliance upon formalism and a

world dominated by late capitalism has

left digital architecture without a clear

political stance. Understood as a form of

resistance to the dominance of capitalist

production, autonomy in architecture is

instead a sidestepping of architectural

engagement of the ‘serious work’ of

the present day, from environmental

degradation to economic inequality.

Parametric design is a method that

employs variable parameters or

algorithms to generate geometries and

objects. Architectural autonomy thus

might be achieved through parametric

design as an internal mechanism of

architectural production, viability, and

justification. The following argues that

the parametric need not be reduced to a

formal project and that it can and should

function as a tool of social engagement

through architectural interfaces.

Ultimately, this is a call for the

development of a more robust theoretical

position about the social application

of advanced parametric design and

how computation and construction can

support architectural agency in the

development of a social project.

ARCHiTeCTuRe AS

COMMuNiCATiON iNTeRFACe

Digital technologies have indelibly

transformed the visual language

of design education and practice,

supplanting traditional hand-made

drawings and models. Digital modeling

and equipment such as Computer

Numerically Controlled (CNC) machines

and three-dimensional (3D) printers

emphasize technical proficiency over

manual skills, causing older notions of

creativity and craft to be reconsidered.

McCullough (1996) and Sennet (2008)

both challenge hand making as a

prerequisite for craft and propose

frameworks for considering the craft of

digitally designed objects.

At the same time, the possibilities

for collaboration and production

opened up by computation remain

threefold for architecture: a

consolidation that reasserts disciplinary

centricity, an expansion that dilutes

architecture’s disciplinary specificity,

or transdisciplinary redefinitions and

reconfigurations that both intensify and

blur architecture’s identity and limits.

Of the three possibilities,

transdisciplinary redefinitions offer

the most promise. Computation is the

foundational language of the digital

and this shared language creates

opportunities for engagement across

and beyond the design disciplines.

In connection with the rise of digital

culture, the contribution of architecture

may very well lie in the domain of

augmented reality, that is, dealing with

the interface between the physical and

the virtual, rather than focusing almost

exclusively on the latter. It is not by

accident that an institution like the MIT

Media Lab works mainly on questions of

interface and is affiliated with a school

of architecture. As Nicholas Negroponte

(1995), former Chair of the MIT Media

Lab once foresaw, interface has become

an architectural problem.

Antoine Picon describes in Digital

Culture (2010) that the development of

digital technologies has reshaped our

experience of the physical world. In this

augmented and hybridized condition,

information (and architecture) has

no social relevance unless circulated,

shared, and integrated into everyday

life through interfaces between the

digital and physical. Interface requires

architecture to materialize the digital in

new and unforeseen ways.

CONTeMPORARy SOCiAl PROJeCT,

CAPiTAliSM, AND THe DOMiNANT

ClASS

“In a certain sense there is no such

thing as buildings that are politically

‘opposed’, since the ones that are

realized are always those of the

dominant class” Aldo Rossi (1982:

113).

The contemporary architectural social

project is divorced from socialism as a

political structure, the social sciences

as a data structure, and Modernism

as a theoretical structure. Tafuri

(1979) Lefebvre (1992) and even Aureli

(2011) express reservations about the

mythologies of the architect as expert, or

advocate, or guardian of some abstract

“communal imaginary” (Coleman,

2015). Such views are difficult to sustain

when countered by arguments such

as Architecture without Architects

(Rudofsky, 1965).

Summarizing Tafuri, Hays notes:

When architecture resists, when

it attempts to reassert its own

disruptive voice, capitalism

simply withdraws it from service,

relegates it to the boudoir, so that

demonstrations by architects of their

works’ autonomy and distance from

degraded life become redundant and

trivialized in advance (1998: xiv).

For Tafuri, the “return to pure

architecture,” that capitalism

necessitates, is little more than a return,

“to form without utopia (...) to sublime

uselessness” (as cited in Hays, 1998,

p. xiii).

The contemporary social project of

architecture resides to a large extent in

its communicative capacity both digital

and material. “The built environment

orders social processes through its

pattern of spatial separations and

connections that in turn facilitates

a desired pattern of separate and

connected social events. This is social

organization via spatial organization”

(Schumacher, 2016: 109).

Architecture has the potential to be

a giant navigable, information-rich

interface of interaction reflected by the

growing importance of occurrences,

events, and scenarios.

ARCHiTeCTuRAl vAlue AND

ARCHiTeCTuRAl KNOwleDge

A discipline is autonomous when it

can be carried out independently of

other disciplines. A discipline that lacks

autonomy is one that depends on other

theoretical domains for its investigation,

such as architecture’s reliance upon

frameworks from disciplines such

as philosophy and biology. The

search for architectural autonomy

is a symptom of lost confidence in

the possibility of a truly buildable

and simultaneously culturally valid

architecture. Additionally, architecture

as a built project is presented as

inevitably compromised. Architecture

as a critique, rather than architecture

as construction, frees architecture

from the ‘burden of utility and reality’.

Utopia as a no-place is unattainable and

perfection is reserved for the unknown

or unknowable, or is achievable only

when the problem is so reduced, or the

aims set low enough, that they can be

attained (Coleman, 2015).

A primary issue is the evaluation of

intent rather than effect or impact.

The social has been diminished by

the language of naiveté, do-gooder,

localized colonialism or the mistaken

methods of expedited gentrification.

Additionally, the ethics of designers

experimenting upon populations in need

typically requires a more traditional

and/or known outcome which is

counter to a radical project. Despite

substance, these projects often demand

a conservative approach as architecture

cannot doubly fail those who are

already disadvantaged (Ranciere, 2004)

Architecture’s attempt to extricate itself

from the burdens of ethics led to the

search for an autonomy that might allow

architecture to be judged in relation

to itself rather than relative to the

world it constructs. It’s a delightful and

reassuring myth but a myth all the same.

CRAFT

Architect and theorist Stan Allen notes

in his article “Artificial Ecologies” that

the practice of architecture has always

been in the paradoxical position of

being invested in the production of real,

110

111



Dossier

Translations

concrete matter yet working with tools

of abstract representation (drawings,

models, computer simulations and so

forth). The paradox charges the question:

does thinking (and its associated

abstractions) or making (and its concrete

matter) give architecture its agency?

(Allen, 2003).

The capacity to craft, to think through

making, instills architecture with an

explicit agency to engage outside

of the academy and the discipline.

The introduction of digital craft into

contemporary practice extends, rather

than limits, this agency in the social (or

political) project of architecture. The

process of thinking through making and

the accompanying non-linear methods

position architects to identify pathways

of thought into contemporary issues, and

make visible that which remains unseen

to other disciplines. Craft encourages

imagination and through imagination

the architect enters into the spheres of

life, which are not immediate to personal

experience: the social (or political)

project of architecture. This imagination

is a powerful agent as well (Scarry,

1985). The ability to imagine a better

world equipped with the capacity to act,

is to craft an object with intentionality

and purpose. As the discipline continues

to struggle with self-identity and the

direction of its fragmented authority,

craft remains the most valuable tool at

the architect’s disposal. Craft positions

the architect as an agent of social and

political change and digital craft is an

extension of this agency.

Is the digital realm an extension of the

imaginary space or a replacement for

physical space? And does this cyberspace

extend architectural agency or limit it?

Digital walls do not keep out physical

rain, or as McCullough states, there

is “the seeming paradox of intangible

craft” (1996: 22). Indeed, we may now be

entering an age of the master-buildercraftsman

or architect-craftsman that

John Ruskin (1849/1989) sought to

revive, but getting there in a way Ruskin

could not have anticipated. Issues of

dimension, heft, tactility, and materiality

remain essential to architecture as built

environment, no matter how tantalizing

the pixilated world may be. Digital

fabrication and its associated tools

provide a tactile counterpoint to the

image-based environment otherwise

prevalent in digital work.

DigiTAl CRAFT

“The best way to appreciate the

merits and consequences of being

digital is to reflect on the differences

between bits and atoms” Nicholas

Negroponte (1995: 11).

For the purpose of this paper, the

digital turn in architecture occurred in

the early 1990s and is defined as the

computerization of design, construction,

and fabrication processes. This is

marked by a transition from designs

based upon a Cartesian grid to those

constructed from a digital field condition

abstracted within computational

space. Specifically, the introduction

of continuous computational splines

that are variable within defined limits

and can be notated as parametric

functions or mathematical relationship

between parts (Carpo, 2012). Digital

craft emerges from computational

thinking, digital fabrication and robotic

construction, processes that allow the

full participation of architects in the

production of buildings and thereby

extend architecture’s agency to engage

in a larger social and political project.

Therefore, how might digital craft

re-engage the best aspects of craft,

thinking through making, and the power

of the digital realm? First, digital craft

must embrace the spatial conditions of

the computer environment. The term

‘cyberspace’ first appeared in William

Gibson’s 1982 story Burning Chrome

and was subsequently popularized by his

1984 novel Neuromancer. The concept of

‘other’ space is woven throughout history,

appearing in literature and cultural

commentary from Plato’s Allegory of

the Cave to Descartes’ Evil Demon.

However, the concept of cyberspace is

unique in that it offers not just a space

of representation and communication

but also provides a social setting within

which these activities can exist. In

digital culture, there is a new continuity

between subject and the architectural

object, with no void between them, as

if the distance of vision was abolished

by tactility. Craft and its inherent

materiality will create the interactive

corollaries between cyber and physical

spaces.

COMPuTATiON + CONSTRuCTiON

“Computation and materiality now

seem inseparable at every level,

from the macro- to the micro and

nanoscales” Antoine Picon (2010: 98).

High modernism paid remote attention

to generic and somewhat abstract

formulations of social issues. Its

translation to the North American

context brought with it a particularly

American blend of idealism with

pragmatism. A hallmark of modernist

education, the Bauhaus, aimed to fuse

craft and design education with avantgarde

artistic practice. In doing so,

the Bauhaus methods of architectural

learning-by-doing often linked

experiential education with both the

social agenda of modern architecture

and technological experimentation

(Bergdoll & Dickerman, 2009). This

pedagogy cultivated a culture of making

through workshop-based teaching –

one of the goals of which was to train

designers for industrial production

and construction. These collaborative

work-sites evolved into the digital

tooled design/build studios of present

day (Ockman, 2012). Design/Build is a

unique architectural education model of

project-based learning that empowers

students to construct their designs in

collaboration with local communities.

Digital Fabrication leverages computeraided

design/manufacturing technologies

and integrates tools from the aerospace,

automotive, and shipbuilding industries.

It has altered both the way buildings

are conceived and manufactured. The

combination of these disciplines allows

for direct, hands-on engagement with

technology and challenges students to

explore methodologies poised to have an

innovative impact on the future of the

architectural academy and profession.

The questions raised by the conditions

of contemporary practice and its

continuous introduction of new

technologies demand an architecture

that explores shifting boundaries

between the physical and electronic

worlds. As architecture education

and practice becomes increasingly

invested in the teaching and methods

of computation, the act of construction

has never before been a more important

counterpoint. Examples include the rise

of interdisciplinary (anti-disciplinary)

design research groups such as the

MIT Media Lab which exist at the

convergence of technology, multimedia,

science, art, and design. Rather than

a resuscitation of Modernism’s social

project, this research considers ways in

which architects, operating in a digital

culture, can be designers of constructive

systems and provide the foundation of a

new tectonic culture.

Examples of this new turn include

architectural pedagogies, research

labs, and degree programs that rely

upon the arrival of digital fabrication

shops in architectural departments

and the emergence of new and

exploratory design/build programs.

These educational approaches invert the

gap between teaching and professional

practice by introducing direct production

control, digital craft, speculative

projects, and methods for re-centering

the architect’s role around the act of

construction rather than coordination.

ARCHiTeCTuRe AS iNTeRFACe

An example of combining computation

and construction is the 80/35 Pavilion.

The project, a student designed and

constructed installation for the 80/35

Festival in Des Moines, Iowa, USA, is

a light-reactive structure that glows in

response to the surrounding music and

augments the festival atmosphere. As

part of a four-month interdisciplinary

option studio, sixteen students majoring

in architecture, industrial design and

interior design developed and fabricated

the 3-by-6-meter pavilion, visually

engaging the crowd and providing

shade, seating and a sensory experience

that blends design, music, light and

color. Documentation, discussion, and

communication are the only demands

the design makes upon its users.

The 80/35 Festival includes a stage

for national touring bands and several

smaller stages featuring regional and

local supporting acts. In addition

to music, there are booths for local

organizations, interactive art, food and

beverage sales, and resting places. The

festival brings an estimated attendance

of approximately 30,000 people annually

since 2008. A combination of free and

paid stages, as well as collaboration

with local businesses, nonprofits, and

other community builders makes the

event a source of great value for central

Iowa’s economy and culture. The

festival has a national and international

presence through its active social media

circulation and external media coverage.

The festival provided an ideal site for

collaboration and an experimental

design project. Made from panelized

plywood constructed into modular boxes

and enclosed with flash spun highdensity

polyethylene (Tyvek) membrane,

the pavilion utilizes scripting and

coding platforms to coordinate 6,500

unique CNC routed parts for hand

assembly. Light emitting diode (LED)

strips installed within the modules are

programmed by microcontrollers set to

respond to the sounds of the festival.

Each module is geometrically unique,

but represents a unified tectonic idea.

The module serves as both a structural

unit and a light pixel, embodying both

an architectural idea and a digital

interactive response.

The project was constructed in the Iowa

State University studios, deconstructed,

and reassembled on site for the two-day

music festival. However, the project

existed both as the catalyst for social

media and communication and its

impact extended by these modes.

After the festival, the pavilion was

disassembled and selected modules are

to be distributed to local high-school

students along with microprocessors,

thereby transferring the knowledge

embedded in this project to a

larger audience.

If architectural formalism can be easily

dismissed for its fetishized authorship,

architectural activism often falls victim

to the same temptation, even if the

intentions are political rather than

formal (Culpers, 2014). The project

presented here does not escape this

112

113



Dossier

critique. It does not aim to solve a

problem or provide a solution but rather

presents architecture as an interface

between digital and physical systems.

The studio funded by an architecture

firm and without a program driven of

necessity produces public engagement

through placement in the public

realm and wide circulation through

social media.

CONCluSiON

Digital worlds should not be seen as

alternatives or substitutes for the built

world, but rather as an additional

dimension which allows architects a new

freedom of movement in the physical

world. In other words, the transcendence

of physicality in the digital world

allows architects to extend their agency

in the physical world (Carpo, 2012).

The theoretical framework presented

here takes the tools of the parametric

(computation) and harnesses them

as methods of construction rather

than image making. By combining

computation and construction,

architecture materializes the digital and

functions as both a participatory and

social medium, rejecting autonomy and

seeking public engagement. m

Acknowledgments

The 80/35 Pavilion was designed and

produced by the following students under

the guidance of the author: Alexandra Abreu,

Rahul Attraya, Cole Davis, Shaohua Dong,

Donald Hull, Kaitlin Izer, Bryan Johnson,

Joshua Neff, Nate Peters, Kelsie Stopak,

and Coralis Rodríguez-Torres (Bachelors

of Architecture); Kyle Vansice (Master

of Architecture); Nicole Behnke, Hannah

Greenfield, Makaela Jimmerson (Bachelors

of Interior Design); Tom Bos (Master of

Industrial Design). Primary funding for the

studio was provided by OPN Architects.

Additional support was provided by a

studio outreach grant from the Fieldstead

& Company Endowment for Community

Enhancement, the Stan G. Thurston

Professorship in Design Build, the Iowa State

University College of Design, the Iowa State

University Department of Architecture and

the Des Moines Music Coalition 80/35 Music

Festival.

REFERENCES

ALLEN, S. (2003). Artificial Ecologies. In V. Patteeuw (Ed.),

Reading MvRDv (pp. 82-87). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Nai.

AURELI, P. V. (2011). The Possibility of an Absolute Architecture.

Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

BERGDOLL, B., & DICKERMAN, L. (2009). Bauhaus: 1919-1933

workshops for Modernity. New York, NY, USA: Museum of

Modern Art.

CARPO, M. (2012). The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012.

Chichester, England: Wiley.

COLEMAN, N. (2015). The Myth of Autonomy. Architecture

Philosophy, 1(2), 157-178.

CULPERS, K. (2014). The Social Project: Housing Postwar France.

Minneapolis, MN, USA: University of Minnesota Press.

GIBSON, W. (1982, July). Burning Chrome. Omni.

GIBSON, W. (1984). Neuromancer. New York, NY, USA: Ace

Books.

HAYS, K. M. (1998). Oppositions Reader: Selected essays 1973-

1984. Princeton, NJ, USA: Princeton Architectural Press.

HAYS, K. M. (2010). Architecture's Desire: Reading the late Avantgarde.

Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

LEFEBVRE, H. (1992). The Production of Space. (D. Nicholson-

Smith, Trans.) New York, NY, USA: Wiley-Blackwell.

MCCULLOUGH, M. (1996). Abstracting Craft: The Practiced

Digital Hand. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

NEGROPONTE, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York, NY, USA:

Knopf.

OCKMAN, J. (2012). Architecture School: Three Centuries of

education Architects in North America. Cambridge, MA, USA:

MIT Press.

PICON, A. (2010). Digital Culture in Architecture: An introduction

for the Design Professions. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhauser.

RANCIERE, J. (2004). The Philosopher and His Poor. Durham, NC,

USA: Duke University Press.

ROSSI, A. (1982). The Architecture of the City. Cambridge, MA,

USA: MIT Press.

RUDOFSKY, B. (1965). Architecture without Architects: A Short

introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture. New York, NY, USA:

Museum of Modern Art.

RUSKIN, J. (1849/1989). The Seven lamps of Architecture (Revised

Edition). New York, NY, USA: Dover Publications.

SCARRY, E. (1985). The Body in Pain: The Making and unmaking

of the world. New York, NY, USA: Oxford University Press.

SCHUMACHER, P. (2015). Parametricism with Social

Parameters. In I. Lazovski, & Y. Kahlon (Eds.), The Human

(Parameter): Parametric Approach in israeli Architecture (Online).

Tel-Aviv, Israel: Paragroup-Israel.

SCHUMACHER, P. (March/April 2016). Advancing Social

Functionality via Agent Based Parametric Semiology.

Architectural Design, 86(2) (Special Issue: Parametricism 2.0:

Rethinking Architecture’s Agenda for the 21st Century; P.

Schumacher, Guest Editor), 108-113.

SENNET, R. (2008). The Craftsman. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale

University Press.

TAFURI, M. (1979). Architecture and utopia: Design and Capitalist

Development. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.

114


http://averyreview.com/issues/25/fabricating-architecture

Fabricating Architecture: Digital Craft as Feminist Practice

Shelby Doyle and Leslie Forehand

I would rather be a cyborg than a goddess. —Donna Haraway, A Manifesto for Cyborgs 1

relationships between feminism, architecture, and technology. 2 We propose a framework that relies upon

intellectual traditions of feminism and deliberately focuses on developing technologies as a locus of

power and influence in architecture. Architecture has been slow to fully acknowledge, incorporate, and

integrate women into its practices. 3 Within the building profession, digital technology has emerged—and

in many ways, is still emerging—as a site of architectural influence: those who control the process of

design through technology control architecture. CNC fabrication and robotic construction are cultivating

new cultures of digital craft, and in searching for future opportunities, we would do well to recall the long

history that links craft and feminine labor. By looking again at the often-neglected contributions of Ada

Lovelace and the Jacquard loom to computation and digital fabrication in the nineteenth century or a more

recent project such as the Elytra Filament Pavilion, we might see how this digital moment has been

framed by feminist craft rather than the more familiar origin stories that surround computation.

Advanced parametric design and fabrication rely upon historical methods typically associated

with domestic labor, such as weaving, ceramics, and embroidery. This can be seen in the rise of digital

practices such as woven pavilions, 3-D-printed ceramics, and sewn electric circuits. Architecture can

learn much from this shadow history, and the figure of the cyborg is central to this narrative. According to

[FIG 01: Ada Lovelace’s notes from Sketch of the Analytical Engine Invented by Charles Babbage by

Luigi Menabrea (London: Richard and John Taylor, 1843). Diagram of an algorithm for the Analytical

Engine for the computation of Bernoulli numbers.]

[FIG 02: Lynn Randolph, Cyborg, 1989. The painting, which was the product of collaboration with

Donna Haraway, became the cover art for several editions of Haraway’s Simians, Cyborgs, and Women,

1991. Courtesy of Lynn Randolph.]

This is a call for the development of a more robust theoretical position about the gender implications of

advanced parametric design and the use of machines to design and fabricate architecture. As digital

fabrication has made material the network conditions of cyberfeminism, it is time to revisit the

Donna Haraway, a cyborg is a hybrid creature composed of organism and machine. Defying easy

categorization, cyborgs occupy a speculative part of our cultural imagination and are vital participants in

the history of technology. 4 They are witnesses to crucial moments in what Manuel De Landa defines as

the “migration of control” from human hands to software systems—or in the cases looked at in this essay,

the migration of control from female and domestic craft to the masculine and industrial digital

production. 5 The cyborg embodies Donna Haraway’s “ironic dream of a common language for women in

2 Cyberfeminism was coined in 1994 by Sadie Plant to describe the intersection of feminism and new media technologies such as the Internet and

cyberspace.

3 Lian Chikako Chang, “Where Are the Women? Measuring Progress on Gender in Architecture,” Association of Collegiate Schools of

Architecture (October 2014), http://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/data-resources/women.

4 For a sense of the depth of thought that cyborgs have invited, see Fiona Hovenden, Linda Janes, Gill Kirkup, and Kathryn Woodward, eds., The

Gendered Cyborg: A Reader (New York: Routledge, 2000), 110.

1 Donna Haraway, “A Manifesto for Cyborgs: Science, Technology, and Socialist Feminism in the 1980s,” The Haraway Reader (New York:

Routledge, 2004), 39.

5 The context for the phrase is “the long process of migration of control, which Jacquard started by effecting a transfer from the human body to

the machine…” Manuel De Landa, War in the Age of Intelligent Machines (New York: Zone Books, 1991), 164.

Page 1 of 14

Page 2 of 14


the integrated circuit” a phrase borrowed from Rachel Grossman and referring to women in a world

fundamentally restructured through the social relations of science and technology. 6 Grossman’s world is

biomimicry, robotics, and science. Uncovering cyborg and cyberfeminist histories of technology offers

new ways of thinking about digital production, the sites of its labor, and the modes of its fabrication.

not reliant upon technological determinism but rather presents historical systems—and a contemporary

milieu—dependent upon structured relations between people and technology. 7 Not always visible or

legitimized, cyborgs are present within current and past technologies providing “spaces for disguise,

concealment, and masquerade.” 8 Making their contributions evident is a subversive, disruptive, and

powerful force in architecture: skills required for survival under increasingly techno-human conditions. 9

What is at stake is nothing less than the continuation—or the undoing—of past hierarchies enforced by

the ownership of both technology and technology’s narratives. In defiance, the cyborg (woman-astechnologist)

must reveal her history, build her technology, code her world, write her scripts, distribute

her tools, and methodically disrupt the systems of those constructing, documenting, and disseminating

technology.

Cyborg practices and histories are both/and—resisting binaries that fail to exhaust the full

gradient of possibilities, binaries that are limiting to the very conception of innovation. Cyborg practices

may not be easily recognized as cyborgs, and therefore it is necessary to seek out and recategorize many

practices mislabeled or mispresented as merely digital. To be clear, cyborg practices are not necessarily

female practices; though projects such as Neri Oxman’s Silk Pavilion and Jenny Sabin’s Lumen are

cyborg, it is not due to the gender of their authors but instead the legacy of their methods. Therefore,

cyborg practices also include Achim Menges’s research pavilions and Joshua Stein’s Data Clay, which

rely upon domestic traditions of filament winding and ceramics as much as they rely upon narratives of

The Digital Turn

Women in the United States are historically underrepresented in architecture (15 to 18 percent),

engineering (4.5 to 13.7 percent), and construction (2.6 percent), although increasing numbers of women

trained as architects during the twentieth century. 10 The discourse of digital craft is one of the most vital

frontiers in the ongoing imbalances of the field. However, technology is not self-correcting, without

challenging the incumbent social structures the imbalances will remain the same. The year 1992 marked

what Mario Carpo called the “digital turn” in architecture, a moment when computation became more

integrated into architectural design. 11 Twenty-five years after this turn, architecture has been transformed

by technologies that offer many new potentials for material practice, presenting opportunities to subvert

current power structures—just as they can also help calcify them—and providing tools for a feminist

practice of the present and future.

As architecture was making its supposed digital turn, new theories of feminism were emerging,

among them cyberfeminism and feminist technoscience, which were engaged in theorizing, critiquing,

and exploiting the Internet, cyberspace, and new-media technologies. Judy Wajcman’s book

TechnoFeminism was particularly influential in these discourses. 12 According to Wajcman, women have

always been designers and manipulators of technology, as their role as laborers—harvesters, weavers,

potters, and caretakers of the domestic economy—placed them into an early and intimate relationship

with technology. 13 During the Industrial Revolution, however, the meaning of technology transformed

6 Grossman writes that new technologies are mediated by social forces and that if we learn to read these webs of power, we might learn new

couplings and coalitions. Rachael Grossman, Women’s Place in the Integrated Circuit (Somerville, MA: New England Free Press, 1980).

7 Plant explores the relationship between women and machines and documents the networks and connections implicit in nonlinear systems and

digital machines. Sadie Plant, Zeroes + Ones: Digital Women + the New Technoculture (New York: Doubleday, 1997).

8 The phrase “spaces for disguise, concealment, and masquerade” is taken from a discussion of Plant’s work in

“Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment,” Peter Fitting’s introduction to Zeroes + One, 163–165.

9 Sandoval asserts that “the colonized peoples of the Americas have already developed the cyborg skills required for domination under techno

human conditions as a requisite for survival under domination for the last three hundred years.” Chela Sandoval, “Re-entering Cyberspace:

Sciences of Resistance,” Dispositio/n, vol. 19, no. 46 (1994): 76.

from including “useful or domestic arts”—such as needlework, metalwork, weaving—to a more limited

10 “Built by Women (BxW),” Beverly Mills Architecture Foundation, http://www.bwaf.org/campaign/built-by-women/.

11 Mario Carpo, The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992–2012 (Chichester, UK: Wiley, 2012).

12 Judy Wajcman, TechnoFeminism (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2004), 15.

13 Judy Wajcman, Feminism Confronts Technology (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2000).

Page 3 of 14

Page 4 of 14


definition of applied science. 14 Despite women’s continued contributions to technology, “a series of

competing images of the true objects of technology emerged,” as Ruth Oldenziel puts it in Making

Technology Masculine, dividing “female fabrics” from “male machines.” 15 The so-called Information

Revolution may well be poised to repeat the subjugations of the Industrial Revolution. Current digital

craft accounts deny the cyborg and suppress the narrative of woman-as-technologist: the resulting fight

for recognition can be seen in the narrative of who is an “architect.”

bind for women in architecture: declaring oneself ‘woman’ or ‘feminist architect’ is to accept marginality

within the profession and give tacit validity to the binary opposition of architect vs. woman architect.” 18

The 1990s saw a number of important books that brought feminist and queer discourse into an

explicitly architectural milieu and presented theories of “otherness.” Seminal works such as Beatriz

Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer’s Sexuality & Space (1992), Diana Agrest’s Sex and Architecture (1996),

Joel Sanders Queer Space: Architecture and Same-Sex Desire (1997), and Joel Sander’s Stud:

Architectures of Masculinity (1996) provided much needed theoretical frameworks for architecturally

The Other: Architect vs. the Woman Architect

In The Architect: Reconstructing Her Practice, Francesca Hughes argues that women, due to their

exclusion from the core of practice, were more likely to invent a practice in architecture. 16 The spirit of

her assertion is that women create a way into architecture by developing alternative practices, for

example, careers in theory, community outreach, and education rather than traditional “building”

careers. 17 However, the metrics of the profession still fall short of equity and prompt a difficult question:

should architecture’s definition shift to incorporate existing “female” practice, or should these forms of

practice be absorbed into existing definitions, thereby abandoning their status as “other”?

In the introduction to her edited volume The Social and the Poetic: Feminist Practices in

Architecture, 1970–2000, Patricia Morton explains, “almost all of the essays in this book identify,

explicitly or implicitly, the female as ‘other,’ and it is from this marginalized position that women writing

on architecture today are exploring history, the uses of public space, consumerism, and the role of

domesticity in search of ‘ways into’ architecture, often through alternative forms of practice and

specific discourses on gender. 19 Frameworks introduced included third-wave feminism and post-feminism

discourses introduced queer theory, intersectionality, and the experience of non-white women to feminist

discourse, as well as the claim that gender equality has already been achieved via the first two waves of

feminism. The 1990s were a pivotal moment in architectural gendered discourse; however, much in

society and architecture’s understanding of gender have changed in the twenty-five years since these ideas

were presented. There remains ample room for revisiting, rethinking, and identifying relationships

between gender and space hidden within everyday practice. 20

In 1979, the poet Adrienne Rich identified the conundrum facing women who seek acceptance

and equality within dominant power relations:

There’s a false power which masculine society offers to a few women who “think like

men” on the condition that they use it to maintain things as they are. This is the

meaning of female tokenism: that power withheld from the vast majority of women is

offered to few, so that it may appear that any truly qualified woman can gain access to

leadership, recognition, and reward… 21

education.” She goes on to write, with reference to frameworks of otherness offered by feminist thinkers

such as Simone de Beauvoir and Judith Butler, that “otherness” in regard to feminism “produces a double

14 Jutta Weber, “From Science and Technology to Feminist Technoscience,” in Handbook of Gender and Women’s Studies, ed. Kathy

Davis, Mary Evans, and Judith Lorber (London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2006), 397–414.

15 Ruth Oldenziel, Making Technology Masculine: Men, Women, and Modern Machines in America, 1870–1945 (Amsterdam: Amsterdam

University Press, 1999), 26.

16 Francesca Hughes, The Architect: Reconstructing Her Practice (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998), xvii.

17 Catherine Ingraham, “Losing It in Architecture: Object Lament,” in Hughes, The Architect, 151.

18 Patricia Morton, “The Social and the Poetic Feminist Practices in Architecture, 1970–2000,” in the Feminism and Visual Culture

Reader (2003): 277.

19 Diana Agrest, Patricia Conway, and Leslie Kanes Weisman, The Sex of Architecture (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1996), 15. Also see,

Beatriz Colomina and Jennifer Bloomer, Sexuality and Space (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996); Aaron Betsky, Queer Space:

Architecture and Same-Sex Desire (New York: William Morrow & Company, 1997); Joel Sanders, ed., Stud: Architectures of Masculinity (New

York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996).

20 Contemporary examples include James Benedict Brown, Harriet Harriss, Ruth Morrow, and James Soane, A Gendered Profession (London:

RIBA Publishing, 2016); and the forthcoming special section of Log edited by Jaffer Kolb, “Queering Architecture,” Log 41 (fall 2017),

https://www.anycorp.com/log/about/.

21 Adrienne Rich, Ms. (September 1979): 43.

Page 5 of 14

Page 6 of 14


Within this construct many women shy away from identifying themselves as “feminist architects,”

preferring to conform to the profession’s masculine norms rather than be further marginalized as feminine

or female architects. Rethinking these binaries creates possibilities for women as simultaneously

architects and technologists—cyborgs—identifying new forms of architectural practice and defining new

areas of discipline that occupy the periphery and, from this position, influence or displace the center. The

role of technologist is a viable strategy for subverting traditional notions of the profession: no longer

dependent upon wealth as a precursor for professional standing, technology can serve as a disciplinary

entry point not reliant upon institutional structures, even though currently institutions are often the

powerbrokers of nascent technology.

The history of the professionalization of the architect provides insight into where evolution may

occur. For example, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) rooted its values in public interest,

encouraging a profession that rejected traditions of craft and tradesmen. On the assumption that no client

could trust the trades, the architect became an independent consultant who ensured fair dealing between

craftsmen and clients. In 1834, at the formation of the RIBA, the question of gender diversity was

nonexistent, a direct reflection of prevailing attitudes in the construction industry. The model of the

architect’s office was a domestic household, with the architect as master and toiling designers as domestic

servants—a model that still exists to this day in a climate of underpaying and nearly nonexistent overtime

pay. These traditions of the professionalization have excluded women architects. For instance, man-toman

privileges were culturally necessary to successfully solicit and retain clients and contractors,

eliminating a woman’s ability to network and thrive. 22 This was the climate of the profession of

architecture 180 years ago, and many of these stereotypes endure still.

As a subset of architecture, technology has been categorically overlooked in studies on gender diversity in

architecture. While research in gender equity often champions progressive ideas of who can be an

architect, existing research tends to harbor conservative conceptions of what being an architect entails.

Technology is still typically dismissed as infrastructure, which means that organizations such as Equity

by Design [EQxD], Parlour, and Architexx tend to overlook its professional presence in favor of more

conventional metrics: licensure, salaries, and awards. Because technology is so important to the future

practice of architecture, its reflection of (and possible role in promoting) gender inequality within the

profession must be critically examined.

In the nearly three decades since the digital turn, the number of women in the profession of

architecture has increased, though the number of women entering the field of design technology remains

disproportionately small. In 2014, statistics released by the Association of Collegiate Schools of

Architecture noted that women make up slightly more than 40 percent of architectural graduates in 2013

(up from 25 percent in 1985); 25 percent of designers in the profession; and 18 percent of major design

awardees in the 2010s (up from 3 percent in the 1980s). 23 Despite these advances, only 5 percent of

technology directors at North American architecture firms are women, according to Zweig White’s 2013

information technology survey. 24

In some respect, the lack of women specializing in design technology is unsurprising given that

the practice combines fields that have historically been lacking in gender equity: management,

information technology, computer science, and architecture. 25 At the moment, control over computeraided

design—who develops the tools and who administrates them within the profession—rests

overwhelmingly with men. This creates a situation where inequalities can become institutionalized, even

as other aspects of the profession become more diverse. While technology presents an opportunity for

Does Technology Have a Gender?

23 Chang, “Where Are Women Now?” http://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/data-resources/women.

22 Paul Finch, “Prisoner of Gender of the Equality of Uncertainty,” in Desiring Practices: Architecture, Gender, and the Interdisciplinary, ed.

Katerina Rüedi, Sarah Wigglesworth, and Duncan McCorquodale (London: Black Dog Publishing Ltd, 1996), 36.

24 Daniel Davis, “Where Gender Inequity Persists in Architecture: The Technology Sector,” Architect, October 28, 2014,

http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/where-gender-inequity-persists-in-architecture-the-technology-sector_o.

25 Davis, “Where Gender Inequity Persists in Architecture,” http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/where-gender-inequity-persists-inarchitecture-the-technology-sector_o.

Page 7 of 14

Page 8 of 14


women to challenge stereotypes and privileges, its implementation is not gender neutral. Technology, as

object, subject, and network, can either challenge or reinforce existing gender structures. Now that

technology dominates the design process, the technologist occupies a crucial position from which to

define how the profession works and who works within it.

Moreover, the frequent omission of women from computer science history perpetuates the

misconception that women neither historically contributed nor are contemporarily interested in the field. 28

Much of the computation work done in architecture is inherited from computer science, and with this

inheritance comes not only knowledge but also bias. Forgotten, for instance, is the fact that the computer

programming, perceived today as masculine work, originated as feminized clerical labor—De Landa’s

“migration of control” was from the physical labor of female “computers” to the intellectual labor of male

“programmers.” 29

A similar evolution occurred in textiles. When weaving moved out of the household and into the

marketplace, men took over the loom, and it became associated with industrial, not domestic, production.

In “The Future Looms,” Sadie Plant asserts that “the computer emerges out of the history of weaving, the

process so often said to be the quintessence of women’s work. The loom is the vanguard site of software

[FIG 03: The binary principle embodied in the punched-card operation of the Jacquard loom was

inspiration for the data processing machines to come.]

[FIG 04: The use of replaceable Jacquard punched cards to control a sequence of operations is an

important step in the history of computing hardware. Courtesy of Douglas W. Jones, University of Iowa.]

Unforgetting ADA and Cyborg Looms

In her article “Unforgetting Women Architects: From the Pritzker to Wikipedia,” Despina

Stratigakos writes, “Forgetting women architects has also been imbedded in the very models we use for

writing architectural history.” 26 Recently, gender discussions in architecture have been reenergized by the

denied petition to the Pritzker Architecture Prize in 2013 demanding recognition for Denise Scott Brown

as an equal in her work with Robert Venturi—the Pritzker decision reiterated that structures of power in

development.” 30 Nowhere is this association more visible than in the connection between the Jacquard

Loom and the Analytical Engine of Charles Babbage and Ada Lovelace. The structure of the mechanical

Analytical Engine is essentially the same as the computer design of the electronic era: arithmetic logic,

conditional branching and loops, and integrated memory: a system of data-manipulation rules that can be

termed “Turing complete” or computationally universal. 31 Lovelace wrote, “We may say most aptly that

the Analytical Engine weaves algebraic patterns just as the Jacquard loom weaves flowers and leaves.” In

the Jacquard loom, replaceable punched cards controlled a sequence of weaving operations as the ability

to alter a pattern correlated to changing cards: computation as physical labor. Serving as a conceptual

precursor to the development of programming and data entry, the Analytical Engine drew from these

logics.

architecture remain slow to acknowledge women’s contributions to the profession. 27

28 Jennifer S. Light, “When Computers Were Women,” Technology and Culture, vol. 40, no. 3 (July 1999): 455–483.

26 Despina Stratigakos, “Unforgetting Women Architects: From the Pritzker to Wikipedia,” Places Journal, April 2016,

https://placesjournal.org/article/unforgetting-women-architects-from-the-pritzker-to-wikipedia/.

27 Women in Design petition, “The Pritzker Architecture Prize Committee: Recognize Denise Scott Brown for Her Work in Robert Venturi's

1991,” Change.org, https://www.change.org/p/the-pritzker-architecture-prize-committee-recognize-denise-scott-brown-for-her-work-in-robertventuri-s-1991-prize.

s

29 Steve Henn, “Episode 576: When Women Stopped Coding,” Planet Money, October 17, 2014, podcast,

http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/17/356944145/episode-576-when-women-stopped-coding.

30 Sadie Plant, “The Future Looms: Weaving Women and Cybernetics,” in Cybersexualities: A Reader in Feminist Theory, Cyborgs, and

Cyberspace, ed. Jenny Wolmark (Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press, 1999): 46.

31 For additional information on Turing’s work, see Andrew Hodges, Alan Turing: The Enigma (New York: Random House, 2012).

Page 9 of 14

Page 10 of 14


In 1842, Louis Menabrea, an Italian military engineer wrote Sketch of the Analytical Engine

Invented by Charles Babbage. Lovelace’s English translation of this text was published in 1843, along

with her notes, which exceeded the length of the original book and illuminated its foundation in the

Jacquard loom. Ada Lovelace's notes were labelled alphabetically from A to G. In note G, she describes

an algorithm for the Analytical Engine to compute Bernoulli numbers. It is considered by some the first

published algorithm ever specifically tailored for implementation on a computer, and consequently Ada

Lovelace has often been cited as the first computer programmer. More than one-hundred years passed

until the Analytical Engine was put to use—a lag that inspired William Gibson and Bruce Sterling to

write The Difference Engine, a steampunk tale set in the mid-1850s in which the software designed was

already running. This shadow history, one of possibilities lost, makes us question what digital futures in

the present are being made invisible. 32 Over 100 years after her published algorithm, the United States

Department of Defense created the computer language ADA, acknowledging Lovelace’s often forgotten

legacy. She lives on in the software that carries her name “secreted in the software of the military

machine”; a cyborg haunting the innards of a technology which long denied her contributions. 33

[FIG 05: The Elytra Filament Pavilion at London’s V&A museum was robotically fabricated through a

filament-winding technique. The project was designed and constructed by a team of architects and

engineers at the University of Stuttgart's Institute of Computational Design. © Victoria and Albert

Museum, London.]

[FIG 06: Engraving of Emma Lady Hamilton (1761–1815), mistress of Lord Horatio Nelson, as “The

Spinster.” Courtesy of Alamy Stock Photo.]

The Elytra Pavilion as a Spinster

The spinster is another cyborg, one that exists in advanced computational construction projects such as

the Elytra Filament Pavilion. The pavilion is celebrated as “the first architectural-scale load-bearing

structure to be produced entirely through a robotic coreless filament winding process.” 34 If we accept the

premise that computational work and digital craft can also be read through the legacy of domestic and

feminist labor then an alternative reading of the Elytra Pavilion is revealed.

The Pavilion is widely recognized within the architectural technology community as a site of

innovation that showcases the impact of emerging technologies at the intersection of robotics,

architectural design, engineering, and manufacturing. The University of Stuttgart Institute for

Computation Design (ICD) authored the project and the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A) hosted the

installation in 2016. 35 Promotional material from both the ICD and V&A emphasizes the design and

engineering innovation of the structure: “it will highlight the importance of engineering in our daily lives

and consider engineers as the “unsung heroes” of design, who play a vital and creative role in the creation

of our built environment.” 36 The glass and carbon fiber canopy is inspired by the structures of the

forewing shells of flying beetles, known as elytra, and it was fabricated using an innovative robotic

winding technique. It is not surprising then, that it is typically discussed through frameworks of

biomimicry, computation, robotics, and fabrication.

34 Jan Knippers, Riccardo La Magna, Achim Menges, Steffen Reichert, Tobias Schwinn, and Frédéric Waimer, “ICD/ITKE Research Pavilion

2012: Coreless Filament Winding Based on the Morphological Principles of an Arthropod Exoskeleton,” Architectural Design vol. 85, no. 5

(September 2015): 53.

35 The preliminary research and design process are well-documented in international journals, presented at conferences (Advances in

Architectural Geometry, Fabricate, Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture), and disseminated via popular design media

(Dezeen, Design Boom, and ArchDaily).

32 William Gibson and Bruce Sterling, The Difference Engine (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd, 1990).

33 Mike Featherstone and Roger Burrows, eds., Cyberspace/Cyberbodies/Cyberpunk: Cultures of Technological Embodiment (London: SAGE

Publications, Ltd., 2000), 163–165.

36 “V&A Engineering Season,” Victoria and Albert Museum, https://www.vam.ac.uk/info/engineering-season; and Thomas Auer, Moritz

Dörstelmann, Achim Menges, and Jan Knippers, “Elytra: Filament Pavilion,” Institute for Computational Design and Construction, http://icd.unistuttgart.de/?p=15826.

Page 11 of 14

Page 12 of 14


Filament winding is a technique of combining filaments (reinforcements) with resins (matrices)

wrapped around a mandrel or shell to produce solid vessels with high strength-weight ratios ranging from

rockets to golf club handles. Filament winding, a direct descendent of weaving, “has depended largely on

equipment from textile engineers and designers. Tensioning devices are adapted from the textile industry.

Adjustable bars, spring-loaded clamps, camel backs, and brakes on the wrapped warp for tension control

during filament winding have long been used by knitters and weavers. The equipment to control the angle

of winding with its traversing mechanism was originally developed for winding or roving on tubs or

warps of yarn on cones. Even some of the rotating mechanisms for filament winding owe their concepts

to the textile industry. Thus, the new and unique filament-winding industry has made full use of the

pertinent historical techniques developed by the textile industry.” 37

occupational term “spinner”; to the colloquial “unmarried woman” was likely in reference to economic

status. During the late Middle Ages, married tradeswomen had greater access to raw materials and the

market (through their husbands) than unmarried woman did, and therefore unmarried women ended up

with lower-status, lower-income jobs such as combing, carding, and spinning wool. 42 These jobs did not

require access to expensive tools like looms and could be done at home. Spinsters are among Haraway’s

cyborgs, the “illegitimate child” of every binary: dominant society and oppositional social movements,

users and used, human and machine, subject and object, “First” and “Third” Worlds, male and female. 43

When understood as a cyborg—a figure mutating social norms—the historic spinster is, perhaps, not a

marginalized technician but rather a historic figment of our future, where robots emulate her work and

build in her legacy.

Weaving and fiber manipulation have often been dismissed as women’s work, only to be

industrialized as tools of power for commercial gain. 38 The omission of the gendered history of fiber

winding and spinning has multiple implications: it preferences the historic value of industry over craft,

and is symptomatic of the push for interdisciplinary design research that aligns with engineering and

science professions. 39 What is at risk is another dismissal of female technological contribution: much like

Lovelace’s often invisible legacy in the creation of the computer.

Rather than the Silicon Valley bros (or what Deamer calls “stereotypical hipsters” 40 ) of

parametric conferences, perhaps the Elytra Pavilion’s owes more to the spinster, a term that originally

meant a spinner of thread and a job typically done by unmarried women. 41 The migration from the

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle, AIA, is an assistant professor of architecture and Daniel J. Huberty faculty

fellow at the Iowa State University College of Design. Her scholarship is broadly focused on the

intersection of computation and construction and specifically on the role of digital craft as both a social

and political project. She holds a master of architecture degree from the Harvard Graduate School of

Design and a bachelor of science in architecture from the University of Virginia.

Leslie Forehand is a lecturer in architecture at the Iowa State University College of Design and an

internationally experienced architect/designer and researcher. Her research seeks to find new solutions in

the digital processes, specifically advancing the materiality of additive manufacturing. Leslie holds a

master of architecture from Pratt Institute and a bachelor of science in architecture from the University of

Virginia. Her personal and student work has been exhibited and published worldwide.

Forehand and Doyle co-founded the ISU Computation + Construction Lab with their colleague Nick

Senske: http://ccl.design.iastate.edu/.

37 Dominick V. Rosato and Cornelius Sherman Grove, Filament Winding: Its Development, Manufacture, Applications, and Design (New York:

Interscience Publishers, 1964), 7.

38 Eric Broudy, The Book of Looms: A History of the Handloom from Ancient times to the Present (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1979),

123.

39 Charles Babbage, “On the Economy of Machinery and Manufactures,” Philosophical Magazine, series 3, vol. 1, no. 3 (1832), 208-13.

40 In a lecture to CalArts on November 16, 2003, titled “Parametric Schizophrenia,” Deamer states: “When I go to parametric conferences, I see a

world of young hipsters dressed in black, showing images of the screens they have fabricated, talking about the labs they’re working in.” The

original text can be found in Peggy Deamer, “Parametric Schizophrenia,” in The Politics of Parametricism: Digital Technologies in Architecture,

ed. Manuel Shvartzberg and Matthew Poole (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2015); the lecture can be read here,

http://peggydeamer.com/images/parametrics.pdf.

41 For the transition from spinner to spinster, see Naomi Braun Rosenthal, Spinster Tales and Womanly Possibilities (Albany: State University of

New York Press, 2002), 10; and Jacqueline K. Dirks, “Spinster Tales and Womanly Possibilities. By Naomi Braun Rosenthal,” Journal of

American History, vol. 90, no. 2 (September 2003): 671–672.

42 For additional context regarding the type of work relegated to single women, see Claudia Goldin, “The Work and Wages of Single Women,

1870–1920,” the Journal of Economic History, vol. 40, no. 1 (March 1980): 81–88; and Jackie M. Blount, “Spinsters, Bachelors, and Other

Gender Transgressors in School Employment, 1850–1990,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 70, no. 1 (March 2000): 83–101.

43 The original text reads “Haraway’s cyborg is the ‘illegitimate’ child of dominant society and oppositional social movement, of science and

technology, of the human and the machine, of ‘First’ and ‘Third’ worlds, of male and female, indeed of every binary.” Chela Sandoval, “New

Sciences: Cyborg Feminism and the Methodology of the Oppressed,” The Cybercultures Reader, ed. David Bell and Barbara Kennedy (London:

Routledge, 2000): 377.

Page 13 of 14

Page 14 of 14


Disrupt/Displace:

Translating Territory

Figure 1. Disrupt/

Displace. Installed at


(ISU).

Shelby Doyle


Leslie Forehand


Disrupt/Displace was both a Venice Architectural

Biennale session and a “Report from the Front”

on the Dakota Access Pipeline: simultaneously a

critique, a performance, and a proposal presented

in four parts: AQ1 PART 1: Searching for the

Front (Iowa), PART 2: Constructing the Front

(Iowa), PART 3: Reporting the Front (Venice),

PART 4: Assessing the Front (Venice). Alejandro

Aravena’s curatorial statement for the 2016 Venice

Architecture Biennale, “Reporting from the

Front,” provided context for Disrupt/Displace, which

emerged from doubts about the possibility of

political resistance in the practice of architecture.1

As a project Disrupt/Displace serves as a tool for

understanding both architecture’s complicity in

perpetuating spatial forms of political oppression

and as a method that enables architects to resist

disciplinary nihilism and defensiveness when

confronted with intractable political issues.

Alejandro Aravena’s concept for

the Venice Architecture Biennale,

“Reporting from the Front,”

provided both the inspiration and

methodological framework for

Disrupt/Displace. At the project’s

inception, thirty Iowa State

University (ISU) architecture

students were challenged with

establishing a front as defined by

Aravena:

There are several battles that need

to be won and several frontiers

that need to be expanded in order

to improve the quality of the built

environment and consequently

people’s quality of life. More and

more people in the planet are in

search for a decent place to live

and the conditions to achieve

it are becoming tougher and

tougher by the hour. Any attempt

to go beyond business as usual

encounters huge resistance in the

inertia of reality and any effort

to tackle relevant issues has to

overcome the increasing complexity

of the world. . . .

REPORTING FROM THE

FRONT . . . [is] about bringing

to a broader audience, what it is

like to improve the quality of life

while working on the margins,

under tough circumstances, facing

pressing challenges.2

Over the span of two months, a

project emerged from a series of

conversations, design proposals,

and map-making culminating in a

Biennale Session—an invitation

from the Venice Biennale for

educational institutions to propose

and present a three-day workshop.3

Students from ISU identified a front

in the American Midwest: the Dakota

Access Pipeline (DAPL), which

transports crude oil from the Bakken

production areas in North Dakota

to a storage hub outside Dakota,

Illinois.

In this project, the DAPL

is a tool for understanding

architecture’s complicity in perpetuating

spatial forms of oppression,

specifically the disruption and

displacement of the environment

and indigenous populations caused

by energy infrastructure. Disrupt/

Displace establishes a method for

resisting disciplinary skepticism

and defensiveness that might

naturally emerge from this complicity,

favoring instead the pursuit of

dissident practices as a countervailing

force to accepted ways of

planning and executing projects

(Figure 1).

The following “report,” or

search for a project, is a record of a

two-month dialogue about the DAPL

as a means to draw out the complexities

and complicities of architecture’s

relationship to the norms and

conventions associated with those

who wield political and economic

power. Most tellingly for Aravena’s

challenge, what emerged from this

dialogue were intense doubts, shared

by students, faculty, and reviewers

alike, about architectural practice as

an effective means of maintaining—

to say nothing of improving—quality

of life in the face of a powerful and

relentless combination of political

and economic interests represented

by the DAPL.

When conventional political

routes are unavailable to architects,

81

Doyle and Forehand

JAE 72:1

82


“whether corrupted by corporate,

illegitimate, or anti-democratic

influence,” practitioners must look

for indirect means to establish an

architectural front.4 Disrupt/Displace

took a circuitous route characterized

by a protracted debate that was

initially confined to this 30-person

group of ISU students but ultimately

extended to a wider community

of interest. This debate involved

intense discussion coupled with

design ideas presented, altered,

reconsidered, dismissed, abandoned,

and then reintroduced for a

myriad of reasons—too colonial,

too academic, too colloquial, too

radical, too political, too careful,

too pessimistic, too optimistic—

and their inverses (“not ____

enough”). A synthesis finally emerged

that the DAPL exposes a uniquely

American narrative of measuring,

distributing, and owning land in the

United States. The project served

as a tool for thinking about an

intractable front (DAPL) as well as

a process for translating the results

of that thinking into an architectural

language that, to effect change,

must be accessible to a wide array of

professional and lay audiences.

Translation

The project prompted consideration

and discussion of an intractable

front—the Dakota Access

Pipeline—and necessitated the

abstraction of the resulting dialogue

into an architectural language to be

understood by different audiences

in different locations. Ultimately,

research was translated into architectural

abstractions—grid, line, unit,

text, drawing, photo, and video—

that then were presented in diverse

geographic locales (Ames, Iowa, and

Venice, Italy) and to various audiences

in both public and academic venues.

The challenge in effective translation

lies in achieving the appropriate

balance between imprecision and

precision, past and present, absolute

and abstract when answering

the question “how can architecture

‘speak’ on behalf of a person,

population, or construct such as the

environment?”

For Elaine Scarry, the epistemological

(and empathic) challenge,

examined through the context

of understanding another’s pain,

happens via the act of imagining:

Imagining may entail a revolution

of the entire order of things,

the eclipse of the given by a

total reinvention of the world,

an artifact (a relocated piece of

coal, a sentence, a cup, a piece

of lace) is a fragment of world

alteration. Imagining a city, the

human being “makes” a house;

imagining a political utopia, he

or she instead helps to build a

country; imagining the elimination

of suffering from the world,

the person instead nurses a friend

back to health.5

In Scarry’s universe, imagination is

the prime force. Nevertheless, objects

produced by imagination have their

own power; “through tools and acts

of making, human beings become

implicated in each other’s sentience.”6

In short, imagination is a necessary

but not a sufficient condition for

altering reality (the front). Imagination

conjoined with an engaged material

consciousness affords us knowledge

of the aspects of the world that we can

change, inspiring the effort to find

the appropriate language in which to

express the object of change and the

means to achieve it.

In this vein, the project authors

struggled with the irreconcilable

position of being “both/and”: simultaneously

inheriting a legacy of Native

American oppression while condemning

the annexation of land for the

Dakota Access Pipeline, and participating

in the global energy economy

while criticizing the climate crisis

that the DAPL signifies. Despite and

because of this friction, the decision

was made to take this issue, the

Dakota Access Pipeline, to Venice and

present it among the country pavilions

of the Arsenale, thus making space for

a Native American and midwestern

front.

Figure 2A. (series) Opposite page, top:These

sections show the construction conditions of the

pipeline. The axonometric diagrams demonstrate

how that condition relates to the design installation.

Figure 2B. (series) Opposite page, middle: Pieces

are removed in a diagonal, “cut” from their location

in the grid, mirroring the removal of land for the

pipeline’s construction.

Figure 2C. (series) Opposite page: middle: The

disruption of the land is simulated by a diagonal cut

through the constructed grid.

Figure 2D. (series) Opposite page, bottom: A

permanent easement of 50 feet remains on either

side of the pipeline, a mark on the landscape.

Figure 3. Opposite page, bottom: Cornfields near

Ames, Iowa, are plowed to make room for the

Dakota Access Pipeline.

PART 1: Searching for the Front (Iowa)

The DAPL, constructed by Dakota

Access, LLC, a subsidiary of Energy

Transfer Partners, LP, transports

crude oil from the Bakken shale

fields in North Dakota to Illinois,

stretching 1,175 miles across the

American Midwest. Completed in

June 2017, the $3.7 billion pipeline

joined an existing network of 72,000

miles of crude oil pipeline.7 Though

the pipeline is only 30 inches in

diameter, it legibly marks the

midwestern landscape. There is a

permanent easement of 50 feet on

either side of the pipeline, and 150

feet on either side of the pipeline

is systematically and permanently

cleared of foliage and buildings

(Figures 2A–D, 3).

The DAPL demonstrates

Aravena’s appeal that the front

must bring “a broader audience

to recognize the imperative to

improve the quality of life while

working on the margins, under

tough circumstances, facing pressing

challenges.”8 Iowa takes its name

from the Ioway people, one of the

many Native American tribes that once

inhabited the land (Figures 4, 5). The

DAPL cuts diagonally across Iowa

from its northwestern corner to its

southeastern corner, dividing the

landscape.

As disruptive infrastructure,

the DAPL has also succeeded in

superseding the historic geopolitical

organizational principles and

democratizing objectives manifest

A

B

C

D

83 Disrupt/Displace: Translating Territory

Doyle and Forehand

JAE 72:1

84


Figure 5. Above: A satellite image of Ames, Iowa,

where ISU is located, 2016. (From Google Earth.)

Below: Map of Native American land cessions:

1824, 1830, 1832, 1836, 1837, 1842, 1846, and 1851.

Iowa was home to seventeen different tribes; the

United States government began the relocation of

Native Americans from Iowa in 1830 and the last

tribe to relinquish its lands, the Santee Sioux, left in

1851. (From Dorothy Schwieder, Iowa: The Middle

Land [Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1996],12;

redrawn by authors.)

Figure 4. Prior to European colonization, over

500 distinct Native American tribes populated the

United States, with settlements characteristically

established adjacent to riverways or situated

within productive ecologic contexts. Through a

series of treaties, tribal lands were ceded and

occupants displaced as Europeans settled and

moved westward. The land area of the lower 48

states is approximately 1.9 billion acres. Today,

approximately 10 million acres or 0.5 percent of

land remains in the control of the Bureau of Indian

Affairs. Left: The colonization of Native American

lands from 1776 to the present day. Native American

lands indicated in green (From Carol Hardy Vincent,

Laura A. Hanson, and Carla N. Argueta. “Federal

Land Ownership: Overview and Data,” March 3, 2017,

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf (accessed

July 30, 2017). Right: A map locating the Dakota

Access Pipeline.

in the Jeffersonian Grid. In keeping

with the Land Ordinance of 1785

and motivated by transcontinental

expansion following the Louisiana

Purchase in 1803, Jefferson promoted

an approach to land ownership

that divided the land into regularized

portions scaled for individual

production and consumption.9 The

grid is a geometric system applied

without consideration for culture,

environment, or occupation. The

largest units of the nested grids

were townships, decreasing in size

through sections to quarter sections

to checks and, finally, to individual

plots of land.10 The Jeffersonian

Grid, a tool of government control, is

now displaced by the DAPL, a tool of

the energy economy (Figure 6).

In ways all too familiar in

America’s history of Native American

relations, the DAPL has underscored

once again the ongoing marginalization

of Native American peoples.

Its construction incited protests

from Native Americans, challenging

the pipeline’s planned route that

crossed native burial grounds and the

Missouri River in two locations.11

In 2016, the Standing Rock Sioux

Tribe halted construction of the

pipeline, and protests, gathered

under the hashtag #NoDAPL (No

Dakota Access Pipeline), captured

widespread media attention.12 The

tribe sued the US Army Corps of

Engineers to stop construction,

arguing that the pipeline would

pollute its water and desecrate sacred

burial grounds.

Two students visited a DAPL

construction site near Story County,

where ISU is located, and conducted

interviews with numerous residents.

These students reported on the local

residents’ concerns, which included

contamination of water and soil and

the disruption of Native American

burial grounds. In addition, there

are lingering questions regarding

the legitimacy of eminent domain to

displace residents from their homes

and land for the financial benefit of

a private company (Figure 7). These

interviews served as a reminder that

this undertaking is not an abstraction

but rather a process resulting

from multiple decisions that have

far-reaching consequences for

the area’s current residents and

future generations. These human

consequences are inextricably tied

to spatial disruptions associated

with the DAPL as a piece of physical

infrastructure (Figure 8).

Demonstrating the connections

between the real-world disruptions

of the landscape and the abstraction

of that condition in the installation

was central to discussion of

whether infrastructure can and

should displace a population. As the

construction of the pipeline began

in Iowa a few miles southeast of


Doyle and Forehand

JAE 72:1

86


Figure 6. Left, above: The Jeffersonian Grid is

clear from a satellite image of Iowa. (From Google

Earth). Right, above: The project’s representation

of the grid. Middle: The Jeffersonian Grid, a tool for

spreading American Democracy by displacing Native

Americans from their lands, dividing territory into a

sequence of nested grids. Below: The Jeffersonian

Grid abstracted into aggregated units, representing

the subdivided landscape.

the university, students ventured

into the landscape to document

the process, which begins with the

removal of land to make room for the

pipeline and the necessary construction

equipment. When construction

is finished, a void remains in

the landscape. The void marks

the pipeline’s presence beneath

the surface and is reflected by a

permanent easement where nothing

can be planted, developed, or grown.

PART 2: Constructing the Front (Iowa)

In Disrupt/Displace, each section of

the Jeffersonian Grid was translated

to the size of a single unit that is

aggregated as a representation of

the subdivided landscape. While

the Jeffersonian Grid is primarily a

convention seen in plan as a construction

of lines, this project represented

the landscape in three dimensions,

abstracted into a field of folded, spiral

extrusions (Figures 6, 9).

The performance of the installation

took place twice: once in Ames

at ISU and then again in Venice at the

Biennale. Each time the process of

the installation was the same: arrangement

of the grid, disruption of the

grid, and then displacement of the

grid (Figure 10).

The grid was constructed and

represented through a transportable,

repeatable, cardboard unit.

Dimensions for each unit were

determined by the material

constraints of a 24-by-36-inch

cardboard sheet. The unit was crafted

in three sections with multidirectional

scores, creating a piece

that twisted into a self-supporting

three-dimensional form and then

unfolded flat for transportation. On

completion of the installation in

Ames, the pieces were disassembled

and readied for transport to Venice.

Units were packed into carry-on

suitcases and carried across the

Atlantic. Each of the thirty students

who traveled to Venice from Iowa

transported 25 to 50 pieces for a

total of approximately 900 units for

the final installation. Therefore, the

quantity of territory constructed in

Venice was defined corporeally rather

than conceptually; we took with us

as much territory as we could carry.

The physical assembly and disassembly

processes were necessitated

by bringing the debate elsewhere

(Venice).

PART 3: Reporting the Front (Venice)

In Venice, the installation was

a three-part movement: first,

construction of the units and grid;

second, destruction of the grid;

third, presentation of the final

report. On arrival in Venice the thirty

ISU students were joined by twenty

students from Roma Tre and ISU’s

Rome program. Their first combined

action was to remove the flat packed

units from their carry-on suitcases

and to fold the cardboard into

three-dimensional forms. Students

purposefully sat in a line across the

Figure 7. Left, top: A trailer becomes a billboard

protesting against the use of eminent domain to make

room for the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Figure 8. Left, bottom: Protesters rally against the

Dakota Access Pipeline, Boone, Iowa, September 2016.


Doyle and Forehand

JAE 72:1

88


length of the gallery passing units

down the line once completed.

The ISU students explained to

their new collaborators how to fold

the cardboard units, discussed the

goals of the project, and described

reasons they selected the DAPL as a

front. As each piece was completed

it was collected in a pile of finished

grid units. Once the units were

completed the gridded territory was

reconstructed in the gallery space

(Figures 11–13).

The deconstruction of the

translated landscape took place as

two members of the group removed,

Figure 9. Left: The grid pattern is signified in

three dimensions by cardboard that is flat packed,

transported, and then assembled at the exhibition.

The result is a twisted geometric unit that combines

the regularity of the Jeffersonian Grid with the

twisting growth pattern of Iowa’s cornfields.

Figure 10. Opposite page, top: Students move

through the gridded field, performing the

destruction of the land by the construction of the

Dakota Access Pipeline.

Figure 11. Opposite page, bottom: Carry-on luggage

filled with flat-packed exhibition pieces arrives in

Venice, Italy, for transport to the Biennale Sessions

installation site. Students pass the pieces to the end

of the room as completed.

dismantled, and flattened a diagonal

cut through the constructed grid. To

encourage visitors to engage with the

space and complete the disturbance

within the boundaries of the grid,

the entire group marched over the

void, further flattening the pieces

and reinforcing the void. Interaction

with the remaining grid was almost

immediate, with visitors walking

through the diagonal void for the

duration of the exhibition (Figure 14).

PART 4: Assessing the Front (Venice)

Disrupt/Displace concluded with a

presentation, review, and colloquium

on the topic of architectural

agency—whether the architect

can and should function as expert

on, advocate for, or guardian of

an abstract (or specific) communal

imaginary. The discussion focused

on architecture’s relationship to

deprivation—physical, emotional,

or intellectual—recalling Aravena’s

invitation to display an architecture

of pressing needs such as poverty,

segregation, and inequality.

The disruption of land and the

displacement of people as a result

of energy infrastructure construction

is a global issue. While we only

examined the direct implications

of the pipeline in Iowa, it is crucial

to understand the spatial effects of

these types of displacements.

The aggregation and disruption of

the simple cardboard units reflects

the consequences of the DAPL,

provoking a larger discussion about

architecture’s role in displacement—not

only of people and space,

but also of the intangible dimensions


Doyle and Forehand

JAE 72:1

90



Figure 12. Opposite page, top left: Collection of

completed grid units.

Figure 13. Opposite page, top right: Students

installed the grid across the Biennale Sessions

exhibit space located between the Irish and

Macedonian Pavilions in the Arsenale.

Figure 14. Opposite page, bottom: Performing the

destruction of the grid in Venice.

of social, political, economic, and

environmental conditions. Although

architecture might inherit the

consequences of federal planning

and infrastructure, architecture is

not exempt from challenging and

questioning this inheritance.

Recall Scarry’s remark that “through

tools and acts of making, human

beings become implicated in each

other’s sentience.”14 The project

presented the grid as a tool and act

of making: a spatial abstraction, a

translation of territory, a performed

construction, a means to convey

narratives, an embodied discussion,

and a mechanism to generate

discussion and resist disciplinary

nihilism. In keeping with Scarry’s

observation, a consciousness of

things cannot be independent

of the things themselves: folding

cardboard, making space, meditating

upon a difficult and pressing issue.

Disrupt/Displace was a “Report from

the Front” on the Dakota Access

Pipeline, simultaneously a critique,

performance, and proposal. It was

also a search for an architectural

language for the spatial disruption

and displacement of energy

infrastructure and its impact on

the environment and indigenous

populations. Through Scarry’s

“engaged material consciousness”

the project made room and

fabricated territory for #NoDAPL, a

critical and urgent front.

Project Credits

Instructors

Shelby Doyle, Assistant Professor,

Department of Architecture, ISU

Leslie Forehand, Lecturer,

Department of Architecture, ISU

Graduate Assistant

Andrew Meyer

ISU Architecture Students

Rahul Attraya, Nicole Becker,

Sanjukta Chatterji, Jessyka Colon,

David Cordaro, Daniel Cowden,

Ian Dillon, Tara Follon, Kaihong

Gao, Connor Gatzke, Evan Giles,

Jinqu Giu, Taylor Hess, Austin Hurt,

Erin Hunt, Bethanie Jones, Paavan

Joshi, Joshua Kurnia, James Lieven,

Kerrick McCann, Hayden Moffitt,

Rachel Morrow, Jacob Murphy,

Makayla Natrop, Alonso Ortega,

Justin Pagorek, Kale Paulsen, Alicia

Pierce, Nicholas Raap, Sirina Reed,

Samuel Rezac-Contreras, Madeline

Schmidt, Sarah Schneider, Rebecca

Schodin, Aaron Shadlow, Alba

Stoyanova, Andrew Suiter, Wanting

Sun, Cale Unzicker, Sonia Trujillo,

Elizabeth Walling, Hanchen Zhang,

Wentao Zhong

ISU Interior Design Students

Xiomar Banks, Elizabeth Bixenman,

Cyrena Golden-Poole, Abigail

Hinchley, Maria Lombardi, Austin

Olesen, Hannah Peterson, Collin

Powell, Tanya Rome, Caitlin

Swenson, Kayley Tuchek

Roma Tre Architecture Students

Hady Sanad, Marco Smeraglia,

Edoardo Pasquali, Nicolò Santini,

Francesca Guadagno

Photos

Unless otherwise noted, photographs

were taken by Alicia Pierce, Bethanie

Jones, Nicole Becker.

Biennale Sessions Colloquium

Moderator

Deborah Hauptmann, Professor and

Chair, Department of Architecture, ISU

Workshop Review

Jim Cramer, Chairman and

Cofounder, DesignIntelligence,

Norcross, GA; Reinier de

Graaf, OMA Partner, Director

AMO, Rotterdam, NL; Anna

Fairbank, Fairbank and Lau PL,

Melbourne, AU; Curt Fentress,

Fentress Architects, Denver, CO;

David Goodman, Director of

Undergraduate Architecture, IE

Madrid; Luis Rico-Gutierrez, Dean,

ISU College of Design, Ames, IA

Colloquium Speakers

Reinier de Graaf, Anna Fairbank,

David Goodman

Sponsors and Student Travel

Support

ISU Department of Architecture;

Daniel J. Huberty Faculty

Fellowship; ISU College of Design;

Karol J. Kocimski Scholarship

Fund; Steve Rohrbach, Rohrbach

Associates, Iowa City, IA; Durrant

Foundation Fund

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the above sponsors

for financial support, and many

thanks to the following who made

this project possible: In Rome, Pia

Schneider and the administrative

staff at the ISU College of Design

Rome facility; ISU Rome program

faculty: Karen Bermann and

Simone Capra (Architecture), Jody

Patterson and Simone Bove (Interior

Design). In Ames, the staff of the

College of Design and Department

of Architecture, particularly Jen

Hogan, Director of International

Programs. In Venice: Elisabetta

Fiorese, Education and Promotion

Coordinator, Venice Architectural

Biennal.

Author Biographies

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle is an

assistant professor of architecture

and Daniel J. Huberty Faculty Fellow

at the ISU College of Design. Her

scholarship broadly focuses on the

intersection of computation and

construction, specifically on the

role of digital craft as both a social

and political project. Doyle was

hired under the ISU president’s

High Impact Hires Initiative to

combine digital fabrication and

design/build at ISU. This led to the

founding of the ISU Computation +

Construction Lab with Nick Senske

and Leslie Forehand. Doyle holds

a MArch from Harvard University

Doyle and Forehand

JAE 72:1

92


Graduate School of Design and

a BSArch from the University of

Virginia.

Leslie Forehand is a lecturer in

architecture at the ISU College

of Design and an internationally

experienced architect/designer. Her

research explores new solutions

in the digital processes, specifically

advancing the materiality of

additive manufacturing. Forehand

holds a MArch from Pratt Institute

and a BSArch from the University of

Virginia. Her personal and student

work has been exhibited and

published worldwide.

Notes

1 Alejandro Aravena in “Venice Biennale

Announces Theme for 2016 Event: ‘Reporting

From the Front,’” ArchDaily, August 31,

2015, https://www.archdaily.com/772776/

venice-biennale-announces-theme-for-2016-

event-reporting-from-the-front (accessed July

26, 2017).

2 Ibid.

3 “Biennale Arte 2017,” La Biennale di Venezia,

October 24, 2017, http://www.labiennale.org/en/

art/2017 (accessed October 26, 2017).

4 “The Great Transition: The Arts and Radical

System Change,” in The Great Transition: The Arts

and Radical System Change, e-flux Architecture,

http://www.e-flux.com/architecture/

accumulation/122305/the-great-transition-thearts-and-radical-system-change/

(accessed July

30, 2017).

5 Elaine Scarry, The Body in Pain: The Making

and Unmaking of the World (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1985), 151.

6 Ibid., 176.

7 Robinson Meyer, “Oil Is Flowing Through the

Dakota Access Pipeline,” The Atlantic, June 9,

2017, https://www.theatlantic.com/science/

archive/2017/06/oil-is-flowing-through-thedakota-access-pipeline/529707/

(accessed July

26, 2017).

8 Aravena in “Venice Biennale Announces Theme

for 2016 Event.”

9 “About this Collection—Louisiana:

European Explorations and the Louisiana

Purchase,” Library of Congress, https://

www.loc.gov/collections/louisiana-europeanexplorations-and-the-louisiana-purchase/

about-this-collection/ (accessed October 26,

2017).

10 Jerome S. Higgins, Subdivisions of The Public

Lands: Described and Illustrated with Diagrams and

Maps (Higgins & Co, 1887).

11 Carol Hardy Vincent, Laura A. Hanson, and

Carla N. Argueta, Federal Land Ownership:

Overview and Data, Report no. R42346,

Congressional Research Service, March 3,

2017, https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

(accessed July 26, 2017).

12 “The Standing Rock Sioux ‘Know What

They’re Doing’ in North Dakota,” Public

Radio International, https://www.pri.org/

stories/2016-09-12/standing-rock-sioux-knowwhat-theyre-doing-north-dakota

(accessed

October 26, 2017).

13 Scarry, 176.



Digital technologies, such as computational

design and digital fabrication, have

transformed the design and construction of

contemporary architecture. However, the

understanding of how to teach digital

Charrette 4(1) Spring 2017

ISSN: 2054-6718

Charrette

the Journal of the Association of Architectural Educators

Essay: Between Design and

Digital: Bridging the Gaps in

Architectural Education



ABSTRACT This essay brings accepted educational research into the discussion of digital design’s

relationship to architecture and architectural education. Digital technologies, such as computational

design and digital fabrication, have transformed the design and construction of contemporary

architecture. However, a lack of educational theory among instructors and widespread belief in

pedagogical myths, such as the ‘digital native,’ have made it difficult for architecture schools to

establish teaching methods for effectively integrating technology. In response to this situation, the

authors present two proposals that attempt to address this issue at both the tactical (instructional

methods) and strategic (curricular) levels. Respectively, the first proposal describes the teaching of

soft skills for digital design and the second uses Bloom’s Taxonomy as a method of developing

learning objectives for digital design instruction. These proposals represent two examples of how

educators can bridge the gaps that commonly exist between design teaching and technology teaching.

KEYWORDS digital, design, pedagogy, technology, education

Introduction

technology as an essential design skill has not

kept pace with these rapid changes, as

evidenced by uneven educational distribution

of digital technology. Design education and

digital technology education continue to be

seen as separate loci of learning, with

pedagogical gaps preventing meaningful

1

alignment. In the interest of helping to bridge

these gaps, this essay presents a pedagogical

agenda for digital design in architectural

education by debunking myths such as the

‘digital native’ and applying proven

educational research to the pursuit of digital

design.

Between Design and Digital

Over the past three decades, Computer-Aided

Drafting and Design (CADD) technologies

have become commonplace in architectural

practice as tools of efficiency and production.

For these very reasons the introduction of

CADD in early architectural curricula has been

fraught with anxieties along a continuum: from

the undoing of creativity through positivist and

reductionist logic 1 to a firm belief that these

technologies will revolutionize the way

architects practice and think about design. 2 The

presence of these anxieties and biases often

leads to gaps in architectural pedagogy, as

digital tools are misunderstood and

misappropriated by students and teachers alike.

Digital design is a term in common use,

however, its definition is unclear. On one

hand, there is very little architectural work

today which does not use the computer in

some capacity, and yet there are also designs

which consciously engage in digital

formalisms and processes. The latter is digital

in aesthetic, but the former could still be

considered digital by method. The very

existence of the category of digital design is

problematic because it implies two cultural

silos in architecture: those who are digital and

those who are not. These two cultures are part

of the gap between design and digital that

exists in education.

For the purposes of this essay, digital design

refers to the use of the computer and

computer-driven tools (such as CNC machines,

robots, etc.) when one designs architecture.

The key is not what is designed, but rather

whether the computer is employed, or not, as a

tool in architectural work. This essay interprets

digital design as a broad and teachable skillset

that should be available to all students, rather

than niche specialization. This is the

foundation of an inclusive theory for education

that bridges between design and the digital.

The Myth of the Digital Native


ISSN: 2054-6718

The introduction of the computer in

architecture changes both what and how

architects design. It introduces both new

capabilities and new sources of bias and error.

Therefore, it is necessary for architectural

education to address and teach specific ways of

designing with the computer – not how to use

software or operate machines, but how to

design digitally.

Unfortunately, the distinction between using

and designing with a computer and the need to

explicitly teach digital design are not

commonly held beliefs among architectural

educators. Some assume that students can and

should teach themselves software outside of

the classroom while classroom instruction

should be devoted to teaching design. The

myth that students, as ‘digital natives,’ who are

self-regulating and superior to their instructors

when it comes to learning and using

technology is harmful and untrue.

The term digital native derives from a series of

articles written by the technologist Marc

Prensky during the early 2000s. Prensky

describes the generation of young people born

since 1980 as “digital natives” due to what he

perceives as an innate confidence and intuitive

ability in using new technologies such as the

internet, videogames, mobile telephones and

‘all the other toys and tools of the digital age.’ 3

Enrique Dans counters Prensky’s claims:

‘Simply being born into the internet age does

not endow one with special powers. Learning

how to use technology properly requires

learning and training, regardless of one’s age.’

Although scholars have similarly debunked the

claims of Prensky and others 4 5 , the myth of

the digital native, and the failure to recognize

the importance of high-quality technology

instruction, persists.

While students are often considered digital

natives, they tend to be digital orphans, who

are lacking in any behavioral models to copy

or criteria for understanding digital tools. 6

Beyond basic fluency, architectural instructors

are uniquely positioned to model substantive

content creation and healthy critical thinking

about these technologies. By perpetuating the

myth of the digital native, architectural

education is missing the opportunity to

establish strong pedagogical foundations from

which future designs and digital advancements

will emerge.

2


The what, when, and why of architectural

education is intrinsically relevant to the

discipline and practice of architecture. Digital

media and technology are inseparable from

contemporary design today and therefore must

be more articulately discussed as an

educational agenda. The way digital design is

taught (and not taught) has ramifications upon

the discipline and practice of architecture: how

buildings are designed, documented, and

disseminated. Therefore, teaching methods

should not be dismissed as pedagogic issues

but rather discussed as essential questions of

the discipline.

The authors present two proposals that attempt

to address these issues at both the tactical

(instructional methods) and strategic

(curricular) levels. Respectively, the first

proposal describes the teaching of soft skills

for digital design and the second uses Bloom’s

Taxonomy as a method of developing learning

objectives for digital design instruction. These

proposals represent two examples of how

educators can bridge the gaps that commonly

exist between design teaching and technology

teaching.

Soft Skills and Fostering Learning

Habits

An important step in advancing the discipline

of digital design is to define digital skills

which are learnable rather than innate. One

way to encourage more critical thinking about

technology is to teach generalizable skills that

apply across a range of technologies and to

train students to recognize when to apply them.

This stands in direct contrast to other forms of

digital technology instruction which tend to

emphasize skills with a specific piece of

software or machine.

Computer use in architecture is often discussed

and taught as a series of technical or ‘hard (as

in absolute)’ skills. In contrast, ‘soft’ skills are

related to emotional intelligence, attitudes,

habits, and interpersonal relationships. An

example of a soft skill is resourcefulness:

being inclined and able to find alternate

solutions to a problem, rather than giving up or

deferring responsibility. In this manner, soft

skills influence the ways that an individual

applies technical skills to achieve goals, such

as a design. Learning soft skills has been

related to improved employment outlook and

better job performance. 7 8 Professions such as

business and information services have cited

employees’ lack of soft skills as one of the

primary reasons why projects fail. 9 Thus, for

students, developing soft skills is equally as

important, if not more important, than learning

technical skills. This is because soft skills can

be reapplied to changing technology, whereas

hard skills may fall away as technology

changes It is the re-application of these skills

that makes them relevant beyond the beginning

education of architects and deeply important to

the discipline.

The influential Boyer report on architectural

education concluded that: ‘[A]rchitectural

education is really about fostering the learning

habits needed for the discovery, integration,

application, and sharing of knowledge over a

lifetime. 10’ Soft skills are the learning habits

Boyer references and as such must be taught

rather than assumed to be pre-existing skills.

This also extends to those soft skills which

relate to digital design in architecture.

Fig. 1 Knowing how to operate a smartphone

does not necessarily make one an effective

computer user. Photograph by authors.

While technology has rapidly become more

accessible to more people, its benefits are not

evenly shared. Architectural education must

recognize that university students are not

comprehensively or consistently trained in

digital technologies when they arrive on

campus. This is exacerbated when less

privileged students arrive less digitally skilled

than students from economically privileged

backgrounds. By not addressing these

inequalities, architecture schools end up

perpetuating disparities through education.

Digital Soft Skills

While traditional soft skills such as

conscientiousness and empathy are helpful for

architects, digital soft skills – introduced in

this section – apply specifically to the tools

and processes used in digital design. Digital

soft skills support students as they are learning

digital design and, later, help students apply

technical skills successfully and with

sophistication and to adapt to a rapidly

changing technologic landscape.

Digital soft skills differ from traditional soft

skills because they take into account the

particular challenges of computing and digital

machinery. The special attributes of digital

tools that make them powerful: symbolic logic,

abstraction, and automation, can invite

cognitive biases when designers operate those

tools simplistically, at face-value (i.e. using a

computer like a cell phone, a pencil, or a

typewriter). To best leverage the unique

characteristics of the digital, architects must

adapt their thinking, expectations, and habits,

as analog inclinations can interfere with

working effectively with digital tools. 11 Even

those who work with digital tools frequently

need to learn digital soft skills, as they may

have developed bad habits and misconceptions

over time. Merely using digital tools is not

enough to cultivate a mindfulness of the

limitations and opportunities of the medium

and one’s responses to it.

To cite an example: digital tools are often

‘black boxes’ with complex layers of

interrelated procedures that make it difficult

for users to be aware of what they are doing

and how their software operates. Users expect

simple cause-and-effect relationships between

their operations and the results on a screen,

when the reality is that many ‘hidden’

processes are at work and can affect the

outcome of an interaction. 12

Students who lack the digital soft skills to

understand and respond to seemingly opaque

technologies often have a poor attitude when

faced with computer problems and may spend

their time in unproductive ways trying to

‘hack’ solutions to technical problems. 13 This

affects not only the quality of their final

designs, but their outlook on technology in

general.

Digital soft skills are similar to traditional soft

skills in the way they affect how students

apply technical skills. They are the bridge

across the gap that often exists between design

Fig. 2 The top diagram demonstrates a

curriculum where design (architecture) and

hard skills (technology) are typically taught in

parallel. The bottom diagram demonstrates

that soft skills (learning habits) create the

bridge between design (architecture) and hard

skills (technology). Over time these skills

become mutually supportive. Diagram by

authors.

skills and technical (hard) skills like digital

methodologies. However, very little time, if

any, is given in architectural curricula to the

explicit cultivation of digital soft skills.

Samples of Digital Soft Skills

The following list is a representative sample of

digital soft skills which support digital

pedagogy: communication skills, adaptability,

time management, and digital hygiene.

1. Communications Skills

Communicating clearly with others is a critical

set of soft skills for architects, particularly

when using digital tools. For instance, many

students have never been explicitly taught how

to ask a question via email: to provide

necessary information and files upfront,

anticipate follow-up questions, and to

communicate their expectations for resolution.

This is important not only professionally, but

especially when trying to learn or fix

something like a new piece of software.

Collaboration - The ability to work with

others digitally, particularly at a distance.

Some examples of this include establishing

and maintaining representational standards and


ISSN: 2054-6718

3


ISSN: 2054-6718

4


version control for files.

Fig. 3 Example of a downloaded Grasshopper

definition. Working digitally demands

questions of authorship and intellectual

property be discussed with students.

Authorship - This is the ability to understand

digital intellectual property and to distinguish

between resourcefulness and plagiarism. This

notion of authorship becomes increasingly

important when the line between programmer

and designer is blurred by the use of digital

tools. Of particular note is the downloading of

code or Grasshopper definitions which are then

deployed as design generators.

Support - Architects should be able to seek,

locate, and pursue support for software and

technical issues, many of which might exceed

the abilities of the instructor or the support

offered by an academic institution. These skills

include asking fellow students, contacting the

software maker directly, and using the Internet

as a resource.

2. Adaptability

Adaptability is resiliency in response to

imperfect tools and a field constantly in

change. Digital designers should work with the

understanding that failures are to be expected,

while being empowered to seek alternatives.

They must also update their skills and abilities

often while remaining critical users of

technology.

Autodidacticism – The ability and inclination

to teach oneself (quickly) is a valuable skill for

designers. This includes planning and

scheduling regular time to learn and a

recognition of common concepts and methods

shared between tools, which can make learning

more efficient.

Conversion – An effective strategy for error

recovery is knowing how to share data

between several types of files and programs. It

is important to also note that many computer

programs are able to convert various file

formats and often have similar procedures.

Fig. 4 Example of a response to a large print

which failed. Soft skills encourage students to

anticipate such failures and to develop

alternatives, such as printing on smaller

paper, creating analog versions, and using a

projector. Photograph by authors.

3. Time Management

Digital design projects in architecture are often

complex, involving many different programs

and machines, as well as human team

members. Some of these elements can be

hands-off (such as rendering) or very hands-on

(supervising CNC fabrication). Part of

completing them successfully is knowing the

workflows involved and having a sense of their

coordination and time requirements.

Fig. 5 Example of a time management and

workflow issue common in digital production.

It must be reiterated that the computer is not

automatic nor is digital production in and of

itself ‘fast.’ A tedious laser file will become a

tedious model to assemble. Photograph by

authors.

Estimation - There is a common

misconception that technology makes design

faster and easier. It takes experience and skill

to determine the full amount of time needed to

complete a digital task or processes (e.g.

milling, printing, rendering).

Sourcing - The ability to identify the most

effective tool and process for the development

of the idea and in relation to the time available

for production. This requires understanding the

different elements of digital production such as

the difference between a raster and a vector.

Preparation - Plan for contingencies and

alternatives. Assume some things will

inevitably not go as expected and know the

options available.

Scheduling - Develop internal deadlines,

realistic calendars, and skills for planning and

implementing a multi-step process. For

instance: development of a digital file for

fabrication, then fabrication, then postproduction.

4. Digital hygiene

Digital hygiene refers to the good habits of

caring for equipment, computer hardware and

software as well as preventing and recovering

from errors.

Fig. 6 Example of a backup protocol. Soft

skills enable students to feel confident that

computers will fail and that they are

empowered to seek alternatives. Photograph

by authors.

Organization - Maintain files in a structure

which is both navigable and searchable by

users.

Backups - Create a backup routine that is an

embedded part of the digital process (cloud,

physical media, & storage). This also includes

knowledge and use of software auto-backup

and recovery. Keep at least one physical

backup off-site.

Clean-up – Regularly sort, store, and purge

project files to manage storage and make

important files easier to locate.

Teaching Digital Soft Skills

Successful students may demonstrate

behaviors and habits similar to those presented

in the last section. Therefore, it is often

assumed that soft skills are character traits

rather than teachable attributes. However, this

is not representative of how the majority of

students approach digital design. The very

notion of ‘soft skills’ implies that these

behaviors and habits can be taught to students

who need them. 14

Another common argument is that soft skills

are best learned in the workplace. While the

workplace presents a professional context, it

does not offer the same opportunities for

focused learning as design school. Moreover,

one of the reasons for learning soft skills is to

make one more competitive in finding

employment. Students should have a sense of

how these skills translate into practice before

they enter the market or transition into related

fields where soft skills are still applicable.

Supporting a new habit which a student does

not create themselves requires helping them

understand its meaningfulness. It can be easy

to dismiss soft skills out of hand because they

might seem to be obvious or less interesting

than learning technical skills. However, soft

skills precede the development of technical

skills. For this reason, it is important for the

instructor to communicate why new strategies

and habits support design development. 15

Investment begins by identifying the soft skills

in question and explaining to students the

value of the skills within design and

production workflows. To be most effective,

those values should be immediate and goaloriented.

Although it is true that developing

soft skills can help a student get a job in the

future, explaining to a student (for example)

how organizing their files saves them time and

reduces errors on their current project is less

abstract and applies to their current situation.

To give context to this time-saving practice,

file structures should be discussed as integral

to design processes rather than tangential.

Helping students understand the gaps in their

present abilities and how learning soft skills

can help close those gaps and improve designs

is the first step toward effective habituation.


ISSN: 2054-6718

5


ISSN: 2054-6718

6


At the same time, teaching soft skills is most

effective when integrated with hard skills

teaching and preferably in the context of a

design project. 16 An instructor can introduce

soft skills where they naturally occur within

design and production processes. For example,

using an error that students commonly

encounter to teach search, problem-solving,

and communications skills. Relevant material

like this helps focus student attention while a

legitimate context helps them retain and access

what they have learned later.

Demonstrations can be more effective when

they are supported by teaching materials that

help organize knowledge for students. 17 A

simple check-list, for example, can help

students remember how to organize a digital

group project. Once students have mastered the

soft skills involved, the student will not need

the scaffolding provided by the list. However,

if the student makes a mistake or needs to

refresh their learning later, the list provides a

useful reference and a prompt for activating

digital soft skills. Externalizing implicit

practices and helping students focus on

relevant information and methods improves the

effectiveness of soft skills teaching and

integrate these skills into the design process.

Delivering soft skills in class benefits from a

coaching approach. Because the goal is to

change student attitudes over time, rather than

delivering information or procedures, a ‘one

and done’ demonstration is not an appropriate

teaching style. 18 19 With coaching, the

instructor discusses the advantages of a skill

(creating investment), then models the

behavior while explaining to the student what

they are doing and why. This last step is

important because students need to understand

when to apply a skill as much as they need to

20 21

know the technical operations involved.

Next, students demonstrate the skill and

receive feedback from the instructor on their

performance. This is followed by more

practice and feedback over time and in concert

with other skills to approximate holistic design

activities. The goal of coaching is to cultivate

not just practice but deliberate practice over

time – making the student aware of their own

actions and motivating retention and

refinement. 22 This creates deep and lasting

learning: the ‘learning habits’ championed by

Boyer.

Formative assessment techniques, which

encourage personal reflection, timely feedback,

and student response are useful support for the

‘coaching’. 23 Many courses emphasize the

final artifact and never look at the files

involved. The studio or classroom offers the

opportunity to do just that. Reviewing files is

critical so the instructor can observe attributes

such as organization, efficiency, and other

procedural nuances.

Lastly, in order to properly cultivate habits,

soft skills should be reinforced in the studio

and lab even when they are not being formally

taught. Instructors should be mindful and

consistent in their own habits, demonstrating

modeled behaviors in their personal actions.

For example, an instructor’s demonstration

files should be well-organized to set a good

example for the students. Student interactions

should also emphasize consistent behavior. If a

student asks for help with a tool, for instance,

the instructor should evaluate how the student

asks questions and replay the scenario with

them while making explicit the strategies

involved. Learning should be embedded in the

classroom experience and design process. It

must be an iterative and continuous practice,

not merely an exercise.

Pedagogical Alignment and the Value of

Digital Design

Although digital soft skills bridge an important

gap in how students learn digital design,

effective teaching must also provide a

framework for how students approach learning

and apply their skills. Digital design

instruction in higher education is often

misunderstood as merely teaching technical

skills. However, in order to be used

successfully, those technical skills must be

supported by knowledge and sound judgement.

The issue facing architectural education is that

the goals of learning digital design are often

too superficial and ill-defined. Merely

acquiring skills is not enough. By reflecting

upon the nature of learning itself, architecture

education can re-align its pedagogy and

understand the value of digital design.

Towards this end, one of the most significant

advances made by educational research in the

past 20 years has been to redefine the goals of

learning. Decades ago, before the development

of contemporary learning theories, schools

emphasized developing core skills such as

reading and memorizing information such as

dates and facts in a history class. The implicit

assumption was that this level of learning was

sufficient for students to write reports, solve

problems, and produce other sophisticated

applications of literacy. However, while many

students could demonstrate ability at, for

instance, providing the correct solution for a

specific type of word problem, educational

researchers found that students rarely

understood what they had learned, nor could

they easily apply their skills and strategies to

new contexts. 24 The students knew their

lessons by rote and adapted to succeed at their

instructor’s tests, but they had a superficial

understanding of the material. Today, although

educational models and expectations have

evolved, digital technology is often relegated

to this type of learning.

While skills and facts remain important to

learn, the goal of education today has been

restated: to provide students with a foundation

of deep learning and the intellectual tools to

ask and address meaningful questions. 25 In

contrast to superficial learning of facts and

procedures, deep learning entails knowledge of

the underlying principles, domain structure,

and strategies to activate skills and knowledge

and apply them flexibly in a variety of

conditions – particularly conditions which are

different from the ones where learning

originally occurred, such as the translation of

design thinking from an academic to

professional context. Deep learning is what

most instructors would recognize as productive

and transferable learning yet few courses

actually achieve this new standard.

Architectural studios are examples of a deep

learning environment.

However, in contrast to architectural studios,

the current state of digital design instruction in

architecture tends to follow an educational

model which does not support deep learning.

Presently, much of what students learn is by

rote: sequences of commands and procedures

intended to produce reliable results. While

students can operate software and other tools

with what appears to be great fluency, a

majority do not have a deep understanding of

computing or digital media principles. 26 As a

result, their work tends to be inefficient and

derivative. Like the school teachers in the

earlier example, digital design instructors

emphasize core skills for using digital tools

and then expect students to apply them towards

design projects. This is the reason a learning

gap exists: first, students do not learn the tools

with significant guidance to develop depth and

rigor; second, they are not taught explicit

strategies for applying digital methods to

design tasks. Students often fail to develop an

understanding of digital design methods

because the pedagogy is not aligned with the

goal of deep learning. This leads to a

frequently cited criticism of digital design:

work which is repetitive or uninventive

because students are grappling with technology

rather than controlling it. In this case

technology controls the learner, not vice versa.

Here we assume that such a goal is recognized

in the first place. Learning digital tools is often

seen – by students and faculty alike – as mere

technical skilling rather than a way of thinking

about design. The organization governing

professional architectural accreditation

(NAAB) in American schools uses a set of

learning criteria that specify Ability and

Understanding. 27 However, this set of criteria

does not address digital design with any

specificity. There is no agreement upon the

value or content of a digital design education,

and so student abilities can vary widely from

school to school, and within academic units.

The educational model of the design studio is

unique in its approach because it has many

elements which contribute to the production of

deep learning, such as opportunities for

synthetic learning, active learning, complex

problem solving, and self-reflection and

critique. This is precisely the kind of approach

that would benefit digital design education.

Unfortunately, the architectural design studio

is often seen as one type of learning, while

digital design, which is thought of as mere

technology, is seen as another. This

disconnection is due to a misunderstanding

about digital design due to a lack of clearlydefined

and shared pedagogical goals. The

present situation in education has come about

because the implied goal of digital design

education is mere tool operation (which does

not require deep learning) when the expected

outcome should be increased agency and

sophistication of design ability. One way to

address the problem of pedagogical

misalignment is to develop learning objectives

for digital design. Learning objectives have the

benefit of being a structured, well-understood,

and research-based approach to curricular

development. This method informs clarity and


ISSN: 2054-6718

7


ISSN: 2054-6718

8


represents an explicit way to connect the goal

of deep learning with pedagogical execution.

Bloom’s Taxonomy

A useful tool for developing better learning

objectives and thereby digital education is

Bloom’s taxonomy. The taxonomy is a

hierarchical framework intended to help

instructors coordinate their planning and

assessment using a common language. 28 It

represents the process of learning from

acquiring simpler to more sophisticated

thinking skills. The general idea of Bloom’s

taxonomy is that lower levels of cognition

support higher levels. For instance, one must

understand the difference between different

methods of digitally constructing a 3D surface

(comprehending) before choosing which kind

of 3D surface to use (applying).

In its revised form, Bloom’s taxonomy lists six

levels of cognitive processes:

1. Knowing: memorization and factual recall

2. Comprehending: understanding the

meaning of facts and information

3. Applying: selection and correct use of

facts, rules, or ideas

4. Analyzing: breaking down information

into component parts

5. Evaluating: judging or forming an

opinion about the information

6. Creating: combination of facts, ideas, or

information to make a new whole

A more recent addition to the discussion of the

taxonomy is the inclusion of types of

knowledge. Anderson and Krathwohl

addressed criticisms of the taxonomy by

recognizing that not all knowledge is equal in

complexity and that knowledge tends to be

developed from concrete (facts and concepts)

to abstract (procedural) and finally to

knowledge of one’s own cognition

(metacognitive). 29 In concert with cognitive

processes, the knowledge dimension of the

revised taxonomy enables a more nuanced

discussion of learning objectives. For instance,

under the newer version, the taxonomy does

not progress and stop with creating, but also

includes reflective feedback loops between

making and learning. Many of these processes


ISSN: 2054-6718

can already be found within the studio teaching

model.

Bloom’s taxonomy is not a prescription for

every course to follow. However, it is used

here to move forward a conversation about

how to structure the digital education of

architects. For example, one could design a

course with at least one learning objective

from each cognitive level. Depending upon the

skills required, some levels may need

additional objectives. Students with different

abilities may be able to begin learning at

higher levels. The value of the taxonomy is not

that it represents exactly how learning works

or that it tells instructors how to teach, but

rather in how it helps to organize and align

pedagogical thinking.

Educational frameworks like Bloom’s

taxonomy are not in common use in

architectural education. The reason for this is

unclear. However, for those developing or

revising architectural curricula, having access

to a set of learning objectives that uses a

shared taxonomy can enable a dialog within

the discipline. Furthermore, because Bloom’s

taxonomy is recognized outside of

architecture, it can help produce

interdisciplinary connections with other

educational researchers.

Fig. 7 Bloom’s taxonomy was first introduced

in 1956 and since then has seen widespread

9

use in instructional design. A revised version

was issued in 2001, which changed the levels

from nouns into active verbs, added the

knowledge dimension, and placed creation

(synthesis) at the top of the hierarchy of

cognitive process. 31 More recently, Churches

created a ‘digital’ version of Bloom’s

taxonomy that updates many its application to

computing activities. 32 Diagram by authors.

Bloom’s taxonomy helps support the goal of

developing deep understanding in digital

design instruction. One way it accomplishes

this is by establishing the basic cognitive

processes involved in learning to design

thoughtfully. To see these processes organized

and consider them with respect to digital

design is to shed light on what is often an

opaque practice. The taxonomy makes it clear

that one does not just use or not use various

tools, but one must understand them, choose

from them, and evaluate those choices as part

of a design process. In this manner, an

advantage of learning objectives developed

through Bloom’s taxonomy is that they

promote student outcomes of greater

complexity and iterative feedback loops. 30 For

example, without the proper outcomes

articulated, a student might submit what

appears to be an original design, but was

merely applying a procedure. Bloom’s

taxonomy makes it clear that creation depends

as much on understanding one’s decisions (the

‘why’) as knowing the correct commands (the

‘how’ – which is often students’ focus). For

can help clarify that the goal of digital design

instruction is not only to learn how to use

digital tools, but to apply them towards better

designs and more sophisticated design

thinking.

With regards to teaching methodology, the

clarity of learning objectives derived from

Bloom’s taxonomy can help motivate qualities

of student performance which are often lacking

in digital design courses, such as innovative

solutions and well-crafted, thoughtful

representation. As mentioned in the previous

section, many learning objectives are not

specific enough, sufficiently measurable, or

targeted to student’s learning level. Bloom’s

taxonomy can help ensure that students are

practicing the skills that they should be

learning in their activities and at an appropriate

level of cognition. This enables the

pedagogical gap between learning digital


ISSN: 2054-6718

methods and creating designs to be filled with

deliberate (or mindful) practice.

Deliberate practice is another element which is

often missing in digital design education. It is a

recognized process through which individuals

train themselves to high levels of performance.

Like digital soft skills, some students do this

intuitively, but it can also be taught. Research

has shown that learning complex skills is most

effective when students engage with tasks that

are appropriately challenging, with clear

performance goals and feedback, and

sufficiently frequent opportunities for

practice. 31 The difference between merely

making and deliberate practice is that a student

monitors their progress towards a specific goal

and changes their performance in response to

feedback. Learning objectives assist students

in deliberate practice by creating specific and

appropriate performance goals which they can

use to monitor their progress. This guidance

directly supports the development of abilities

on the highest (metacognitive) level of the

taxonomy, which are crucial for sophisticated

work and achieving transfer of skills and

knowledge to other domains. 32 Thus, the

notion of deliberate practice stands in contrast

to the disengaged ways that many students

learn and use digital tools, which is often

oriented towards production for its own sake

rather than for quality or thoughtfulness.

Introducing deliberate practice is one way for

schools to motivate deep understanding and to

bring craft back into discussions about digital

representation.

Towards Learning Objectives for Digital

Design

Learning objectives, supported by Bloom’s

Taxonomy, provide valuable insight into the

how and why of teaching. They promote a

common language of naming educational

concepts which define and enrich the

discipline of digital design. The idea of a

learning objective is straightforward, but often

misapplied or misunderstood as bureaucratic

syllabus fodder. A learning objective is a

specific statement which describes what a

student will know (knowledge) and be able to

do (skills) as a result of engaging in a learning

activity. A learning objective must have three

parts: a measurable verb associated with the

intended cognitive process, the necessary

condition (if any) under which the

performance is to occur, and the criteria for

10


measuring acceptable performance (this is

often implied). A simplistic example of a

learning objective that fits this pattern is:

‘Given a set of contours the student will be

able to generate a topographic model.’ The

condition is having a set of contours and the

implied measurement is an acceptable model.

Learning objectives are focused solely on

student outcomes and do not specify methods

or other expectations for the teacher. They are

not an attempt to create uniform classroom

procedures or hinder instructor creativity

through standardization. Learning objectives

are useful because they help instructors with

course planning and the creation of content.

Furthermore, the explicitness of properlyconstructed

learning objectives establishes a

basis for student assessment as well as the

evaluation of teaching and curricula. 33 A

primary challenge of digital architecture

evaluation is the lack of criteria and therefore a

lack of agreed upon traits for which to evaluate

whether digitally produced code, drawings or

images are successful.

In this manner, learning objectives support

better learning and provide a common

framework for schools to organize their efforts

at improving education. For this reason, many

North American universities, such as

Vanderbilt 34 and Carnegie Mellon 35 , have

standardized their syllabus policies to address

learning objectives. The use of learning

objectives may seem obvious or unnecessary if

one is only considering their use in one’s own

syllabi, but in terms of disciplinary alignment,

digital design instruction could benefit from

the additional clarity offered.

The real issue is not that learning objectives do

not exist for digital design courses, but rather

that they are not often used correctly, in

response to the findings of educational

research. First, many stated learning objectives

do not take into account the learning process

for developing complex skills and thinking. As

mentioned earlier, traditional digital design

pedagogy tends to emphasize learning through

design tasks. The tacit learning objective of

most activities, ostensibly, is to design

something via digital methods. However, this

does not acknowledge the steps involved to

prepare students for design, such as learning

about the tools, practicing methods, comparing

and selecting methods, etc. These skills and

knowledge are implied by the goal of

designing. However, by not stating this

explicitly and assuming that students will learn

on their own, the instructor might neglect

teaching and assessing the constituent skills

and knowledge that students need.

When developing learning objectives, it is

important for digital design instructors to

acknowledge how learning occurs as a

developmental process. Creativity and

autonomy, abilities exercised in design work,

are higher order thinking skills. Higher order

thinking is dependent upon requisite technical

skills and other cognitive resources. 36 As such,

these activities may not be beneficial learning

experiences for beginner and intermediate

students. Research shows the importance of

matching learning objectives to student level. 37

Novices benefit from direct guidance in basic

skills and knowledge, while objectives for

advanced students should emphasize synthesis

and independence.

Second, many learning objectives for digital

design instruction conflate activities and goals

with learning outcomes. A goal is a statement

of the overall intended outcome of a learning

activity or course. Learning objectives are

specific achievements which contribute to the

goal. 38 For example, a course description that

says ‘students will be exposed to digital

fabrication technologies’ has presented a goal,

but not stated a specific, measurable outcome.

Likewise, a statement like ‘students will

fabricate a small-scale physical model’

describes an activity, but does not provide

enough information to discern what students

are supposed to learn from the activity or what

determines successful learning from the

activity. A learning objective that addresses

these issues would be: ‘students will use GIS

data to generate a small-scale physical model

using appropriate digital fabrication

techniques.’ This objective presents a

condition (GIS data), an outcome (the model),

and assessment criteria (are the techniques

appropriate? / is the model correct?).

Understanding the learning objective helps

define the cognitive skill level of the activity

and the appropriate assessment. For instance, if

the objective was to learn about computing

concepts, issuing a quiz with questions about

procedures would not be a helpful

measurement. To facilitate effective

instruction, goals, activities, and learning

objectives must be aligned with one another.

Discussion of Learning Objectives

The challenge of making claims about design

pedagogy interventions, such as soft skills, is

proving their effectiveness. In educational

research the difficulties of empirical

measurement in traditional subjects like math

and reading are well-known 39 40 but the

challenges of demonstrating the impact of an

intervention upon design outcomes – which are

not easily measured or quantified – make this

task even more burdensome and its

conclusions unreliable. For this reason, there is

no accepted model for proving the

effectiveness of design pedagogy. What is

more important and perhaps easier to ‘prove’ is

that well-articulated digital soft skills create a

framework and a platform where technology

can be used expansively and in unique ways

rather than reductively and repetitively. The

value of digital soft skills is to suggest a

replicable model which remains relevant and

useful for students as technology changes.

With regards to learning objectives, their

greatest value is not necessarily what they add

to a syllabus, but rather how they prompt a

larger conversation about educational and

professional values and standards – a

conversation which is necessary for

establishing a discipline and then moving it

forward. Creating learning objectives for

digital design in architecture exposes many

implicit assumptions about what faculty

believe about learning and the role of

computing in the studio. At the same time,

discussing learning objectives is a provocation

towards architecture schools to consider digital

design as more than merely learning to operate

tools and software (activities which are not

themselves valid learning objectives) and to

instead connect these practices to design

thinking and the development of architectural

designs.

Bloom’s taxonomy assists in framing a more

constructive discussion about learning to

design digitally by offering a structure of

cognitive accomplishments for students. This

helps move architectural educators away from

frameworks derived from intuitions about

pedagogy and towards established theories and

research into educational psychology and

learning cognition. Instead of teaching and

learning digital skills and knowledge through a

hierarchy of the tool’s features or increasing

complexity, Bloom’s taxonomy foregrounds

processes of remembering, thinking, and

judgment. These objectives are more closely

aligned with deeper understanding and

integrative mastery. This type of learning is

precisely the antidote to the kind of superficial

engagement one often finds in architecture

schools that prompts negativity towards the

use of computing in design. In the future,

educational theory in architecture could benefit

from a more specific taxonomic model, but at

the moment, Bloom’s taxonomy offers a useful

framework for envisioning and discussing

alternatives to traditional digital design

instruction.

The purpose of reflecting upon learning

objectives for digital design in architecture is

not to produce a definitive list of what students

ought to learn. Learning objectives are written

for specific curricula, student needs, and

faculty interests. They are useful because they

provide a clear definition of expected

outcomes and which becomes a point of

dialogue. In order to evaluate something, it

first must be named. Through evaluation and

discussion, a discipline develops. When Bloom

created the learning taxonomy, this was the

goal. Not to explain or lay claim to how

students must learn, but to provide a shared

structure so educators could compare their

approaches. In a similar manner, creating and

sharing learning objectives for digital design

instruction can produce a more organized

dialogue about how to align the use of digital

tools with the core values of architectural

education and the development of the

discipline itself. In doing so, it may be possible

to move away from strictly hierarchical models

(such as Bloom) and into more networked or

non-linear theories of learning. Nevertheless,

the development of a more coherent set of

evaluation criteria in digital education will

increase the rigor of conversations about the

future of digital design in architecture.

Conclusion

While digital design skills are critical for 21 st

century designers, architectural education must

also recognize and deliver more than technical

proficiency. Working creatively and

effectively with computers, digital fabrication

machines, and other devices requires a new set

of workflows and adaptations to professional

behaviors. Traditional learning habits and

educational goals have not been updated in

response to these changes in technology. 41 We

propose that research-based educational

methods, such as soft skills and learning


ISSN: 2054-6718

11


ISSN: 2054-6718

12


objectives for digital design, can help schools

to bridge these gaps.

REFERENCES

The proposals and critical reflections shared in

this essay are intended to support the explicit

cultivation of knowledge, abilities, attitudes,

and habits tied to technology and architectural

education. Contemporary architectural

pedagogy and curricula must address the

difference between teaching students to merely

use technology and teaching students to design

with technology.

1

Juhani Pallasmaa, The Eyes of the Skin:

Architecture and the senses. (Somerset, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons, 1996)

2

Stephen Kieran and James Timberlake,

Refabricating Architecture: How

manufacturing methodologies are poised to

transform building construction. (New York:

McGraw-Hill Professional, 2003)

3 Marc Prensky, “Digital Natives, Digital

Immigrants.” On the Horizon. Vol. 9 No. 5

(2001), 1-6.

4 Neil Selwyn, The Digital Native: Myth and

reality. In Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 61, No. 4,).

Emerald Group Publishing Limited (2009),

364-379.

5 Sue Bennett, Karl Maton, and Lisa Kervin,

The ‘Digital Natives’ Debate: A critical review

of the evidence. British Journal of Educational

technology, 39(5), (2008), 775-786.

6 Enrique Dans, “The Absurd and Unfounded

Myth of the Digital Native.” (June 4, 2014)

https://medium.com/enrique-dans/the-absurd-

and-unfounded-myth-of-the-digital-native-

45d1ff397785#.t959mvxza [Accessed January

9, 2016]

11 B.A. Sheil, “Coping with Complexity.”

Office Technology and People, 1(4), (1983),

295-320.

12 Alan F. Blackwell, "What is Programming?"

14th Workshop of the Psychology of

Programming Interest Group, (2002), 204-218.

13 Roy D. Pea, “Logo Programming and

Problem Solving.” (1987).

14 David N. Perkins and Gavriel Salomon,

“Are Cognitive Skills Context-Bound?”.

Educational Researcher, 18(1), (1989), 16-25.

15 Barbara L. McCombs, "Alternative

Perspectives for Motivation." Developing

Engaged Readers in School and Home

Communities (1986), 67-87.

16 Barbara Y. White, and John R. Frederiksen,

“Inquiry, Modelling, And Metacognition:

Making science accessible to all students.”

Cognition and Instruction, 16(1), (1998), 113-

118.

17

John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and

Rodney R. Cocking, How People Learn:

Brain, mind, experience, and school.

(Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press,

1999)

7 Jane Andrews and Helen Higson, Graduate

Employability, ‘Soft Skills’ Versus ‘Hard’

Business Knowledge: A European study.

Higher Education in Europe, 33(4), (2008),

411-422.

18 Lauren B. Resnick, and Leopold E. Klopfer,

Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current

Cognitive Research. Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

(1989), 129-149.


ISSN: 2054-6718

13

8 Chynette Nealy, "Integrating Soft Skills

Through Active Learning in The Management

Classroom.” Journal of College Teaching &

Learning, 2(4) (2005), 1-6.

9 Randy Bancino, and Claire Zevalkink, "Soft

Skills: The New Curriculum for Hard-Core

Technical Professionals." Techniques:

Connecting Education and Careers (J1) 82.5,

(2002), 20-22.

10 Ernest L Boyer and Lee D. Mitgang,

Building Community: A New Future for

Architecture Education and Practice: A

special report. (New York: Jossey-Bass Inc,

1996), Preface-xvi.


ISSN: 2054-6718

19 John D. Bransford and Barry S. Stein, "The

IDEAL Problem Solver." A Series of Books in

Psychology. (New York: Freeman, 1984).

20 Marlene Scardamalia, Carl Bereiter, and

Rosanne Steinbach, “Teachability Of

Reflective Processes in Written Composition.”

Cognitive Science, 8(2), (1984) 173-190.

21 Herbert A. Simon, “Problem Solving and

Education.” Problem Solving and Education:

Issues in Teaching and Research (Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum, 1980), pp. 81-96.

22 K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf T. Krampe, and

Clemens Tesch-Römer, "The Role of

14


Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of

Expert Performance." Psychological Review

100.3, (1993), 363.

23 Nancy J. Vye, Daniel L. Schwartz, John D.

Bransford, Brigid J. Barron, and Linda Zech,

“SMART Environments That Support

Monitoring, Reflection, and Revision.”

Metacognition in Educational Theory and

Practice, (1998), 305-347.

24 John Clement, “Students’ Preconceptions in

Introductory Mechanics”. American Journal of

Physics, 50(1), (1982), 66-71.

25 John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and

Rodney R. Cocking, How People Learn:

Brain, mind, experience, and school.

(Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press,

1999)

26 Nick Senske, “Confronting the Challenges

of Computational Design Instruction.”

Computer Aided Architectural Design and

Research in Asia (CAADRIA) Conference,

Kyoto, Japan, (2014), 821-829.

27 National Architecture Accreditation Board,

“2014 Conditions for Accreditation.” (2014)

http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2014_Condi

tions. [Accessed January 16, 2016.]

28 David R. Krathwohl, “A Revision of

Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview.” Theory

into Practice, 41(4), (2002) 212-218.

29 Lorin W. Anderson, David R. Krathwohl,

and Benjamin S. Bloom, “A Taxonomy for

Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A revision

of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational

objectives.” (Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 2001)

29 David R. Krathwohl, “A Revision of

Bloom's Taxonomy: An overview.” Theory

into Practice, 41(4), (2002), 212-218.

29 Andrew Churches, “Bloom's Digital

Taxonomy.” Educational Origami 4, (2009),

1-44.

30 John Biggs, “What the Student Does:

Teaching for enhanced learning.” Higher

Education Research & Development, 18(1),

(1999), 57-75.

31 K. Anders Ericsson, Ralf T. Krampe, and

Clemens Tesch-Römer, "The Role of


ISSN: 2054-6718

Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of

Expert Performance." Psychological review

100.3, (1993), 363.

32 David N. Perkins and Gavriel Salomon,

“Transfer of Learning.” International

Encyclopaedia of Education, (1992), 2.

33 Lorin W. Anderson, “Curricular Alignment:

A re-examination.” Theory into Practice,

41(4), (2002), 255-260.

34 Vanderbilt University Centre for Teaching.

“Bloom’s Taxonomy.”

https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-subpages/blooms-taxonomy/

[Accessed January

10, 2016.]

35 Carnegie Mellon Eberly Centre for Teaching

Excellence and Educational Innovation

“Bloom’s Taxonomy.”

https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/des

ign/bloomsTaxonomy.html [Accessed January

10, 2016.]

36 Renée E. Weiss, “Designing Problems to

Promote Higher-Order Thinking.” New

Directions for Teaching and Learning, (95),

(2003), 25-31.

37 David Klahr and Milena Nigam, “The

Equivalence of Learning Paths in Early

Science Instruction Effects of Direct

Instruction and Discovery Learning.”

Psychological Science, 15(10), (2004), 661-

667.

38 Linda M. Ferguson, “Writing Learning

Objectives.” Journal for Nurses in

Professional Development, 14(2), (1998), 87-

94.

39 Paul Black, and Dylan William,

“Assessment and Classroom Learning.”

Assessment in Education, 5(1), (1998), 7-74.

40 Lorrie A. Shepard, “The Role of Assessment

in a Learning Culture.” Educational

Researcher, 29(7), (2000), 4-14.

41 Ernest L Boyer and Lee D. Mitgang.

Building Community: A New Future for

Architecture Education and Practice: A

special report. (Jossey-Bass Inc: 1996),

Preface xvi.

15







Book

Chapters

Back to Table

of Contents

They impatiently wait for their turn in the architectural canon: their history to be written, their contributions to

be recognized, and their power to be emancipated.



fabrication has made material the network conditions of cyberfeminism it is time to revisit the relationships

between feminism, architecture, and technology. We propose a framework that relies upon intellectual

traditions of feminism and deliberately focuses on developing technologies as a locus of power and influence

in architecture. It is well established that architecture has been slow to fully acknowledge, incorporate, and

integrate women into its architectural practices. 5 Within the building profession, digital technology is an

emerging site of architectural influence: those who control the process of design through technology control

architecture. Technologies such as digital fabrication and robotic construction cultivate a new culture of

digital craft, which simultaneously recalls a long history of craft and feminine labor and presents future

opportunities. Acknowledging these contributions and revealing their influence upon current digital practices

is a means for subverting existing architectural origin stories.

Advanced parametric design and fabrication recall historical methods typically associated with domestic

labor, such as weaving, ceramics, and embroidery. Architecture can learn much from this shadow history. 6

The cyborg is central to this narrative, once considered a fictional entity occupying a visionary part of our

cultural imagination, cyborgs are revived as vital participants in the history of technology: 7 witnesses to

crucial moments in what Manuel DeLanda defines as the “migration of control” from human hands to

software systems or in this case the migration of control from female and domestic craft to the masculine

and industrial digital. 8 The cyborg embodies Haraway’s "ironic dream of a common language for women in

the integrated circuit”: Rachel Grossman’s image of women in a world fundamentally restructured through

the social relations of science and technology. 9 10 Not always visible or legitimized, cyborgs are present

within current and past technologies providing “spaces for disguise, concealment, and masquerade”. 11

Making their contributions evident is a subversive, disruptive, and powerful force in architecture: skills

Searching for Cyborgs

Shelby Doyle and Leslie Forehand, Iowa State University

1 In the LCC between Technology and Women are 2543.T68 Tourism and 2543.W37 War. Retrieved January 2017 from

https://www.loc.gov/aba/publications/FreeLCC/freelcc.html

2 Donna Haraway. A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century. New York: Routledge, 1991.

3 Chela Sandoval. "NEW SCIENCES Cyborg Feminism and the Methodology of the Oppressed." The Cybercultures Reader, 2000.

4 Peg Rawes. Spinoza’s Geometric and Ecological Ratios. The Politics of Parametricism: Digital Technologies in Architecture. Bloomsbury, 2015.

5 Chang, L. C. (2014). Where Are the Women? Measuring Progress on Gender in Architecture. Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture. Retrieved

February 01, 2017, from http://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/data-resources/women

6 Patricia Morton. The Social and Poetic: Feminist Practices in Architecture, 1970-2000 in Feminism and Visual Culture Reader. Edited by Amelia Jones. 2003.

7 Fiona Hovenden, Linda Janes, Gill Kirkup, and Kathryn Woodward, eds. The Gendered Cyborg: A Reader. Routledge, 2013.

8 Manuel De Landa. "War in the Age of intelligent machines." 1992.

9 Morton, 2003.

10 Haraway, 1971.

11 Plant, Sadie. "Zeroes and Ones: Digital Women and the New Technoculture." (1997).

One of the impossibilities of library categorization is the premise of fixing knowledge in place by naming and

stabilizing ideas, then locating them in space. The lower level of Parks Library at Iowa State University

houses ‘Architecture’ (NA1-9428) - the annotated photo on the previous pages is of the shelf where

‘Technology’ (NA2543.T43) and ‘Women’ (NA2543.W65) coexist. If we accept the premise that the library is

a codification of knowledge then, there is a gap, physically and theoretically, between ‘Technology’ and

‘Women’. 1 The space in-between has a name – cyborg – though not a call number to locate it. Cyborgs defy

easy categorization, they are hybrid creatures, composed of organism and machine. Simultaneously

gendered and genderless, cyborgs have a legacy of destabilizing the great Western evolutionary,

technological, and biological narratives, and embody the ambiguities of ‘nature’ and ‘experience’. 2 In Donna

Haraway’s A Cyborg Manifesto the cyborg is the ‘illegitimate child’ of every binary: dominant society and

oppositional social movements, users and used, human and machine, subject and object, ‘first’ and ‘third’

worlds, male and female. 3 Cyborgs, like other nonhuman subjectivities (or zoes), already exist, but are not

legitimized by neoliberal society. They are named but they do not have space ‘on the shelf’ or in our culture. 4

They impatiently wait for their turn in the architectural canon: their history to be written, their contributions to

be recognized, and their power to be emancipated.



fabrication has made material the network conditions of cyberfeminism it is time to revisit the relationships

between feminism, architecture, and technology. We propose a framework that relies upon intellectual

traditions of feminism and deliberately focuses on developing technologies as a locus of power and influence

in architecture. It is well established that architecture has been slow to fully acknowledge, incorporate, and

integrate women into its architectural practices. 5 Within the building profession, digital technology is an

emerging site of architectural influence: those who control the process of design through technology control

architecture. Technologies such as digital fabrication and robotic construction cultivate a new culture of

digital craft, which simultaneously recalls a long history of craft and feminine labor and presents future

opportunities. Acknowledging these contributions and revealing their influence upon current digital practices


ARCHITECTURE + DATA | AIA HANDBOOK

INTRODUCTION

Why should architects care about data? What opportunities does data offer design practitioners?

And how does a firm engage a data approach that demonstrates its values, supports its people,

and cultivates new ideas? Data and digital tools are integrated into contemporary building

design and construction processes, leading to an increasingly complex landscape of possibilities

for thinking about, designing, managing, building, and operating with data. Whether consciously

or not, most architecture firms are already handling a huge amount of data: such as using Excel,

entering data into BIM models, or tracking financial data. This article argues that fostering

innovative data strategies is not really about buying, teaching, and learning software or even

about technology, it is about defining values and asking questions important to society, to

architecture, to a firm, and to a project. The following establishes the importance and urgency of

creating data strategies for a firm, describes a selection of existing and emerging data

applications in architecture, and offers frameworks for rethinking data strategies.

WHAT IS DATA?

In 1946 the word "data" was first used to mean "transmissible and storable computer

information". Within the discipline of architecture, data and its associated computational

technologies are established sites of influence: those who control the process of design through

the development of software, hardware, and their outputs exert enormous control over

architectural processes and production and, by proxy, many aspects of the built environment.

Data’s countless relationships to architecture are important because these intersections are

imbued with values and ideas that both reflect and exert tremendous influence over the patterns

and quality of our daily lives.

For these reasons, data is most powerful to architects when discussions about data are not

restricted to technical solutions but rather are used as frameworks for a studio or firm to

explicitly state its values and to expand upon the talents of its people. Emerging data

practices offer enormous leadership potential to architects. The profession, or a firm, can choose

Page 2 of 30


to lead the integration of data into design and construction, or to yield this opportunity to other

stakeholders in the process: such as owners, contractors, and consultants, leaving architects to

follow. There are real business and market implications for firms that do not adopt a datasupported

approach to practice. These include limitations to the scope, type, speed,

complexity, and locations of future projects, as well as the ability to recruit and retain

emerging talent.

WHAT IS ARCHITECTURAL DATA?

In 2019 about 2.5 quintillion bytes of data were created each day, a pace that is increasing with

the growth of the Internet of Things (IoT), development of machine learning, adoption of

automation, and expansion of artificial intelligence. Much of this data collection occurs outside

of the immediate purview of architecture but still has profound implications for the built

environment and the experiential qualities of everyday life. Data is being captured on everything

from how many steps we take each day, to what we eat, where we drive, how long we spend e-

mailing, how productive we are at work, or how often we post to social media. The data we, as

a discipline, choose to collect and use, tell us something about what we value and what we

are willing to measure about ourselves, our work, and our environment.

The word data is derived from Latin datum (“that is given”), an etymology that implies a

neutrality or ‘givenness’. There are many forms of data and data collection and architecture

typically relies upon a combination of quantitative and qualitative data. The great hope of datadriven-design

is that it will create ‘facts’ on which designers can act upon with confidence to

create ‘better’ outcomes. However, it is imperative to consider that any collected data is neither

neutral, impartial, nor unbiased. The questions asked to produce the data are constructed by

humans: individuals, governments, and organizations that capitalize, originate, manipulate,

frame, and adopt data. By recognizing data as a form of design narrative and storytelling rather

than an unassailable absolute, architects are able to develop robust attitudes regarding data’s role

in the practice of design and construction. To take data as ‘given’ is to cede agency to those

who build the tools and systems which produce and manage the data around us.

Figure 1: Examples of common data types in architecture.

Tool building is also not neutral. Therefore, it is important to understand the tools available to

architects, as well as the motives and intents of those who create the digital tools which process

data. As researchers, practitioners, and educators, it is essential that we are cognizant of the ways

that data is used and the limits of what can be computed. Central to implementing data is the

development of a data strategy.

DATA IS NOT ABOUT SOFTWARE WORKFLOWS

The goal of a data strategy is to create a design workflow that is separate from specific software

applications and instead addresses the values and needs of a specific project and project team or

which spans multiple projects. Rather than appearing all at once a data strategy should occur

piece-by-piece, showing value at each step. This approach gives a design team time to learn and

iterate upon a workflow rather than changing everything they do at the same time.

Page 3 of 30

Page 4 of 30


Most architects will not become programmers, but rather will be software end-users. Much time

and energy has been devoted to conversations in architecture regarding which software or suite

of software a designer or firm should use. The diagrams in Figure 2 demonstrate a possible

arrangement between dozens of software, hardware, and processes. Each arrow designates a

moment of exchange between people and / or file type. This is not to advocate for this specific

arrangement but rather to encourage anyone using an array of software solutions to map their

current practices as a way to discuss and speculate upon future practices. The following

encourages inserting a step prior to software selection which we will call ‘data strategy’. Data

strategy involves defining questions, ideas, and workflows that are not specific to software but

rather are a framework for designing with data. Considering architecture and data as a

‘software problem’ limits the ability of firms to retool and recalibrate their practice due to

the financial cost of procuring software licenses and training staff. For example, developing

a building information model (BIM) approach for a design team is a data strategy, whereas

Autodesk Revit is a software which can be used to develop a BIM model or BIM content.

Additionally, a ‘software forward’ model excludes those who are not well versed in the specifics

of a software program.

In addition to clarifying goals, data use in architecture is about establishing particular workflows

for each aspect of the design process. Possibly more important than any specific knowledge is

the ability to work across and between people, platforms, software, and types of data.

Interoperability is not only a question of workflows between software or file types, rather it is

about how data is managed and communicated between team members. Communication and

cross platform translation could be covered at the beginning of a project with a BIM Execution

Plan (BEP) or similar document. Central to this idea is mapping how data moves across a project

and between people, which is also impacted by the rules, roles, and responsibilities associated

with and unique to each project. There may also be matters of liability, insurance, contract

deliverables, and other legal frameworks to consider. Or there are specific workflows that are

preferred by a client or project collaborators.

Figure 2: The top diagram is of a draft data strategy and the bottom diagram applies specific hardware and

software to that strategy.

Page 5 of 30

Page 6 of 30


Figure 3: A data strategy, shown on the left precedes decisions and serves as a filter for making decisions

regarding software, hardware and workflows, shown on the right.

DEVELOPING A DATA STRATEGY

The following describes how to develop a data strategy around four primary categories: 1) Data

and Culture, 2) Data and Infrastructure, 3) Data and Applications and 4) Data and Geometry.

1 DATA AND CULTURE

Developing a data strategy begins by evaluating a firm’s current successes and shortcoming

around data use. Models such as the Big Data & Analytics Maturity Model shown in Figure 4

help organizations assess their current capabilities to generate value from data investments and

support strategic business initiatives. The model requires a considered assessment of the desired

target state, identifying gaps, and then developing steps required to realize a goal. In this chart an

organization has self-identified as achieving a “Foundational” model and is aspiring to achieve a

“Differentiating” model. A well-defined data strategy can move a firm from one column to

another. Shifting culture is extremely important to any progress as can be seen in the

‘Foundational column: “The organization’s culture is highly resistant.” Addressing the cultural

barriers of data implementation is imperative to employing new practices.

Figure 4: This diagram is adapted from the Big Data & Analytics Maturity Model developed by Niall Betteridge,

executive IT architect at IBM Australia, and Chris Nott Client Technical Leader for UK Public Sector, IBM UK

Ltd. The original chart can be found here: https://www.ibmbigdatahub.com/blog/big-data-analytics-maturitymodel

1A DEFINE GOALS

Beginning discussions about data with people and firm culture starts by aligning data and

technology with the values and priorities of a team or project. What is the goal of using data in a

project? Speed? Accuracy? Social good? By explicitly defining and clearly communicating the

‘why’ of data designers can filter, critique, evaluate, and be accountable to their data use. For

example, not only the goal of data use but also its output and impacts on the people who design,

construct, or occupy a space. For instance, material efficiency might be a goal of a school design,

but that goal is clearer when coupled with a designed impact such as: Material efficiency in

pursuit of reduced carbon emissions in school design. Which is defined in this project by

comparing current carbon emissions with those of previous schools designed by this firm. This

Page 7 of 30

Page 8 of 30


goal can then be paired with people, data, and software and then specifically evaluated for

achievability; this specific goal would require that the firm collected data regarding carbon

emissions for previous projects in order to conduct a comparative analysis. If that data does not

exist, then the goal would need to be adapted accordingly. Perhaps: Material efficiency in pursuit

of reduced carbon emissions by sourcing all materials from within a 300-mile radius of the job

site as measured by distance the material is trucked rather than actual carbon emissions. This is

an example of a design process that begins with ideas and value propositions that are then

supported by data.

1B FOSTER INNOVATION

Innovation in technology has become culturally synonymous with notions of radical newness and

forward thinking. Defining what innovation means to a team is important to communicating

when something innovative has been achieved or charting a course toward a specifically

‘innovative outcome’. With this in mind data strategy in architecture should begin with fostering

a culture of innovation among those who will use technology. However, it is imperative that

firms treat innovation as an investment rather than an expense, specifically as an

investment in people and education, not software.

This begins by acknowledging the innovation and knowledge that already exists within a group

of people: a firm, a project team, a lab. Fostering innovative data strategies is not really about

buying, teaching, and learning software or even about technology, it is about defining values and

asking questions important to architecture, to a firm, and to a project. For example, as digital

strategy firm Proving Ground writes: “Technology-based ‘differentiators’ have less to do with

the tools and data alone than the ability to position the capabilities on a bedrock of clear

organizational value systems and accountability.” Part of this accountability involves a

commitment to understanding the ‘why’ of data (values and priorities) use as well as the ‘how’

(applications and methods). Data and digital tools are already used into today’s building design

and construction process. With this in mind it is important to foster a culture where

technology is not treated as a rarefied form of knowledge segregated in a certain group

within an organization. Truly innovative data practices require vertical and horizontal

integration of technological knowledge and priorities among the people employing the

technologies.

1C EDUCATE: INTERNALLY

One strategy to facilitate to data integration is to focus on internal education by cultivating

computational and data education within firm and teams, vertically and horizontally. Another is

to hire recent graduates and treat their understanding of technology as a valid form of knowledge

and listen to their opinions and experiences with technologies. Recruiting and expecting

students trained in X software is antithetical to innovative processes as X software will

certainly not exist in its current form five or ten years from now. Education that privileges

software skills will be unable to compete with forms of education that encourage students to

design their own tools and to understand the underpinnings of computational thinking. To create

a foundation for the next generation of innovative data practices, the focus of education should

be to teach students and practitioners how to boldly experiment with, question, and break digital

tools rather than accepting those tools which are readily available. This notion can also be

applied to those currently working within a firm who are interested in learning how to better

engage with data.

1D SEEK EXPERTISE: EXTERNAL

A second strategy is to acknowledge the limitations of internal knowledge and to hire expert

consultants. As the landscape of data practices becomes increasingly complex architects should

look to consultancies that build project specific tools and databases to manage the quickly

changing digital design environment. External expertise can facilitate internal development of

knowledge, help guide the development of data strategies, foster a culture of innovation, as well

as influence the development of ideas and methods not currently in practice.

2 DATA + INFRASTRUCTURE

Once a set of goals has been determined and a team brought together to move forward with a

data strategy the next step is to evaluate existing infrastructure for communicating and

collaborating. This involves documenting and reviewing current hardware, software and

Page 9 of 30

Page 10 of 30


protocols of how designers are collecting, using, and storing data. An advantage to consider is

that effective data strategies also have a real impact on workload and how resources are

conserved or “freed-up”.

2A COLLECTION

Data can be both a problem defining and problem-solving device –it cannot ‘solve’ intractable

systemic issues (poverty) or human problems (bias). However, when appropriately scaled and

critiqued, data-driven-decisions can make incremental progress toward specific architectural

goals. For example, reducing screen glare in an office space through surveying occupants for

light level preference throughout the day then, developing appropriate shading structures.

Experiential data may be purely qualitative or could involve creating numeric rankings (i.e.: 1-

good, 5-bad) to correlate with qualitative responses such as “How does a space make you feel?”

For example, this could include an architect:

• Attempting to capture users’ understanding and enjoyment of a space through surveys.

• Tracking movement through a hospital space to establish use patterns to inform an

upcoming renovation

• Conducting a post-occupancy evaluation of an office design where productivity is tied to

a proxy such as dollars per hour generated per employee

Data attempting to represent a common human experience can quickly become subjective and

while that is not necessarily negative, it is a reality which should acknowledged, documented and

communicated throughout the design process. The science of statistics provides many resources

for understanding data collection, interpretation, margin of error, and validation, as well as

avoiding bias in data collection. Design specific texts include Caroline Criado Perez’s Invisible

Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men and Apprich et al.’s Pattern Discrimination.

In Invisible Women Criado Perez writes, “When women are involved in decision-making, in

research, in knowledge production, women do not get forgotten.” The consequences documented

in the book range from annoying to grim. For example, speech-recognition software is trained on

recordings of male voices: Google’s version is 70% more likely to understand men. A more

serious data void involves automobile safety. Crash tests dummies of women did not exist prior

to 2003. The result is that although men are more often in frontal crashes a woman is 47% more

likely to be seriously injured than a man and 17% more likely to die. (Data from the National

Highway Traffic Safety Administration NHTSA)

Pattern Discrimination asks the questions “How do “human” prejudices reemerge in algorithmic

cultures allegedly devised to be blind to them? Algorithmic identity politics reinstate old forms

of social segregation—in a digital world, identity politics is pattern discrimination.” The authors

write that data categorization has achieved cultural momentum and reenergized the need for

digital humanities, algorithmic accountability, and a more critical approach to the analysis of

data and networks. As data becomes a proxy for the physical environment, and its many social

relationships, the algorithms used to navigate theses datasets have acquired social and political

urgency.

These are essential questions for architects when the built environment is represented

through data and then decisions about the built environment are being made using data.

Fostering design teams that are diverse in people, voices, and thoughts can mitigate bias and

blind spots and encourage discussion and critique of the data being used to make architectural

decisions: physical, financial, cultural, or technological.

Additionally, the field of data ethics provides a framework for architects to critically reflect on

their use of data collected from people, whether directly from individuals or broadly from a large

data set. It is worth noting here that several of these frameworks are potentially in opposition to

current legal and contractual frameworks that govern architectural practice.

• Ownership: The concept of data ownership is linked to one's ability to exercise

control over and limit the sharing of their own data.

• Transparency: Algorithm design and intent should be disclosed, and possible biases

acknowledged. Additionally, individuals should be informed of why the data is being

collected, how it is being used, and how long it will be stored.

Page 11 of 30

Page 12 of 30


• Consent: Data should not be collected without the knowledge and consent of the

individual.

• Privacy: All reasonable efforts need to be made to maintain individual privacy.

• Currency: Questions whether personal data can and should be monetized.

• Openness: Argues that data should be freely available and should not have

restrictions that would prohibit its use

For example, if an architectural project is relying upon a municipal dataset for pedestrian and

traffic flows it is important to ask the questions above regarding the collection of the data and the

impact of these collections upon people’s lives. Or, if a project team for a hospital renovation

relies upon experiential surveys from patients the same questions should be posed. As with any

form of valuation the use of human-centered-data in architecture does not come with any easy or

obvious answers but it remains a space that architects should interrogate in relationship to each

project and project phase.

2A STORING + INDEXING + SECURITY

Once the use of data has been determined, defined, and communicated to the team then the

methods for achieving these goals need to be addressed. As the profession has moved away

from paper to digital files and the costs of data storage decrease architectural documentation has

shifted to cloud storage and introduced a different set of issues: data security practices, back up

protocols, and intellectual property for example. As technologies and platforms continue to

rapidly evolve continued access to data past and present will increase in importance. Over the

last twenty years a design studio may have stored drawing information on: Zip drive, a USB

stick, tapes, disk, external hard drives, or in the cloud. Not only storing but also indexing

thousands, if not millions, of files will become of increasing important to professional and

academic archives. Indexing refers to sorting and cataloging data so that it is retrievable. An

indexical data structure improves the speed of data retrieval operations on a database table at the

cost of additional writes and storage space to maintain the index data structure. For example, a

firm might decide to save models in multiple formats such as .IFC in addition to .RVT. Whereas,

.RVT is a platform specific Revit Project file used by Autodesk and .IFC is a platform neutral,

open file format specification that is not controlled by a single vendor or group of vendors. It is

an object-based file format developed by buildingSMART to facilitate interoperability in

the AEC industry.

Indexing is based upon the metadata of a file or "data that provides information about other

data". Metadata can also be described as "data about data." Many distinct types of metadata exist,

including descriptive metadata, structural metadata, administrative metadata, reference metadata

and statistical metadata. Firms should introduce indexing metadata and indexing protocols for

digital files to facilitate current and future accessibility, as the numbers of files any firm houses

grows exponentially the simple act of finding files is of increasing importance.

2B ETHICS + ATTRIBUTION

Metadata can also play a role in attributing digital work. As digital processes evolve notions of

authorship and attribution in architecture need to be reconsidered and architectural information

ethics refined. Particularly because design and construction processes are guided by many people

and institutions, the discipline needs to establish protocols and positions about how data is

attributed within the architectural process and extended to the full spectrum of AEC + O + FM.

Architects should also establish protocols for the ethics of collecting, managing, distributing

data. For example, ground-truthing the provenance of data sourced and then validating how the

data is specifically biased or limited.

Methods to improve the quality or accuracy of data rely primarily on framing design questions

and routinely questioning data’s validity throughout the design and construction process: What

questions were asked that led to framing the questions that produced the algorithms or

computational operations being put into place: Did those questions underrepresent the experience

of women and minorities? What data was excluded: labor conditions of factory workers

producing solar panels or the distance a product will be shipped to site? Did collecting certain

data mean leaving out other data, and what are the consequences of excluding related data?

Page 13 of 30

Page 14 of 30


2C COLLABORATION + COMMUNICATION

Collaboration and communication workflows can create clear pathways for attribution and data

flows. The foundation of collaboration is a shared understanding of the channels and workflows

for internal and external communication as well as the protocols for storing, indexing, and

distributing data. This can include where and how is data stored, privacy, shared models, video

conferencing, cloud computing, application-based drawing, e-mail, voice to text, instant

message, ‘Slack channels’, cross platform communications: computer, phone, tablet, etc.

3 DATA APPLICATIONS

Once data infrastructure and strategies are established the next step is to determine which of the

myriad data applications available best support the firm and its work. The following describes a

selection of possibilities for data supported applications.

3A URBAN SCALE DOCUMENTATION

Prior to building design firms often conduct research at the urban scale. Knowledge about and

access to publicly available datasets has grown exponentially as municipalities gather and

distribute increasingly detailed data. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) allow for

geographically referenced data to be layered together from multiple sources to aid policymakers

and designers in understanding the social, environmental, and geographic features of a site. This

could include information such as topography and climate data or infrastructure locations from

bridges and railways to the granularity of each traffic light.

3B BUILDING DOCUMENTATION

In addition to manual collection and inputting of historic data, architects continue to use and

develop methods for translating built work into digital models of existing conditions.

Additionally, 3D Laser Scanning and Imaging can be collected through stand-alone units or

increasingly sophisticated drone mounted cameras. 3D Laser Scanning, can be used to produce

high-resolution models from thousands of points, known as a point clouds, that can be translated

into mesh-based models, which are high resolution but often difficult to edit or integrate into

non-mesh-based modeling platforms.

3C MODELING + REPRESENTATION

There are hundreds of modeling software available to architects, each requiring purchasing,

maintenance, and training costs. Determining what outcomes and processes are important to a

project and developing a strategy first will aid in selecting a series of tools which best support

the values and skills of a project team. This approach releases firms from shopping for

software and instead empowers designers to define which tools they need to conduct their

work. It’s important to also consider collaborators needs as well as whom is the ultimate

recipient of the project data (and in what format do they need it). For example, if a project

involves complex curvature a NURBS (Non-Rational B-Spline) modeler will be more effective

than a modeling platform which relies primarily on closed curve extrusion.

* Inset box

MODELING LANGUAGE + TERMINOLGY

Clarifying the language and terminology across an architectural practice or collaborative team

is imperative to understanding, challenging, and leveraging data in architecture. This is not a

semantic concern but rather it is a matter of technical and intellectual rigor to promote dialog

that considers and debates the definitions of popular terminology.

Building Information Modeling: is a method supported by various tools, technologies and

contracts involving the generation and management of digital representations of physical and

functional characteristics of places.

Computer Aided Drawing: is the use of computers to aid in the creation, modification,

analysis, or optimization of a design.

Generative Design: is an iterative design process that involves a program that will generate a

certain number of outputs that meet certain constraints,

Parametric Design: is a process based on algorithmic thinking that enables the expression of

parameters and rules that, together, define, encode and clarify the relationship

between design intent and design response.

Page 15 of 30

Page 16 of 30


Non-Uniform Rational Basis Spline (NURBS): is a mathematical model commonly used in

computer graphics for generating and representing curves and surfaces. They can be

efficiently handled by the computer programs and yet allow for easy human interaction.

Polygonal Modeling: in 3D computer graphics is an approach for modeling objects by

representing or approximating their surfaces using polygon meshes. Polygonal modeling is

well suited to scanline rendering and is therefore the method of choice for real-time computer

graphics.

Procedural Modeling: a that uses an explicit instruction set to produce a model outcome.

3D ANALYSIS + SIMULATION

A well-documented, indexed and organized digital model can do multiple things in a design

process that capitalize on the benefits of computational design. Though for true collaboration

this information needs to be externalized from the model via dashboards or viewers.

First the model can provide a representation of given conditions and second it can serve as a

unique project database to simulate and analyze a series of possible outcomes. These include

representational outputs such as renderings and animations. As well as optimization and

refinement protocols for various aspects of architectural considerations from structural

performance, energy performance, and material use. Moreover, the model can become a tool for

producing cost estimation, construction sequencing, and a record of specification. Additionally,

as buildings become further implicated in the Internet of Things (IoT) the opportunity for

advanced supply chain management opens up the possibility of documenting the full life cycle of

a material – from extraction, to assembly, and transportation to usage, operation, maintenance,

de-construction, and re-purposing (Figure 5).

Figure 5: As buildings become further implicated in the Internet of Things (IoT) the opportunity for advanced

supply management opens up the possibility of documenting the full life cycle of a material – from extraction, to

assembly, and transportation.

As data becomes increasingly ubiquitous in architectural practice the forms which it takes are

expanding beyond the limits of desktop computing and blurring what constitutes inputs and

outputs. Mario Carpo writes in The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012 “digital tools for

design and construction are now unmaking the Albertian, humanistic principles of allographic

notation.” Several trends are contributing to this ‘unmaking’: augmented and cross reality, digital

fabrication, artificial intelligence, and machine learning.

3E AUGMENTED / CROSS (MIXED) / VIRTUAL REALITY

Augmented reality (AR) is the layering of digital information upon the physical environment,

typically accessed through heads up displays. This could include assembly instructions for a wall

or the location of an electric panel on an existing wall. It can be used to compare digital models

with as-built conditions. An example is Fologram’s Grasshopper plug-in for the Microsoft

Hololens which provides an augmented reality workflow from Rhino that can project assembly

information into construction space.

Cross reality (XR) or Mixed Reality is the combination of augmented reality with input sensors

that are feeding data back into the augmented reality model. An example is the recently

Page 17 of 30

Page 18 of 30


renovated Autodesk Portland office where the historic Towne Storage building, a brick building

from 1913 was brought up to code and renovated into a 6-floor office building. Throughout the

process a BIM model was overlaid onto the real space to provide a visual of what has been added

and altered allowing real-time collision detection, systems coordination, quality assurance /

control, and client walkthroughs from those off-site.

AR and XR are unique from the immersive techniques of Virtual Reality (VR), typically

involving a headset that replaces vision of the surroundings with a virtual world that the user can

navigate by moving around an imaginary space. VR can be an effective simulation tool for

experiencing un-built spaces at full scale.

3F AI + MACHINE LEARNING + AUTOMATION

In 2017 McKinsey identified about half the activities people are paid to do globally could

theoretically be automated using currently demonstrated technologies. Very few occupations—

less than 5 percent—consist of activities that can be fully automated. However, in about 60

percent of occupations, at least one-third of the constituent activities could be automated,

implying substantial workplace transformations and changes for all workers. It is imperative that

architects understand the implications of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and automation

upon design and construction practices.

Automation is the technology by which a process or procedure is performed with minimal human

assistance. An example might include model checkers which are designed to evaluate a model

for a given set of rules. These could include spatial requirements for the Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) or fire egress code confirmation.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the theory and development of computer systems able to perform

tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition,

decision-making, and translation between languages. An architectural application for AI might

be the development of thousands of possible schematic floor plans or building volumes based

upon a list of inputs such as square feet, height, setbacks, and so forth.

Machine learning is a method of data analysis that automates analytical model building. It is a

branch of artificial intelligence based on the idea that systems can learn from data, identify

patterns and make decisions with minimal human intervention. For machine learning to succeed

in architecture access to robust and well-designed datasets are required. For example, a firm has

designed and constructed dozens of hospitals and wants to employ machine learning to facilitate

future designs. To do so would require the organization and entry into a database of usable data

from the previous projects in order to apply a useful machine learning method to the existing

data.

3G EXECUTION + FABRICATION

Well-crafted digital models can be used to produce GCode, STL, or other direct to fabrication

files which eliminate the intermediate step or producing orthographic drawings. The introduction

of digital fabrication, overseen by architects continues to have profound procedural and legal

implications for the field as it positions architects to control ‘means and methods’ allocated to

contractors in the AIA contracts. Digital fabrication technologies in architecture are broadly

divided into two categories: additive and subtractive manufacturing. Additive manufacturing

typically refers to the increasingly diverse array of materials that can be 3D printed from small

scale plastics models to full scale concrete. Subtractive fabrication includes laser cutting,

computer numerically controlled (CNC) lathes and mills, and an array of robotically controlled

carving and tooling. These are processes that rely upon the geometric data stored and manged in

a digital model.

4 DATA AND GEOMETRY

Although modeling is briefly discussed in the previous section it will be further described in the

following test, since data as a descriptive geometry is one of the most central data practices in

architectural design and construction.

4A COMPUTERIZATION VS COMPUTATION

A primary form of data integration in architecture is the definition and management of geometric

information through modeling and computation. Computer science and its requisite tools and

Page 19 of 30

Page 20 of 30


methods define the processes by which geometric data is made visible through the design

process. Computation is a term that differs from, but is often confused with, computerization.

This is not a semantic argument; it is important that an architect know whether they are

using computation or computerization in their practice.

Computation is the procedure of calculating, i.e. determining something by mathematical or

logical methods. Whereas computerization is the act of storing information in the computer or

computer system and refers to analog techniques transferred into digital methods: automation,

mechanization, digitization, and conversion. In Computational Design Thinking editors Achim

Menges and Sean Alquist write, “computation is the processing of information and interactions

between elements which constitute a specific environment”.

sequence of typed commands or other inputs, such as clicking icons with a mouse. Early CAD

software is an example of first-order modeling where an architect would ‘draw’ a line by directly

deploying commands in sequence: e.g. Line, from 0,0 to 0,10. Second-order modeling replaces

direct modeling with procedural methods. Rather than directly manipulating geometries, an

architect provides an instruction set that produces design geometries.

For example, in first-order modeling, the curve in the top left of Figure 6 could be produced by

hand using a French curve or input into a CAD program by tracing or directly drawing the curve

as a series of segments. However, this method entails creating a single solution for the curve and

then editing that curve by eliminating previous versions of the curve

Computational design is not distant from the realities of everyday architectural production. The

field of computation relies upon foundational mathematical concepts and geometric relationships

familiar to pre-computer architectural education and practice: point, line, surface, volume, and so

on. It is essential that architects understand the logics of the mathematical relationships

underpinning computational design as way to frame how architecture can operate with these

tools. Computation precedes the development of the computer, therefore understanding

mathematical relationships is separate from whether a designer is a ‘computer person’. In

Essential Mathematics for Computational Design Rajaa Issa introduces design professionals to

the mathematical concepts necessary for effective development of computational methods for 3D

modeling and computer graphics. Additionally, these concepts make visible the computation

already occurring in most architectural work, thereby revealing it to those who would otherwise

consider themselves, or their work, non-computational.

4B FIRST ORDER MODELING VS SECOND ORDER MODELING

The introduction of computational methods into architectural processes allows for a firm to

transition from first order to second-order modeling. First-order modeling is a form of

computerization whereas second-order modeling takes advantage of the calculating power of a

computer. First-order modeling involves producing outcomes, such as drawings, through a

Figure 6: Defining curvature in second-order modeling.

In a second-order model, the curve is described as an interpolation through a series of points as

show in the diagram in Figure 6. In Essential Mathematics for Computational Design Rajaa Issa

describes a similar diagram: “At any point on a curve in the plane, the line best approximating

the curve that passes through this point is the tangent line. We can also find the best

Page 21 of 30

Page 22 of 30


approximating circle that passes through this point and is tangent to the curve. The reciprocal of

the radius of this circle is the curvature of the curve at this point.”

The instructions described in the previous paragraph are an example of the shift in thinking

necessary to employ procedural techniques which require ‘technology’ but are really about

abstract problem defining in the pursuit of design outcomes. Why is this shift from

computerization (first-order modeling) to computation (second-order modeling) necessary?

Because computerization replicates non-computer-based practices in a digital environment

whereas computation makes use of power and rapid calculation to organize data in ways,

and at speeds, that are distinct from traditional design practices. As Dave Stasiuk writes in

Design Modeling Terminology “rather than directing engaging with the outcome the designer

develops a set of rules and processes that produce an outcome by transforming data from an idea

into the design geometry.”

Although second-order modeling requires a deeper understanding of computation, the resulting

representations are can be more flexible and, possibly economical, for designers. In a second

order (computational) model, the line in Figure 5 is defined by a series of mathematical

relationships such as X1, Y1, R1, Point TAN A, and so on. Once these relationships are defined,

they can be manipulated along a range. For example: X1 could be located from 0 to 200, or R1

might vary from a length of 5 to a length of 20. It is the process of manipulating mathematical

relationships which makes computational modeling powerful through rapid calculations.

Additionally, as shown in Figure 6 procedural modeling allows geometry to be defined

simultaneously in multiple formats such as a points, lines, surfaces, volumes, or variable models.

This is a valuable method of modeling as it is non-destructive, meaning that geometry can be

evaluated at any state and represented along of continuum of possibilities without deleting or

eliminating other possibilities. For example, the cube defined before can be represented as a

‘volume’, a series of ‘lines’, or as its constituent ‘points’. Geometries can be taken apart,

manipulated, and reconstructed using a series of variables or parameters.

device largely divorced from the term’s origins in mathematics in Patrik Schumacher’s

frequently cited Parametricism. For a thorough history, analysis and interpretation see Daniel

Davis’s dissertation chapter “What is Parametric Modeling?”.

4C POINTS IN SPACE

Even the most complex architectural models can be deconstructed into the points which define

its geometry, while the points themselves can also be represented as numerical data. The diagram

in the bottom left of Figure 7 demonstrates scaling a cube in all directions and the bottom right

demonstrates manipulating the position of the six points defining the cube. These points are

defined by their X, Y, Z position within a Cartesian coordinate system which serves as the

representational modeling space of most architectural design software. This is the most common

coordinate system used in computer graphics, computer-aided geometric design, and

other geometry-related data processing. Developed in the 17 th century and attributed to René

Descartes, Cartesian coordinate systems revolutionized mathematics by providing the first

systematic link between Euclidean geometry and algebra. A Cartesian coordinate system is

a coordinate system that specifies each point uniquely in a plane by a set

of numerical coordinates as distance from the origin. It is defined by a series of reference lines of

axes (X, Y). The point where these reference lines intersect is referred to as the origin (0,0). The

principle extends to three-dimensional space by the addition of a Z-axis. Any point in threedimensional

space can be defined by expressing three Cartesian coordinates as the distance from

the origin (X, Y, Z).

“Parametric” modeling is the term which is a disciplinary colloquialism for procedural

modeling. Much has been written about parametric modeling and it has become a rhetorical

Page 23 of 30

Page 24 of 30


computational methods and strategies is essential to developing a robust data strategy and

communicating goals to those designers employing digital tools. A sense of the processes of

computation can reduce friction between those in managerial positions and those deploying

technologies by creating a common language for describing updates and changes to building

information models or other tools. For example, the consequences of moving a wall and its

relational ripple effects to parametrically connected components and geometries. This is an

example of a computational method described in the inset box.

* Inset box

This list is adapted from Bhavnani, S. K., Frederick A. Peck, and Frederick Reif. "Strategy-

Based Instruction: Lessons Learned in Teaching the Effective and Efficient Use of Computer

Applications." ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (2008). Bhavnani derived

these terms from cognitive goals analysis of computer users:

Computational methods and strategies

Figure 7: To the left the construction of cube. A diagram of a three-dimensional Cartesian Coordinate system.

Cartesian coordinates provide enlightening geometric interpretations for many other branches of

mathematics, such as linear algebra, complex analysis, differential geometry,

multivariate calculus, group theory and more. These mathematical systems give rise to the

computational relationships that define architecture’s representations models.

Understanding the basics of Cartesian coordinates is valuable for architects because this system

underpins analytic geometry and provides the foundation for a variety of powerful computational

attributes and methods.

4D COMPUTATIONAL METHODS + STRATEGIES

The mathematical concepts and coordinate systems introduced in the previous sections are most

valuable architects when they are deployed through computational methods and strategies (see

inset) that define the high-level applications. Separate from programming languages and

software, these ideas exploit the powerful attributions of computation and should structure an

architectural data strategy. Even if an architect never writes a line of code, knowledge of

Basic logic systems are the application of simple rules, such as Boolean operations (true /

false, etc.) are the foundation of complex algorithms and automation. With logic, one can

create “tests” to evaluate elements within a given design and respond to them appropriately.

Dependencies and propagation are the idea that one can create relationships between

elements, such that if one element changes it affects other elements. Making changes to an

element or elements that “ripple-through” all related elements is known as propagation. This

can be very powerful as it requires little input from the designer in order to update the system.

An example of this would be setting styles in Word or InDesign. If one changes the style, then

all elements with that style will be updated.

Operating on groups is the idea that instead of modifying individual elements, one can

organize them into groups and manipulate this higher-level structure. This can be as simple as

creating a group or placing objects upon a layer. An example of this is a Family in Revit.

Distribution is an extension of “operate on groups.” Distribution is the principle that one can

create structures which are populated by copies and then manipulate the “root” structure.

This can facilitate new workflows in practices. For example, distributing points over a surface

and then using those points to copy geometry. One can edit both the points on the surface as

well as the distributed geometry to create different effects. Another example is to create fields

in a Mail Merge and populate them with data.

Operate on data structures involves elements in a digital file that are not only visual

representations; they are also data. The two are interchangeable, but oftentimes it is easier

Page 26 of 30

Page 25 of 30


and more powerful to edit data than visual forms. One can exploit the numerical or logical

attributes of an element to make selections, create groups, and generate modifications.

Modify copies is one of the most powerful attributes of computing is that copies are essentially

“free.” A useful strategy to iterate or develop a design is to make relational copies of an

element and modify them. This saves time in recreating an element and, if the parametric

relationship is retained, the copies will update if the original changes.

Scripting is a form of high-level programming that utilizes pre-defined commands within a

given software. Instead of writing programs from scratch, one tells the software what to do –

similar to the way one writes a script for actors in a play. This reduces user effort involved in

creating a program, although one’s options may be limited.

Parametric elements are relationships between a numerical value and some output. For

instance, a box might have parameters for height, depth, and width. Changing the parameters

affects the form and vice versa. Parametric elements are fundamental to the creation of

computational designs.

Variables are any value that can be changed. A parametric relationship between variables

exploits the power of variables so that changes to one element affect another. This is a form of

“dependencies and propagation.”

Repetition and loops involve computers repeating commands until programmed to stop.

Repetitive work can be exploited in many creative ways and will only cease when the program

or operator decides. Looping is a special case, wherein each repetition may change the

variables at play. This is the basis of iterative or recursive strategies.

tools and processes. It is not imperative that architects have the knowledge of software

developers. However, it is important to hire experts, internally or externally, to help

communicate the benefits and restrictions of using certain programming languages since

software is not monolithic. It has many layers of abstraction: from the user interface, to the core

system, various tools, algorithms within these tools, and its data structures. These are often

written in several different programming languages and can be modified by the same. For

example, most design software has an “application programming interface” or API, which allows

developers to more efficiently modify an existing piece of software. Scripts (small programs) can

be written in these languages, and executed by Rhino, to add new plug-in tools or automate

simple tasks. At a higher-level of abstraction, Grasshopper is a visual programming language and

environment that runs within the Rhinoceros 3D computer-aided design application. Instead of

writing code by hand, the benefit of Grasshopper is that it allows end-users to create scripts by

manipulating symbolic “components” that represent code. This system allows designers who

might not otherwise consider themselves programmers to engage in computational design

through the quick, iterative, and visual outputs of Grasshopper. Selecting a tool or programming

language is only one of many choices a designer may consider. The ability to modify software –

whether it is a simple user customization or a full-featured plugin -- is another one the powerful

attributes of computation.

4E PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES

Computational strategies and methods can be deployed using a variety of programming

languages, graphic user interfaces (GUI), and software. Computer programming is the process of

designing and building an executable computer program for accomplishing a specific computing

task. Many programming languages are text-based whereas most computer users perform tasks

with a graphical user interface that facilitates running programs through icons, mouse clicks,

menus, folders, and windows. Between programming and GUI are visual programming

languages such as Grasshopper for Rhinoceros or Dynamo for Revit.

This is relevant to non-programmers because understanding the constraints and limitations of

certain coding languages can facilitate conversation and the development of project-specific

CONCLUSION

This essay provides potential answers to three questions: Why should you care about data? How

could you use data in your firm? How would you go about doing this? The takeaways offered

include that innovative data integration is not only about technology, education, and

democratizing access it is also about establishing values, shifting culture, and investing in

people. Additionally, a digital design strategy should be considered an iterative process much

like any other aspect of a design. It is improved when it occurs step-by-step, showing value at

each step and allowing for course correction if the strategy is not supporting the goals of the firm

or its people. Emerging data practices offer enormous leadership potential to architects to

establish the future of what it means to design with data.

Page 27 of 30

Page 28 of 30


Biography

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle, AIA Doyle is a registered architect, co-founder of the ISU Computation

& Construction Lab (CCL), and an Assistant Professor of Architecture at Iowa State University

where she teaches design studios and seminars in digital technology. Her education includes a

Master of Architecture from the Harvard Graduate School of Design, a Bachelor of Science in

architecture from the University of Virginia, and a Fulbright Fellowship to Cambodia.

ccl.design.iastate.edu

Saffron, Inga. How Architects KieranTimberlake Turned Their Office Into an “Incubator”

https://www.metropolismag.com/architecture/architects-kierantimberlake-turned-office-intoincubator-new-ways-working/

Metropolis. January 2016.

Stasiuk, Dave. Design Modeling Terminology. Proving Ground. 2018.

Tehrani, Nader, The Pedagogical Ethic: Beyond the Practical Imperative from Architectural

Record’s 2019 Innovation Conference. https://continuingeducation.bnpmedia.com/courses/multiaia/the-pedagogical-ethic-beyond-the-practical-imperative/

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Alquist, Sean and Achim Menges. Computational Design Thinking. AD Reader, 2011.

Apprich, Clemens, Wendy Hui Kyong Chun, Florian Cramer, and Hito Steyer. Pattern

Discrimination. Minnesota University Press, 2019.

Bernstein, Phillip. Architecture, design, data: practice competency in the era of computation.

Birkhauser Architecture. 2018.

Carpo, Mario. The alphabet and the algorithm. MIT Press, 2011.

Carpo, Mario. The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012: AD Reader. Wiley, 2012

Cumincad CumInCAD is a cumulative index of publications about computer aided architectural

design. http://papers.cumincad.org/

Davis, Daniel. 2013. “Modelled on Software Engineering: Flexible Parametric Models in the

Practice of Architecture.” PhD dissertation, RMIT University.

Issa, Rajaa. Essential Mathematics for computational design.

https://developer.rhino3d.com/guides/general/essential-mathematics/

Journal of Technology, Architecture, and Design https://tadjournal.org/

Leah, Neil and Philip F. Yuan. Computational Design. Tongi University Press, 2017.

Marble, Scott, ed. Digital Workflows in Architecture: Design–Assembly–Industry. Walter de

Gruyter, 2012.

Perez, Caroline Criado. Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men. Abrams,

2019.

Page 29 of 30

Page 30 of 30


Flood Pulse Urbanization: Phnom Penh and the Tonle Sap


“Water does not constitute one object of analysis but rather an intersecting set of

processes, practices, and meanings that cuts across existing disciplinary boundaries.”

Matthew Gandy, The Fabric of Space: Water, Modernity, and the Urban Imagination 1

south respectively. During the wet season the Mekong River flows into the confluence with such

force and volume that the Tonle Sap River reverses flow – returning to the northwest - bringing

water, fish, and sediment into the country’s midlands. The hydrological importance of Chaktomuk

cannot be understated as the wet-season reversal of the Tonlé Sap at Chaktomuk is essential to

the environmental health of Cambodia. At Chaktomuk is located Phnom Penh, the capital of

Cambodia 3 .

Figure 2: Left; Mekong River Basin in blue, adjacent countries in green 4 . Dams (operational, under construction,

proposed) indicated by key. Right: Map of Cambodia’s major rivers and identifying Phnom Penh at the confluence

of the Mekong, Tonlé Sap and Bassac Rivers, known as Chaktomuk, the Four Faces. (Illustrations by author, 2020)

Figure 1: Chaktomuk or the ‘Four Faces”, indicating the four branches of the three rivers or as the French

termed the area the Quatre Bras or “the four arms”.

The fan shaped Chaktomuk Conference Hall 2 marks the confluence of the Bassac, Tonlé Sap, and

Mekong Rivers. Designed by Cambodian modernist Vann Molyvann the arced façade offers a 270-

degree view of the moment where the Mekong River collides into the Tonle Sap River with such

force that the Tonle Sap reverses course, flowing northward into central Cambodia. In Khmer this

intersection is called Chaktomuk or the ‘Four Faces”, indicating the four branches of the three

rivers or as the French termed the area the Quatre Bras or “the four arms”. During the dry season

the Tonlé Sap and Mekong Rivers flow into the confluence from the northwest and north

respectively, then the Mekong and Bassac Rivers flow out of the confluence to the southeast and

Phnom Penh is home to nearly two million people, many of whom live and work along the banks of

the Mekong River. 5 Millions more people are sustained by the basin’s flood cycles and deltaic

system. The result is a topography defined by an intense interdependence between the inhabitants

of the region and its rivers. Stretching from the glaciers of the Tibetan Qinghai Plateau to the South

China Sea, the Mekong descends twenty-seven hundred miles through six countries – China,

Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. 6 The river is an overlapping series of

infrastructures that provides water, food, irrigation, hydropower, transportation, and commerce to

hundreds of millions of people. 7 Much of the terrain varies no more than three feet in height creating

a flat, dense, illegible landscape. Each rainy season (May-October), monsoon rains and snowmelt

cause the Mekong River to flow into the Tonlé Sap with such force that the latter reverses its flow.

During the dry season the Tonlé Sap is approximately three feet deep; with an area of around

Page 1 of 10

Page 2 of 10


1,000 square miles, during the wet season the Tonlé Sap swells to nearly five times its dry-season

size volume. 8 Consequently, Phnom Penh and the surrounding region experience a dramatic swing

in flood levels from dry to wet season. Although the floods are destructive, they also support one of

the most delicate and diverse ecosystems in the world. This seasonal flood pulse sustains the

region: fisheries are replenished, floodwater is stored for use in the dry season, flood-deposited

sediments improve soil fertility across the region, and groundwater aquifers are recharged. 9

Conversely, severe flooding results in the loss of life, damage to agriculture, property, and

infrastructure, and it can cause the disruption of social and economic activities throughout the

Lower Mekong Basin. Flood events in Phnom Penh are twofold – almost daily rainy season flood

events and episodic larger scale river flood events. During the rainy season, monsoon rains

inundate low-lying streets, some with nearly three feet of water. 10 According to the Mekong River

Commission the economic benefits of this flood pulse far outweigh its consequences. Average

annual flooding costs range from sixty to seventy million dollars while the benefits of the flood

annually range from eight to ten billion dollars. 11 Therefore, the city must mediate a delicate

balance to preserve the benefits of the flooding while reducing the costs and impacts to life and

property.

This convergence demonstrates the friction between ecology, landscape, infrastructure, economic

development, and political power: the city of Phnom Penh provides evidence of centuries of water

control strategies. The Cambodian urban record began with the twelfth-century Khmer capital of

Angkor and accelerates in the mid-19 th century when Cambodia became a French Protectorate,

followed by a brief period of independence, and, in rapid succession, the Second Indochine War to

the east, a civil war within, the depredations of the Khmer Rouge regime, followed by Vietnamese

occupation, and the present-day autocracy of the Cambodian’s People Party. The legacy of

Cambodia’s numerous political regimes reveals an evolving relationship with water and the politics

of water control through urban design and planning policies. Each of these political evolutions

demanded a simplified model of water management that created an abstracted, administrative

ordering of nature and society, and each these models failed to represent the environment and the

complications of human occupation of that environment. 13

In the context of this book, Phnom Penh provides an example of how architecture, as a detail

scale of urbanization, is intrinsically connected to its watershed, the Mekong River Basin, providing

evidence of the need for a theory and practice of watershed architecture.

Figure 3: Left: Kampong Khleang a floating and stilted village on the Tonlé Sap Lake; dry season, wet season, and

2011 flood levels indicated. Villages, such as this one, are dependent upon the Tonlé Sap flood surge for fishing and

agriculture. Right: Map of a typical wet/dry season Tonlé Sap Flood Surge and the extent of the 2011 floods,

redrawn by author from a United Nations Map 12. (Photo by author, 2012 and illustrations by author, 2020)

Figure 4: Present day Phnom Penh boundaries indicated in white. Left: Dry season, February. Right: Wet season,

October. (Source: USGS Earthshots 14 )

Page 3 of 10

Page 4 of 10


Today the very existence of the flood pulse is threatened by an expanding number of upstream

hydrologic dams. Mekong damming stems from a proliferation of water management expertise

commenced in the 1950s by US Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the United States

Department of Interior and continued today by Chinese corporations. The Bureau’s aim was to

transfer technical knowledge of water resources to ‘developing’ regions such as Southeast Asia. In

the context of the Bureau’s efforts in Southeast Asia during the 1960s, the particular

characteristics of the Mekong River basin (the ‘natural resources’ waiting to be ‘developed’) were

calculated and simplified under the impetus of the Bureau’s particular expertise in water resources

and river basin development as well as a means for combatting the spread of communism in the

region. Damming has now become an instrument of Chinese economic expansion. 15 Efforts to turn

upstream Laos into the “Battery of Asia” have created the worst drought conditions in 100 years

monsoon to wet southwest monsoon and their corresponding changes in precipitation. This

condition does not align well with notions of the environment as a consistent and legible condition

interlocking with its architectural counterpart: that which is ‘not architecture’ is environment. The

environment of Cambodia is not a background condition to urbanism; rather it expresses the slow,

viscous matter of the Southeast Asian climate as a resistance to technocratic ambitions.

on the Tonle Sap, threatening the food source and livelihood of millions. 16

In the context of rapidly urbanizing Asian mega-cities, Phnom Penh is a small and often overlooked

topic of study. However, the city presents a unique and relevant record of living and building with

water and more importantly, this history reveals methods for making legible the deep entanglement

of politics and water. From the crisis in Flint 17 to the hurricanes of New Orleans 18 and New York

City 19 to the disappearing Colorado River 20 the scale and complexities of water infrastructure have

never so urgently demanded examination. Reflecting upon Phnom Penh is a method for

contemplating architecture’s contemporary role in water polemics. Cambodia is often referred to in

the parlance of humanitarian development as ‘Third World’, ‘a developing nation’, or more recently

as part of the ‘Global South’. This measurement of its development or ‘modernization’ is often

expressed in relation to its transformation and mastery of water. As Gandy writes ‘infrastructure is

presented as modernity itself’. 21

Modernity as it used here is a concept derived from European experience, codified by the French

colonial project, and relying heavily upon an Enlightenment compulsion to impose universal

technocratic models upon the environment without regard for the cultural, political, and

environmental complexities of non-European urban contexts. Thus, the episodic hydrological cycle

of Cambodia provided a hostile context for the imposition of French and later Modernist urban

planning models antagonistic to the environmental rhythm of Cambodia. The ecological health of

Cambodia relies upon the significant swing of the monsoon season from the dry northeast

Figure 5: Street 51 during an afternoon monsoon. Photo by author. 2012.

Despite efforts to ‘control’ water flood events in Phnom Penh remain twofold – almost daily rainy

season flood events and episodic larger-scale flood plain events. During the rainy season (May-

October) monsoon rains fill low-lying streets, some to nearly four feet deep. The near daily floods

during the rainy season reframe the experience of inhabiting the city, altering its landscape and

blurring the distinction between water and land. Roads become waterways and sidewalks

disappear beneath the muddy waters. Curbs and tree roots are hidden from view, hindering

walking and driving. Businesses unfurl overhangs, open umbrellas, and hang tarps, expanding

available dry space. Traffic slows to a near stop as cars, motos (small motorcycles), and bicycles

navigate the water and intermittently stall out or dip into deep unseen potholes. The population

Page 5 of 10

Page 6 of 10


anticipates the rains and has adapted to the accompanying flooding and its perceived cleansing

effects. Nonetheless, the floods disrupt the flow of daily business and activity. Additionally, flooded

streets carry potential disease as the storm water mixes with human waste and street drains are

blocked by municipal trash, slowing drainage and posing a possible public health threat. As for

larger scale flood events, Phnom Penh was founded in the alluvial plain of the Mekong River, which

varies upwards of 12 meters (nearly 36 feet) in depth between the dry and wet seasons. The most

devastating flood risk comes from the Mekong River cresting over its natural berm into the city. The

volume of water produced by a Mekong flood could take weeks or even months to recede,

evaporate, or penetrate into the ground. The factors contributing to the potential for increased

flooding in Phnom Penh are deforestation, the unknown impacts of climate change, overbuilding in

catchment areas, the damming and diversion of natural waterways, and the infill of canals and

lakes, combined with no formally accepted or followed master plan. 22

Historically Phnom Penh was surrounded by wetlands which provided catchment areas for flood

water and now are becoming infilled to create developable land. Figure 6 is a representative

section of the edge between the wetlands of Boueng Cheung Ek and the ring road levee in

southern Phnom Penh. As shown in the figure, there is no formal wastewater treatment in the city.

Instead, sewage and other wastewater from households, businesses and industries dump into a

series of covered and open canals that flow through the city and combine with seasonal rainwater

and floods. Wastewater is indicated in pink and potable water in green. This system of sewage and

wastewater removal is shown in the figure, first enclosed in subsurface piping then emptying into

the lake beneath the occupied edge. Boeung Cheung Ek (BCE) Lake is the largest of the water

bodies that receives human waste and industrial effluents. 23 The lake covers thirty-four hundred

hectares of land in an area five kilometers south of the city center. Eighty percent of the

wastewater from the city along including untreated effluent from three thousand small and largescale

industrial enterprises ends up in this body of water. 24 Boeung Cheung Ek Lake is an effective,

low-cost means of biological treatment for the city’s wastewater through its aquatic vegetable

production. 25

Housing and small businesses occupy the edge of the levee connecting the city to a network of

wetlands, streams and ponds into which more than one million cubic meters of the city’s

household wastewater and storm water are discharged daily. These structures perch on the nonprotected

side of the levee creating a three-dimensional grid of inhabited space. This grid mediates

the economic space of the street and the agricultural space of the wetlands. At the left edge of the

illustration dry and wet season wetlands water levels are marked. To the right is the heavily

trafficked ring road levee where cars, motorbikes, and bicycles compete for space. The road is

lined with small shops selling everyday items such as cell phone cards, drinks, and toiletries.

Figure 6: Representative section of the edge between the wetlands and the ring road levee in southern Phnom

Penh. (Photos and illustration by author)

Habitation adapts to the water levels in the adjacent wetlands. Lower grid quadrants are

abandoned during floods for higher space. The structures are built of loose pieces of wood, tarps,

corrugated metal, and construction debris. There is limited access to electricity, spaces are

unconditioned, rainwater is collected for washing, drinking water is boiled or purchased, and

wastewater empties directly into the wetlands. When soaked by rain the structures air-dry and

when destroyed by flooding, they are rebuilt with available debris, creating a patchwork

Page 7 of 10

Page 8 of 10


architectural sieve at the edge of the city connecting it to the episodic cycles of the monsoon and

the flood pulse of the Mekong and Tonle Sap Rivers.

5

CIA Fact Book Cambodia. Accessed February 23, 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cb.html

6

About the Mekong River Basin. Accessed February 23, 2017. http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-mrc/

Biography

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle, AIA is an assistant professor of architecture at Iowa State University

College of Design and co-founder of the ISU Computation & Construction Lab. Doyle received a

Fulbright Fellowship to Cambodia where she lived and worked from 2011-13 developing research

titled City of Water: Architecture, Infrastructure, and the Floods of Phnom Penh. She holds a

Master of Architecture from the Harvard Graduate School of Design and a BS in Architecture from

the University of Virginia.

7

Mekong Aquastat Water Report 37 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations. Accessed February 29, 2020

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2809e/i2809e.pdf

8

Chris Berdik. “Of Fish, Monsoons and The Future a Push to Save Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake,” The New York Times, June 9, 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/science/of-fish-monsoons-and-the-future.html Accessed February 29, 2020

9

Mekong River Commission Lower Mekong River Basin Flood and Drought Data. http://www.mrcmekong.org/topics/flood-and-drought/

Accessed February 29, 2019

10

Interactive Flood Map of Phnom Penh. http://flooddemo.estil-jennyl.com/ Accessed February 29, 2020

11

Mekong Aquastat Water Report, 2012.

12

The United Nations Institute for Training and Research Website. “Flood Waters Over Phnom Penh And Kandal Districts, Cambodia.”

Http://Www.Unitar.Org/Unosat/Node/44/1604 Accessed February 29, 2020

13

See Scott, James C. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1998.

14

USGS Earthshots: Satellite Images of Environmental Change Website. Phnom Penh, Cambodia And the Khmer Rouge Canals.

Http://Earthshots.Usgs.Gov/Earthshots/Node/45. Accessed February 29, 2020

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Khmer Architecture Tours and funded through the 2011-12

United States Fulbright Scholars Program in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The resulting project City of

Water: Architecture, Infrastructure, and the Floods of Phnom Penh and additional documentation

can be found at: www.cityofwater.wordpress.com. Earlier versions of this chapter can be found in

Phnom Penh: Rescue Archeology: Contemporary Art and Urban Change in Cambodia, Gleeson, E.

(Ed.) and Nakhara Journal of Environmental Design Planning Volume, Kirkwood, N. and

Seeumpornroj, P. (Eds.). A longer analysis of the environmental politics of Phnom Penh’s

urbanization will be available in the forthcoming Genealogy of Bassac, Sereypagna, P. and

McGrath, Brian (Eds.).

References

15

Sneddon, Chris. "The ‘sinew of development’: Cold War geopolitics, technical expertise, and water resource development in Southeast Asia,

1954–1975." Social Studies of Science 42, no. 4 (2012): 564-590.

16

Lovgren, Stefan. Mekong River at its lowest in 100 years, threatening food supply. National Geographic Website.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/07/mekong-river-lowest-levels-100-years-food-shortages/ Accessed February 29, 2020

17

National Public Radio overview of the Flint, Michigan crisis. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/04/20/465545378/lead-lacedwater-in-flint-a-step-by-step-look-at-the-makings-of-a-crisis,

April 20, 2016. February 29, 2020

18

19

Douglas Brinkley The Great Deluge: Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans, and the Mississippi Gulf Coast, 2006

Miles, Kathryn. Superstorm: Nine Days Inside Hurricane Sandy. Penguin, 2014

20

David Ownes. Where the River Runs Dry: The Colorado and America’s water crisis. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/25/thedisappearing-river

May 25, 2015. February 29, 2020.

21

Gandy, 2014. Page 23.

22

MRC, 2012.

23

Khov Kuong And William Leschen And David Little. Food, Incomes and Urban Waste Water Treatment in Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Aquaculture News 33 / January 2007 Http://Www.Aqua.Stir.Ac.Uk/Public/Aquanews/Downloads/Issue_33/33P8_10.Pdf Accessed November

2012.

25

Van Der Hoek, Wim Et Al. Skin Diseases Among People Using Urban Wastewater in Phnom Penh UA Magazine No. 14 - Urban Aquatic

Production, 2005.

1

Gandy, Matthew. The fabric of space: water, modernity, and the urban imagination. MIT Press, 2014. Page 2.

2

Chaktomuk Conference Hall page on the Vann Molyvann Project Website. http://www.vannmolyvannproject.org/archive#/new-page-1/

Accessed February 29, 2020.

3

For additional information on the architectural and urban history of Phnom Penh see: Vann Molyvann’s Modern Khmer Cities, Helen Grant

Ross and Darryl Leon Collins’ Building Cambodia: ‘New Khmer Architecture’ 1953-1970, and Penny Edwards Cambodge: The Cultivation of a

Nation 1860-1945.

4

The United States Central Intelligence Agency Fact Book: Cambodia. Https://Www.Cia.Gov/Library/Publications/The-World-

Factbook/Geos/Cb.Html / Accessed February 29, 2020

Page 9 of 10

Page 10 of 10


Chaktomuk: The Hydrology of the Four Faces

reversal of the Tonlé Sap at Chaktomuk is essential to the environmental health of Cambodia.

This convergence demonstrates the friction between ecology, landscape, infrastructure, economic

development, and political power. The following describes Chaktomuk and situates it within the

urban history of Cambodia, defined by water crossing between visible and invisible domains of

urban space.

Watershed Context: Mekong River Basin

Figure 1: Land building equipment on the surface of the water in Chaktomuk during the expansion of the Diamond

Island or Koh Pich in Khmer. 2012, Photo by author.

Introduction

This chapter provides contemporary and historic environmental context for the recently

demolished ‘White Building’ on Samsadach Sothearos Boulevard near the confluence of the

Bassac, Tonlé Sap, and Mekong Rivers, known in Khmer as Chaktomuk or the ‘Four Faces”,

indicating the four branches of the three rivers or as the Frenched termed the area the Quatre

Bras or “the four arms”. During the dry season the Tonlé Sap and Mekong Rivers flow into the

confluence from the northwest and north respectively, then the Mekong and Bassac Rivers flow

out of the confluence to the southeast and south respectively. During the wet season the Mekong

River flows into the confluence with such force and volume that the Tonle Sap River reverses

flow – returning to the northwest - bringing water, fish, and sediment into the country’s

midlands. The hydrological importance of Chaktomuk cannot be understated as the wet-season

Figure 2: The White Building. Phnom Penh. 2012. Photo by author,

Phnom Penh is home to one and one-half million Cambodians, many of whom live and work

along the banks of the Mekong River. 1 Millions more people are sustained by the basin’s flood

cycles and deltaic system. The result is a topography defined by an intense interdependence

between the inhabitants of the region and its rivers. Stretching from the glaciers of the Tibetan

Qinghai Plateau at an elevation of approximately 4,500 meters (m) above mean sea level to the

South China Sea, the Mekong descends twenty-seven hundred miles (4,800 kilometers) through

six countries – China, Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. 2 The river is

an overlapping series of infrastructures that provides water, food, irrigation, hydropower,

Page 1 of 21

Page 2 of 21


season, flood-deposited sediments improve soil fertility across the region, and groundwater

aquifers are recharged. 7

Figure 3: Left; Mekong River Basin in blue, adjacent countries in green (CIA Fact Book, Mekong River

Commission)3. Dams (operational, under construction, proposed) indicated by key. Right: Map of Cambodia’s

major rivers and identifying Phnom Penh at the confluence of the Mekong, Tonlé Sap and Bassac Rivers: known as

Chaktomuk, the Four Faces. 4 (Illustrations by author, 2014)

transportation, and commerce to hundreds of millions of people. 5 Each rainy season (May-

October), monsoon rains and snowmelt cause the Mekong River to flow into the Tonlé Sap with

such force that the latter reverses its flow and fills the Tonlé Sap Lake near UNESCO heritage

site Angkor Wat northwest of Phnom Penh. During the dry season the Tonlé Sap is

approximately three feet deep; with an area of around 1,000 square miles, during the wet season

the Tonlé Sap swells to nearly five times its dry-season size volume. 6 During the wet season

Tonlé Sap Lake serves as natural flood-water infrastructure for the Mekong River and the

sediment brought the river reversal supports wetlands, fisheries, and rice-growing areas.

Sedimentation or other alterations at Chaktomuk could alter this unique and important

hydrologic system. The Mekong basin hosts incredible biodiversity; third in the world after the

Congo and Amazon.

Due to the monsoon rains and river reversal, Phnom Penh and the surrounding region experience

a dramatic swing in flood levels from dry to wet season. Although the floods are destructive,

they also support one of the most delicate and diverse ecosystems in the world. This seasonal

flood pulse sustains the region: fisheries are replenished, floodwater is stored for use in the dry

Figure 4: Left: Kampong Khleang a floating and stilted village on the Tonlé Sap Lake; dry season, wet season, and

2011 flood levels indicated. Villages, such as this one, are dependent upon the Tonlé Sap flood surge for fishing and

agriculture. Right: Map of a typical wet/dry season Tonlé Sap Flood Surge and the extent of the 2011 floods,

redrawn by author from a United Nations Map 8. (Photos and illustrations by author, 2012)

Conversely, severe flooding results in the loss of life, damage to agriculture, property, and

infrastructure, and it can cause the disruption of social and economic activities throughout the

Lower Mekong Basin. Flood events in Phnom Penh are twofold – almost daily rainy season

flood events and episodic larger scale river flood events. During the rainy season, monsoon rains

inundate low-lying streets, some with nearly three feet of water. 9 According to the Mekong River

Commission the economic benefits of this flood pulse far outweigh its consequences. Average

annual flooding costs range from sixty to seventy million dollars while the benefits of the flood

annually range from eight to ten billion dollars. 10 Therefore, the city must mediate a delicate

balance to preserve the benefits of the flooding while reducing the costs and impacts to life and

property.

Today the very existence of the flood pulse is threatened by an expanding number of upstream

hydrologic dams. Mekong damming stems from a proliferation of water expertise commenced in

the 1950s by US Bureau of Reclamation, an agency of the Department of Interior. The Bureau’s

aim was to transfer technical knowledge of water resources to ‘developing’ regions such as

Southeast Asia. In the context of the Bureau’s efforts in Southeast Asia during the 1960s, the

particular characteristics of the Mekong River basin (the ‘natural resources’ waiting to be

Page 3 of 21

Page 4 of 21


‘developed’) were calculated and simplified under the impetus of the Bureau’s particular

expertise in water resources and river basin development as well as a means for combatting the

spread of communism in the region. 11

Floods of Phnom Penh

Figure 5: Street 51 during an afternoon monsoon. Photo by author. 2012.

Figure 5: Present day Phnom Penh boundaries indicated in white. Left: Dry season, February. Right: Wet season,

October. (Source: USGS Earthshots 12)

Flood events in Phnom Penh are twofold – almost daily rainy season flood events and episodic

larger-scale flood plain events. During the rainy season (May-October) monsoon rains fill lowlying

streets, some to nearly four feet deep. The near daily floods during the rainy season reframe

the experience of inhabiting the city, altering its landscape and blurring the distinction between

water and land. Roads become waterways and sidewalks disappear beneath the muddy waters.

Curbs and tree roots are hidden from view, hindering walking and driving. Businesses unfurl

overhangs, open umbrellas, and hang tarps, expanding available dry space. Traffic slows to a

near stop as cars, motos (small motorcycles), and bicycles navigate the water and intermittently

stall out or dip into deep unseen potholes.

The population anticipates the rains and has adapted to the accompanying flooding and its

perceived cleansing effects. Nonetheless, the floods disrupt the flow of daily business and

activity. Additionally, flooded streets carry potential disease as the storm water mixes with

human waste and street drains are blocked by municipal trash, slowing drainage and posing a

possible public health threat.

As for larger scale flood events, Phnom Penh was founded in the alluvial plain of the Mekong

River, which varies upwards of 12 meters (nearly 36 feet) in depth between the dry and wet

seasons. The most devastating flood risk comes from the Mekong River cresting over its natural

berm into the city. The volume of water produced by a Mekong flood could take weeks or even

months to recede, evaporate, or penetrate into the ground. The factors contributing to the

potential for increased flooding in Phnom Penh are deforestation, the unknown impacts of

climate change, overbuilding in catchment areas, the damming and diversion of natural

waterways, and the infill of canals and lakes, combined with no formally accepted or followed

master plan. 13

Page 5 of 21

Page 6 of 21


Mekong Flux: Documenting Chaktomuk

Figure 7: Mekong Flux. Our City Cambodia Art +

Architecture Festival 2012.

Situating Chaktomuk

Figure 6: Chaktomuk time lapse. Photos by author, 2012.

Mekong Flux is an attempt to document the change of the river from dry to wet season. Through

weekly photos taken of Chaktomuk from a ferry dock, Mekong Flux documented the rise of the

Mekong River for 25 weeks from April to September 2012. The video was coupled with a

sculptural installation which graphed the rise of the water and makes occupiable the 10-meter

depth change of the Mekong River during the Our City: Art and Architecture Festival. By

placing the installation in the city, the volumetric magnitude of the water is understood in

relation to the scale of the surrounding buildings. Seeing the water as an object diagrammed onto

the city reveals the temporal and spatial nature of the city’s relationship to water. This

installation aims to draw attention to how daily and seasonal flood events change viewers

perceptions and interactions with urban space

The confluence of the Mekong, Tonlé Sap and Bassac Rivers is ecologically and economically

important to Cambodia. Chaktomuk provides drinking water for the residents of Phnom Penh,

supplies water to industrial and commercial uses, and absorbs treated and untreated wastewater.

It is also the site of the Phnom Penh Autonomous Port, an international port under the

administration of the Cambodian Ministry of Public Works and Transport and the Ministry of

Economy and Finance. River vessels of various sizes from cargo-ships to ferries to small fishing

boats move goods and people along Cambodia’s waterways. To keep the sea-bound shipping

lanes open the Phnom Penh Autonomous Port continuously dredges Chaktomuk. The resulting

dredge are deposited near the head of the Bassac River and used to create ‘new’ land. 14 The

primary result of this land building project is Koh Pich or Diamond Island. The artificially

expanded island is home to a replica Arc de Triomphe, as well as names taken from prestigious

Western institutions: Princeton Road, Harvard Street, Berkeley Street, Yale Road

Page 7 of 21

Page 8 of 21


Hydrological Urban History: Between Land to Water

Chaktomuk is an ecological site of unique importance, however creating land from water has a

long, and disruptive history in Cambodia. The following positions how this condition of

transformation from water to land or land to water has long been a tool of economic and political

power, often at the expense of Cambodia’s ecological health. This hydrological urban history is

presented to give context to Chaktomuk, and to hone the stakes of economic development being

prioritized over ecological balance.

Cambodia is often referred to in the parlance of humanitarian development as ‘Third World’, ‘a

developing nation’, or more recently as part of the ‘Global South’. This measurement of its

development or ‘modernization’ is often expressed in relation to its transformation and mastery

of water. As urban theorist Matthew Gandy writes ‘infrastructure is presented as modernity

itself’. 15

Modernity, however, is a concept derived from European experience, codified by the French

colonial project, and relying heavily upon an Enlightenment impulse to impose universal

technocratic models upon the environment without regard for the cultural, political, and

environmental complexities of non-European urban contexts. Thus, the episodic hydrological

cycle of Cambodia provided a hostile context for the imposition of French and later Modernist

urban planning models antagonistic to the environmental rhythm of Cambodia. The ecological

health of Cambodia relies upon the significant swing of the monsoon season from the dry

northeast monsoon to wet southwest monsoon and their corresponding changes in precipitation.

Figure 8: Google Satellite imagery of Koh Pich from 2005, 2012, 2019. The construction of new land from

Mekong River sediment can be seen along the northern edge of the island.

Page 10 of 21

Page 9 of 21


extent and breakdown of the network was implicated in the demise of Angkor. 17 There is no

consensus among scholars regarding the reasons for Angkor’s collapse, but the Empire’s fall

may have resulted from the economic consequences of substantial man-made modifications to

the landscape in addition to unpredictable events such as high magnitude monsoons, decades of

drought, and warfare: circumstances which resonate with contemporary conditions. 18

French Protectorate: 1863-1954: Gridding the Swamp

Figure 9: Angkor Wat and surround barays. Photo by author. 2012.

Angkor Empire: Hydrologic Traces

The history of Cambodian cities reveals an evolving relationship between governance and water;

these relationships continue to act upon present day Phnom Penh. (Figure 5) (Figure 6) The

urban record begins with the twelfth-century Khmer capital of Angkor. In the mid-19 th century

French naturalist Henri Mouhot reintroduced Angkor Wat to the world and in doing so

purportedly ‘rescued’ it from imminent ruin. Withered by tropical decay and inattention, Angkor

Wat entered the colonial imagination as a possible future for the decline of French civilization.

That Angkor Wat was no longer actively important to Cambodian religious practice was not part

of the French narrative – these subtleties were not legible, and therefore did not exist in their

reports.

In the early 1950s, Bernard-Philippe Groslier of the École Française d'Extrême-Orient became

the first scholar to pay serious attention to the traces of a hydraulic network that was partially

mapped in the first half of the twentieth century. 16 Groslier surmised that it was built for

irrigation, specifically, to ameliorate variations in agricultural output caused by an unpredictable

annual monsoon and to support Angkor’s population of one million. He also argued that the

Following the fall of the Angkor Empire, the Cambodian capital moved first to Phnom Penh

(1432 to 1505) then several times over the centuries between Tuol Basan, Pursat, Longvek,

Lavear Em and Udong. In 1863, Cambodia became a protectorate of France and Phnom Penh

was reinstated as the capital. This was an important change as it not only positioned Phnom Penh

as an international trading hub but also placed the Cambodian capital within the Mekong flood

plain. Simultaneously the ideals of French master planning were introduced to Phnom Penh. 19

Penny Edwards writes in Cambodge: In the early years of the Protectorate, “the city was best

known for its vast tracts of mosquito-infested swampland, the stench of stagnant water and

human waste, and frequent outbreaks of cholera. In the wet season, boat travel was necessary

between different sections of Phnom Penh.” These sections or zones included the deployment of

a Cartesian grid, interlinked canals, and levees along with the infilling of lakes and wetlands.

According to architectural historian Helen Grant Ross, one of the most significant changes

introduced by the French was the authorization of construction only on land. 20 The decision to

move all construction inland had radical implications upon the future development of the city.

The new policy contradicted both Khmer law and tradition, which posited that the King owned

the land and the water was collectively owned. Construction required the monarch’s consent, and

it was typically granted only for palaces, temples and monasteries. Prior to the arrival of the

French, Phnom Penh’s building pattern reflected this tradition. Non-royal or religious structures

were raised on stilts or floated upon the river, and as a result the city grew linearly along the

riverbanks. 21 (Figure 7) This construction model also protected the city from floodwaters by

capitalizing on the riverbank’s natural berm as well as a series of preks - constructed earthworks

that control flooding and produce intentional dry season ponds.

Page 11 of 21

Page 12 of 21


As in previous royal capitals, wood and thatch housed royalty and peasants alike, while masonry

was generally reserved for temples, reliquary stupas, and funereal monuments. 22 While

craftsmanship and quality of materials – from bamboo to thatch to timber – could indicate status,

it was radial proximity to sacred sites that was a more significant indicator of power and status.

The French were disappointed by the lack of grandeur and immediately began work to rebuild

Phnom Penh to reflect contemporary notions of their image of a capital city and Enlightenment

thinking.

This imposition of French urban planning models on the protectorate’s environment were

promoted internationally as the ‘modernizing’ of Southeast Asia. Colonial space was built upon a

relatively fragile firmament of constructed land, which was incorrectly perceived as more

permanent than pervious conditions. The new infrastructure - roads, railroads, and telegraphs –

floated upon the wet earth, while local space continued to occupy the scale of creeks and

footpaths. 25 Despite the French ambition of a total project there continued to be multiple ‘cities’

within Phnom Penh, spaces and environments, which escaped the panoptic intentions of urban

planning.

Through the 1890’s, the development of French Phnom Penh grew under the direction of

architect and town planner Daniel Fabre (1850-1904) whose work also included several

buildings, most notably the Central Post Office, and the renovation of Wat Phnom. In 1925,

architect and town-planner Ernest Hébrard drew up a plan for the extended urbanization of

Phnom Penh. Thereafter, the Indochina Town Planning Service (Service de l ‘architecture et de

l’urbanisme de l’Indochine, founded by Hébrard two years earlier in Hà Noi) was responsible for

overseeing the systematic development and rationalization of much of Phnom Penh. 23

By the turn of the century, the Hebard and the French bureaucrats were well underway towards

their goal of transforming the riverside village of Phnom Penh into a geometric cityscape that

paid tribute to Rene Descartes’ vision of a “well-ordered town laid out on a vacant plane as suits

[the engineer’s] fancy.” This process advanced by projecting a rectilinear street grid of concrete

and stone onto the marshy wetland, perpendicular to the rivers. During the early years of the

protectorate the colonial administration made various attempts to resolve the recurrent problem

of flooding by filling in several small natural lakes and digging a series of interlinked canals to

provide better drainage. These canals also served to physically segregate Phnom Penh into

quartiers, based primarily on the ethnicity of residents. These comprised a quartier

Cambodgienne, a quartier Annamite, a quartier Chinoise and a quartier Européen. 24 This was

presented as an improvement in water infrastructure but effectively was a tool of discrimination

against non-European citizens.

Figure 10: Chaktomuk Conference Hall. Photo by author 2012.

National Modernism (Sangkum Reastr Niyum (1955–1970)): High Modernist Ambitions

In 1940, the French Vichy government allowed Japanese troops to enter Indochina, which then

became an autonomous province of the Japanese Empire and was eventually annexed by the

Page 13 of 21

Page 14 of 21


Japanese in 1945. Consequently, H.M. King Norodom Sihanouk declared an end to the French

protectorate. However, with the defeat of Japan and the arrival of allied forces, French colonial

rule was reinstated until November 1953, when Cambodia at last gained its independence. In

1955, Norodom Sihanouk abdicated the throne to his father H.M. King Norodom Suramarit in

order to become Prime Minister, and later Head of State. No longer a monarch, Norodom

Sihanouk began to build his vision of a new nation. He was simultaneously a composer, writer,

elements: the term belies the limitations of an architectonic resolution to structural inequalities

inherent within the European colonial project.” 30

poet and lyricist, filmmaker, interior designer, and a patron of the arts.

Phnom Penh became a physical manifestation of the independent country through the

development of an architecture and urban planning model known as New Khmer Architecture, a

style that blended principles of modern architecture with Cambodian tradition. This short-lived

movement (1953-70) is best known through the designs of Vann Molyvann, a Cambodian

architect educated at the l’Ecole de Beaux Arts. 26 The Vann Molyvann Project, founded in 2009,

to preserve and disseminate his work says of Molyvann: “he adapted a modern vocabulary to

Cambodia’s culture, climate, geography, and its vernacular and ancient architectural traditions,

in particular what we now call ‘green’ technologies – double roofs, cross ventilation, brisesoleils,

indirect lighting, evaporative cooling, use of local materials – into exquisite architectural

form.” 27 An example of this work can be found at the confluence of the rivers Vann Molyvann

designed Chaktomuk Conference Hall. The hall has a quarter-circle plan with three facades – one

street-facing and two-river facing offering 270-degree views onto the crossing of the four

rivers. 28

Though much lauded, the New Khmer Architecture project was a continuation rather than a

break from the colonial project. First, by recalling Angkor Wat as the only true ‘Khmer’

architectural type it selectively edited out hundreds of years of Cambodian culture. Second, the

modernist underpinnings of the redevelopment imported imperialist social order to Phnom Penh

and denied that multiple (non-Cartesian) epistemic forms were already operating in the city. 29

Third, Van Molyvann, educated in France, imported contemporary French master planning back

to Cambodia as it aimed to extricate itself from its colonial past. As Gandy writes: “Terms such

as ‘tropical modernism’ reflect attempts to produce a synthesis of ostensibly contradictory

Figure 13: Khmer Rouge irrigation canals constructed northeast of Phnom Penh 1975-1979. Source USGS

Earthshots

Democratic Kampuchea (1975–1978): Gridding the Countryside

By 1975, Phnom Penh’s population doubled in size to an estimated two million people as rural

Cambodians fled the American bombing campaign in the east and Lon Nol’s civil war in the

countryside (1968-1974). On April 19, 1975, the Khmer Rouge evacuated Phnom Penh as they

waged war upon the city and its population as emblems of capitalism and corruption. Following

the forced evacuation, approximately fifty thousand people remained in Phnom Penh as the new

Khmer Rouge government radically reorganized Cambodia to conform with the ruling cadre’s

utopian vision of a rural, agriculture-based and communal society. 31 Property ownership was

eliminated and the urban development of Phnom Penh ceased. Estimates of the total number of

deaths resulting from Khmer Rouge policies, including disease and starvation, range from 1.7 to

Page 15 of 21

Page 16 of 21


2.5 million, approximately one quarter of the country’s population of 8 million. In attempting

such a grandiose remaking of society, culture, and the economy, the Khmer Rouge emulated

both the Angkorian Empire and communist China. 32 The regime’s most misguided project was to

reconstruct the countryside into a one-kilometer grid of irrigation canals with the goal of

recreating the hydrologic methods of the Angkorian Empire. (See Figure 4) These projects were

poorly located, sited, and engineered and failed in their intent to increase rice production for the

starving population. 33 Meanwhile the Khmer Rouge remained in Phnom Penh reusing and

repurposing buildings such as Tuol Sleng, a former high school, which became the

short-lived and, in a 1997 coup, Hun Sen seized full control of the government from his co-Prime

Minister Prince Norodom Ranariddh. 38

notorious Security Prison 21 (S-21) site of an estimated 20,000 deaths. 34

Although Vann Molyvann escaped the Khmer Rouge by fleeing to Switzerland, not everyone in

the design community was so fortunate. Nearly ninety percent of artists and academics were

murdered, universities were closed, and libraries destroyed, severing Cambodia from its creative

and intellectual past and creating a lost generation of Cambodians who came of age during the

period during and after Khmer Rouge control. 35 The ramifications of this lost generation have farreaching

and still developing impacts on contemporary architecture and urban design in

Cambodia. Water infrastructure under the Khmer Rouge was an act of violence both upon the

land and its people as they physically labored to re-order the country’s environment, one canal at

a time, into the Khmer’s Rouge’s political vision.

Interlude: People’s Republic of Kampuchea (1979–1989): Controlling the Mekong

On 25 December 1978, Vietnam launched a full-scale invasion of Kampuchea and subsequently

occupied the country and removed the Khmer Rouge government from power. Critics of

Vietnamese actions held that they did not invade Cambodia out of any noble desire to stop the

atrocities committed by Pol Pot's regime but rather to consolidate their domination of Indochina.

The occupation gave Vietnam control of nearly the entire Lower Mekong River basin as well as

all of the associated ports, a powerful asset in the fight to maintain autonomy in a destabilized

Southeast Asia. 36 Occupation continued until peace talks began in Paris in 1989 and culminated

two years later in October of 1991 with a comprehensive peace settlement. The accord was

37

Figure 14: Top left: Google Maps screenshot by author February 2012 Bottom left: Google Maps screenshot by

author October 2011. Right: Photo by author of Boeung Kak Lake infilled with sand and awaiting construction of a

new housing project and shopping center.

NGO Urban Planning: Hun Sen’s State of Cambodia and Kingdom of Cambodia (1993–):

Making Land out of Water

Today Sen remains Prime Minister of Cambodia and leader of the Cambodian People’s Party

(CPP). As of 2017, Sen has been in power for more than twenty-five years making him one of

the longest-serving political leaders in the world. Sen’s rule is known for its draconian human

rights violations and heavy-handed approach to development. 39

During the 1990’s land ownership rights were gradually restored to Cambodians thereby

releasing Phnom Penh from the evolutionary stasis of the previous twenty years. Since 2001,

Cambodian land law prohibits the private ownership of water; all water belongs to the

government. 40 Illegally infilling a body of water redefines that body of water as land. Once this

Page 17 of 21

Page 18 of 21


transformation has been accomplished, no matter that it has been done illegally, the current

regime permits ownership of this new land parcel to be transferred from the government to a

private entity. A recent contentious example is the development of Boeung Kak Lake. A body of

water covering nearly 90 hectares, Sen’s policies allowed the lake to be filled in by Shukaku

Incorporated, owned by Cambodian People’s Party member, Senator Lao Meng Khin, to create a

site for a “multi-purpose living and recreation center.” 41 42 Nearly thirty-five hundred households,

twenty thousand people, on the site have been evicted to make room for the development. 43

5

Mekong Aquastat Water Report 37 2012. Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations. Accessed February 23, 2017.

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2809e/i2809e.pdf

6

Chris Berdik. “Of Fish, Monsoons and The Future a Push to Save Cambodia’s Tonle Sap Lake,” The New York Times, June 9, 2014.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/10/science/of-fish-monsoons-and-the-future.html

7

Mekong River Commission Lower Mekong River Basin Flood and Drought Data. Accessed February 23, 2017.

http://www.mrcmekong.org/topics/flood-and-drought/

8

The United Nations Institute for Training and Research Website. “Flood Waters Over Phnom Penh And Kandal Districts, Cambodia.” Accessed

October 2011. Http://Www.Unitar.Org/Unosat/Node/44/1604

9

Interactive Flood Map of Phnom Penh. http://flooddemo.estil-jennyl.com/ Accessed March 2014.

10

Mekong Aquastat Water Report, 2012.

Conclusions

Michel de Certeau argues the very practices of urban planning and governance must also be

understood as a form of discursive mythmaking. 44 These narratives of legibility are powerful

environmental constructs: Phnom Penh is a record of centuries of efforts to create clear and

permanent lines in a terrain that is always moving, slowly and sometimes imperceptibly,

destroying the illusion of the city as stable or permanent. 45 Present day urban policies continue to

deny or reject centuries of knowledge of living and designing with water. Within this context the

future of Chaktomuk is unknown. Despite its ecological importance to the future of Cambodia,

economic development from dams and land infilling might alter the basins hydrology so

significantly that the reversal of flow into the Tonle Sap will cease. The work in the Archaeology

of the Basaac is a testament to the importance of Chaktomuk to the history and future of

Cambodia

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by Khmer Architecture Tours, and funded through the 2011-12

United States Fulbright Scholars Program in Phnom Penh, Cambodia entitled City of Water:

Architecture, Infrastructure, and the Floods of Phnom Penh. Additional documentation can be

found at: www.cityofwater.wordpress.com.

1

CIA Fact Book Cambodia. Accessed February 23, 2017. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cb.html

2

About the Mekong River Basin. Accessed February 23, 2017. http://www.mrcmekong.org/about-mrc/

3

The United States Central Intelligence Agency Fact Book: Cambodia. Https://Www.Cia.Gov/Library/Publications/The-World-

Factbook/Geos/Cb.Html / Accessed March 17, 2015.

4

Helen Grant Ross and Darryl Leon Collins. Building Cambodia: ‘New Khmer Architecture’ 1953-1970. Bangkok: The Key Publisher, 2006.

11

Sneddon, Chris. "The ‘sinew of development’: Cold War geopolitics, technical expertise, and water resource development in Southeast Asia,

1954–1975." Social Studies of Science 42, no. 4 (2012): 564-590.

12

USGS Earthshots: Satellite Images of Environmental Change Website. Phnom Penh, Cambodia And the Khmer Rouge Canals.

Http://Earthshots.Usgs.Gov/Earthshots/Node/45. Accessed May 2013.

13

MRC, 2012.

14

Dietsch, B.J., Densmore, B.K., and Wilson, R.C., 2014, Hydrographic survey of Chaktomuk, the confluence of the Mekong, Tonlé Sap, and

Bassac Rivers near Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 2012: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5227, 23 p.,

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20145227.

15

Gandy, Matthew. The fabric of space: water, modernity, and the urban imagination. MIT Press, 2014. Page 14

16

Bernard Philippe Groslier. The Arts and Civilization of Angkor. Praeger, 1957.

17

Damian Evans, Christophe Pottier, Roland Fletcher, Scott Hensley, Ian Tapley, Anthony Milne, And Michael Barbetti. A Comprehensive

Archaeological Map of The World's Largest Preindustrial Settlement Complex at Angkor, Cambodia. PNAS 2007 104 (36) 14277-

14282; Published Ahead of Print August 23, 2007, Doi:10.1073/Pnas.0702525104

18

Brendan M. Buckley, Kevin J. Anchukaitis, Daniel Penny, Roland Fletcher, Edward R. Cook, Masaki Sano, Le Canh Nam, Aroonrut

Wichienkeeo, Ton That Minh, and Truong Mai Hong. Climate as A Contributing Factor in The Demise of Angkor, Cambodia.

PNAS 2010 107 (15) 6748-6752; Published Ahead of Print March 29, 2010, Doi:10.1073/Pnas.0910827107

19

Penny Edwards. Cambodge: The Cultivation of a Nation 1860-1945. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2007.

20

Grant Ross, Helen. 2005. “The South-East Asian Water-Bound Tradition Versus a Colonial Earth-Bound Society.” In the Annals of The

Conference Re-Thinking and Re-Constructing” Modern Asian Architecture Maan – Modern Asian Architecture Network Conference Istanbul

Re-Thinking and Re-Constructing Modern Asian Architecture June 2005: Pg. 283–292

21

Grant Ross, Helen. 2005.

22

Penny Edwards. Cambodge: The Cultivation of a Nation 1860-1945. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2007. Page 51.

23

Edwards, 2007.

24

Edwards. 2007.

25

Biggs, David. Quagmire: Nation Building in the Mekong Delta. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010. Page 129.

26

Grant Ross, Helen And Darryl Leon Collins. Building Cambodia: ‘New Khmer Architecture’ 1953-1970. Bangkok: The Key Publisher, 2006.

27

The Van Molynvann Project, Accessed 2012. Http://Www.Vannmolyvannproject.Org/

28

Chaktomuk Conference Hall from The Vann Molyvann Project Website. http://www.vannmolyvannproject.org/new-page-1

29

See James C. Scott.

30

Gandy, 2014. Page 9.

31

Estimate From Francois Ponchaud Cambodia: Year Zero Henry Holt & Co (August 1978)

32

William T. Vollmann 'Pol Pot': The Killer's Smile The New York Times. February 27, 2005

http://Www.Nytimes.Com/2005/02/27/Books/Review/27vollman.Html. Accessed April 13, 2013.

Page 19 of 21

Page 20 of 21


33

Chandler, David. (1999) Brother Number One: A Political Biography of Pol Pot. Westview Press; Revised Edition.

34

Chandler, 1999.

35

Gisele Regatao Survivors of Cambodia's War, Now on NY Stages. WNYC. Thursday, April 11, 2013 Http://Www.Wnyc.Org/Story/281667-

Cambodia/

36

For more see Morris, Stephen J. Why Vietnam invaded Cambodia: Political culture and the causes of war. Stanford University Press, 1999

37

Cambodia Paris Peace Agreements 1991. http://www.cambodia.org/facts/?page=1991+Paris+Peace+Agreements Accessed January 2012.

38

Brad Adams. “Cambodia: July 1997: Shock and Aftermath.” Phnom Penh Post. http://www.hrw.org/ja/news/2007/07/27/cambodia-july-1997-

shock-and-aftermath Accessed June 2014.

39

Brad Adams. 10,000 Days of Hun Sen. The New York Times. May 31, 2012. Http://Www.Nytimes.Com/2012/06/01/Opinion/10000-Days-Of-

Hun-Sen.Html

40

Law on Water Resources Management of The Kingdom Of Cambodia: LAW-0607-016-07-Water-Resources- Mgt-E.

Www.Opendevelopmentcambodia.Net. Accessed May 2012.

41

May Titthara. Boeung Kak Villagers Call on PM To Intervene in Land Case. Phnom Penh Post. Thursday March 14, 2010.

Http://Www.Phnompenhpost.Com/National/Boeung-Kak-Villagers-Call-Pm-Intervene-Land-Case Accessed June 2013.

42

Law on Water Resources Management of The Kingdom of Cambodia. May 2012.

43

Cambodia Boeung Kak Lake Evictions. Inclusive Development International. Http://Www.Inclusivedevelopment.Net/Bkl/ Accessed March

2015.

44

45

De Certeau, Michel, and Pierre Mayol. The Practice of Everyday Life: Living and cooking. Volume 2. Vol. 2. U of Minnesota Press, 1998.

Mathur, Anuradha, and Dilip da Cunha. SOAK: Mumbai in an Estuary. Rupa & Company, 2009.

Page 21 of 21







Conference

Proceedings

Back to Table

of Contents

Dissolvable 3D Printed

Formwork



Erin Linsey Hunt


Exploring Additive Manufacturing for Reinforced Concrete

2

Introduction

Concrete is the most widely used construction material in the

world. In 2017, the global market for ready-mix concrete was

valued at $394.44 billion. As this market is expected to double by

reinforcement into digital concrete construction” and additional

background can be found in the article. (Nerella, Ogura, &

Mechtcherine, 2018)

ABSTRACT

This research explores the potentials, limitations, and advantages of 3D printing water-soluble

formwork for reinforced concrete applications. Using polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) forms

and PLA steel tensile reinforcement this project explores the constraints and opportunities

for archi¬tects to design and construct reinforced concrete using water soluble 3D printed

formwork with embedded reinforcement. Research began with testing small PVA prints for

consistency, heat of water-temperature for dissolving, and wall thickness of the printed

formwork. Then, dual-extrusion desktop additive manufacturing was used as a method for

creating a larger form to test the viability of translating this research into architectural

scale applications. This paper describes the background research, materials, methods,

fabrica¬tion process, and conclusions of this work in progress.

1 Image of test cast column

interior.

2 On the left, PVA form with

embedded PLA printed

reinforcement. On the right,

resulting HEC (Rockite) cast

form with embedded PLA reinforcement

after the PVA was

dissolved with water.

1

2024, there is much potential demand for innovations that can

reduce the costs and environmental impacts associated with

concrete design and construction. (Reuters, 2018) Construction of

concrete structures typically relies upon three material systems:

concrete, steel, and formwork. Formwork material and labor

often account for more than 60% of concrete construction costs.

Reducing or eliminating formwork materials and labor costs could

have wide reaching environmental, economic, and design impacts.

This paper focuses on the design and construction potentials of

simultaneously 3D printing tensile reinforcement and water-soluble

formwork. (Figures 1, 2)

Digital Concrete Construction

Architectural and engineering research goals in digital concrete

constructions are varied across scales and design intents. These

range from the design of parametric formwork (Howe, 2013),

to flexible formwork (Peters, 2014), to structural optimization

(Søndergaard, 2012), and full scale concrete printing (Zeeshan,

2016). Recent research in digital construction has focused on

eliminating or reducing the use of formwork through fused deposition

modeling (FDM) of concrete. (Leach, Carlson, Khoshnevis, &

Thangavelu, 2012)

• Placing conventional rebar directly into concrete 3D printed

forms and then completing a second pour of flowable

concrete (Apis-cor, 2019)

• Placing horizontal reinforcement between 3D printed

concrete layers (TotalKustom, 2019)

• Continuously extruding metal cables, or similar, simultaneous

to 3D printed concrete layers (TU Eindhoven, 2019)

• Pre-stressing of reinforcement in conduits and 3D printing

concrete layers around the conduits (Meibodi, et al., 2018)

• Robotically placing or printing reinforcement that also

serves as formwork, then flowable concrete is applied to the

resulting matrix (Hack, et al., 2017)

• Eliminating rebar through internal support frameworks, also

3d printed in concrete, and relying upon extrusion-based

designs (Kuchinskas, 2019)

• Focusing on mastery of 3D printing concrete at the expense

of tensile reinforcement

• Designing geometries which do not require rebar

• Advanced production and robotic placement of reinforcement

(Zeiba, 2019), possibly coupled with simultaneously 3D

printed concrete layers

• Dispersed short fiber reinforced added to the concrete which

is then 3D printed (Hambach & Volkmer, 2017)

The incorporation of tensile reinforcement to concrete additive

manufacturing continues to present design and construction

Nerella et al concluded ‘The mechanical properties of printed

challenges. Strategies for rebar placement in digital construc-

steel reinforcement and their bond to concrete were found to be

tion include the following. This list is adapted from “Incorporating

sufficient for structural applications in concrete construction.”

2

TOPIC (ACADIA team will fill in) 3


(Nerella, Ogura, & Mechtcherine, 2018) However, results from a

complementary paper indicate that Gas Metal Arc Welding (GWAW)

reinforcement simultaneous to concrete pouring is complicated

by the high local temperatures required for metal deposition and

requires cooling the metal to less than 50° Celsius. (Mechtcherine,,

et al., 2018)

Dissolvable 3D Printed Formworks investigates printing a form and

reinforcement simultaneously and then pouring concrete into the

completed print. Instead of focusing on directly printing concrete,

this project aims to test the design potentials latent in the additive

manufacturing of water-soluble formwork coupled with PLA steel

reinforcement. Future research will be conducted on the structural

viability of PLA steel in comparison to standard steel reinforcement

and the feasibility of 3D printed short fiber reinforcement.

This paper poses several questions: Can water soluble formwork

for concrete provide an alternative to traditional concrete formwork

by allowing for greater geometric flexibility (undercuts and

non-planar openings)? Can dual extrusion additive manufacturing

make the placement of complex embedded tensile reinforcements

in concrete formwork possible?

3 Early iterations of printing soluble formwork to the left two images used HIPS

filament and dissolved with D-Limonene and the right two images used water

soluble HIGH-T-LAY.

3

4 Once the use of PVA was established a larger scale (9” / 225 mm diameter) mold

was printed and poured with HEC (Rockite) to determine whether the PVA might

continue to work at a larger scale. The mold was 4” (101 mm) tall and took 58

hours to print at standard resolution or 0.25 mm layer height.

4 5

5 The next step was to attempt to print both PVA and PLA/Steel Filament simultaneously

to determine whether steel reinforcement might be placed within a

geometrically unique formwork. Early tests required the calibration of temperature

settings for the PLA/Steel filament as it was more brittle than the PVA and

more likely to break or fail during prints.

Equipment and Materials

For the purposes of this research the designers created a series

of mock-ups using selected materials that worked with the scale of

available fabrication technology. Materials were selected as scaled

proxies for construction technologies: steel PLA filament (reinforcement),

hydraulic expansion cement (concrete), and polyvinyl

alcohol (PVA) (formwork).

Fabrication Equipment

Fabrication for this project relied upon a desktop LulzBot TAZ 6 3D

printer which bounded the scale of formwork to the constraints of

the print area: 280 mm x 280 mm x 250 mm (11 in x 11 in x 9.8 in).

Despite limiting the size of the prints early iterations took approximately

9 hours to print and the final iteration took approximately

20 hours to print. Additionally, the project required a LulzBot TAZ

Dual Extruder v3 Tool Head which was used to print two filament

types simultaneously at temperatures range of 120- 300° Celsius.

Proto-pasta Steel PLA and eSUN PVA were printed at 220° Celsius.

As research moves into the architectural scale the project will

need to move beyond the desktop scale of fabrication and into

workflows for two recently acquired KR10 robotic arms.

Reinforcement: Steel PLA Filament

This project used 2.85 mm (0.11 inches) Proto-pasta Steel PLA

as a scaled version variable profile steel reinforcement. PLA is a

compound of polylactic acid and finely ground, steel held together

with a polylactide resin. At 2.4 g/cm3 (2400 kg/m3) Steel PLA is

93% more dense than common 3D printing PLA filament, which as

a polylactic acid is a biodegradable and bioactive thermoplastic

aliphatic polyester derived from renewable resources, such as

corn starch, cassava roots, chips, starch, or sugarcane. It prints

at a hot end temperature: 195– 220° C (MSDS Sheet, 2015) As the

filament is at best a simulation of structural reinforcement it is at

present difficult to accurately calculate the modulus of elasticity or

its relationship to that of structural steel (29,000 ksi).

Formwork: Polyvinyl Alcohol Filament

This project used 2.85 mm (0.11 inches) eSUN PVA or Polyvinyl

alcohol, a water-soluble synthetic polymer which is biodegradable

and nontoxic. This filament has a low melting point of 190° Celsius

and begins to undergo an irreversible degradation of the material

known as pyrolysis at temperatures higher than 220° Celsius.

(MSDS Sheet, 2014) It prints on a 60° Celsius heated bed at a slow

printing speed of 30 mm/s. This material requires a brim and glue

stick application to ensure print bed adhesion.

PVA objects will start to dissolve in room-temperature water within

approximately twenty minutes of submersion and at this scale will

completely dissolve within twenty-four hours. Warmer water and

changing the water once it becomes saturated with PVA will speed

dissolving rates. PVA is hygroscopic, meaning it absorbs water

from the air. As a result, it needs to be stored in a sealed container

with desiccant packets. If the filament is left out for an extended

period it would need to be placed in an oven or filament dryer to

reduce the moisture content.

PVA is typically used as a support structure when printing complex

forms with Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) but it can also be

used as a primary filament. Little architectural scholarship is

available about the application of PVA to digital fabrication and no

articles are available on the CUMINCAD database (as of May 2019).

The majority of scholarship about PVA can be found in scientific

and medical journals in pursuit of tissue engineering and bone

regeneration scaffolding. (An, 2015) (Salentijn, 2017) (Shuai, 2013)

As this research evolves into the architectural scale the introduction

of falsework or temporary framework structures, may need

to be introduced to counter the hydrostatic pressure of the filled

formwork.

PVA was selected expressly for its water-solubility – rather than

pursuing any number of materials which could serve as formwork.

For the purposes of this research PVA stands in for a speculative

future where non-toxic, compostable and / or water-soluble

construction materials serve as formwork or self-contained

architectural elements. These materials will serve a pre-determined

purpose, for a specific length of time, then degrade through

exposure to environmental conditions, such as rain, resulting in the

structure being reabsorbed into the surrounding ecosystem.

Concrete: Hydraulic Expansion Cement

Given the small scale of these experiments, concrete mixtures

(sand, gravel, cement, and wa¬ter) were not possible or appropriate.

Instead, Hydraulic Expansion Cements (HEC) were used.

HEC are a combination of sand, cement, and water. They are fast

setting with more than twice the strength of fully cured conventional

concrete with an initial set time of 15-20 minutes. Within one

hour of pouring they develop compression strengths of 31 Mpa

or 4500 psi. Due to outward pressure of hydraulic forces the HEC

when set grips metal to concrete permanently. (About Rockite,

2018) As the research evolves into the architectural scale, the

addition of aggregates is a material constraint which will need to

be addressed.

Parametric Model Design

The parametric model for the project was produced in

Grasshopper with the goal of generating a form which would be

difficult, if not impossible, to cast using traditional mold making

methods or flexible molds. Additionally, the model integrated the

fabrication tolerances of the equipment and materials used in this

research. The model was developed as a tool to be used throughout

the design process, from the first iteration and into future design

proposals.

To begin, the model was bounded to the scale of the LulzBot TAZ

6 print area: 280 mm x 280 mm x 250 mm (11 in x 11 in x 9.8 in).

4



0.75 mm

75 O C

1.00 mm

75 O C

1.25 mm

75 O C

1.50 mm

75 O C

6 Initial tests were conducted using

three temperatures determine

the most suitable for dissolving

PVA. The three temperatures

selected were 25, 50 and 75°

Celsius. The samples dissolved in

the 75° Celsius water dissolved

more rapidly as well as requiring

less frequent water changes. After

twenty-four hours all samples

required further cleaning with a

brush and water. The amount of

cleaning was inversely proportional

to the water temperature.

Different shell thicknesses were

also evaluated: 0.75, 1.00, 1.25,

1.5 millimeters. The thinnest walls

dissolved most rapidly when placed

in the 75° water

7 Early iterations testing PVA shell/

mold thickness and temperature

for dissolving the PVA. From left

to right 0.75, 1.00. 1.25, and 1.5

mm shell/mold thickness and from

bottom to top 25°, 50°, and 75°

Celsius water temperature for

dissolving. The thinnest shell and

highest temperature performed

best

8 Photos of PVA during the dissolving

process of a 1.00 mm shell PVA

cast with HEC in 50° Celsius water.

From left to right: hour 0, 4, 8, and

12. Dissolving completed after 24

hours.

0.75 mm

50 O C

1.00 mm

50 O C

1.25 mm

50 O C

1.50 mm

50 O C

7

0.75 mm

25 O C

1.00 mm

25 O C

1.25 mm

25 O C

1.50 mm

25 O C

6

It would be difficult to remove support structures when printing

with PVA filament therefore our design was limited to a 45-degree

overhang, the angle FDM can print to with no loss of quality. This

limitation informed the designs. To establish the geometry a series

of graph mappers were used to manipulate the rotation and profile

of a range to create the elevation of a series of cylindrical points.

The points were then interpolated, polar arrayed and radially

mirrored around the center of the volume to create an interwoven

design. Resulting curves were subsequently piped. To minimize

the amount of PVA used to create the formwork, the positive was

scaled up to generate the formwork. The scaled formwork was

then differenced from the positive HEC form to produce the PVA

print. This method allowed for quick testing of the shell thickness.

The rebar was inversely scaled to three millimeters. In future iterations

Karamba will be introduced to calculate variable diameters of

the rebar for efficiency and structural integrity. Upon competition

of the design the top face of the rebar was extruded ten millimeters

in the z-axis, so it would protrude from the column and offer a

potential construction method to connect to standard formwork.

FABRICATION TESTS

Testing Dissolvable Filaments

The project began with testing a selection of commercially available

dissolvable filaments: PVA, HIPS, and HIGH T-LAY. Both the HIPS

and HIGH-T-LAY were quickly abandoned in favor the PVA due to

cost, ease of use, and quality of casting outcome. HIPS (High Impact

Polystyrene) required a Limonene solution to dissolve the filament;

the solution is primarily made from the oil of citrus peels and a

small test print took approximately twenty-four hours to dissolve

but was too costly to be used for dissolving large scale molds.

Additionally, long term goals include using only water, not Limonene

to dissolve molds. (HIPS Filament, 2018) HIGH-T-LAY took approximately

two days to dissolve and resulted in chipped edges for the

thinner geometries. (HIGH-T-LAY Filament, 2018). This filament

was not available for purchase in large quantities and was nearly

double the price of PVA. (Figures 3, 4, 5)

Testing PVA

Once the use of PVA was established a larger scale (9” / 225 mm

diameter) mold was printed and poured with HEC (Rockite) to

determine whether the PVA might continue to work at a larger

scale. The mold was 4” (101 mm) tall and took 58 hours to print at

standard resolution or 0.22 mm layer height. As result of the long

8

3D print time, an offset version of the interior geometry of this mold

was produced. This mold greatly decreased the print time and was

just as structurally efficient.

Testing PVA with Steel Filament

The next step was to attempt to print both PVA and Steel Filament

simultaneously to determine whether steel reinforcement might

be placed within a geometrically unique formwork. Early tests

required the calibration of temperature settings for the Steel

filament as it was more brittle than the PVA and more likely to

break or fail during prints. It was determined that in order to have

successful prints with the steel PLA filament, it must be printed

at one-hundred percent infill due to the small scale of the rebar’s

diameter. If this were to be scaled up this would be a factor that

could be modified. Further exploration would need to be conducted

regarding print settings specifically infill and number shells as they

relate to the overall strength of the reinforcement. The location of

the reinforcement was not calculated structurally, rather it was

piped along the center point of each circular cross section. In

future work the introduction of Karamba will allow the location of

the reinforcement to be calculated for efficiency and verified for

structural integrity. These printed prototypes would additional

compression testing to ascertain the optimal formula for increased

strength. As this process is scaled up the utilization of printed steel

might need to exchange for robotically bent rebar. Which could be

placed into the formwork during or after printing.

Testing: Water + Wall Thickness

Three temperatures were selected to determine the most suitable

for dissolving PVA. The three temperatures selected were 25, 50

and 75° Celsius. The samples dissolved in the 75° Celsius water

dissolved more rapidly as well as requiring less frequent water

changes. After twenty-four hours all samples required further

cleaning with a brush and water. The amount of cleaning was

inversely proportional to the water temperature. Different shell

thicknesses were also evaluated: 0.75, 1.00, 1.25, 1.5 millimeters.

The thinnest walls dissolved most rapidly when placed in the 75°

Celsius water. (Figure 6, 7, 8)

FABRICATION PROCESS

The final iteration of this research began with the parametric

model described above and resulted in a form which would be

difficult (possibly impossible) to cast in concrete using existing

subtractive methods of standard or flexible formwork. First, the

digital model was printed in PVA on the LulzBot TAZ 6. Printing took

approximately twenty-four hours to complete a mold 6 inches (150

6

Dissolvable 3D Printed Formwork Doyle and Hunt



print settings also resulted in a striated surface finish due to the

filament absorbing water. Aside from these issues the print and

casting went as expected resulting in a concrete column section of

geometric and formal complexity which would have been difficult to

create using other subtractive casting methods.

Challenges and Limitations

The scalar limitations of PVA are cause for reconsidering this

material for larger prints. Additionally, the complete elimination

of formwork may continue to be more preferable than the introduction

of biodegradable or water-soluble formworks. The most

promising application for these methods might be the augmentation

of - or compositing with -traditional formwork. This would allow

for the development of custom liners or the design of sections of

formwork which could be dissolved to reveal unique moments of

complex geometry within typical concrete construction methods.

10

9

Transitioning from model scale to full-scale will necessitate significant

research and resource investment as well as addressing the

following observations:

9 Photos of the final test process. Clockwise from top left: printing, casting,

cleaning, and soaking.

10 To the left is the embedded reinforcement printed separately for clarity, in the

middle the PVA mold printed separately for clarity, and to the right the PVA

mold printed with embedded reinforcement.

11 Drawings of the final design.

millimeters) in diameter and 4.5 inches (115 millimeters) height at

a standard print resolution (0.22-millimeter layer height). Printing

required 117 grams or 17.4 meters of steel PLA filament (less than

a quarter of a reel of filament) and 235 grams or 29.5 meters of

PVA filament (around a half a reel) to print for a total material cost

of thirty dollars. Next, the mold was filled with a half quart of HEC (5

dollars of Rockite) and left to set for one hour. Then, the mold was

submerged in 75° Celsius water for twenty-four hours at which

point the majority of the PVA had dissolved. The remaining PVA was

then removed with additional warm water and a brush.

The images in Figure 9 demonstrate this process. Establishing and

maintaining proper ‘rebar cover’ minimums and establishing tolerance

protocols will be necessary in future research. The standard

• All of the polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) formwork tests have been

cast using Rockite. Transitioning from model scale to fullscale

will necessitate the integration of concrete containing

aggregate.

• Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) is primarily used in Fused Deposition

Modeling (FDM) as water soluble support and is not a

primary 3D print material, as a result, the amount of purchasable

PVA is limited to 0.5 kg per reel. The lack of a large

amount of material results in the risk of running out of

material mid-print. If this research were to continue a supplier

with a larger amount of material per reel or pellets that were

converted to filament would need be utilized.

• PVA is hygroscopic this can result in problems with regard

to material retraction resulting in stringy prints. This could

be lessened in future trials if the PVA was contained in a

filament dryer or vacuum sealed container while printing.

Due to PVA’s hygroscopic nature discoloration can occur

when switching reels. This discoloration is a result of the

differing amounts of water absorbed by each real. This did

not have any adverse effects with regard to strength or print

resolution.

• The LulzBot TAZ 6 build volume is limited to 280mm x

280mm x 250mm (11 in x 11 in x 9.8 in) as this research

is scaled up with the utilization of industrial robotic arms

(KR-1100-2) will increase available build space

11

8



Conclusions and Next Steps

This research establishes the potential of custom dissolvable

formwork and variable profile steel reinforcement by presenting

an experimental strategy to supplement traditional concrete

construction typologies. New 3D printing materials are currently

being developed and brought to market at a rapid pace, creating

space for material and formal explorations in concrete casting.

The next steps in this research will be the development of structural

simulation protocols for 3D printed filament reinforcement.

Calculations will be based upon the comparative physical testing of

concrete beams for flexural strength (ASTM C293): unreinforced

concrete, steel reinforced concrete, and a selection of 3D printed

filament reinforcement strategies. The resulting structural data

will inform the development of 3D printed reinforcement workflows

for simultaneously printing concrete and reinforcement using

two Kuka KR10 industrial robotic arms working in concert via

Roboteam.

REFERENCES

(2018). Retrieved from About Rockite: http://www.rockitecement.

com/aboutrockite.htm

An, J. J. (2015). Design and 3D printing of scaffolds and tissues.

Engineering 1, no. 2, 261-268.

Apis-cor. (2019, 05 23). Retrieved from Apis Cor - construction

technology,”: http://apiscor. com/en/faq/texnologiya-stroitelstva/.

Hack, Wangler, Mata-Falcón, Dörfler, Kumar, Walzer, . . . Kohler.

(2017). Mesh Mould: An onsite, robotically fabricated, functional

formwork. 11th High Performance concrete and Concrete

Innovation Conference.

Hambach, & Volkmer. (2017). Properties of 3D-printed fiber-reinforced

Portland cement paste. Cement Concrete Composites, 2017.

HIGH T-LAY Filament. (2018). Retrieved from https://

www.matterhackers.com/store/3d-printer-filament/

lay-away-high-t-lay-support-filament-1.75mm

HIPS Filament. (2018). Retrieved from https://www.matterhackers.

com/store/3d-printer-filament/hips-175mm-1kg

Howe, N. (2013). FluidScape: Research in Parametric Concrete

Formwork. Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the

Iberoamerican Society of Digital Graphics (pp. 405 - 409). Chile -

Valparaíso: SIGraDi.

Jipa, A. &. (2017). skelETHon Formwork 3D Printed Plastic

Formwork for Load-Bearing Concrete Structures. XXI Congreso de

la Sociedad Ibero-Americana de Gráfica Digital, (pp. 345-352).

Khoshnevis, H. Y. (2006). Megascale fabrication by contour crafting.

International Journal of Industrial Systems Engineering, 301-320.

Kuchinskas, S. (2019, May 24). Concrete 3D Printed House.

Retrieved from Autodesk Redshift: https://www.autodesk.com/

redshift/concrete-printed-house/

Leach, N., Carlson, A., Khoshnevis, B., & Thangavelu, M. (2012).

Robotic Construction by Contour Crafting:The Case of Lunar

Construction. International Journal of Architectural Computing,

423-438.

Mechtcherine,, V., Grafe, J., Nerella,, V., Spaniol, E., Hertel, M., &

Fussel, U. (2018). 3Dprinted steel reinforcement for digital concrete

constructionManufacture, mechanical properties and bond

behaviour. Construction and Building Materials., 125+.

Leschok, M., . . . Dillenburger, B. (2018). Smart Slab: Computational

Design and Digital Fabrication of a Lightweight Concrete Slab.

Recalibration. On imprecisionand infidelity. [Proceedings of the

38th Annual Conference of the Association for Computer Aided

Design in Architecture (ACADIA), (pp. 434-443). Mexico City, Mexico.

MSDS Sheet. (2014). Retrieved from eSUN PVA: https://www.

lulzbot.com/sites/default/files/msds_esun_pva.pdf

MSDS Sheet. (2015). Retrieved from Proto Pasta Stainless Steel

Filament: https://www.lulzbot.com/sites/default/files/MSDS_

Proto-pasta_Stainless_Steel_PLA.pdf

Nerella, V., Ogura, H., & Mechtcherine, V. (2018). Incorporating reinforcement

into digital concrete construction. Proceedings of the

IASS Symposium 2018 Creativity in Structural Design. Boston, USA.

Odico. (2019, 05 25). Odico. Retrieved from https://www.odico.dk/

Peters, B. (2014). ADDITIVE FORMWORK 3D PRINTED FLEXIBLE

FORMWORK. Design Agency [Proceedings of the 34th Annual

Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in

Architecture (pp. 517-522). Los Angeles: ACADIA 14.

Reuters. (2018, December). Ready-Mix Concrete Market Size To

Reach USD 954.7 Billion By 2024. Retrieved from https://www.

reuters.com/brandfeatures/venture-capital/article?id=69312

Søndergaard, J. F. (2012). Proceedings of the 32nd Annual

Conference of the Association for Computer Aided Design in

Architecture ( (pp. 491-497). San Francisco : ACADIA 12: Synthetic

Digital Ecologies.

Salentijn, G. I. (2017). Fused Deposition Modeling 3D Printing for

(Bio) analytical Device Fabrication: Procedures, Materials, and

Applications. Analytical chemistry 89, no. 13, 7053-7061.

Shuai, C. Z. (2013). Fabrication of porous polyvinyl alcohol scaffold

for bone tissue engineering via selective laser sintering.

Biofabrication 5, no. 1 , 015014.

TotalKustom. (2019, 05 24). Retrieved from 3D-Printed Hotel: http://

www.totalkustom.com/3d-printed-hotel-suite.html

TU Eindhoven. (2019, 05 22). Retrieved from World’s first 3D

printed reinforced concrete bridge opened: www.tue.nl/en/

university/departments/built-environment/news/17-10-2017-

worldsfirst- 3d-printed-reinforced-concrete-bridge-opened/

Zeeshan, A. F. (2016). DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS DUE TO SCALE

EFFECTS IN 3D CONCRETE PRINTING. Parametricism Vs.

Materialism: Evolution of Digital Technologies for Development (pp.

115-124). London: 8th ASCAAD Conference Proceedings.

Zeiba, D. (2019, 05 24). Rebar Bot. Retrieved from Brooklynbased

startup is using robots for rebar assembly The

Architects Newspaper: https://archpaper.com/2019/05/

toggle-rebar-infrastructure-startup-techplus/

Zivkovic, S., & Battaglia, C. (2018). Rough Pass Extrusion Tooling:

CNC Post-processing of 3D-Printed Sub-additive Concrete

Lattice Structures. Recalibration. On imprecisionand infidelity.

[Proceedings of the 38th Annual Conference of the Association for

Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA), (pp. 302-311 ).

Mexico City, Mexico

IMAGE CREDITS

All drawings and images by the authors.

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle AIA is an Assistant Professor of

Architecture at the Iowa State University College of Design and

co-founder of the ISU Computation & Construction Lab (CCL) which

works to connect developments in computation to the challenges of

construction: through teaching, research, and outreach.

The central hypothesis of CCL is that computation in architecture

is a material, pedagogical, and social project. This hypothesis is

explored, through the fabrication of built projects and materialized

in computational practices. The CCL is invested in questioning the

role of education and pedagogy in replicating existing technological

inequities, and in pursuing the potential for technology in architecture

as a space of and for gender equity. Doyle received a Fulbright

Fellowship to Cambodia, a Master of Architecture from the Harvard

Graduate School of Design, and a Bachelor of Science in architecture

from the University of Virginia.

Erin Linsey Hunt twas the 2017-19 ISU Computation &

Construction Lab Associate where she oversaw operations and

conducted research. Her research interests include construction

applications for additive manufacturing technologies, specifically

3D printing. She was an Undergraduate Research Assistant with

the ISU CCL and she holds a Bachelor of Architecture degree from

Iowa State University. She is currently pursuing a Master in Design

Studies in Technology at the Harvard Graduate School of Design.

Meibodi, M., Jipa, A., Giesecke, R., Shammas, D., Bernhard, M.,

10 Dissolvable 3D Printed Formwork Doyle and Hunt



Melting

Augmenting Concrete Columns with Water Soluble 3D Printed

Formwork



Erin Linsey Hunt


HERO IMAGE

1 Image of PVA formwork dissolving off of a cast column.

2 Custom PVA formwork and steel PLA rebar printing on a LulzBot TAZ 6.

3 Interior image of a cast column.

Overview

Melting is a continuation of prior research conducted in the paper “Dissolvable 3D Printed Formwork:

Exploring Additive Manufacturing for Reinforced Concrete” (ACADIA, 2019). The paper proposes

simultaneously printing polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) formwork and steel PLA tensile reinforcement to

produce water soluble concrete formwork with integrated reinforcement. One conclusion of the paper

was that “the complete elimination of formwork may continue to be more preferable than the introduction

of biodegradable or water-soluble formworks. The most promising application for these methods

might be the augmentation of traditional formwork.” The prototypes that follow use the methods

developed in “Dissolvable 3D Printed Formwork” to augment typical concrete construction methods

with moments of unique geometry that would be difficult to fabricate using other concrete formwork

methods. (Asprone 2018)

Custom 3D Printed Formwork

The custom 3D printed formwork was produced using a LulzBot TAZ

6 (build volume of 280 mm x 280 mm x 250 mm) utilizing their Dual

Extruder v3 tool head (Figure 2). The polyvinyl alcohol formwork

was 200 mm in diameter and height. The simultaneously printed

PLA steel reinforcement diameter was 12 mm. A constraint of the

form was the forty-five-degree angle limitation of Fused Deposition

Modeling (FDM) printing. Angles of greater than 45 degrees

would cause loss of print adhesion and require the generation of

supports – which the designers chose to avoid to conserve filament.

(Jipa 2017)The print time for each mold was forty-five hours

and the formwork took forty hours to dissolve in seventy-degree

Celsius water. In addition to being submerged in water cleaning by

hand with a brush was required to remove remaining PVA.

Process + Observations

Three prototypes were developed which combined traditional

formwork fabrication methods with the proposed 3D printed

augmentations.

2



5 Left to right, diagram of Form A column formwork, rendering of column, and elevation denoting the path of the reinforcement.

Form A

The top and base design of this column was created by bounding

the 3D printed PVA formwork. The boundary was then used to find

the curves that touched the top and bottom faces. These curves

were polar arrayed and merged into an outer and center curve

to create the extruded profile. This method was an attempt to

create a smooth transition between the two formwork methods.

These profiles were CNC routed from polystyrene insulation

foam. Additional custom caps at the top and bottom were CNC

routed formwork to hold the 1/2” rebar vertically in position

and to connect the two formwork methods. The top layer of CNC

routed formwork had additional apertures to allow the Hydraulic

Expansion Cement (HEC) to be poured (Figure 5). Although this

method allowed for greater formal cohesion and customization it

took nearly four hours to CNC route for the single prototype. This

formwork was destroyed upon removal and could not be reused

limiting it as a replicable strategy. This column used two-thirds of a

board of polystyrene insulation foam costing twenty dollars.

Form B

These iterations used an eight-inch diameter standard

sonotube augmented with PVA formwork. In addition to the

sonotubes, four custom CNC routed polystyrene insulation

foam caps were created to hold the center off-the-shelf PVC

pipes (used to create a hollow cast), 1/2” rebar, and the 3D

printed formwork. The CNC’d milled caps allowed for the

addition of custom edge qualities such as a chamfer or fillet

to create continuity between the 3D printed formworks and

the sonotube formworks (Figure 6). Two prototypes were

created using this method and a single sonotube costing

nine dollars, allowing for a cheaper and faster method

than only using water-soluble formwork. Form B-1 had

filleted edges (Figure 9) and Form B-2 had chamfered edges

(Figure 10) resulting in different resolution of the connection

between formwork types. These caps were not damaged

upon removal allowing for future reuse. Form B-1 was

cast using Quikrete Fast-Setting Concrete with the aggregate

sifted out of the mix. This mixture resulted in a less

polished surface finish than Form B-2 which was cast using

two-parts fine sand one-part cement and one-part water.

4 Resulting HEC cast column.


4


6 Left to right, diagram of Form B-1+2 column formwork, rendering of column, and elevation denoting the path of the reinforcement.

7 Form B-1 column cast in Quikrete Fast-Setting Concrete with the aggregate

sifted out.

8 Form B-2 column cast using two-parts fine sand one-part cement and

one-part water.

Next Steps + Conclusions

After curing for twenty-eight days each of the columns will be

subjected to crushing test per ASTM C39/C39M to compare the

augmented columns with unreinforced concrete and standard

steel reinforcement columns of the same dimensions.

Future tests will be calibrated for shorter print times. The LulzBot

TAZ 6 Dual Extruder v3 tool head has a standard layer height of

0.22 mm and a nozzle diameter of 0.5 mm. The constraints of this

tool head resulted in long print times due to the need for infill to

allow the print to self-support. In future tests a larger diameter

nozzle could be used to only print a single shell. This modification

would not only reduce the time of the print but allow the PVA to

dissolve at a more rapid rate.

PVA was selected expressly for its water-solubility – rather than

pursuing any number of materials which could serve as formwork.

The work shown here demonstrates that PVA is likely not

the appropriate material to continue for full-scale investigations

– rather it serves as a proof-of-concept. For the purposes of this

research PVA stands in for a speculative future where non-toxic,

compostable, and / or water-soluble construction materials serve

as formwork or self-contained architectural elements. These materials

will serve a pre-determined purpose, for a specific length of

time, then degrade through exposure to environmental conditions,

such as rain, resulting in the structure being reabsorbed into the

surrounding ecosystem.

REFERENCES

Asprone, Auricchio, Menna, Mercuri. 2018. “3D printing of

reinforced concrete elements: Technology and design approach.”

Construction and Building Materials 218–231.

Jipa, Andrei & Dillenburger, Benjamin & Bernhard, Mathias.

2017. “skelETHon Formwork 3D Printed Plastic Formwork for

Load-Bearing Concrete Structures.” XXI Congreso de la Sociedad

Ibero-Americana de Gráfica Digital. 345-352.

See also Doyle and Hunt “Dissolvable 3D Printed Formwork:

Exploring Additive Manufacturing for Reinforced Concrete” ACADIA

2019.

IMAGE CREDITS

All drawings and images by the authors.

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle, AIA is an Assistant Professor of

Architecture at the Iowa State University College of Design and

co-founder of the ISU Computation & Construction Lab (CCL) which

works to connect developments in computation to the challenges

of construction: through teaching, research, and outreach. The

central hypothesis of CCL is that computation in architecture is

a material, pedagogical, and social project. This hypothesis is

explored, through the fabrication of built projects and materialized

in computational practices. The CCL is invested in questioning the

role of education and pedagogy in replicating existing technological

inequities, and in pursuing the potential for technology in architecture

as a space of and for gender equity. Doyle received a Fulbright

Fellowship to Cambodia, a Master of Architecture from the Harvard

Graduate School of Design, and a Bachelor of Science in architecture

from the University of Virginia.

Erin Linsey Hunt was the 2017-19 ISU Computation &

Construction Lab Associate where she oversaw operations and

conducted research. Her research interests include construction

applications for additive manufacturing technologies, specifically

3D printing. She was an Undergraduate Research Assistant with

the ISU CCL and she holds a Bachelor of Architecture degree from

Iowa State University. She is pursuing a Master in Design Studies

in Technology at the Harvard Graduate School of Design.

6 Melting Doyle and Hunt



CYBORG SESSIONS

A Case Study for Gender Equity in Technology

SHELBY DOYLE 1 , LESLIE FOREHAND 2 , ERIN HUNT 3 ,

NICK LOUGHREY 4 , SARAH SCHNEIDER 5 and NICK SENSKE 6

1,2,3,4,5,6 Iowa State University

1,2,3,4,5,6 {doyle|forehand|elhunt|loughrey|schnei|nsenske}@iastate.edu

1. Context and Data

Abstract. This paper discusses the ongoing lack of gender equity in

architecture - specifically the shortfall of women in design technology

- and presents a robotics workshop in the United States as a case study

and method to challenge this inequality. The goals of this paper are to

1.) define a research agenda for documenting and understanding gender

equity in design technology and 2.) to offer evidence-based strategies

from STEM education and this architecture case study for improving the

representation of women in this field.

Keywords. Gender; Equality; Women; Feminism; Robotics.

It is well documented that women are underrepresented in academic and

professional positions that specialize in technology (Corbett and Hill, 2015).

As technology becomes increasingly essential to the practice and discipline of

architecture, underrepresentation threatens to reduce opportunities for women and

the diversity of the workforce. This may have consequences for the quality of

design in the built environment. Participation in technology and its reflection of

(and possible role in promoting) gender inequality within the profession must be

critically examined and countermeasures proposed, tested, and disseminated.

The gender gap in technology is harmful not only to women, but to everyone.

According to technology entrepreneur and activist Judith Owigar, women today

often see themselves as consumers of technology, rather than its creators.

(Newnham, 2016) This has consequences in architecture, when being left behind

in technology can limit one’s participation in the design process and access to

leadership roles. Within the building profession, design technology is an emerging

locus of architectural power: those who control technology have a strong influence

upon architectural practice. (Loukissas, 2012)

T. Fukuda, W. Huang, P. Janssen, K. Crolla, S. Alhadidi (eds.), Learning, Adapting and Prototyping,

Proceedings of the 23 rd International Conference of the Association for Computer-Aided Architectural

Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA) 2018, Volume 1, 71-80. © 2018 and published by the Association for

Computer-Aided Architectural Design Research in Asia (CAADRIA) in Hong Kong.


72 S. DOYLE ET AL.

CYBORG SESSIONS 73

in helping to highlight and address this issue, though it has not led to gender parity

in STEM. To successfully argue for gender equality, detailed and accurate statistics

are needed to move beyond anecdotal evidence.

Figure 1. Cyborg Sessions participants explore the Turtle as a drawing tool. Photo by authors.

Acknowledging the scope of the imbalance is difficult because, presently,

specific data are not being collected about women’s participation in design

technology in architecture, either in practice or in academia. At the moment, the

best indications of the gender gap come from other sources of data. For example, in

2014, statistics released by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture

found that women comprised slightly more than 40 percent of North American

architectural graduates in 2013; 25 percent of designers in the profession; and 18

percent of major design awardees in the 2010s. (ACSA, 2014) However, while

the number of women in the profession of architecture has increased, the number

of women in the field of design technology appears to be disproportionately

small. According to ZweigWhite’s 2013 information technology survey, only 5

percent of technology directors at North American architecture firms are women.

(Davis, 2014) An examination by the authors of recent papers from the Association

for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) found that, in the years

2010-16, twenty-six percent of all co-authors were women and only eight percent

of papers had women as the first or sole author. (Doyle and Senske, 2016)

This is well below the representation of women in architecture, but comparable

to the gender gap found in other technological fields. (Corbett and Hill, 2015)

Unfortunately, there are few other studies focused on this imbalance at the moment.

The current understanding of gender in architecture remains limited, as does our

understanding of how women access and influence technology.

While there is a lack of data collected about this gender gap in architecture,

there is significant STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) research

on the issue which reveals of the overall state of women in technology as a

comparison. STEM data indicates that women are significantly underrepresented

in fields similar to technology in architecture, such as computing majors and

professions. Women currently earn only 18% of all Computer Science degrees

and it is the only STEM major to report a decline in women participation over

the last decade. (NCES, 2016) A 2013 report found that just 26% of computing

professionals were women – a percentage which is about the same as it was in

1960. (Corbett and Hill, 2015) Collection of this data has been an important step

2. Causes

Why does a technology gender gap exist? Research in STEM fields has identified

several possible causes which may parallel those in design. These causes may

have been inherited by architecture in the transfer of knowledge and technique.

In a speech given at the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing

Conference, Susan Wojcicki (CEO of YouTube), proposed two possible reasons

women choose not to study computing: they think it is boring and they do not think

they would perform well at it. (Wojcicki, 2016) From the outside, working with

technology can seem unexciting. Because they lack access to mentoring, clubs,

courses, etc. many young women have not had the opportunity to learn firsthand

how technology can be creative and empowering. Due to socialization and gender

roles, many men begin working with technology from a younger age, which leads

to better performance in technology fields in college. Women who are exposed

to technology in primary school education are much more likely to participate in

STEM majors. (Rogers, 2013) The second reason, concern about performance,

manifests as a lack of confidence in one’s abilities and less willingness to attempt

new or challenging activities. This may be caused by ‘stereotype threat,’ which is

when individuals fear they will confirm a stereotype about a group to which they

belong. This has been shown to affect performance and to impact decisions. In

this manner, negative stereotypes about women’s performance in math and science

are thought to be a factor in the inequality found in computing fields. (Corbett and

Hill, 2015)

There is no evidence that women are less capable users or creators of

technology. To the contrary, data shows that women have the qualifications

and test scores to join STEM-related subjects and perform well when they do.

(Fisher and Margolis, 2002) Furthermore, history is filled with great pioneers

of computing such as Ada Lovelace, Joan Clark, and Margaret Hamilton who

demonstrate women’s capabilities in the field. Ability is not the deciding factor.

Many women choose not to study technology because they find its values to be

insular and antisocial. They do not feel that a career in technology will allow them

to collaborate with other people or make things which create social good. Another

aspect of this is the male-centered gamer culture of today that emerged out of

early personal computing, which can appear inaccessible to women ‘outsiders.’

As Wojcicki explains, when it comes to technology, many women today feel that

they do not belong, and because of this, they do not want to belong. (Wojcicki,

2016) The problems discouraging women from participating in technology are

cultural and institutional. Education, which has traditionally held the power to

shape culture and produce equality, is part of the solution and redistribution of

technology access and authorship.


74 S. DOYLE ET AL.

CYBORG SESSIONS 75

3. Precedent Workshops

One of the ways that STEM fields address their gender gaps is through the creation

of technology workshops. The idea is to create opportunities specifically for

women, who may not feel comfortable or encouraged in more traditional settings.

For example, Girls Garage is a high school program in Berkley, California where

students learn about design and construction through hands-on activities. The

founders acknowledged that ‘as female instructors, we recognized that our young

girls were not reaching their full potential in the co-ed classroom’. After creating

a female-only workshop, 85% of enrolled female participants said they were

more interested in STEM fields. (Pilloton, 2017) Girls Who Code is another

organization that teaches computer science to 6-12th grade girls. By 2014, 95% of

the 3,000 students who completed an intensive Girls Who Code course went on to

major in computer science. (Dockterman, 2014) Other STEM workshops, such as

the NSF-funded TechBridge camps, led to increased interest in engineering and

awareness of green- and electrical-engineering concepts. Compared to control

groups, twice as many girls who attended TechBridge camps said they would

like to become engineers. (Sammet and Kekelis, 2016) Improving women’s

confidence in their abilities and increasing their interest are two ways that

workshops can improve the participation of women in technology.

4. Case Study

To begin to address the inequality of women in technology at their institution,

the authors developed and taught a workshop in the fall of 2017, entitled Cyborg

Sessions: Women in Robotics. The term cyborg was used to specifically draw

connections between architectural technology scholarship and feminist discourse,

specifically the work of scholar Donna Haraway who popularized the term. The

cyborg is a hybrid creature, machine and organism, a being of social reality as well

as science fiction. As a popular trope of feminist scholarship, the cyborg allows a

thing to be “both/and”-a condition that resists the binary nature of computational

ones and zeros. Additionally, the cyborg is the integration of human and machine,

or a name for what occurs when a robot and human collaborate to produce a

creative outcome.

Robots were selected as the primary technology because they represent a form

of literal empowerment - allowing women to overcome real and perceived physical

limitations that may create, or perpetuate, gender bias. In this context, robots were

considered co-authors rather than mere tools or ‘servants’. Through this workshop,

the participants identified and pursued methods for investigating the potentials of

creative expression via robotics.

The authors looked to a broad range of 21st century feminist discourses about

technology to situate the workshop: from techno-feminism to cyber feminism

to fourth wave feminism. An important conclusion of the research was an

understanding of feminism which does not mean only ‘of and by women’ but

looks to a full gradient of potential across a diverse and intersectional set of

authors. Additionally, feminist work - that which generates a more just and equal

environment - can be produced by authors which do not identify as female. Perhaps

it is a limitation of current language but in the future the term feminism might be

used interchangeably with inclusion.

Specifically, the authors drew inspiration from a term they introduced

at the 2017 ACADIA conference: Computational Feminism, which is an

evolution of feminism and a reaction to the gender biases present in most

technologically-focused work found in architecture today. (Doyle et al, 2017)

The objectives of Computational Feminism are 1) exploring the full gradient of

possibilities technologies offers 2.) enhancing the subjective and intuitive as a

counterpoint to methods and devices that have control as a mechanism or goal and

3.) the exploration and production of joy and pleasure as opposed to economies

of optimization and bravado expressions of virtuosity. A key provocation of this

workshop - which elevated it above merely learning to code for its own sake - was

the question of how making with robots can represent a perspective and process

that is female. The vehicle for the students’ investigations were the traditions

of drawing and painting - with their histories, conventions, and agendas - which

served as the interface between the roboticist and robot.

4.1. OVERVIEW

The Cyborg Sessions workshop met once per week over six weeks in the fall

of 2017. It was taught by three faculty and three student workers from the

Iowa State University Computation and Construction Lab (CCL). There were

twenty-one student participants (undergraduates and graduates) from six different

majors: Architecture, Graphic Design, Electrical Engineering, Industrial Design,

Integrated Studio Arts, and Chemical Engineering. Although, the workshop was

advertised for women and women received first priority for attendance, it was

not exclusively offered to women. Five men attended the workshop. However,

women remained the majority participants (76%).

Figure 2. Left - Turtle robots drawing patterns with loops and variables. Right a Turtle robot

and Braccio Arm. Photo by authors.

The workshop consisted of two three-week projects followed by a public

lecture and exhibition. Each week, the students met in the CCL to hear lectures

about women in technology, computer programming, and robotics. Then they


76 S. DOYLE ET AL.

CYBORG SESSIONS 77

worked with partners to operate their robots and make their drawings and paintings.

At the end of each session, the students met to discuss their work and prepare for

the following week. Students did not work on their projects outside of the weekly

sessions.

4.2. PROJECT 1: “PLAYING TURTLE”

The authors were concerned that gender stereotypes would continue to play a

role in the workshop. Thus, the first project began with a discussion about the

challenges of gender inequality as experienced by women in technology. This

was important because it framed the workshop as not just learning to make things

with robots but doing so as a method for building a culture of engaging with these

technologies through design. The students’ concerns were different. While they

were excited for the opportunity to learn about programming and robotics, in a

pre-class survey 75% of them reported some form of apprehension or anxiety

about their potential performance in the workshop. Understanding and addressing

student expectations is a critical to helping students get the most from these events.

For their first project, students learned the basic syntax and logics of computer

programming while becoming comfortable with the rhythms of making through

cycles of writing, compiling, and testing their code. The vehicle for their

experimentation is a class of robot called a “Turtle.” These low-cost robots were

assembled by the CCL staff from in-house 3D printed parts, electronics purchased

online, and open source Arduino code. (Olsen, 2015) The focus of the first project

was to gain confidence with the technology while interrogating the potentials of

drawing. This blend of the unfamiliar and familiar allowed the designers to reflect

upon how drawing with a robot is different from drawing with the hand and how

their pre-judgements about code affected their strategies.

Turtles appeared to be an ideal first robot for this group. A classic pedagogical

tool created by Seymour Papert at MIT, they were designed to teach children

how to think computationally. Turtles have a “head” and “tail” and use simple

instructions to move around a surface on two wheels while leaving a trail behind

them with a marker. Students learn to program a Turtle by pretending to “be” the

Turtle, connecting their sense of their own body in space with that of the robot’s.

Thus, “playing turtle” is a profound way to bridge human and machine in the

fundamental design act of drawing. (Papert, 1986)

The students quickly engaged with the Turtle robots and their code. One of the

first things they discovered was that each Turtle had its own “personality” with its

unique mechanical calibration, such as moving faster or turning more accurately.

This led to students giving them names and talking with their robots as they worked.

Another interesting finding was that the relatively slow speed of the Turtles forced

students to be more disciplined and thoughtful in their approaches. The immediate

feedback loops found in design software - which students are used to experiencing

- were not there. Students would often express surprise at the slowly emerging

designs from their code. Oftentimes, if there were bugs in the code, they were

more likely to allow the robot to finish and to observe the process rather than

immediately starting over. As time went on, they began to incorporate ideas from

buggy code into their compositions.

Figure 3. Braccio arms were set in a plywood apparatus to create a limited reach for the

painting arm. Photo by authors.

The first code students started with involved letters, shapes, and other

forms that students tried to translate into Turtle drawings. Translation was

a useful beginning exercise because it allowed the instructors and students to

debug initial problems and misunderstandings with hardware and syntax. These

misunderstandings proved to be teaching opportunities as well. Once students

could reliably create forms, they were free to move on to more complex algorithms

with randomness, looping, and recursion. They began to create more sophisticated

compositions with code as well as different physical interventions with the Turtles:

different markers, taped areas, borders, etc. Each student group created three final

drawings for exhibition.

4.3. PROJECT 2: “DANCES WITH ROBOTS”

The objectives of the second project were to further develop confidence with

robotics and to move away from the precision of drawing to the indeterminacy

and expressiveness of painting. For this project, students used Tinkerkit Braccio

robotic arms. These are low-cost kits that feature a 4-axis arm with a gripper

attachment. CCL instructors and staff pre-assembled the arms, attached foam

brushes to the grippers, and constructed a base for each robot that held a canvas

and locations for acrylic paint. The code for the Braccio robots was written in

Arduino and allowed for individual movements of each axis.

The experience with the Braccio arms was markedly different from the Turtle

robots. First, the arms could be intimidating as they moved quickly and close to the

participants bodies - sometimes flinging paint in their direction. Second, the arms

did not have an inverse kinematics (IK) library, so fine control and initiating loops

and other algorithms was more difficult than with the Turtles. A research assistant

programmed a macro script that allowed students to record a series of steps, and

this helped. However, without the IK library, applying continuous strokes to the

flat canvas was difficult because the robot was configured to move in a circle.


78 S. DOYLE ET AL.

CYBORG SESSIONS 79

Students found that the brushes would not stay on the canvas and sometimes would

detach from the gripper. While the cycle of coding, compiling, and running their

code remained the same, the number of variables with the equipment increased.

The students came to expect a degree of precision with the Turtle robots and this

experience challenged their perception.

Fortunately, the students persevered and taught themselves different methods

of working with the robots to achieve their ideas. Some of them changed their

painting styles, limiting them to smaller areas of the canvas or moving the canvas

after each series of strokes. Mixing the paint colors on the canvas and loading the

brush with multiple colors were other ways that the students took advantage of

the medium to create different, indeterminate effects. Learning to negotiate with

the robots was an unexpected challenge, but resulted in work that was spontaneous

and expressive; closer to the attributes of Computational Feminism than the Turtle

experiments. Rather than merely using the robots to execute instructions, the

”play” in the system and differences in their approaches made each students’ work

unique.

5. Methodology

In addition to teaching students about computing and robotics, the authors were

interested in understanding the impact of the workshop upon the attendees’

self-perception and their overall perceptions of women in technology in

architecture. To study this, the authors created two rounds of surveys, which were

administered online and anonymously, to measure the changes in student attitudes

and beliefs in response to their workshop experience. The pre-class survey

recorded data from sixteen students (12 female). Thirteen students completed the

post-class survey (9 female).

6. Analysis

The authors found that students‘ confidence in their technological abilities grew

following the workshop. Of the initial surveyed students, 94% of students initially

said they were a little confident, not confident, or unsure about programming. 82%

said they were a little confident, not confident, or unsure in their ability to work

with robots. Following the workshop, nearly 50% of students surveyed reported

they were confident or very confident in their abilities with computer programming

and robotics. Only one student reported they were not confident or unsure. The

survey instrument did not determine the source of the students’ lack of confidence

- whether it was from a perceived stigma about performance (such inherited bias

from computing or ‘stereotype threat’ (Corbett and Hill, 2015)) or from other

personal anxieties. In future workshops, we hope to study this further.

A majority of the students, regardless of gender, changed some of their attitudes

about women’s relationship to technology. Before the workshop, about half of our

students (46%) surveyed felt there were no gender differences in people’s ability

to learn and use technology; one-third were unsure. Following the workshop, no

students were unsure and 82% of those survey felt there were no differences.

All the students attending the workshop reported that they would be more likely

to take advanced technology courses (robotics, programming, digital fabrication,

etc.) in the future. 73% of students said they would work again with the robots on

their own. All the students who responded to the question “Do you feel that events

like our workshop are an effective way of improving gender parity in your field?”

agreed workshops were effective.

A potential issue with the survey methodology is that the anonymous format

makes it difficult to determine how the gender of the participant affected their

answers. In light of the STEM reports from all-women workshops, it would be

useful see if a single-gendered demographics would result in different data for an

architecture workshop. However, the overall trends for the workshop in the case

study - which are statistically significant - are positive. These findings compare

favorably with the results of other STEM workshops and suggest that events like

Cyborg Sessions can serve as means of facilitating gender equity in technology.

7. Discussion

From the case study, it appears that workshops like Cyborg Sessions are one way to

address gender equity in design technology by providing a supportive environment

and opportunities for women. This paper proposes a research agenda aimed at

describing and correcting the gender gap, but there are many remaining questions

to be answered.

One issue is that specific data are not being collected about technology and

gender in architectural practice or in academia. Determining the meaning of

participation with respect to technology is a challenge which prevents accurate

measurement. Participation is a nuanced and ill-defined measure, even in

architecture, but must be addressed if we are to understand and convey the true

scope of the issue. Data collection efforts from STEM fields could serve as a

model.

Another important strategy for addressing the gender gap is to highlight

successful women in technology. Many of our students cited their time with

Madeline Gannon as their favorite part of the event and the moment when the

ideas of the workshop most connected with them. A lack of women role models

is a known issue in STEM. Studies have shown that when students are exposed to

histories of women in technology, it reduces stereotyping and bias and encourages

women to enter the field. (Corbett and Hill, 2015)

8. Conclusion

Within the discipline, digital technology is an emerging site of architectural

influence. This topic matters because architecture is imbued with values and ideas

that both reflect and exert tremendous influence over the patterns and quality of our

lives. This paper described some initial data on gender inequalities and introduced

STEM research on the scope and causes of the problem. The authors’ case study of

a Women in Robotics workshop applied the model of a STEM women’s workshop

to a group of undergraduate and graduate designers. Surveys of the twenty-one

multi-disciplinary participants indicated that the workshop improved confidence

in their abilities, encouraged them to pursue more technology, and reduced their


80 S. DOYLE ET AL.

stereotypes about women in technology.

STEM workshop models were not directly replicated but rather adapted to

the design-specific contexts through the use of creative design outcomes via

technology: drawing and painting. By presenting robotic technology as a creative

medium, rather than a tool of efficiency its application to design potentials became

more legible to the students. What remains to be seen is whether these strategies

can be scaled and applied to curricula and practice.

The authors hope that other institutions and individuals will find our examples

useful and take up the charge to develop this work further. Improving gender

equity in technology access and authorship will improve education and design by

embracing the full gradient of possibilities for design technology.

References

Corbett, C. and Hill, C.: 2015, Solving the Equation: the variables for women’s success in

engineering and computing., The American Association of University Women.

Davis, D.: 2014, “Where Gender Inequity Persists in Architecture: the Technology Sector” .

Available from <http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/where-gender-inequity-persis

ts-in-architecture-the-technology-sector_o> (accessed 8 February 2017).

Dockterman, E.: 2014, “Cracking the Girl Code: How to End the Tech Gender Gap” . Available

from <http://time.com/3062885/girls-who-code-google-facebook/> (accessed 15 February

2017).

Doyle, S., Forehand, L. and Senske, N.: 2017, Computational Feminism: Searching for Cyborgs,

Disciplines and Disruptions: Proceedings of the 2017 Association for Computer Aided

Design in Architecture (ACADIA) Conference, 2041 Duff Ave., 232-237.

Doyle, S. and Senske, N.: 2016, Identifying Inequalities: Gender, Technology, Architecture,

Proceedings of the 2017 Architectural Research Centers Consortium National Conference,

Salt Lake City, UT. USA, 56-62.

Fisher, A. and Margolis, J.: 2002, Unlocking the Clubhouse: the Carnegie Mellon experience,

ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 79-83.

Newnham, D.: 2016, Female Innovators at Work: Women on Top of Tech, Apress, New York.

Olsen, K.: 2015, “Low-Cost, Arduino-Compatible Drawing Robot” . Available from <http:

//www.instructables.com/id/Low-Cost-Arduino-Compatible-Drawing-Robot/> (accessed 8

August 2017).

Papert, S.: 1986, Beyond the Cognitive: The other face of mathematics, Epistemology &

Learning Group, Media Lab, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology..

Pilloton, E.: 2017, “Girls Garage – History: Our Impact” . Available from <http://girlsgarage.

org/about/history/> (accessed 14 September 2017).

Rogers, M.: 2013, “Why Students Study STEM.” . Available from <https://www.insidehigher

ed.com/news/2013/10/01/study-finds-math-and-science-exposure-has-significant-impact-i

ntent-study-stem> (accessed 4 February 2017).

Sammet, K. and Kekelis, L.: 2016, Changing the Game for Girls in STEM: Findings on High

Impact Programs and System-Building Strategies., TechBridge.

National Center for Education Statistics, initials missing: 2016, “Table 322.50. “Bachelor” .

Available from <https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_322.50.asp?current=

yes> (accessed 20 March 2017).

Wojcicki, S.: 2016, “Closing the Tech Industry Gender Gap” . Available from <http://www.h

uffingtonpost.com/susan-wojcicki/tech-industry-gender-gap_b_9089472.html> (accessed 5

February 2017).


Computational Feminism

Searching for Cyborgs

Shelby Doyle


Leslie Forehand


Nick Senske


1

ABSTRACT

As computational design matures, the discipline is in a position to address an increasing number

of cultural dimensions: social, political, and ethical. This paper examines the gender gap in computational

design and proposes an agenda to achieve gender equality. Data from architectural

publications and the CumInCAD database provide metrics for measuring the segregation between

feminist and computational discourse. Examples of feminist theory establish possible entry points

within computational design to bridge the gaps in gender equity and representation. Specifically,

the authors re-examine 1990s networked feminism in relation to the computational culture of

today. The paper concludes with a proposed definition of Computational Feminism as a social,

political, and ethical discourse. This definition appropriates Donna Haraway’s cyborg as its symbolic

instrument of equality.

1 No more hits: 22 April 2017

CumInCAD publications database

search term results for ‘feminism’.

Screenshot by authors.

232


INTRODUCTION

Equality necessitates a discourse of disruption. It requires space

to be made for processes, voices, and ideas where space previously

did not exist. The notion of the cyborg provides this space,

giving a name and agency to the in-between. A hybrid creature,

machine and organism, the cyborg is a being of social reality as

well as science fiction. In the following account, a new kind of

cyborg occupies a particular and unexplored space that both

critiques and expands the field of computational design. This

disruptive cyborg is the foundation of Computational Feminism.

As a popular trope of feminist scholarship, the cyborg allows

a thing to be “both/and”—a condition that resists the binary

nature of computational ones and zeros. The cyborg embraces

emergence and ecologic processes and challenges the modernist

rhetoric of precision and predictability in architectural design.

Background

In 1844, Marx wrote that between women and men: “it is

possible to judge from this relationship the entire level of the

development of mankind" (quoted in Hearn 1991, 227). Today,

technology is taken as an indication of society’s development.

Technology is a broad term but used here to indicate computational

tools and methods specific to architecture. This paper

advances the argument that technology is a gender equity

issue. Technological changes have everything to do with who

benefits and who does not; whose opportunities increase and

whose decrease; who creates and who accommodates. That

being said, it is impossible and intellectually dangerous to claim

a general theory of inequity as caused by technological change.

However, in pursuit of specificity, we can explore the relationships

between feminist scholarship and computational design in

architecture as a means of explicating the relationships between

technological change and gender inequities. For example, in

her essay "Parametric Schizophrenia," Peggy Deamer describes

certain stereotypes of those who attend computational design

conferences and participate within the field:

…parametric conferences are populated by young hipsters dressed

in black, showing images of their digitally fabricated screens

or rendered bas-reliefs; BIM conferences by older, suit-and-tie

office-types explaining diagrams of complex buildings, hospital

HVAC systems being a particular favorite. (Deamer 2015, 179)

While doing so, she implies that these stereotypical figures

are nearly all male. It is well-documented that, as a discipline,

architecture has been slow to fully record, acknowledge, and

incorporate the work of women (Chang 2014). As computational

culture evolves, this shortcoming becomes increasingly apparent.

Within the discipline, digital technology is an emerging source of

architectural influence: those who control the process of design

through technology control architecture and, by proxy, the built

environment. This topic matters because architecture is imbued

with values and ideas that both reflect and exert tremendous

influence over the patterns and quality of our lives.

While many types of inequality exist with respect to technology

and architecture, such as race and class, this paper will focus

on the specific aspect of gender inequality. As technology is

now essential to the practice and discipline of architecture, the

ability to create with and shape technology is critical. In some

respect, the lack of women specializing in design technology is

unsurprising given that the practice combines fields that have

historically been lacking in gender equity: management, information

technology, computer science, and architecture. The goals

of this paper are (1) to reveal gender inequality as an attribute

of the current practice of computational design and (2) to begin

to address gender inequality by moving beyond the anecdotal

and into a constructive research agenda. This paper temporarily

extracts gender equality from the history of queer theory, the

experience of non-white women, and intersectionality (the

interconnection of race, class, and gender). This extraction does

not intend to deny these issues but rather aims to create a wellscoped

and focused analysis that can provide methodologies for

more comprehensive future research.

Context

Architecture has yet to fully acknowledge that its gender equity

problem also extends to those who engage with technology. A

reason for this could be that there is no direct evidence that such

a gap exists; for many in the profession the truth of this proposition

is unsubstantiated and remains wholly anecdotal. While the

current evidence may be anecdotal, the presence of this gender

gap is supported, in part, by an examination of papers from the

Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA).

In the years from 2010–16, 26 percent of all co-authors were

women and only 8 percent of papers had women as the first or

sole author (Figure 2).

The gender of the authors and participants is not the only

asymmetry; rarely are issues of feminism or women in architecture

addressed in technology-based architectural scholarship.

CumInCAD is a cumulative index of publications about

computer-aided architectural design and includes bibliographic

information and abstracts (not full text), drawn from approximately

12,300 records from journals and conferences such

as ACADIA, ASCAAD, CAADRIA, eCAADe, SiGraDi, CAAD

futures, DDSS, and others (CumInCAD 2017). Simple searches

of the available databases demonstrate this imbalance: one

entry relating to "feminism," seven entries reference "women" or

"female," and thirteen entries for "gender." The database is not,

however, void of other political or social ideologies; search terms

such as "political," for example, flagged sixty-one articles (Figure

1).

Our findings suggest that a gender imbalance exists in the field of

computational design. This imbalance is not unique to the field.

Indeed, it is reflective of architecture as a whole. Women in the

United States are historically underrepresented in the building

professions, constituting 15–18 percent of the workforce in

architecture, 4.5–13.7 percent in engineering, and 2.6 percent in

construction (Beverly Mills 2015). In academia, gender participation

in technology is difficult to determine. At the authors’

institution, while 49 percent of architecture students are women,

on average they make up only 19 percent of the students in

technology electives and seminars. While the number of women

participating in architecture is not at parity with men, the number

of women participating in technology in architecture appears to

be lower still.

Although increasing numbers of women trained as architects

during the twentieth century, women in the twenty-first

century still remain largely outside the power hierarchies of the

profession. This gender imbalance may at last be successfully

challenged in the twenty-first century through the mechanism

of technological agency. In 1992, a trend that Mario Carpo calls

the "digital turn" began, marking the integration of computation

into architectural design (Carpo 2012). Twenty-five years into

this turn, architecture has been transformed by new technologies

that offer disruptive potentials in material practice.

It is the suggestion of the authors that one of the most

fundamental disruptions necessary within technology-based

architectural scholarship is the integration of discourses

about ethics, and specifically related to gender. These

dialogues coalesce into a new speculative space that we term

Computational Feminism. Feminist theory has a long and sometimes-conflicted

relationship with technology and digital media.

The next section introduces several theoretical frameworks that

address the evolution of the relationship between technological

and feminist discourses since the 1970s.

Though feminist scholarship has paid great attention to

2

technology and its impacts upon a rapidly changing society,

conversely technology (we use the term broadly), and specifically

computational design, have not shared this interest. Feminist

scholarship can play a role here as it is interdisciplinary by its very

nature. When feminist scholars began to explore women’s roles

in culture and society, and the ideologies that shape women,

these investigators were forced to draw upon many disciplines—

among them, history, psychology, sociology, anthropology, and

literature—all of which were and are engaged in similar pursuits.

While feminist scholarship can make no claim to moral superiority

in this regard, it can bring a perspective to this pursuit that

widens and disrupts disciplinary viewpoints.

2 The graph indicates the number of

papers authored or co-authored by

women in a selection of popular

architecture conferences. Gender

was identified by the pronouns

used in author biographies.

ACADIA has approximately 20%

fewer women co-authoring papers

than ARCC (Architectural Research

Centers Consortium) or NCBDS

(National Conference on the

Beginning Design Student) and 15%

fewer than ACSA (Association of

Collegiate Schools of Architecture).

This percentage has changed very

little during the last decade. Data

collection and graph by authors.

ACADIA 2017 | DISCIPLINES + DISRUPTION

233

234

Computational Feminism Doyle, Forehand, Senske


BETWEEN FEMINISM + TECHNOLOGY

The following frameworks question the content, methodology,

epistemology, and values of both fields: computational design

and feminism, in search of overlaps: both/and. Technological

determinism argues that the features of technology determine

its use and it is the role of society to adapt and benefit from

technological change. The counterargument, drawn from social

determinism, is that society is responsible for technological

development and deployment, as well as the distribution of

technological benefits within a society. Computational Feminism

relies upon the narrative of social determinism—that society, and

in this case the discipline of architecture, constructs the how,

why, and who of technology.

1970s–1980s: Techno-Feminism

Techno-feminism emerged in the 1970s out of feminist movements

within the sciences. The movement explored three forms

of technological meaning: technology as a form of knowledge,

the social obligation to understand, create, and use technology,

and its expansion beyond the verbal and mathematical to that

which required visual and tactile interactions. Early Technofeminism

focused on implications of technological artifacts upon

the lives of women, specifically women’s work. Technologies such

as word processors in offices were the focus of early research,

as these machines replaced or altered labor that was specifically

female. Housework became the repository for domestic technologies

perceived as liberating women: programmable washers

and dryers, robotic vacuums, and the like. At the same time,

feminist perspectives tended to view most new technologies as

destructive and oppressive to women: because men dominate

technology, it is in some sense inherently patriarchal.

In the eighties, feminists began to reject the notion of equitable

treatment in technology, dismissing its neutrality and exploring

its gendered character. Arguing that Western technology is

inherently patriarchal, the feminist critique evolved from asking

the "woman question" in technology, and began to explore the

"technology question" in feminism, addressing the masculine

domination and control of women and nature. Rather than a

neutral technology, feminists argued for technology based on

women’s values (Wajcman 1991). In Joan Rothschild’s preface to

a collection on feminist perspectives on technology, she writes:

"Feminist analysis has sought to show how the subjective, intuitive

and irrational can and do play a key role in our science and

technology" (Rothschild 1983).

As an evolution of Techno-feminism, Computational Feminism

recognizes that technologies are not neutral and that the

creation of new and different technologies by women is one way

that technology can represent gender, rather than rejecting or

ignoring it. In particular, computational processes and artifacts

authored by women might enhance the subjective and intuitive—a

process-driven or indeterminate technology that serves

as a counterpoint to methods and devices that have control as a

mechanism or objective. At the same time, female computational

designers can take up the mantle of “women’s work” as a positive,

rather than a pejorative, and reconnect with craft traditions

such as weaving, sewing, and ceramics through digital fabrication

and robotics.

1990s: Cyberfeminism

Cyberfeminism emerged at multiple discreet locations in the

1990s and addressed the changing conditions of the Information

Age. Posed to challenge again the political and social conditions

of feminism, cyberfeminism developed as a range of interventions

in response to the notion of society as a networked

condition. Cyberfeminist agendas were vast, ranging from

patriarchy-smashing video games, feminist virtual spaces, and

the recovery of shadow histories of feminist technologists. The

Cyberfeminist Manifesto for the 21st Century—produced by the

VNS Matrix, a collaboration between Josephine Starrs, Julianne

Pierce, Francesca da Rimini and Virginia Baratt in Adelaide,

Australia—was a multimedia project that vividly expressed the

emerging political position of cyberfeminism. The Manifesto saw

new technology as an opportunity to disrupt society’s patriarchal

norms, and to have fun doing it. At the same time, Sadie Plant, a

cultural theorist in the United Kingdom, began to use the term

"cyberfeminist" to describe her academic focus on technology in

Western society (Reiche and Kuni 2004).

While Computational Feminism connects with ideas about

feminine technology and the democratization of access, it also

supports and promotes alternative, subversive, and counter-agendas

towards the diversification of computational design.

As discussed in a later section, the notion of the cyborg, as both

a hybrid of human and machine and a post-gendered condition,

factors largely in the ambit of this proposed and latest wave of

feminism.

2000s: Fourth-Wave Feminism

Fourth-wave feminism arose from the growing pains of a

maturing information society. An attempt to capture the specific

feminism of the contemporary world, it includes analysis of body

shaming, online media, online misogyny, intersectionality, social

media technology for communication and online petitioning

and organizing, and explores the sharing of individual experiences

as a method for achieving a collective voice and political

legitimacy. An architectural example of the latter is the energization

of gender discussions caused by the rejected petition to

the Pritzker Architecture Prize that demanded recognition for

Denise Scott Brown as an equal in her work with Robert Venturi

(Women in Design 2013). With respect to fourth-wave feminism,

Computational Feminism embraces social justice, which is often

missing in narratives about technology today. Equality is one

component of Computational Feminism, but it also includes the

application of technology towards just ends for the benefit of all

and not only a privileged few. Simultaneously, Computational

Feminism advocates for the exploration and production of joy

and pleasure as opposed to advocating for economies of optimization

and bravado expressions of virtuosity. Rather than serve

profit or novelty for its own sake, Computational Feminism gives

space to experiences of collectivity and wonder.

2010s & Now: Computational Feminism

A renewed interest in feminism’s relationship to technology can

be seen in books such as The Politics of Parametricism: Digital

Technologies in Architecture, conferences such as the recent

Architecture Humanities Research Association's Architecture

& Feminisms, and the work of organizations such as Equity by

Design (EQxD 2016; Parlour 2016; ArchiteXX 2016).

In an effort to find a conceptual entry point the authors offer the

following definition, built upon the conceptual frameworks of

twentieth-century feminism:

Computational Feminism is a transdisciplinary field which grew

out of the first twenty-five years of the digital turn. It continues

to develop new theories on how politics of gender and other

identity markers are interconnected to resulting processes of

technical change, and the power relations of the globalized,

material world. It is a descendant of the 1990s discourses of

technofeminism and cyberfeminism that emerged in relationship to

the development of network conditions and theories in architecture

and urbanism.

Naming an idea gives it power and provides it with the opportunity

to exist. Thus, Computational Feminism initiates an

alternative discourse that advances the field of gender equality

while harnessing the tools of computation as tools of social and

economic equality.

Materializing Cyborgs

Feminist discourses manifest different visions of cyborgs as a tool

for testing the relationships between humans and technology.

In 1985, Donna Haraway, who challenged notions of feminist

focuses on identity politics, urged feminists to move towards

a post-human condition beyond the limitations of traditional

gender, feminism and politics. Specifically, "The cyborg does not

dream of community on the model of the organic family, this

time without the oedipal project. The cyborg would not recognize

the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream

of returning to dust” (Haraway 1990). Haraway’s cyborg is the

"illegitimate child" of every binary: dominant society and oppositional

social movements, users and used, human and machine,

subject and object, "first" and "third" worlds, male and female. In

Zeros + Ones: Digital Women + The New Technoculture, Sadie Plant

reclaims technology for women in her depiction of Ada Lovelace,

the disputed creator of programming who is historically absent

from computational discourses. Epitomized in Lovelace, Plant’s

cyborg "did everything topsy-turvy, certainly thought to have

come into the world feet downwards," highlighting the female

creative process, and that the absence of these processes was

necessary for the unspoken language of early programming

(Plant 1997). Plant’s cyborg focuses on the necessity of women’s

language, and serves as a keystone of the cyberfeminist agenda.

Emerging technologies and methods provide an alternative to

determinism and efficiency while offering new forms of expression.

For example, the computational-feminist-cyborg celebrates

the free-flowing language of autonomous robotic construction,

exemplifying Lovelace’s creative processes.

CONCLUSIONS

“…this is a revolutionary agenda, for today very few

people—women or men—control our tools and our work…”

Joan Rothschild, Machina Ex Dea

Women’s relationship to technology is complicated, contradictory,

and itself a social construct. It provokes fresh possibilities

for feminist and computational scholarship, and perhaps even

action. In the twenty-five years since the digital turn, advances

in technology have delivered unprecedented possibilities to

architects, enabling new expressions, performance, materials,

fabrication and construction processes. However, during this

time, more attention has been paid to the "how?" of architecture’s

digital technology and less to the "why?" As computational

culture evolves, the moment has come for a new digital turn.

Now is the time to pause and reflect upon which discourses

are missing from the narrative of computational design and

which are necessary to navigate the future of the discipline and

its technology. Specifically, computation is missing an ethical

narrative, a discussion of the social and political ramifications of

developing technologies and the inequalities resulting from their

rapid advancement, both intentional and unintentional.

As digital technology permeates the social fabric, these questions

become increasingly urgent to architecture’s sphere of concerns

and responsibilities. What do we want the next twenty-five years

to be? What is the next digital turn? Computational Feminism

is a provocation towards a more just and inclusive field and a


235

236

Computational Feminism Doyle, Forehand, Senske


framework for making space, disrupting entrenched conventions,

and considering gender inequalities within the narrative of

computational design.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by: the ISU Office of the Vice Provost for

Research, the ISU Miller Faculty Fellowship, an ISU Women's & Diversity

Rothschild, Joan, ed. 1983. Machina Ex Dea: Feminist Perspectives on

Technology. New York: Pergamon Press.

Wajcman, Judy. 1991. Feminism Confronts Technology. University Park, PA:

Pennsylvania State University Press.

IMAGE CREDITS

All images by the authors.

IM_RU



Erin Linsey Hunt


Grant, the ISU Department of Architecture, and the Stan G. Thurston

Professorship in Design Build. Thank you to our Graduate Assistants

Nakisa Dhpanah and Nasar (Tony) Saghafi.

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle, AIA is an Assistant Professor of Architecture

and Daniel J. Huberty Faculty Fellow at the Iowa State University College

REFERENCES

of Design. Her scholarship is broadly focused on the intersection of

ArchiteXX website. http://architexx.org/ (accessed 28 Oct 2016).

computation and construction and specifically on the role of digital craft

Beverly Mills Architecture Foundation website. http://www.bwaf.org/

(accessed 28 Oct 2016).

as both a social and political project. Doyle was hired under the ISU

President's High Impact Hires Initiative to combine digital fabrication and

design/build at ISU. This led to the founding of the ISU Computation

Carpo, Mario. 2012. The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992–2012.

+ Construction Lab with Nick Senske and Leslie Forehand. She holds

Chichester, England: Wiley.

a Master of Architecture degree from the Harvard Graduate School of

Chang, Lian C. 2014. “Where Are the Women? Measuring Progress on

Gender in Architecture.” Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture

Design and a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the University of

Virginia.

website. (retrieved 1 February 2017, from http://www.acsa-arch.org/

resources/data-resources/women).

Leslie Forehand is a Lecturer in the Department of Architecture and

CUMINCAD. http://papers.cumincad.org/ (accessed 22 April 2017).

an internationally experienced architect/designer and researcher. Her

Deamer, Peggy. 2015. "Parametric Schizophrenia." In The Politics of

Parametricism: Digital Technologies in Architecture, edited by Matthew

Poole and Manuel Shvartzberg, 178–188. New York: Bloomsbury.

EQxD. “Equity in Architecture: Metrics, Meaning & Matrices.” Available at

http://eqxdesign.com/eqia2016_earlyfindingsinfographics/ (accessed 28

research seeks to find new solutions in the digital processes, specifically

advancing the materiality of additive manufacturing. Leslie holds a

Masters of Architecture from Pratt Institute and a BS in Architecture from

the University of Virginia, and her personal and student work has been

exhibited and published worldwide.

1 IM_RU completed in the ISU Computation & Construction Lab.

Oct 2016).

Haraway, Donna. 1991. "A Cyborg Manifesto: Science, Technology, and

Socialist-Feminism in the Late Twentieth Century." In Simians, Cyborgs and

Women: The Reinvention of Nature, 149–182. New York: Routledge.

Hearn, Jeff. 1991. "Gender: Biology, Nature, and Capitalism." In The

Cambridge Companion to Marx, edited by Terrell Carver. Vol. 1. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Women in Design. 2013. “The Pritzker Architecture Prize Committee:

Recognize Denise Scott Brown for her work in Robert Venturi's 1991

Prize” Petition on Change.org, available at https://www.change.org/p/

the-pritzker-architecture-prize-committee-recognize-denise-scott-brownfor-her-work-in-robert-venturi-s-1991-prize

(accessed 30 January 2017).

Parlour: women, equity, architecture website. http://archiparlour.org/

(accessed 28 Oct 2016).

Plant, Sadie. 1997. Zeros + Ones: Digital Women + the New Technoculture.

Nick Senske is an Assistant Professor of Architecture at the Iowa State

University College of Design. His research examines computational

software as a cultural artifact and has been presented internationally

at conferences and workshops. He received a B. Arch from Iowa

State University and a SMArchS in Design Computation from MIT. He

is currently completing his PhD in Architecture at the University of

Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Pavilions simultaneously create tools for transformative action and develop visions of new social

realities. Festivals as sites, and pavilions as fragments of possible architectural futures, serve as a

method for advancing and expanding the possibilities of public engagement, critique, and speculation.

The IM_RU pavilion is presented as evidence of this claim. By blurring light, color, and a cloud

of fragmented reflections, the pavilion created a space to confront the identity politics and activist

undercurrents of the Flyover Fashion Festival in Iowa City, Iowa,

IM_RU was designed and built by fifteen students majoring in architecture, landscape architecture,

and interior design as part of an interdisciplinary undergraduate studio at Iowa State University.

Constructed from low-cost 3D-printed joints, mirrored acrylic, wires, and LEDs, the pavilion was

designed using computational methods to be structurally flexible, simple to assemble, and lightweight

for transport. The project was constructed in the ISU studios, deconstructed, and then

transported 130 miles (210 km) and reassembled at the festival. IM_RU was a project of the ISU

Computation & Construction Lab (CCL), a research group established to connect developments in

computation to the challenges of construction and to leverage these tools for public engagement

with non-profits and cities.

New York: Doubleday.

Reiche, Claudia, and Verena Kuni, eds. 2004. Cyberfeminism: Next

Protocols. Brooklyn: Autonomedia.


237

128


2 IM_RU completed in the ISU Computation & Construction Lab.

4 IM_RU at the Flyover Fashion Festival, a fashion, music and ideas festival in downtown Iowa City. The programming consisted of a unique mix of runway events, in-depth

conversations with fashion entrepreneurs and innovators, artist exhibitions, and musical performances. The festival is dedicated to showcasing Iowa fashion and creative

talent by connecting Iowa’s emerging fashion community to the world.

Width 6” x Length 6” x Depth

6”

8”

10”

12”

Box Types

Minimum

Maximum

Stress Analysis

Minimum

Maximum

Deformation

3 The project model was constructed in Rhino using Grasshopper and analyzed with Karamba. The analysis results were then applied to the design and used to identify

areas where deeper boxes were required to resist stress and reduce deformation. The resulting structure was materially flexible enough that deformations were not structurally

problematic. Consequently, the final assembly did not directly reproduce the digital model.

5 IM_RU mid-installation at the Flyover Fashion Festival. Events included clothing

made from recycled materials and a panel discussion about the plus-size revolution

in women’s fashion.

6 The festival aimed to make design and fashion approachable and inclusive.

Speakers included journalist Noor Tagouri, the first woman to wear a hijab in

Playboy Magazine, who discussed how politics plays a role in modern fashion.

PEER-REVIEWED PROJECTS ACADIA 2017 | DISCIPLINES + DISRUPTION

129

130

IM_RU Doyle, Hunt


8 The IM_RU Pavilion presents architecture and public space, where an individual

is simultaneously confronted with a multiplicity of individual and collective

perceptions.

9 IM_RU at the ISU Computation & Construction Lab.

10 The project relied upon low-cost

PLA joints fabricated quickly on

four low-cost ($800) Dremel 3D

printers: 18 cents per joint and

14.25 minutes to print. All materials

for the project totaled $4,200. In

doing so, this project also challenges

the expected costs of built

computational projects, a parameter

that often keeps these technologies

cloistered in specific institutions

and communities.

7 IM_RU at the Flyover Fashion Festival. Flyover is typically a term used pejoratively or defensively, however, the festival claims this space as an asset. Flyover refers to

the interior regions of the country passed over during transcontinental flights, particularly flights between the nation’s two most populous urban agglomerations, the

Northeastern Megalopolis and Southern California. Iowa is often considered a “flyover state,” referring to the part of the country that some Americans only view by air and

never actually see in person at ground level.

Through transparency, form, and light, IM_RU challenges users

with reflections of their incomplete selves and considers the

role of the individual in the summation of societal identity. The

project, sited at the Flyover Fashion Festival in Iowa City, is

an inhabited passageway of 500 mirrored surfaces arranged

in a dissolving, voxel grid. The IM_RU Pavilion’s name is shorthand

for the dialogue users unconsciously encounter between

their perception of reality and others’ reality: “I am... are you?”

An individual’s reality is inescapably subjective, and is therefore

embedded with “I am” statements. In this way, we utilize

ourselves as reference points. In our increasingly digital world,

humans perceive and engage with the environment through

a selectively fabricated lens. Our perceptions of ourselves,

and our perceptions of the world, although perhaps convincingly

accurate, are subjective, and therefore certainly include

counterfeit realities. Ultimately, the IM_RU Pavilion presents

architecture and public space where an individual is simultaneously

confronted with a multiplicity of individual and collective

perceptions. By exploding and scattering what is seen, IM_RU

prevents passersby from using themselves as reference points.

All reflections become deconstructed units of the collective, and

each fragment becomes lost in the nonhierarchical sea of other

fragments. In a seamless mirror’s reflection, one perceives one’s

self as the foreground and the key reference point by which

everything else in the reflection is understood. With IM_RU, individual

perceptions of reality are realized amongst one another as

amalgamated and equally subjective fragments of the collective.

A student team proposed the design and manufactured the tools

to enable its construction. The project relied upon a parametric

model that allowed the interdisciplinary group of fifteen

students to collaboratively design and then fabricate and build

the project directly from the digital model, without producing

allographic drawings. Manufacturing relied almost entirely upon

3,200 low cost ($0.18 each) 3D-printed PLA joints fabricated

with four Dremel 3D20 Printers ($800). By focusing on low-cost

11 The final joint design was a truncated

triangular joint designed to

reduce material use and printing

time. The PLA was most brittle at

the connection point to the wire;

therefore, material was added to

the side of the clip to strengthen

the assembly detail. .

Final

First

PEER-REVIEWED PROJECTS ACADIA 2017 | DISCIPLINES + DISRUPTION

131

132

IM_RU Doyle, Hunt


The Lore of Building Experience: Deconstructing Design-Build

Shelby Doyle and Rob Whitehead, Iowa State University

12 The project under construction at the ISU Computation & Construction Lab. IM_RU was a project of the ISU Computation & Construction Lab (CCL), a research group

established to connect developments in computation to the challenges of construction and to leverage these tools for public engagement with non-profits and small

towns. (Paul Gates Photography, 2017 ©).

technologies, the design team was able to introduce to a public

audience a fabrication method (3D-printed plastic) that is

often relegated to representational models rather than fullscale

construction. In doing so, this project also challenges the

expected costs of built computational projects, a parameter that

often keeps these technologies cloistered in specific institutions

and communities.

Online

Videos and additional information can be found at: ccl.design.iastate.edu

Students

[Architecture] Joshua Cobler, Austin Demers, Erin Hunt, Jaehee Hwang,

Lingchen Liao, Kale Paulsen

[Interior Design] Alexa Barr, Cassie Cook, Brooklyn Fenchel, Jenna Strasser,

Joelle Swanson

[Landscape Architecture] Nick Dentamaro, Maria Novacek, Jake Oswald,

Billy Pausback

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Primary funding for the studio was provided the Stan G. Thurston

Professorship in Design Build. Additional support provided by the Iowa

State University College of Design, the Iowa State University Department

of Architecture, ISU Office of the Vice Provost for Research, and the

Flyover Fashion Festival.

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle, AIA is an Assistant Professor of Architecture

and Daniel J. Huberty Faculty Fellow at the Iowa State University College

of Design. Her scholarship is broadly focused on the intersection of

computation and construction and specifically on the role of digital craft

as both a social and political project. Doyle was hired under the ISU

President’s High Impact Hires Initiative to combine digital fabrication and

design/build at ISU. This led to the founding of the ISU Computation

& Construction Lab with Nick Senske and Leslie Forehand. She holds

a Master of Architecture degree from the Harvard Graduate School of

Design and a Bachelor of Science in Architecture from the University of

Virginia.

Introduction

Architects do things. One of the most unquestioned mandates

of architectural education is that of ‘doing’: building, acting,

making, fabricating. Captured in Le Corbusier’s famous maxim:

‘architecture or revolution’, building is often considered not only

the best solution to a problem, but one that gives urgency and

legitimacy to architecture and architectural education. Yet the

increasing awareness of intimate relations between capitalism

and architecture, labor injustices and construction,

environmental havoc and urban planning, corporate power and

racial violence and much more has put architects in the

uncomfortable position of having to confront the consequences

of ‘doing’.

Design-build studios inherit a legacy of ‘doing’ that ranges from

John Dewey’s theories of experiential learning (1938) 1 to

Alexandra Aravena’s Venice Biennale call to ‘make room for

action’ (2016) 2 . A lore has developed about how design-build

activities can simultaneously serve students, the community,

and be an effective panacea for teaching ‘real-world’ lessons to

beginning architecture students. Although hands-on learning

has proven educational benefits for retention and visualization

under certain circumstances, edification doesn’t inevitably

follow every act of construction. Simply favoring the act of

‘building’ as a uniquely educational experience in its own right,

and accepting the amorphous manner of lessons contained

within these acts risk allowing certain undesirable educational

circumstances to fester: design-build lore or myths.

MYTH #1: Learning by Building is Enough

Susan Sontag writes in On Photography: “The person who

intervenes cannot record; the person who is recording cannot

intervene.” 3 This is the conundrum of design-build: ‘doing’ reinscribes

familiar values of production. Can design-build studios

‘do’ and ‘critique’ simultaneously? If left unchallenged or unaddressed,

these underlying issues contribute to missed

opportunities for student learning and hinder the ability to

develop a critical stance about the role of design-build in

contemporary education and practice. If design-build courses

are not intended to emulate ‘real-world’ experiences in design

or construction, are the intended lessons still evident within

these simulations? This paper presents cogent aspects of these

claims while also presenting alternative methods for discussion.

Specifically, this paper is a reflection upon the Iowa State

University design-build courses as they seek to transition into a

more research-based curriculum. This paper is not a survey of

common design-build approaches done by other programs and

people, and it will not describe a unique process or project that

others can use as a template for their programs. Rather, the

project described here, the Urbandale Pavilion, is common in

many ways—and by examining the common nature of this

project, we hope to deconstruct lingering traditions (myths) of

design-build pedagogy and speculate upon the future of designbuild

education at Iowa State’s Department of Architecture and

beyond.

Design-Build Challenges

The deeply rooted challenges of design-build education are well

documented. Vincent Canizaro offers a broad overview of these

issues: collegial opposition, administrative and institutional

friction, student resistance, limited equipment and facilities, and

the quality of resulting work. 4 Criticism of design-build

programs is primary directed toward: the lack of clear learning

outcomes, the deficit of disseminated scholarly research, and

the high use of institutional resources. 5

This recently completed project (Summer 2016), the Urbandale

Pavilion, began with intentions to create a unique and

instructive design project and educational experience. But it

ultimately became mired in the inherent challenges of time,

inexperienced labor, and unexpected difficulties to the degree

that the project (and the design-build course activities) devolved

PEER-REVIEWED PROJECTS


133


Doyle + Whitehead

The Lore of Building Experience

into a competent and relatively conventional design-build

project. This is not a reflection on the quality of the project,

rather it is a different result than what was intended.

The process of designing a building, any building, no matter its

scale, is complex and messy. In many ways, these common

complications are not only related to the physical act of building,

but they are microcosms of problems embedded in

contemporary pedagogies, practices, and construction. It is not

an easy situation for beginning designers—particularly when

these process-based complications are not directly addressed as

part of the coursework and become invisibilities.

Fig. 1 The Urbandale Pavilion, or Bishop Family Shelter, at Dunlap Park

Arboretum nearing completion. Urbandale, IA 2016. Photo by authors.

ISU Design-build

MYTH #2: Design-Build Pedagogy is Well-defined

Many of the complications faced on this project are systemic.

For the last ten years, the first-year graduate students in the

first-professional Master of Architecture program at Iowa State

have participated in a mandatory design-build course at the end

of their first year in the program. The course is based on two

foundational curricular objectives: to reinforce the curriculum’s

technology sequence—one that integrates structures,

environment, and material as one integrated curricular subject

using hands-on learning labs, and as a way of directly engaging

(and promoting) community engagement through Service

Learning. 6

The studio generally enrolls 8-15 students each year—a small

crew for any design-build project. As a result, the course offers

the opportunity for each student, no matter their skill level, to

participate. Perhaps naively (or perhaps as a result of

institutional budget shortfalls) this course was established

without any specific plan for soliciting funding or projects—it

has been a yearly ad-hoc scramble initiated by the instructor(s).

As a rule, the studio aspires to partner with local non-profits and

towns; these groups have an interest in the type of work that is

provided, they appreciate the ‘free’ labor of students and

instructors (which they could otherwise not afford), and they

sometimes have an ability to help with labor and material or

financial resources.

None of the partnerships have lasted for more than a few years

at a time—not because of dissatisfaction—but rather funding

limitations or lack of demand for yearly projects that align with

the teaching calendar. Until recently, there have been no

dedicated facilities for tool storage or construction (e.g., the

author’s truck and tools were used one year), and because it is a

summer school class, the students have only eight weeks to

complete their work (time they share with another summer

studio).

The tactics for teaching this course are not uncommon.

Students are presented with a project scope, introduced to the

client and the site, then asked to develop and test their

proposals. Eventually a final proposal is selected, prototyped

and the built by the students and instructors. Students develop

budgets, drawings, and work schedule and then build the

design. The end goal has always been a built-artifact produced,

to a certain degree, by students.

With the compressed time schedule (fewer than twenty-five

required meeting days) and an impending deadline of

construction completion, little time remains for original

experimentation or meaningful community engagement.

Design and technology lessons start at the remedial level and

advance across the two months, but the focus is on acumen,

not innovation and research. Unfortunately, the tight schedule

and student inexperience also tends to diminish community

engagement. The students meet with the clients and smaller

user groups but the amount of time spent with community

members is usually low. Instead of explicating teaching Service

Learning tactics, instructors simply model the behavior of a

project manager and mentor in a practice. Unsurprisingly, an

effort that appears to be student-led must be led by

experienced practitioners. It is a simple matter of professional

and academic ethics and obligations to do so.

Despite these challenges, some well executed, and impactful,

projects have emerged (e.g., a BMX track, a soap box derby

starting gate, fishing docks, pavilions, and outdoor stages). As

necessitated by the course, these projects have typically been

lightweight construction with conventional materials and

methods, primarily wood. Experiments in the prototyping phase

do occur but are rarely implemented into the project unless

fully tested (e.g., rammed earth benches). Student evaluations

have remained high and student experiences have seemed

overwhelmingly positive. 7 From nearly any perspective it is a

model design-build program for beginning design students.

Fig. 2 Des Moines Social Club, ISU Design-build 2015

Fig. 3 Left: Story County Pier, ISU Design-build 2014 Right: Story

County Pier, ISU Design-build 2013

However, it is less clear what new information is being learned

about architecture beyond the act of building. Based on some

concerns that the process and products were languishing a bit,

and failing to keep up with new digital design and fabrication

methods, the authors were challenged with bringing in a project

of a larger scale, with a higher profile—even though much of

our systemic circumstances (class size, facilities, student

expertise, etc.) remained the same. The intent was to scale up

the program and to apply existing tactics to a larger project.

Urbandale Pavilion

MYTH #3: Design-Build is a Good Match for Service Learning

Iowa State is a land grant institution and the first state to adopt

the Morrill Act. Therefore, there is an ingrained expectation that

the design-build studios “support the mission of sharing

knowledge beyond the campus borders” and “actively transfer

research and expertise to the public.” 8

At first glance Urbandale Pavilion was to be an ideal design-build

project for scaling-up the program. It was a well-funded, highprofile

16’ x 40’ park shelter, in a well-used arboretum. The

client, Urbandale Parks & Recreation is a public entity, 9 the site,

the 12-acre Jackaline Baldwin Dunlap Park and Arboretum, is

publicly accessible and made possible by a land donation, 10 the

program serves the public (Urbandale Population 41,776 and

Des Moines Metro Population 599,789, 2013 11 ), and it was

funded through a donation by ISU alum Chuck Bishop (BS 1980

Engineering), president of Bishop Engineering in Des Moines, in

honor of his mother. Additionally, the client’s schedule aligned

with the academic calendar.

However, the logistical and institutional pressures upon the

studio eroded the original intention to pursue a research-based

agenda. The following unpacks the challenges as a method for

offering alternatives. The first contact was made in October, six

months before the studio began, but the work for the authors

began immediately. The project was too large and complicated

for eight beginning architecture students to design and build

(from foundations through steel fabrication) in such a short class

schedule. The instructors had two choices: take on the project

and attempt to scale up the existing program or turn down a

well-funded project.

The project was accepted along with the large amount of work

to be done ahead of time to define the scope, solicit consultant

participation, secure permitting, and solicit bids for specialized

construction methods unfit for beginning students

(foundations, steel fabrication, steel erection, site grading, etc.).

As a result, both authors took on the role of an unpaid

architectural consultant to the client AND academic

administrators in charge of soliciting and securing funding while

negotiating issues of liability and contract requirements with

university staff. Needless to say, an enormous amount of time,

energy, and expertise went into the logistical set up of the

project to make sure that the students would be able to ‘build’

and complete the ‘building’ in time. None of this work was paid

or recognized as official teaching activities. By favoring the end


Doyle + Whitehead


result over the process, the process skewed away from its

original intentions.

Despite the known challenges, the project started with

abundant aspirations. As the authors specialize in structural

design, digital design and fabrication, the first research proposal

was to create a lamella dome which connected digital modeling

with construction sequencing. Lamella is an efficient structural

form that looks difficult to construct, but is not if the

connections and dimensions are well-defined. These details

provide learning opportunities from parametric connection

methods to designing for construction. Designing,

documenting, and constructing the structure was intended to

be an act of experimentation and research. How light would the

structure be? How a construction system with movable bracing

be employed? How could parametric modeling be used to

anticipate the dimensions of each diagonal lamella so that a

building skin could be cut to fit?

Fig. 4 Early sketches of the Urbandale Pavilion as a lamella structure

by authors.

MYTH #4: Design-Build Tactics Scale Up

However, in the spring, as the summer semester neared, two

things occurred that shifted the project’s direction. One, the

design for the lamella was too ‘complete’ as proposed and the

students would end up building the authors proposal, thereby

missing out on the ‘design’ portion of the class and perhaps

seeing the class as ‘only building’ or manual labor. Next, upon

learning that among the eight incoming students, only two

students had any construction experience and that there were

relatively serious interpersonal conflicts between several of the

students already.

Fig. 5 Phasing of the construction sequence. Photo and diagram by

authors.

It became clear project was too big for this specific team and

that existing teaching tactics may not be adequate without the

inclusion of team-building exercises and more remedial

construction training. At this point, as educators, the

anticipated outcomes for the course should have been

adjusted. But this is not always possible with a design-build

studio. There was a contractual obligation to the client and a

pedagogical obligation to the curriculum to produce a built

project. Additionally, as students are not qualified architects, any

instructor who is also a licensed architect has an obligation to

the NCARB Rules of Conduct. 12 The only available option was

to adjust the scope of work from the students to the instructors

as a way to keep moving forward. The project had to be viable.

Walking away was not a realistic option. Although there would

perhaps be profound lessons to be found by not finishing the

project or having it fall down, these were not available or

feasible options.

Fig. 6 A selection of models and renderings constructed by students

and presented to the Urbandale community during an open house on

the site of the eventual pavilion construction. Urbandale, IA 2016.

Model and renderings by students.

Fig. 7 Students work together on site to fabricate the benches and sun

screens. Urbandale, IA 2016. Photo by authors.

Fig. 8 Students work with contractors to pour the concrete slab and

foundation. Urbandale, IA 2016. Photo by authors.

MYTH #5: Design-Build is Student Led

By selecting a difficult project that had to be compliant with

health, safety, and welfare standards the project aimed to

expand the potential of the program but simultaneously

exceeded student capabilities. A decision was made that to

benefit student learning that the instructors would design a

simple structural frame and then ask the students to design the

things people ‘touched’: screens, benches, shelves, and tables.

The structural frame itself had to be designed, permitted, and

partially fabricated by the time the semester started (to keep on

schedule) so it was done without student involvement or

feedback (as the course had not begun yet). Further, due to

time and expertise constraints specialty contractors were hired

to do the site grading, concrete, and structural framing. For each

contractor, students joined on-site to observe and ask questions

as they were working; but they also had expectations for their

schedule that the course needed to meet (i.e., The contractors

would not be on site for longer than they had budgeted to train

students – that fell to the instructors). They were very

professional and gracious with their time with students, but

everyone knew the contractors had to do all the heavy lifting

quickly. This was not ideal and it was not the originally intended

process.

There were a few immediate consequences: it affected student

commitment with the project and it limited student

engagement with the community and enthusiasm for the

design process. On the first day of class when the instructors

presented the ‘completed’ frame design to the students, many

expressed frustrations that they would not be giving input on

the structure (some even commented upon this in student

evaluations). Most students did join in with the construction

crews, but only for a limited time—perhaps because they felt

self-conscious of their limited skills.

As a group, they understood the schedule demands that

required others to help build the heavy, specialized portions of

the project, but by limiting their activity, it seems to have limited

their engagement—a common side-effect in design-build when

input is not seen as equitable or valued. When their work is

seen as free manual labor, the other lessons about design and

technical acumen are more obscured. 13 Also, and quite

unintended, this limited their design meetings with the client to

a smaller scope of issues. The site location, project orientation,

size, materials, and overall form were mostly established

already—and although they were in charge of developing the

design details for the screen and seating, there were fewer

conversations with clients and user groups than usual. The

students did meet with the clients and community members as

part of the course, but not to the degree anticipated.

Once the students received tacit approval from the client for

their design ideas, the class split into forewarned cliques.

Although the instructors did not witness conflicts first-hand,

there certain groups that did not talk to others at all. Their initial

efforts to produce options for the screens, benches, shelves,

and picnic tables reflected this lack of coordination and

comradery. Eventually, a more focused teaching effort to

encourage collaborative thinking and a shared language of

materials and expression yielded a fine result.

Ultimately, the project turned out well. The project's location on

the site, the simple form of the cedar and galvanized steel

structure, and the refined level of detail in the benches, shelves,

and tables reflects a purposeful approach to design that sees

elegance in the interplay of these basic and profound elements.

The project was thoughtful, legible, competently assembled,


Doyle + Whitehead


Fig. 9 Bishop Family Shelter at Dunlap Park Arboretum nearing

completion. Urbandale, IA 2016.





and accommodating. According to any official standard, the

project was on-time and on-budget. It had a successful groundbreaking

ceremony that was well-attended by praiseful

community residents, and the project was featured on the local

news and College of Design media.

This being said, the project was not finished when the semester

ended. When the landscaping was not installed as intended,

when the roof leaked, when the electrical lighting panels were

installed in the wrong locations, and when the student-installed

screen failed to meet the client’s expectation, it was not the

students that were asked to fix the project. The semester was

over and their educational obligations ended. As instructors and

architects, the authors remained tied to finishing the build. The

project was finally finished, by the authors, in a torrential

downpour weeks later with the addition of rabbit-proof fencing

along the back side of the screening to protect from the threat

of someone climbing up the back of the screen before the

landscaping grew to an adequate height.

This is the problem with design-build courses that favor the final

product as the reflection of the relative success of the course.

Questions like: Does it look good? Is it doing what it intended?

are discussed. But what about measuring growth in the learning

process? Did students learn what we intended? Did they do

more than just ‘build’ something?

After years of trying to fit so many learning objectives into such

a short amount of time (and mental ‘space’ for student

learning), the authors have grown convinced that ‘building is not

enough’. When a product or ‘a building’ is the goal for the class,

then the means are altered as needed to meet the end.

Certainly, this expectation can favor the larger project or more

visible project, but this looks overlooks other types of ‘building’

activities that might not have such a visible final presence.

Perhaps projects that challenge the typical perspective of design

build, or ones that see design-build as a tool to explore other

research questions. As a small design-build program is ISU

doomed to pavilions and demountable low-risk structures?

Perhaps, if the challenges of Urbandale are any indication.

It is a question of intent. Are those projects selected because

that is what is needed or are they selected as projects because

that is what students can safely build? If a studio begins with the

assumption that it must be a building—or a viable occupied

structure, then subsequent choices about the process and

production may not align with intended learning outcomes.

Moving Forward

MYTH #6: Design-build is Practice-Lite

In its most ideal form design-build combines the strengths of

the academy (critique, innovation, speculation) with the

strengths of the profession (expertise, construction, public

engagement). At its most compromised design-build combines

the limitations of the academy (insular, self-referential, siloed)

with the limitations of the profession (client-driven,

conservative, underfunded).

When examined in this light Urbandale is not a success. It was

neither a political practice, a critique of academia, nor a

reconsideration of practice. It was a construction project. It was

neither pure teaching nor pure research. It achieved the end

goal of ‘building’ and ‘doing’ but fell short of other ambitions.

There was a great deal of effort that went into this endeavor,

and to have the final result miss its mark prompted a reevaluation

of the future of our design-build program. The

following are three proposed strategies for the future of our

design-build.

Re-tooling Academic Recognition

The first strategy is the re-valuing of design-build as a form or

research. If design-build is going achieve academic recognition,

then it must also establish the methods of acknowledgment.

Projects must also be innovative or experimental rather than

‘just building’. Much of the work that goes into cultivating

design-build projects is not acknowledged as part of the

pedagogical or tenure and promotion process. It falls outside

the scope of what beginning students can and should provide.

In recent years, design-build history, theory, and pedagogy has

sought academic recognition through the development of a

series of groups, colloquia, conferences, and symposia. Among

these are networks such as the Design Build Exchange portal 14 ,

the Design Build Exchange Europe 15 , and the Live Projects

Network 16 as well as a series of conferences such as the

Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture 2014 Fall

Conference | WORKING OUT: Thinking While Building 17 and

Architecture 'Live Projects' Pedagogy International Symposium

2012. 18 Research-driven design-build studios provide impact

beyond a single project by addressing questions significant to

the discipline rather than to a single client. When the work of

design-build is measured by an expanded understanding of

scholarship and research (e.g. Boyer 19 ) then institutions of

higher education can better recognize faculty for fostering

design-build projects. 20

Re-employing History

A second strategy is that design-build more boldly recalls its

history of radicalism and political action. From the Bauhaus

workshops of the early 20 th century to Buckminster Fuller’s

geodesic domes to the Yale Building Project, to the 1990s

resurgence of design-build with the Rural Studio, the Jersey

Devils, and Studio 804. 21 Each project is part of an intellectual

and conceptual legacy of architecture’s relationship to building

as a social and political project. As global challenges are

intrinsically linked with construction’s modes of production

design-build is a valuable tool for re-evaluating architecture’s

relationship to its social project.

Rather than rely or resuscitating the modes and frameworks of

the Modernist social project design-build searches for new

characterizations of what it means to be ‘social’ in the twentyfirst

century. Positioned within its history, design-build becomes

a meaningful vehicle for enacting a contemporary social project.

To an extent this work is already underway at Iowa State in an

upper level studio called ‘Structures in Service (Design for

Disaster Relief)’ taught by one of the authors (Whitehead).

Large-scale prototypes are created to test out new ideas for

enclosures and assemblies used in relief and recovery efforts.

Figure 10: Prototypes for hay bale loft construction intended for

remote Mongolian school design. R. Whitehead studio, Spring 2015.

Re-defining Design-Build

“The academy is not paradise. But learning is a place where

paradise can be created. The classroom [studio], with all its

limitations, remains a location of possibility. In that field of

possibility, we have the opportunity to labor for freedom, to

demand of ourselves and our comrades, an openness of mind

and heart that allows us to face reality even as we collectively


Doyle + Whitehead


imagine ways to move beyond boundaries, to transgress. This is

education as the practice of freedom.” 22

While the academy is not paradise, it is inspiring and energizing

to pursue educational agendas that move beyond the

constraints of architectural practice. The work presented here is

not intended to discourage or dismiss the importance of designbuild,

rather it is a call to clarify what specifically makes these

studios valuable. Canizaro offers a useful list: to gain

construction experience, as a form of community service, for a

larger vision of professional practice, as a critique of academia,

for enhanced awareness of place, to enhance collaborative

skills, to explore new methods of project delivery, and to

explore materials and materiality. 23

Figure 11: Fabricating Potentials Studio. S. Doyle studio, Spring 2016.

In education, design-build is a pedagogical alternative to the

theoretical, desk-based, and media-driven (drawings, models,

digital models) design process commonly featured in design

schools. Design-build studios, which have become popular in

recent years at many schools, provide an excellent venue for

the assimilation of technical knowledge. Architecture has

always been a service profession, but it has traditionally served

only those who can afford it. By working for clients who do not

normally have access to architects, students are exposed to

community outreach and to the notion of society as our real

client. Alternatively, working in pursuit of research and on behalf

of the discipline is a viable model of design-build.

As Iowa State develops a way forward, the goal is to create a

research-based program which focuses on construction

methods, fabrication technologies, and material practice. The

first step in this re-tooling was to create an institutional and

conceptual space for this work: the ISU Computation +

Construction Lab (CCL) which aims to create from the existing

framework of design-build a new framework of computation

and construction. By linking computation to construction this

pedagogic shift harnesses advances in computation as tools of

improving construction (robotics, CNC) rather than as tools of

representation (renderings, models). By freeing the design-build

from the scope of site and client the studios are able to conduct

research and focus more rigorously upon material and

structural innovation and developing technologies. This is not an

abandonment of Service-Learning rather a reconsideration of

how architecture can be serve the public, the discipline of

architecture, and educational agendas, simultaneously.

The ambition of the ISU CCL is to critically engage new digital

fabrication technologies in the pursuit of public engagement, an

exploration termed ‘insurgent architecture’ by Corser and Gore.

In Spaces of Hope, David Harvey 24 describes a theoretical

political actor called ‘the insurgent architect,’ who, ‘in addition

to the speculative imagination which he or she necessarily

employs, has available some special resources for critique,

resources from which to generate alternative visions as to what

might be possible.’ 25 The promise of the ‘insurgent architect’ is

the ability to simultaneously create tools for transformative

action and to develop visions of new social realities. 26 The CCL

harnesses the energy of ‘insurgence’ though not all of its

methods. As a research agenda, it advances and expands the

possibility of public engagement, critique, and ‘doing’ through

architecture at Iowa State.

The goal is to present architectural possibilities: not a

retrenchment of existing conditions, but fragments of potential

futures. Within these futures ‘not doing’ or new modes of

‘doing’ must remain viable options and equally powerful

alternatives for design-build pedagogies.

Acknowledgments

Students: Shawn Barron, Noel Gonzalez, Cynthia McCall, T.J.

Hammersland, Mark Moeckl, Saranya Panchaseelan, Kimya

Salari, Sai Mohan Ranga Rao Ummadisetty

Project Team: Structural Engineer: Raker Rhodes Engineering,

LLC, Concrete: Concrete Technology Inc, Framing: Hildreth

Construction, Lighting: A&W Electric Incorporated

Funding: The project was funded through a donation by Chuck

Bishop (BS 1980 Engineering), president of Bishop

Engineering in Des Moines, in honor of his mother. Additional

support was provided by the Stan G. Thurston Professorship in

Design Build; the College of Design; the Department of

Architecture; Institute for Design Research and Outreach and

the City of Urbandale Parks and Recreation.

Notes

1 Dewey, John. Experience and Education, 1938.

2 Venice Biennale 2016 curatorial statement Alejandro Aravena.

Accessed January 2017.

http://www.labiennale.org/en/architecture/index.html

3 Sontag, Susan. On Photography. New York: Penguin, 11-12. 1977

4 Canizaro, Vincent B. Design-Build in Architectural Education:

Motivations, Practices, Challenges, Successes and Failures. Archnet-

IJAR, International Journal of Architectural Research, Volume 6, Issue

3, November 2012.

5 Gjertson, W. Geoff “House Divided: Challenges to Design-build from

Within” ACSA Fall Conference Proceedings: Local Identities / Global

Challenges, 23-35, 2011.

6 Canizaro, 2012.

7 R. Whitehead & C. Rogers, “All Hands-on Deck: Instructors as

Collaborators and the Modified Dynamics of Design Build

Instruction,” Annual conference, National Conference on the

Beginning Design Student (NCBDS), University of Cal Poly San Luis

Obispo, Feb. 25-28, 2016.

8 Iowa State University Mission and Vision Website. Accessed January

2017. http://www.president.iastate.edu/mission

9 Urbandale Parks and Recreation Website. Accessed January 2017.

http://www.urbandaleparksandrec.org/170/Parks-Recreation

10 Couple Donates 'Stunning' Arboretum to Urbandale. Urbandale

Patch. June 2012. Accessed January 2017.

http://patch.com/iowa/urbandale/couple-donates-stunningarboretum-to-urbandale

11 City of Urbandale Profile. Accessed January 2017.

http://www.urbandale.org/DocumentCenter/View/259

12 NCARB Rules of Conduct. http://www.ncarb.org/Getting-an-Initial-

License/~/media/Files/PDF/Special-Paper/Rules_of_Conduct.pdf


13 Canizaro, 2012.

14 Design-Build Exchange (dbX) Website. Accessed January 2017.

https://db-x.org/about/ “

15 The Design Build Exchange Europe. Accessed January 2017.

http://www.dbxchange.eu/.

16 The Live Project Network. Accessed January 2017. .

http://liveprojectsnetwork.org/

17 Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture 2014 Fall

Conference | WORKING OUT: Thinking While Building Website.

Accessed January 2017. http://www.acsa-arch.org/programsevents/conferences/fall-conference/2014-fall-conference.

18 Architecture 'Live Projects' Pedagogy International Symposium

2012 Website. Accessed 2017.

http://architecture.brookes.ac.uk/research/symposia/liveprojects201

2/index.html

19 Boyer, Ernest and Lee Mitgang. Building Community: A New Future

for Architecture Education and Practice: A Special Report. 1996

20 Hinson, David. Design as Research: Learning from Doing in the

Design-Build Studio. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), Vol.

61, No. 1, Architectural Design as Research, Scholarship, and Inquiry

(Sep., 2007), pp. 23-26

21 Canizaro, 2012.

22 bell hooks, Teaching to Transgress: Education as a Practice of

Freedom (New York: Routledge, 1994, p. 207)

23 Canizaro, 2012.

24 David Harvey. Spaces of Hope. University of California Press, 2000.

25 Harvey, 2000.

26 Corser, Rob and Nils Gore. Insurgent Architecture an Alternative

Approach to Design-Build. Journal of Architectural Education. Volume

62, Issue 4, 32-27, 2009.


Democratizing Access and Identifying

Inequalities: Gender, Technology, Architecture

Shelby Doyle, AIA 1 , Nick Senske 1 ,

1 Iowa State University, Ames, IA

ABSTRACT: While technology has rapidly become more accessible to more people, its benefits are not always

evenly shared. This paper searches for methods of identifying and defining gender inequality in architecture

as it relates to digital technology and computation. The authors begin by documenting and then questioning

existing metrics for measuring women’s participation in architecture, then look outside the field to STEM

disciplines, educational research, and economic theory as means of framing this research agenda. By

examining and critiquing current patterns of technological distribution and academic culture, the authors seek

to foster greater equality in education, architecture, and, consequently, the built environment.

KEYWORDS: computation, education, equality, methods

“The future is already here, it’s just not very evenly distributed.”

-attributed to William Gibson 1

INTRODUCTION

While many believe that technology is a way to create equality and provide opportunities, in practice this is

not always the case. 2 Particularly in architecture, access to technology and knowledge about technology

continues to be unevenly distributed, which can result in the perpetuation and intensification of existing

inequalities. Technology is a broad term but used here to indicate those digital technologies specific to

architecture. While many types of inequality exist with respect to technology and architecture, such as race

and class, this paper will focus on the issue of gender inequality. As technology is now essential to the practice

and discipline of architecture, the ability to create with and shape technology is critical. This paper highlights

the issue of gender inequality with respect to technology in architecture. It identifies the existing research gaps

and argues that architectural education, in its role of affecting disciplinary culture, is essential to advancing

technological equality. What follows is the beginning of a research agenda rather than its culmination.

WHO COUNTS?

Architecture as a discipline has been slow to fully acknowledge, incorporate, and integrate women into

architectural practice and discourse. These past and present inequalities appear to be at work in the underrepresentation

of women in technology. However, acknowledging the scope of the issue is difficult because,

presently, specific data are not being collected about technology and gender in practice or in academia. To

successfully argue for gender equality, detailed and accurate statistics are needed to move beyond anecdotal

evidence. The current understanding of gender in architecture remains limited, as does our understanding of

how women access and influence technology. One reason for this is the challenge of determining whom to

study and how to measure. With regards to technology, how should participation be defined? As Matthewson

writes, “It is easy to slip into anecdote and colloquial understandings of gender discrimination in architecture

and much more difficult to parse out ‘who counts’.” 3

While architecture now recognizes its problems with gender equity, accurately measuring the nuances of

women’s participation has remained elusive. The question of who is an architect is more complicated than it

might first appear. For example, in 2013, 43% of students enrolled in NAAB-accredited architecture programs

were female; 45% of architecture graduates were female. 4 NCARB’s “By the Numbers” report indicates that

42% of ‘record holders’ are women, 5 indicating an intention to pursue licensure, while the number of licensed

women hovers around 18% in 2016 up from 9% in 2000, 6 but still far from parity as indicated by the ‘The

Missing 32% Project’. 7 These numbers seem to indicate a dramatic loss of women in architecture, postgraduation,

and low representation in the workforce, but there are other factors to consider. Architecture is

more than the profession and those who strictly practice within the profession. NCARB numbers exclude

university instructors, urban designers, writers and critics, and many others who identify as architects. 8 In

order to better understand the true state of gender inequality, more data from more sources is needed.

Figure 1: Adapted by authors from the ACSA article ‘Where are the Women?’ 9 Additional references are within the text.

This is not a complete list of metrics but rather an effort to establish those metrics available to measure women in

technology as it relates to architecture.

While, anecdotally, there seem to be fewer women than men in architecture, exactly how few is difficult to say

with certainty. Data about graduation rates and licensure are an incomplete representation of the discipline.

At higher levels of achievement, the gender gap becomes even more stark (Fig. 1). At AIA firms, just 17% of

principals and partners are women. 10 The percentages of women awarded the Pritzker Prize for Architecture

and the Topaz Medallion for architectural education is even lower: both 5%. 11 These numbers indicate further

inequality in the influence and recognition of women, which is disproportionate to their representation.

Counting women is an important step in acknowledging and reducing inequality, but as a methodology, it has

its problems and its limits. There are lessons to be learned and further questions to be asked.

Measuring Participation in Technology

In Science Technology Engineering & Mathematics (STEM) disciplines gender inequality is a recognized and

quantified problem. Data from STEM is relevant to the discussion about women’s participation in architectural

technology for two reasons. First, the field of computing bears many similarities to the ways that technology

is used in architecture. Developing and modifying computational software and systems for design has many

parallels in computer science research and practices. Indeed, some of the training (learning programming,

etc.) is the same. Second, there is significant data collected by computing academics and professionals on

the issue of gender diversity as well as research into how to address the problem.

According to the STEM data, women are significantly underrepresented in computing. Women currently earn

only 18% of all Computer Science degrees. 12 Indeed, it is the only STEM major to report declining

representation of women over the last decade. This gender gap extends to academia and industry where

research has found that 70% of authors on published technology papers are men. 13 A 2013 report found that

just 26% of computing professionals were women -- a percentage which is about the same as it was in 1960. 14

Collection of this data has been an important step in helping to highlight and address this issue, though it has

not led to gender parity in STEM.


STEM. 18 The second reason, concern about performance, may be caused by ‘stereotype threat,’ which is

when an individual fears that they will confirm a stereotype about a group to which they belong. This has been

shown to affect performance and to impact decisions. In this manner, negative stereotypes about women’s

performance in math and science are thought to be a factor in the inequality found in computing fields. 19

There is no evidence that women are less capable users or creators of technology. To the contrary, data

shows that women have the qualifications and test scores to join STEM-related subjects and perform well

when they do. 20 Furthermore, history is filled with great pioneers of computing such as Ada Lovelace, Joan

Clark, and Margaret Hamilton who demonstrate women’s capabilities in the field. Ability is not the deciding

factor. Many women choose not to study technology because they find its values to be insular and antisocial.

They do not feel that a career in computing will allow them to collaborate with other people or make things

which create social good. 21 Another aspect of this is the male-centered gamer culture of today that emerged

out of early personal computing, which can appear inaccessible to women ‘outsiders.’ 22 As Wojcicki explains,

when it comes to technology, many women today feel that they do not belong, and because of this, they do

not want to belong. The problems discouraging women from participating in technology are cultural and

institutional. Education, which has traditionally held the power to shape culture and produce equality, is part

of the solution.

Figure 2: The above graph indicates the number of papers authored or co-authored by women in a selection of popular

architecture conferences. Gender was identified by the pronouns used in author biographies. ACADIA has approximately

20% fewer women co-authoring papers than ARCC or NCBDS. This percentage has changed very little during the last

decade. Data collection and graph by authors.

While STEM fields recognize a gender gap in their enrollment and workforce, architecture has yet to

acknowledge that its gender equity problem also extends to those who engage with technology. A reason for

this could be that there is no data which proves that such a gap exists; it remains an anecdotal circumstance.

One metric that does exist is the representation of women in technology publications in architecture (Fig. 2).

The authors’ study of Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) papers from 2010-16

found that 26% of authors were women. (This percentage is strikingly similar to that of STEM computing fields

and professionals.) Only 8% of papers had women as the first or sole author. Gender participation in

technology is not typically measured within institutions. However, a brief study of the authors’ own department

over the past year (2015-2016) found that, while 49% of architecture students are women, on average, they

comprise only 19% of the students attending digital technology and computation electives. While the number

of women participating in architecture is not at parity, the number of women participating in technology in

architecture appears to be lower still.

Unfortunately, architecture does not yet measure participation in technology. This is a challenge of legitimate

scholarship; the problem must be clearly named and defined. 15 While many have anecdotes about the use of

technology by women in the practice of architecture, at the moment it is difficult to produce the empirical

evidence necessary to study and address inequality. Moving forward, we propose that better measurement is

needed and that data collection efforts from STEM fields could serve as a model. In this case, we are using

technology as a proxy for power in the architectural discipline and, by measuring technology use, aim to better

understand the grain of women’s participation in developing technologies. 16

GENDER GAP

Why does a technology gender gap exist? Research in STEM fields has identified several possible causes

which may parallel those in design. These causes may have been inherited by architecture in the transfer of

knowledge and technique. In a speech given at the Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing

Conference, Susan Wojcicki (CEO of YouTube), proposed two possible reasons women choose not to study

computing: they think it is boring and they do not think they would perform well at it. 17 From the outside,

working with technology can seem unexciting. Because they lack access to mentoring, clubs, courses, etc.

many young women have not had the opportunity to learn firsthand how technology can be creative and

empowering. Women who are exposed to technology in K-12 education are much more likely to participate in

WHY DOES IT MATTER?

The gender gap in technology is harmful not only to women, but to everyone. Women often see themselves

as consumers of technology, rather than its creators. This has consequences in architecture, when being left

behind in technology can limit one’s participation in the design process. 23 The importance of gender diversity

in architecture is more than fairness or opportunity (although these are critically important, as well). When

women are underrepresented, there is a risk of their needs being overlooked as design decisions are based

upon the experience and opinions of only men. In the past, this has resulted in costly problems such as voicerecognition

systems that do not recognize women’s voices because they were calibrated for male voices. 24

However, the potential impact of underrepresentation is more than mere inconvenience. Early airbags resulted

in the deaths of women and children because they were not considered as end-users. 25 The stakes for

democratizing access are high. Thus, inequality in digital design education has far reaching implications for

the discipline.

DOES TECHNOLOGY HAVE A GENDER?

Although progress has been made to measure the participation of women in the architectural profession, as

a subset of architecture, technology has been categorically overlooked in studies on gender equity. While

research in documenting gender disparity often champions progressive ideas of who can be ‘an architect’,

organizations such as Equity by Design [EQxD] 26 , Parlour 27 , and Architexx 28 tend to overlook the professional

presence of technology in favor of more conventional metrics: degrees, licensure, salaries, and awards. This

conservative definition is likely because technology is often seen as infrastructure rather than integral and

defining and measuring the users and influence of digital technology is a complex and difficult task. However,

because digital technology is so important to the future practice of architecture, reflecting upon its current state

(and possible role in promoting) gender inequality within the discipline must be critically examined.

One could argue that the low numbers of women specializing in digital design technology is unsurprising given

that the practice combines fields that have historically been lacking in gender equity: management, information

technology, computer science, engineering, and architecture. 29 However, the importance of this gap in today’s

technologists cannot be understated. Historically, a technologist in an architecture firm played an auxiliary

role, limited to maintaining computers and equipment. Concurrently, technology courses in architecture

schools are often relegated to specialized electives rather than integrated into design courses. Today, as

computers have become essential to the processes that define contemporary practice, the role of the design

technologist has also become central to architectural means, methods, and concepts.

“Computer-aided design is about creativity, but also about jurisdiction, about who controls the design process,"

says Yanni Loukissas, a researcher who has studied the adoption of technology by architecture firms. 30 At the

moment, control over computer aided design – who develops the tools and who administrates them within the

profession – rests overwhelmingly with men. This creates a condition where inequalities can become

institutionalized, even as other aspects of the profession become more diverse. As Lieberson wrote, dominant

groups remain privileged because they write the rules, and the rules they write, “enable them to continue to

the write the rules.” 31 As a result, they can change the rules to thwart challenges to their position. While

technology presents an opportunity for women to challenge stereotypes and privileges, it is also a site of

gender imbalance within the profession: consequently, the implementation of technology is not general

neutral.

The design, distribution, use, and education of technology can either challenge or reinforce existing gender

structures. Now that technology dominates the design process, the technologist – he or she – defines how the

profession works and who works within it. The promise of technology as a medium is that it can allow an


individual to be empowered in ways that are not pre-ordained by an institution – the state, the university, the

discipline – and as such creates space for a multiplicity of voices to resonate within architectural discourse. 32

How inequality is defined plays an important role in how an institution, such as the university, can work to undo

that inequality.

DIGITAL DIVIDE + INHERITING BIAS

This research also looks to economic theory as one way to define inequality and the accompanying concept

of redistribution as a means of addressing it. Economic inequality serves as a proxy for technologic inequality

as a means for bringing this discourse into architecture where there is currently little theory to rely upon.

Economic inequality is relevant to notions of equity, equality of outcome, and equality of opportunity. 33 This

definition stems from Thomas Piketty’s The Economics of Inequality. 34 The notion of inequality implies the

concurrence of redistribution through institutions - economic, political, or social mechanisms. In the case of

digital technologies, education and specifically the university, is the system of redistribution. Piketty’s work on

schools, for example, postulates that disparities among different schools, especially class sizes, is a cause for

the persistence of inequalities in wages and the economy. 35 Additionally, digital technologies are uniquely

positioned to disrupt the very systems which are imposing the original inequalities. Indeed, there exists a

certain consensus in regard to fundamental principles of social justice: if inequality is due, at least in part, to

factors beyond the control of individuals, such as inequality of initial endowments owing to inheritance or luck,

(that which cannot be attributed to individual effort), then it is just for the state (or university) to seek in the

most efficient way possible to improve the lot of the least well off (that is, of those who have had to contend

with the most adverse factors). In this case, the ‘university’ functions in lieu of ‘the state’ as an institution which

redistributes knowledge.

The redistribution on digital knowledge is particularly fraught as it has so little context upon which to rely.

Nicholas Negroponte, founder of the MIT Media Lab writes that ‘a man-machine dialogue has no history’

Therein lies the myth of the new unburdened language of technology: technology may promise new equalities

but instead is recreating existing hierarchies. 36 It is therefore disconcerting to observe much of the architectural

discourse around the computerization and software-driven design ignoring these dialogues. As Sanford

Kwinter writes in The Computational Fallacy:

“These developments are either extolled as ‘exciting’, ‘new’ and ‘full of new freedoms and

possibilities’ (by those most blissfully unconcerned of what is being so celebrated is but an

extension of all that is oldest and most repressive in our political and corporeal history), or

these are seen a posing an unavoidable or even welcome challenge to an already

weakened or near-obsolete domain of cultural practice, namely the slow, grave, viscous

world of matter.” 37

Kwinter’s charge returns this discourse to the question of ethics: what is architectural technology, who defines

it, who teaches it, and who disseminates it? If the internet can be used as a proxy for other technologies, then

there is much to learned by aligning this work with architecture. The rise of the Information Society has come

with the promise of altering the way society works and in doing so has produced deeply opposed ideas about

the future of our collective and individual relationship to technology. Optimists assert that the Internet has the

capacity to reduce inequalities between the information-rich and –poor. Pessimists expect that digital

technologies will fortify and intensify existing disparities. 38

One of the reasons discussions about technology inspire highly contested images of the future is the that new

technology might act a ‘great leveler’ by restructuring the dissemination of knowledge and communication. 39

These are questions which disrupt the very existence of the university as the mediator of knowledge. As the

Internet and digital technologies have become increasingly embedded in nearly every aspect of daily life it

becomes more important to establish how and whether certain groups are excluded from this resource:

“whether poorer neighborhoods and peripheral rural areas, the older generation, girls and women, ethnic

minorities, and those lacking college education.” 40 Specifically, how are these technological exclusions

occurring in architecture?

CONCLUSION

The ‘digital’ has a relatively short history in architecture when compared to the previous two thousand years

of architectural education models. 41 If we accept Mario Carpo’s dating of the digital turn around 1992 then

there are barely twenty-five years of pedagogy and practice from which to mine for information. Therefore, it

is necessary to look outside the discipline for questions of how to describe and address the digital divide. 42

Defining technological exclusions in architecture, providing theoretical rigor and context, then proposing

methods for redistributing technical literacy are the goals of this research agenda. The text here does not

endeavor to produce solutions but rather searches for ways to create and position the discourse necessary to

ask the right questions. Architecture’s disciplinary struggle for the ideal of equity – class, race, gender – is

innately tied to contemporary social, political, and economic milieus. The promise of technology as a medium

is that it can allow an individual to be empowered in ways that are not pre-ordained by an institution – the

state, the university, the discipline – and as such creates space for a multiplicity of voices to resonate within

architectural discourse. In this case, the university is presented as the actor necessary to redefine, redistribute,

and rethink technological literacy in pursuit of a more just built environment. The next digital turn, defined by

inclusiveness and equity, begins here.

REFERENCES

1

“The future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet” — this quote is often attributed to Gibson, but scholars disagree on whether

he is the original source. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/books/review/distrust-that-particular-flavor-by-william-gibson-book-review.html


2

Servon, L. J. (2008). Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology, community and public policy. John Wiley & Sons.

3

Matthewson, G. (2014). Counting Women in Architecture. Or: Who counts?. Architecture Australia, 103(5), 55.

4

Chang, L. C. (2014). Where Are the Women? Measuring Progress on Gender in Architecture. Association of Collegiate Schools of

Architecture. Retrieved February 01, 2017, from http://www.acsa-arch.org/resources/data-resources/women

5 NCARB By the Numbers Report 2016. Retrieved February 4, 2017 from http://www.ncarb.org/Publications/~/media/Files/PDF/Special-

Paper/2016-NBTN.pdf

6

The Business of Architecture: 2012 AIA Survey Report on Firm Characteristics, Copyright 2012, The American Institute of Architects

http://nbtn.ncarb.org/demographics

7

Dickinson, Elizabeth Evitts. The Missing 32% Project Survey Results Reveal Gender Inequity in Architecture. Now What? Architect

Magazine. Retrieved February 04, 2017 from http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/the-missing-32-project-survey-results-revealgender-inequity-in-architecture-now-what_o

8

Matthewson, 2014.

9 Chang, 2014.

10

Hurley, Amanda Kolson Would There Be More Women Architects If There Were More Women Developers? Retrieved February 4, 2017

from http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/would-there-be-more-women-architects-if-there-were-more-women-developers_o

11

Chang, 2014.

12

AAUW Report 2013

13

Macaluso, B., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, T., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Is Science Built on the Shoulders of Women? A Study of Gender

Differences in Contributorship. Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1136-1142.

14

AAUW Report 2013. Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s Success in Engineering and Computing. Retrieved on February 4,

2017 from http://www.aauw.org/research/solving-the-equation/

15

Boyer, Ernest. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching.

16

Denardis, Laura. Internet Architecture as Proxy for State Power. Retrieved February 4, 2017 from

https://www.cigionline.org/articles/internet-architecture-proxy-state-power

17

Wojcicki, S. (2016). Closing the Tech Industry Gender Gap. Retrieved February 05, 2017, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susanwojcicki/tech-industry-gender-gap_b_9089472.html

18

Rogers, Megan. Why Students Study STEM. Retrieved February 4, 2017 from https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/01/studyfinds-math-and-science-exposure-has-significant-impact-intent-study-stem

19

Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the Equation: the variables for women’s success in engineering and computing. The American

Association of University Women.

20

Fisher, A., & Margolis, J. (2002).

21

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. MIT Press.

22

Fisher, A., & Margolis, J. (2002). Unlocking the Clubhouse: the Carnegie Mellon experience. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 79-83.

23

Williams, G. (2014). Are You Sure Your Software is Gender-Neutral?. interactions, 21(1), 36-39.

24

McMillan, Graeme. It’s Not You, It’s It: Voice Recognition Doesn’t Recognize Women. Retrieved on February 4, 2017 from

http://techland.time.com/2011/06/01/its-not-you-its-it-voice-recognition-doesnt-recognize-women/

25

Why Carmakers Always Insisted on Male Crash-Test Dummies. Retrieved February 4, 2017 from

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012-08-22/why-carmakers-always-insisted-on-male-crash-test-dummies

26

Equity in Architecture: Metrics, Meaning & Matrices http://eqxdesign.com/ The Missing 32 percent resulted from an incubator event

conceived and produced in 2011 by the AIA SF Communications Committee. In turn, “Ladies (and Gents) Who Lunch with Architect

Barbie” was inspired by a partnership between AIA National and Mattel on “Architect Barbie” whose place on the toy manufacturer’s line-up

was insured by Despina Stratigakos and her colleague, architect Kelly Hayes McAlonie. At the event, fellow practitioners Dr. Ila Berman,

Cathy Simon FAIA, Anne M. Torney AIA, and EB Min AIA joined for a lively panel discussion on the state of women’s participation in the

profession, including the impact of “Architect Barbie”.

27

PARLOUR: Women Equity Architecture http://archiparlour.org/ PARLOUR: a space to speak – bringing together research, informed

opinion and resources; generating debate and discussion; expanding the spaces for women in Australian architecture.

28

ARCHITEXX is an independent, unaffiliated organization for women in architecture that seeks to transform the profession of architecture

by BRIDGING THE ACADEMY AND PRACTICE. We are a cross-generational group of academics and practitioners. http://architexx.org/

29

Davis, 2016

30

Davis, 2016

31

Stanley Lieberson. Making it Count: The Improvement of Social Research and Theory, 1985.

32

Tapscott, D. (2008).


33

Fletcher, Michael A. (March 10, 2013). "Research ties economic inequality to gap in life expectancy". Washington Post. Retrieved March

23, 2013.

34

Thomas Piketty The Economics of Inequality. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2015.

35

T. Piketty and M. Valdenaire, L'impact de la taille des classes sur la réussite scolaire dans les écoles, collèges et lycées français –

Estimations à partir du panel primaire 1997 et du panel secondaire 1995, Ministère de l'éducation nationale, 2006.

36

Toward a Humanism Through Machines Nicholas Negroponte p 79

Unplugging Inequality: Computational Futures for Architecture

Shelby Doyle and Nick Senske, Iowa State University

37

Kwinter, Sanford. "The computational fallacy." Thresholds (2003): 90-92.

38

Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide Pippa Norris, Harvard 2001. Page 234

39

Norris, 237

40

Norris, 245.

41 This assumes Vitrivius’ Ten Books of Architecture (100 BC) to be the beginning of architectural education and discourse.

42

Carpo, M. (2012). The Digital Turn in Architecture 1992-2012. Chichester, England: Wiley.

“The future is already here, it’s just not very evenly distributed.”

‐attributed to William Gibson 1

Introduction

In the 21st century, technologies like the Internet are commonly

regarded as an empowering and uplifting force. 2 With the

broad availability of low‐cost distribution channels, software

development tools, and rapid prototyping machines such as 3D

printers, the potential exists for nearly anyone to disrupt

industries and find success. This optimism is mirrored in

architecture, where, over the last 25 years, technologies such as

CAD (Computer Aided Design), parametric design, BIM (Building

Information Modeling), digital fabrication, and robotics have

been a critical site of innovation, as architects seek to challenge

traditional methods of designing and delivering buildings. 3

While many believe that technology is a way to create equality

and provide opportunities, in practice this is not always the

case. 4 Particularly in architecture, access to technology and

knowledge about technology continues to be unevenly

distributed, which can result in the perpetuation and

intensification of existing inequalities. This paper highlights the

issue of gender inequality with respect to technology in

architecture. It identifies the current gaps in research, and

proposes a series of methods for pursing technological equality

in architectural education: clearly measuring inequality of

technology distribution, democratizing access to technology,

and improving introductory teaching of technology. What

follows in this paper is the beginning of a research agenda

rather than its culmination.

Technology is a broad term but used here to indicate those

digital technologies specific to architecture. Discussions about

technology in architecture are often concerned with its

potentials and hindered by a constructed polarity between

manual and digital, an outdated and futile fiction. 5 This focus on

technique and media has distracted from a more politically and

socially relevant dialogue about inequalities in beginning

architectural education and its relationship to technology.

While many types of inequality exist with respect to technology

and architecture, such as race and class, this paper will focus on

the problem of gender inequality. As technology is now

essential to the practice and discipline of architecture, the ability

to create with and shape technology is critical. In some respect,

the lack of women specializing in design technology is

unsurprising given that the practice combines fields that have

historically been lacking in gender equity: management,

information technology, computer science, and architecture.

The goal of this paper is to reveal this dimension of gender

inequality in architecture and architectural education and to

begin to address it by moving beyond the anecdotal and into a

constructive research agenda. This is not to ignore the history of

intersectionality in feminist discourse but rather to create a wellscoped

and focused analysis that can provide methodologies for

future research.

Who Counts?

Architecture as a discipline, has been slow to fully acknowledge,

incorporate, and integrate women into architectural practice

and discourse. These past and present inequalities appear to be

at work in the under‐representation of women in technology.

However, acknowledging the scope of the problem is difficult

because, presently, specific data are not being collected about it

in practice or in academia. To successfully argue for gender

equality, detailed and accurate statistics are needed to move

beyond anecdotal evidence. The current understanding of

gender in architecture remains limited, as does our

understanding of how women access and influence technology.

One reason for this is the challenge of determining whom to

study and how to measure. With regards to technology, how

should participation be defined? As Gill Matthewson of Parlour

writes, “It is easy to slip into anecdote and colloquial

understandings of gender discrimination in architecture


Unplugging Inequality

Fig. 1 Adapted by authors from the ACSA article ‘Where are the Women?’ Additional references are within the text. This is not a complete list of

metrics but rather an effort to establish those metrics available to measure women in technology as it relates to architecture.

and much more difficult to parse out ‘who counts’.” 6

The field of architecture recognizes its problems with gender

equity, but accurately measuring the nuances of women’s

participation has remained elusive. The question of who is an

architect and the extent of one’s influence is not easily

determined but is nevertheless crucial to combatting the

lingering gender inequality in the discipline. For example, in

2013, 43% of students enrolled in NAAB‐accredited architecture

programs were female; 45% of architecture graduates were

female. 7 NCARB’s “By the Numbers” report reveals that 42% of

‘record holders’ are women 8 , indicating an intention to pursue

licensure, while the number of licensed women hovers around

18% in 2016 up from 9% in 2000, 9 but still far from parity as

indicated by the ‘The Missing 32% Project’. 10 These numbers

differ from those of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS)

which reported in 2013 that 25% of ‘architects, except naval’

were women. 11 The BLS data would also seem to indicate a

dramatic loss of women in architecture, post‐graduation, and

low representation in the workforce, but the calculation of that

total is complicated. Architecture is more than the profession

and those who strictly practice within the profession. Many

professionals who identify as architects are not counted in the

BLS report: university instructors, urban designers, writers and

critics, for example. 12 Taken‐together, these numbers illustrate

the complexity of the questions being asked about gender

equality and the need to collect a breadth of data in order to

paint a complete picture.

While, anecdotally, there seem to be fewer women than men in

architecture, exactly how few is difficult to say with certainty.

Once again, it depends upon how one counts. The averages of

graduation rates and licensure only tell part of the story. At AIA

firms, just 17% of principals and partners are women. 13 The

percentages of women awarded the Pritzker Prize for

Architecture and the Topaz Medallion for architectural

education is even lower: both 5%. 14 These numbers indicate

further inequality in the influence and recognition of women,

which is disproportionate to their representation. Counting

women is an important step in acknowledging and reducing

inequality, but as a methodology, it has its problems and its

limits. There are lessons to be learned and further questions to

be asked.

As of this writing, there is very little data on the participation of

women in technology within architecture. However, data from

other fields suggest that women in technology is a broader issue

and there is bias inherited from these disciplines when they are

absorbed into architecture. In Science Technology Engineering

& Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, gender inequality is a

recognized and quantified problem. The problem is most acute

in computing fields, and it is mentioned here for two reasons.

First, the field of computing bears many similarities to the ways

that technology is used in architecture. Developing and

modifying computational software and systems for design has

many parallels in computer science research and practices.

Indeed, some of the training (learning programming, for

example) is the same. Second, there is significant data collected

by computing academics and professionals on the issue of

gender diversity as well as research into how to address the

problem. STEM data indicate that women are significantly

underrepresented in computing. A 2013 report found that just

26% of computing professionals were women ‐‐ a percentage

which is about the same as it was in 1960. 15 Women currently

earn only 18% of all Computer Science degrees. 16 Indeed, it is

the only STEM major to report declining representation of

women over the last decade. This gender gap extends to

academia and industry where research has found that 70% of

authors on published technology papers are men. 17 At the

same time, women represent only about 30% of the workforce

in Silicon Valley. 18 Collection of this data has been an important

step in helping to highlight and address this issue, though it has

not led to gender parity in STEM.

Unlike the STEM fields, architecture has yet to acknowledge

that its gender equity problem also extends to those who

engage with technology. A reason for this could be that there is

no direct evidence that such a gap exists; it remains an

anecdotal circumstance. One metric that exists is the

representation of women in technology publications in

architecture. The authors’ study of the Association for

Computer Aided Design in Architecture (ACADIA) papers from

2013‐16 found that 26% of authors were women. (This

percentage is strikingly similar to that of STEM computing fields

and professionals.) But only 8% of papers had women as the

first or sole author. In academia, gender participation in

technology is more difficult to determine. At our institution,

while 49% of our architecture students are women, on average

they make up only 19% of the students in digital technology

electives and seminars. While the number of women

participating in architecture is not at parity, the number of

women participating in technology in architecture appears to be

lower still.

The establishment of legitimate scholarship requires a problem

first to have a name and, second, to be defined. 19 While many

can share a story about women’s work in architecture being

disregarded, underpaid, or dismissed, it is presently much more

difficult to quantify the use of technology by women in the

practice of architecture. In this case, technology is used as a

proxy for power in the architectural discipline and by measuring

technology use the aim is to better understand the grain of

women’s participation in developing technologies. 20

Gender Gap

Why are women under‐represented in digital technology? Why

does a technology gender gap exist? Once again, there is not

much specific data available for architectural technology, but

research in STEM fields has identified several possible causes

which may parallel those in design and which may have been

inherited by architecture in the transfer of knowledge and

technique. In a speech given at the Grace Hopper Celebration of

Women in Computing Conference, Susan Wojcicki (CEO of

YouTube), summarized two important reasons women choose

not to study computing: they think it is boring and they do not

think they would perform well at it. 21 From the outside, working

with technology can seem unexciting, but if one is actually

making things with it, technology can be creative and

empowering. Unfortunately, because they lack access to

mentoring, clubs, courses, etc. many young women have not

had the opportunity to see for themselves the opportunities of

technology before they enter a beginning design program.

Women who are exposed to technology in K‐12 education are

three times much more likely to participate in STEM majors in

college. 22 The second reason, concern about performance, may

be due, at least in part, to what is known as ‘stereotype threat,’


Doyle + Senske


which is when an individual fears that they will confirm a

stereotype about a group to which they belong. This has been

shown to affect performance and to impact decisions. In this

manner, negative stereotypes about women’s performance in

math and science are thought to be a factor in the inequality

found in computing fields. 23 A further reason reported is that

women choose not to study technology because they believe

technology to be insular and antisocial. With respect to

computing, they do not feel that a job in this field entails

working with other people or making things which create social

good. 24 Another aspect of this is the male‐centered gamer

culture of today emerged out of early personal computing,

which can appear inaccessible to women ‘outsiders.’ 25 Simply

put, when it comes to technology, many women today feel that

they do not belong, and because of this, they do not want to

belong.

Research has shown that women perform well in STEM‐related

subjects and have the grades and test scores to join in these

majors. 26 Furthermore, history is filled with great pioneers of

computing such as Ada Lovelace, Joan Clark, and Margaret

Hamilton who clearly demonstrate women’s capabilities in the

field. The ability and potential of women in technology are not

in question. The problems discouraging women from

participating in technology are cultural and institutional.

Education, which has traditionally held the power to shape

culture and produce equality, is part of the solution.

Why does it matter?

The gender gap in technology is harmful not only to women,

but to everyone. Too often, women are relegated to being

users or consumers of technology, rather than its creators.

Today, in architecture, being left behind in technology can mean

being left out of the design process. 27 A common argument for

diversity in design is that inclusiveness invites more experience

and perspectives. While true, the importance of diversity goes

further than this. When women are underrepresented, there is

a risk of their needs being overlooked as design decisions are

based upon the experience and opinions of only men. In the

past, this has resulted in costly problems such as voicerecognition

systems that do not recognize women’s voices

because they were calibrated for male voices. 28 Worse still,

early airbags, designed for adult men, resulted in the deaths of

women and children who were not considered as end‐users. 29

The development of technology is too important to exclude half

of the population, particularly as technology trends like

automation threaten more of women’s jobs than men. 30 31 The

risks of being excluded are not only lost job opportunities, but

declining societal influence. The Global Fund for Women argues

that without full participation in the global technology

revolution, women’s human rights could be violated. 32 The

stakes for democratizing access are high. Digital design

education is one site of potential inequality which impacts

everything from why, how, and what students are taught and

has far reaching implications for the discipline and beginning

design education. Within the building profession, design

technology is an emerging locus of architectural power: those

who control the process of design through technology control

architectural practice.

Methods

The following are premised on the assumption that further

research will define and scope the specifics of technological

inequality in architecture and architectural education: how,

what, and why. The methods presented here are built upon the

supposition that these inequalities are human and not

technological constructs and therefore they can be

reconfigured through human intervention in technological

production, distribution, and education. The methods

presented here will focus explicitly upon educational methods

as the authors have agency and experience in this realm.

Method 1: Democratizing Access

Democratizing access is the core principle underlying the

pedagogy of technology in beginning design at Iowa State

University – the method behind the methods in the following

sections. Simply put, democratizing access to technology means

increasing accessibility: ensuring that there is equal

representation among those who use technology and reducing

barriers to access, such as cost and education. 33 When the

authors develop their courses and curricular policies, they

consider whether these actions work in favor of democratizing

access.

Method 2: Increasing Digital Literacy

One of the first steps towards democratizing access is to ensure

that all Iowa State architecture students – of all genders and

backgrounds – possess digital literacy early in their education.

To be clear, this is not the same as computer literacy, the

outdated notion that students must know basic skills such as

how to turn on a computer or how to type. It is also not the

same as merely knowing how to use a set of software programs

– Adobe Suite, AutoCAD, and the like (although our students

also learn this). In the curriculum, digital literacy is the critical

understanding of how these tools work and work together.

Courses establish the basic principles of computing such as how

drawings and models are represented as data and symbol

systems and computing ‘powers’ like dependencies and

automation. These are critical ideas for working productively

and creatively with digital media which are not intuitive nor

apparent from the superficial characteristics of tools and so are

often not discovered by ‘digital natives.’ Furthermore, the

authors teach good technology habits: ‘soft skills’ for working

efficiently and effectively. 34 While many courses focus on

learning how to use technology, the philosophy at Iowa State is

that this is a low bar and not enough, particularly when equality

is a concern. Instead, using technology well is the objective and

it is important for everyone, not only important for some

students.

Teaching digital literacy is necessary because students arrive

with different levels of exposure to and comfort towards

computing and other technologies. In architectural education,

these inequalities can manifest as unequal learning and

engagement when students are told to learn or use, for

example, a new piece of software. Furthermore, as mentioned

earlier, stereotypes about women in math and science can

affect their level of engagement. Ensuring that all students are

exposed to technology can help. Establishing a common

introduction for all of our students, particularly one that

approaches technology differently than even the experienced

students expect, helps to correct some of the inherited biases

that students might have about themselves and about each

other.

At the same time, the introductory course uses a combination

of online tutorials, peer learning, and peer programming to

create a more social environment where students can learn

digital and computational design. Online tutorials help students

to learn at their own pace instead of in a lab where they might

be embarrassed about stopping class to ask a question or

having other students look over their shoulders. The tutorials

help students to self‐remediate and mitigate some of the

stratification of higher aptitude and novice students. Students

work on small projects in peer teams. These are small groups ‐‐

usually only two or three students ‐‐ who self‐select. The

advantage of peer teams is that they tend to align with gender;

studies show that women often prefer to work together and

when they work with other women, they are often less selfconscious

about asking questions and asserting technical

knowledge. 35 In their teams, students complete their

assignments using peer programming, which is a practice where

one student uses the software or writes code and the other

student observes and discusses. This helps students to focus on

smaller parts of a complex task (i.e. learning technology while

learning design) and enables them to externalize their thought

process with technology. Studies have shown that peer learning

and peer programming help reduce the gender gap in student

participation and achievement in STEM. 36

Fig. 2 Flipped classroom at Iowa State University. Photo by authors.

The intention of teaching digital literacy is to give all students a

common set of skills and outlooks to serve as a foundation for

further learning. The goal of this pedagogy is not to necessitate

that all students learn the same requirements and design the

same way, but rather to help ensure that students’

preconceptions about their abilities and interests do not

interfere with their potential for creating and creating with

technology. It is this kind of equality the authors’ pedagogy

pursues. Digital literacy, like ‘book’ literacy, is not a goal in and of

itself. It is the key to learning from and participating within a

literate culture.

Method 3: Computational Foundations / Computational

Integration

Another form of democratizing access is to ensure that

computation is introduced to students early and integrated

throughout the curriculum. In contrast to computerization (i.e.

using the computer to perform tasks, such as drafting; the

majority of computing courses teach computerization),

computation involves the authorship of instructions for the

computer to perform. This is the basis of parametric design,

generative scripting, and other developing technologies. In

recent years, there has been growing appreciation for the

importance of computation in architecture, both in practice and

academia. 37


Doyle + Senske


students’ design vocabulary, and demonstrating its relevance to

social and environmental concerns are also ways to increase

women’s participation.

fostering it in schools. In all of these instances, the field may look

to the efforts of other disciplines and professions, such as STEM.

Fig. 3 Design‐build in beginning design studio. Photo by authors.

Today, new technologies, created by architects are the cuttingedge

of design and widely seen as its future. Computational

knowledge and skills are an integral part of this practice.

However, computation continues to be seen as an esoteric and

advanced subject, suitable only for electives and graduate study.

Moreover, it is often isolated unto itself, as reflected in curricula

which tend to accommodate technologies as electives with

limited enrollments, a pedagogy which can be non‐inclusive and

non‐empowering. Because computation courses are specialized

and involve programming and programming‐like activities, the

representation of women in them is often low – even lower

than in other digital technology courses such as computer

modeling, animation, and digital fabrication. This is due to many

of the same reasons why there are so few women in Computer

Science: gender bias, concerns about personal abilities, and a

perceived lack of social value. 38

The authors believe that teaching computation to all beginning

design students is an important step towards improving gender

equality. One year after adding computational content to the

required foundations course, enrollment of women in elective

digital technology seminars improved by 15%. At the time of

this writing, Iowa State University is also seeking ways to

integrate computation in other required seminars and studios,

to show how these methods apply to interests beyond a single

required course. An example of this is how computation and

digital fabrication are integrated into a required design‐build

project in the second‐year studio. All beginning design students

in the program, regardless of background, now experience

writing code, operating tools, and using digital fabrication

equipment and experience its connection to construction.

Introducing computation to the curriculum in this way

communicates its importance and makes it a part of the shared

culture of the students. Normalizing computation, adding it to

Method 4: Computation + Construction

Harvey Mudd University increased their enrollment of women

in Computer Science by offering all female students research

opportunities after their first year in college. 39 This had the

effect of helping connect students with significant issues within

the field and contributing to projects with meaningful

outcomes. Providing research opportunities is one way to help

students appreciate the relevance of what they are studying

and encourage them to enter into the field. ISU aims to repeat

the successes of Harvey Mudd. Beginning by creating an

institutional and conceptual space for this work: the ISU

Computation + Construction Lab (CCL) which was co‐founded

by the authors and creates from the existing framework of

design‐build and digital fabrication a new framework of

computation and construction. By linking computation to

construction this pedagogic shift harnesses advances in

computation as tools for improving construction (robotics, CNC)

rather than as tools of representation (renderings, models).

At the CCL, the authors attempt to bridge the gender gap in

technology by actively recruiting female students to

undergraduate and graduate research positions within the Lab

and by providing projects with tangible outcomes that engage

the intersection of computing, building, and outreach. As a

conscious attempt to normalize technology in the program, the

authors select their research assistants on the basis of their

studio performance and work ethic, rather than their ability or

interest in technology.

At the time of this writing, 65% of past and present research

assistants are women (49% of CCL students, overall, are

women). 40 Few former assistants have graduated, so the

impact of this policy upon their careers is unknown, but within

the school, students tell the authors that the visibility of women

in the CCL has encouraged them to pursue more technology in

their studio work and to seek out their own opportunities for

research with the Lab. In the coming years, this is something to

be monitored.

Fig. 4 ISU Computation + Construction Lab Website.

www.ccl.design.iastate.edu

Method 5: Dissemination & Critique

To receive peer feedback on the success of these pedagogic

shifts the authors are hosting a Computational Foundations

Colloquium in Spring 2017 as a means for exchanging

information and establishing terms of evaluation for what

constitutes a rigorous computational foundation curriculum in

architecture. One of the topics of this colloquium will be the

issue of gender equity in technology and increasing the

participation and agency of women.

Conclusion

While technology has rapidly become more accessible to more

people, its benefits are not always evenly shared. Despite

appearances, access to advanced design technologies such as

computational design and digital fabrication in architectural

education are not as equal or open as it may seem. Latent

inequalities exist which limit participation with technology and

threaten an egalitarian pedagogy that empowers all students

with the skills and thinking needed to participate in a globalizing

economy. This paper searches for methods to define these

inequalities, with an emphasis on gender inequality, and

proposes ways to democratize access to new technologies in

beginning design so that the technology in architecture

becomes more diverse and the gender divide is lessened.

An agenda for ‘unplugging’ inequality begins here. First,

architects must start by collecting data on participation in

technology – relevant and nuanced data. Next, methodologies

for evaluating this data are needed. Last, architecture educators

must prioritize technological equity and establish methods for

The promise of technology as a medium is that it can allow for

an individual to be empowered in ways that are not preordained

by an institution – the state, the university, the

discipline – and as such creates space for a multiplicity of voices

to resonate within the architectural profession. Technology can

help produce equality, but only if access and participation in

technology are equal. At the moment, technology is reentrenching

existing hierarchies, but this can be corrected.

Through awareness and conscious effort, human constructs can

be undone and retooled to produce greater equality in

education and, consequently, the built environment.

Notes

1

“The future is already here. It’s just not evenly distributed yet” —

this quote is often attributed to Gibson, though no one seems to be

able to pin down when or if he actually said it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/books/review/distrust‐thatparticular‐flavor‐by‐william‐gibson‐book‐review.html

Accessed

January 2017.

2

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). Digital

Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. MIT Press.

3

Kalay, Y. E. (2004). Architecture's New media: principles, theories,

and methods of computer‐aided design. MIT Press.

4

Servon, L. J. (2008). Bridging the Digital Divide: Technology,

community and public policy. John Wiley & Sons.

5

“Is Drawing Dead?” Symposium at Yale School of Architecture.

(2011). Retrieved June 18, 2014 from

http://www.archdaily.com/?p=195406

6

Matthewson, G. (2014). Counting Women in Architecture. Or: Who

counts? Architecture Australia, 103(5), 55.

7

Chang, L. C. (2014). Where Are the Women? Measuring Progress on

Gender in Architecture. Association of Collegiate Schools of

Architecture. Retrieved February 01, 2017, from http://www.acsaarch.org/resources/data‐resources/women

8

NCARB By the Numbers Report 2016. Retrieved February 4, 2017

from http://www.ncarb.org/Publications/~/media/Files/PDF/Special‐

Paper/2016‐NBTN.pdf

9

The Business of Architecture: 2012 AIA Survey Report on Firm

Characteristics, (2012), The American Institute of Architects.

https://www.aia.org/resources/6151‐firm‐survey‐report‐the‐businessof‐architectu

10

Dickinson, E. (2014) The Missing 32% Project Survey Results Reveal

Gender Inequity in Architecture. Now What? Architect Magazine.

Retrieved February 04, 2017 from

http://www.architectmagazine.com/practice/the‐missing‐32‐projectsurvey‐results‐reveal‐gender‐inequity‐in‐architecture‐now‐what_o


Doyle + Senske

11

Women in the Labor Force: A Databook. (2013) Accessed February

1, 2017 from https://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womensdatabook/archive/womenlaborforce_2013.pdf

12

Matthewson, 2014.

13

Hurley, A. (2014) Would There Be More Women Architects If There

Were More Women Developers? Retrieved February 4, 2017 from

http://www.architectmagazine.com/design/would‐there‐be‐morewomen‐architects‐if‐there‐were‐more‐women‐developers_o

14

Chang, 2014.

15

AAUW Report: Solving the Equation: The Variables for Women’s

Success in Engineering and Computing. (2013). Retrieved on February

4, 2017 from http://www.aauw.org/research/solving‐the‐equation/

16

AAUW Report, 2013

17

Macaluso, B., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, T., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Is

Science Built on the Shoulders of Women? A Study of Gender

Differences in Contributorship. Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1136‐1142.

18

Silicon Valley is cool and powerful. But where are the women?

(2015) Retrieved on February 4, 2017 from

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/mar/08/sexismsilicon‐valley‐women

19

Boyer, Ernest. (1990). Scholarship Reconsidered: Priorities of the

Professoriate. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of

Teaching.

20

Denardis, L. (2015) Internet Architecture as Proxy for State Power.

Retrieved February 4, 2017 from

https://www.cigionline.org/articles/internet‐architecture‐proxy‐statepower

21

Wojcicki, S. (2016). Closing the Tech Industry Gender Gap.

Retrieved February 05, 2017, from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan‐wojcicki/tech‐industry‐gendergap_b_9089472.html

22

Rogers, M. (2013)fz Why Students Study STEM. Retrieved February

4, 2017 from

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/10/01/study‐findsmath‐and‐science‐exposure‐has‐significant‐impact‐intent‐study‐stem

23

Corbett, C., & Hill, C. (2015). Solving the Equation: the variables for

women’s success in engineering and computing. The American

Association of University Women.

24

Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2007). Digital

Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. MIT Press.

25

Fisher, A., & Margolis, J. (2002). Unlocking the Clubhouse: the

Carnegie Mellon experience. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 79‐83.

26

Fisher, A., & Margolis, J. (2002).

27

Williams, G. (2014). Are You Sure Your Software is Gender‐Neutral?

interactions, 21(1), 36‐39.

28

McMillan, G. (2011). It’s Not You, It’s It: Voice Recognition Doesn’t

Recognize Women. Retrieved on February 4, 2017 from

http://techland.time.com/2011/06/01/its‐not‐you‐its‐it‐voicerecognition‐doesnt‐recognize‐women/

29

Why Carmakers Always Insisted on Male Crash‐Test Dummies.

(2012) Retrieved February 4, 2017 from

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2012‐08‐22/whycarmakers‐always‐insisted‐on‐male‐crash‐test‐dummies

30

World Economic Forum. (2016a). The Future of Jobs: Employment,

skills and workforce strategy for the fourth industrial revolution.

World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland.

31

World Economic Forum. (2016b). The Industry Gender Gap: women

and work in the fourth industrial revolution. World Economic Forum,

Geneva, Switzerland.

32

Kanyoro, M. (2015, March 17). Technology is a Women's Rights

Issue. Retrieved February 01, 2017, from

http://ignite.globalfundforwomen.org/gallery/technology‐womenshuman‐rights‐issue

33

Coccia, M. (2010). Democratization is the driving force for

technological and economic change. Technological Forecasting and

Social Change, 77(2), 248‐264.

34

Doyle + Senske. (2016) Soft Skills for Digital Designers. Architectural

Research Centers Consortium.

35

Gehringer, E.F. and Peddycord, III, B.W. (2013). The Inverted‐

Lecture Model: a case study in computer architecture. Proceedings of

the 44th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education

(New York, NY, USA, 2013), 489–494.

36

Werner, L., Hanks, B., & McDowell, C. (2004). Pair‐programming

Helps Female Computer Science Students. Journal on Educational

Resources in Computing (JERIC) ‐ Special Issue on Gender‐Based

Computing Education, 4,1, Article No. 3.

37

Davis, D. (2015). Three Top Firms That are Pursuing Design

Research. Retrieved February 05, 2017, from

http://www.architectmagazine.com/technology/three‐top‐firms‐thatare‐pursuing‐design‐research_o

38

Porter, L., Guzdial, M., McDowell, C., & Simon, B. (2013). Success in

Introductory Programming: What works? Communications of the

ACM, 56(8), 34‐36.

39

AAUW Report, 2013

40

Iowa State University Computation + Construction Lab. Retrieved

February 4, 2017 from http://ccl.design.iastate.edu/people/

Thinking + Making: Digital Craft as Social Project

Shelby Elizabeth Doyle, AIA


ABSTRACT: “That parametricism “goes social” is not a concession to the prevailing winds of political correctness

(that divert and dissolve the innovative thrust of architectural discourse). Rather, it is a sign of parametricism’s

maturity, confidence and readiness to take on the full societal tasks of architecture, i.e. it implies

the inauguration of Parametricism 2.0… After 15 years of muscle flexing it is high time to put these innovations

to more serious work.” Patrik Schumaker (Schumaker, 2015) The ‘more serious work’ presented here is

the presentation of craft, and specifically digital craft, as a historic and theoretic framework that extends the

agency of computational thinking and parametric design in the social project of architecture. Ultimately, this

paper argues for the development of a more robust theoretical position about the social application of advanced

parametric design as a means to expand architectural agency in the discourse surrounding parametric

design’s relationship to large scale social issues.

1 INTRODUCTION

Architect and theorist Stan Allen notes in his article

Artificial Ecologies that the practice of architecture

has always been in the paradoxical position of

being invested in the production of real, concrete

matter yet working with tools of abstract representation

(drawings, models, computer simulations and so

forth). The paradox charges the question: does thinking

(and its associated abstractions) or making (and

its concrete matter) give architecture its agency?

(Allen, 2003)

The capacity to craft, to think through making,

instills architecture with an explicit agency to engage

outside of the academy and the discipline. The

introduction of digital craft into contemporary practice

extends, rather than limits, this agency in the social

(or political) project of architecture. The process

of thinking through making and the accompanying

non-linear methods position architects to identify

pathways of thought into contemporary issues, and

then make visible that which remains unseen to other

disciplines. Craft encourages imagination and

through imagination the architect enters into the

spheres of life, which are not immediate to personal

experience: the social (or political) project of architecture.

This imagination is a powerful agent as well.

The ability to imagine a better world equipped with

the capacity to act, is to craft an object with intentionality

and purpose.

As the discipline continues to struggle with selfidentity

and the direction of its fragmented authority,

craft remains the most valuable tool at the architect’s

disposal. This papers aims to define craft as it relates

to architecture and the architect, to position craft as

an agent of social and political change, and to identify

digital craft as an extension of this agency.

2 DEFINING CRAFT

The term craft is derived from the Middle English

craeft, meaning strength and skill. Craft can also be

associated with the professional affiliation of a guild

or trade association. Indeed, it first came into widespread

use in conjunction with the advent of guilds –

self-protective medieval associations or private clubs

of artisans with formally cultivated talents rooted in

innate and rare abilities. Craft creates intimate relations

between problem solving and problem finding,

technique and expression, play and work. (Sennett,

2008) It brings to mind material, matter, repetition,

talent, time, pride and dedication. Craft comes burdened

with accusations of nostalgia, luddite tendencies

and perhaps even a regressive attachment to the

past and the pre-industrial. In the mid 17th century

Denis Diderot spent the better part of twenty years

identifying and documenting crafts. The result: The

Encyclopedia, or Dictionary of Arts and Crafts, exhaustively

recorded how practical things are accomplished

and proposed ways to improve them. In The


Encyclopedia Diderot, places manual pursuits on

equal footing with mental labors, asserting that the

craftsman’s labors were icons of the Enlightenment.

He also scorned hereditary members of the elite who

did no work and so in Diderot’s opinion contributed

nothing to society. His definition of craft is as follows:

“CRAFT. This name is given to any profession

that requires the use of the hands, and is limited to

a certain number of mechanical operations to

produce the same piece of work, made over and

over again. I do not know why people have a low

opinion of what this world implies; for we depend

on the crafts for all the necessary things of life.”

Denis Diderot, The Encyclopedia 1747-1765.

As can be seen in Diderot’s explanation, the idea

of craft and its embodiment of the thinking maker

produced discomfort as it upset a social order where

thinking and making were separated and making

subordinate to thinking. This separation is not new;

it extends to the very foundations of philosophy. As

Jacques Ranciere demonstrates in his book The Philosopher

and His Poor: “So there is only one principle

of exclusion (from political life). Plato’s Republic

does not decree that one cannot be a shoemaker

and a citizen at the same time. It simply establishes

that one cannot be a shoemaker and a weaver at the

same time…” (Ranciere, 2004) In doing so Plato

sets forth that the shoemaker has only been given

enough time to do one thing and therefore cannot

encroach on the monopoly of thought and leisure

that the philosopher enjoys. The thinking-maker disrupts

the neat hierarchical social order which preferences

the philosopher, as thinker, over the artisan, as

laborer.

3 HIERARCHY AND CRAFT: ANIMAL

LABORANS AND HOMO FABER

Richard Sennet opens The Craftsman with a distinction

between making and thinking. Much of

Sennet’s argument is an extension of Hannah Arendt’s

The Human Condition that “any maker of material

things, is not master of his own house; politics,

standing above the physical labor has to provide the

guidance.” To paraphrase Arendt’s distinction between

Animal laborans and Homo faber: Animal laborans

is a “beast of burden” and Homo faber “man

as maker.” Therefore, Homo faber is the judge of

material labor and practice, not Animal laborans’

colleague but his superior. (Arendt, 1958) (Sennett,

2008) Sennett argues that Arendt’s separation can be

repaired through the act of craft:

“Thinking and feeling are contained within the

process of making (craft). What if Animal laborans

might serve as Homo faber’s guide?... History

has drawn fault lines dividing theory and

practice, technique and expression, craftsman and

artist, maker and user; modern society suffers

from this historical inheritance… “

Arendt’s argument has a greater subtlety to it than

Sennet allows. She casts labor as necessity and in

these terms to labor means to be enslaved by necessity.

It is this enslavement, which breeds the contempt

of Homo faber who has been freed from these

necessities by Animal laborans labor. Simultaneously

Homo faber is aware that he has won his freedom

by excluding Animal laborans from full participation

in the political process by granting him only

enough time to labor.

But what then of the artisan? What of Ranciere’s

cobbler who discomforts the philosopher? The dichotomy

of productive (cobbling) and unproductive

labor (philosophizing) has been a topic of interest

for a range of scholars from Adam Smith to Karl

Marx, who elevated labor above contemplation, reversing

the traditional hierarchy. Arendt as well

doesn’t let Homo faber escape freely with his vision

of separateness from the labor of Animal labors. She

holds Homo faber in contempt, not innocent of but

complicate in the acts of his counterpart, since he

(Homo faber) invented the artifice, which initially

spawned the labor. (Arendt, 1958) Kenneth Frampton

picks up Arendt’s argument in his essay “Intention,

Crafty and Rationality” from Building (in) the

Future: Recasting Labor in Architecture. He further

elaborates upon Arendt’s distinction by quoting

again from The Human Condition:

“If the Animal laborans needs the help of Homo

faber to ease his labor and remove his pain,

and if mortals need his help to erect a home on

earth, acting and speaking men need the help of

Homo faber in his highest capacity, that is, the

help of the artist, of poets and historiographers, of

monument-builders or writers, because without

them the only product of their activity, the story

they enact and tell would not survive at all. In order

to be what the world is always meant to be, a

home for men during their life on earth, the human

artifice must be a place fit for action and

speech, for activities not entirely useful for the necessities

of life but of an entirely different nature

from the manifold activities of fabrication by

which the world itself and all things in it are produced.”

(Frampton, 2010)

Frampton continues his essay by questioning the

architectural profession’s ability to confront this issue

of separation: “the unreal split between the media

cult of the individual star and the anonymity of

divided labor that realizes the work.” For Frampton

this challenges the concept of singular authorship

and also fails to address “the presence of a totally

new breed of young architects-academics capable of

working at both an intellectual and a manual-cumtechnical

level.” (Frampton, 2010) Which is the architect:

Homo faber or Animal laborans? And does

craft allow an architect to dwell simultaneously in

both roles?

4 DEFINING THE CRAFTSMAN

Who then is the craftsman? And how is the

craftsman different than the artist? Sennet maintains

that an artist claims originality and that originality is

the trait of single, lone individuals (Frampton’s

“media cult of the individual star”). Conversely,

craft names a more anonymous, collective and continued

practice of authorship. In this case, originality

becomes a marker of time and denotes the sudden

appearance of something where before there was

nothing. (Sennett, 2008) On the other hand, the quality

and value of craft is considered to be a shared

experiment of collective trial and error. In this sense,

good craftsmanship implies socialism. Craft is carried

out collectively, at least in spirit, in a workshop

or studio, a productive space in which people deal

face-to-face with issues of authority and a gradient

of skills. Skills become a source of legitimacy to

command or to dignify obedience.

It is here, that the separation of head and hand are

realized, not just as intellectual divides, but by social

and economic markers. The architect, the master

carpenter and the framer all function as craftsmen.

However, the architect sets himself atop the hierarchy

of makers imposed within the guild, closer to

thinker than to maker. Despite the hint of elitism, the

architect must also continue the process of making,

grappling with Allen’s paradox of abstraction and

matter. (Allen, 2003) Additionally, the architect may

feel contempt for his reliance upon others to enact

his designs as it implies a relinquishment of control.

Or as Renzo Piano states (italics are author’s for

emphasis):

“An architect must be a craftsman. Of course

any tools will do. These days the tools might include

a computer, an experimental model in mathematics.

However, it is still craftsmanship – the

work of someone who does not separate the work

of the mind from the work of the hand. It involves

a circular process that draws you from an idea to a

drawing, from a drawing to an experiment and

from a construction back to an idea again. For me

this cycle is fundamental to creative work. Unfortunately,

many have come to accept each of these

steps as independent. Teamwork is essential if

create projects are to come about.” (Piano, 1992)

Today’s architect-craftsman has adopted technology

as a way of bypassing the need for teamwork or

reliance upon others to build. Instead of navigating

Allen’s paradox, this new breed of architect regains

control of his craft through the use of the computer

and tools of fabrication. However, the act of bypassing

the collective and continuous aspect of craft creates

a false sense of individuality and originality. As

Scott Marble argues in his essay “Imagining Risk”:

“If craft is defined as a skill developed over

time and in direct relationship to making and to

working with materials, architects have long been

disconnected from this skill, relying instead on

builders and fabricators to actually carry out their

designs. Architects work with abstract processes

of representation that lead to abstract processes of

making. This is a challenging context within

which to position craft, if any conventional definition

of the term. For craft to function as a useful

concept today, it might best be rethought as a process

of mediating not only between tools and the

objects that are produced but also between design

as a process of imagination and production as a

process of technique. In fact, craft has always

been mediated through a relationship between

humans and technology.” (Marble, 2010)

This mediation between ideas and objects is the

indispensable aspect of craft, which makes the architect

the craftsman of the building process. However,

does the contemporary architect-craftsman maintain

an element of agency?

5 CRAFT AND AGENCY IMPERILED

The American Institute of Architects provides

template contracts to its members. One of the primary

objectives of the contracts is to protect the architect

from liability by distancing the architect from

the making of a building:

“The Architect shall not have control over,

charge of, or responsibility for the construction

means, methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures…”

3.6.1.2 AIA Contract Document B101 Standard

Form or Agreement Between Owner and Architect

(AIA, 2015)

The advances and proposals made by Marble and

others or the arguments set forth in Kieran and Timberlake’s

seminal Refabricating Architecture are undone

by the very documents which define the profession

as a profession (in the United States)

separating Homo faber from those who build, Animal

laborans.

Sennet says of The Craftsman “I am writing in a

long-standing tradition of American Pragmatism,

joining philosophy with concrete practices in the arts

and sciences, to political economy, and to religion,


to find philosophic issues embedded in everyday

life.”) (Sennett, 2008) In this sense craft reflects the

objects of everyday life. Well-crafted objects inherit

the pragmatism of their philosophical foundations

and shed the necessity of the omniscient designer.

Additionally, craft implies action and its associated

physical products, falling in line with the history of

American Pragmatism and the country’s foundations

built upon the Protestant work ethic. Craft usually

hints at the concept of expertise, carefully guarded

by professionalism, guilds, trades or unions. What

happens though when an outsider takes up a craft,

someone not ordained by the keepers of the craft?

Architecture Without Architects an exhibit curated

by Bernard Rudofsky at the Museum of Modern

Art in New York City in 1964 was a study of nonformal,

non-classified architecture – architecture

without architects. Rudofsky says of the show “for

want of a generic label, we shall call it vernacular,

anonymous, spontaneous, indigenous, rural…”

Rudofsky continues by saying that “vernacular architecture

does not go through fashion cycles. It is

nearly immutable, indeed unimprovable, since it

serves its purpose to perfection.” And that “part of

our troubles results from the tendency to ascribe to

architects – or for that matter, to all specialists – exceptional

insight into problems of living when, in

truth, most of them are concerned with problems of

business and prestige.” (Rudofsky, 1964) It is here

that Rudofsky’s argument ceases to resonate – he assumes

that architecture, vernacular or otherwise, is

only tasked with solving problems, not with finding

and defining problems.

The focus on non-classified architecture leads into

a discussion of the architecture of groups underserved

by the traditional profession: the other – be

that the impoverished (or any otherness).

6 CRAFT’S AGENCY: IMAGINATION AND

OBJECTS

Adam Smith argues, in the Theory of Moral Sentiments:

“As we can have no immediate experience

of what other men feel, we can form no idea of the

manner is which they are affected by conceiving

what we ourselves should feel in a like situation.”

Therefore, entering into others’ lives requires a profound

act of imagination. (Smith, 2009)

Impoverishment of any form – physical, emotional,

or intellectual – can be interpreted as pain. In The

Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the

World Elaine Scarry remarks on the de-objectifying

effect of pain and its consequent destruction of language.

On this lack of referential content Scarry

says, “…it is not surprising that the language for

pain should sometimes be brought into being by

those who are not themselves in pain but who speak

on behalf of those who are…” However, how do

those who speak gain their voice and their agency?

For Scarry this happens through the act of imagining.

Through imagination, the speaker can enter into

the unsharable space between the certainty of pain

and the doubt of its objectlessness. (Scarry, 1985)

“…Imagining may entail a revolution of the entire

order of things, the eclipse of the given by a

total reinvention of the world, an artifact (a relocated

piece of coal, a sentence, a cup, a piece of

lace) is a fragment of world alteration. Imagining

a city, the human being “makes” a house; imagining

a political utopia, he or she instead helps to

build a country; imagining the elimination of suffering

from the world, the person instead nurses a

friend back to health.” (Scarry, 1985)

Despite Scarry’s conviction that imagination

alone produces agency, she does allow that the objects

resulting from imagination have their own

agency: “…through tools and acts of making, human

beings become implicated in each other’s sentience.”

(Scarry, 1985) Or as John Ruskin, declared

in The Crown of Wild Olive: “what we think, or what

we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little

consequence. The only consequence is what we do.”

(Ruskin, 1866) It can therefore be reasoned that a

consciousness of things cannot be independent of the

things themselves. Through an engaged material

consciousness, we become particularly interested in

the things we can change.

The craftsman then can be considered a social

philosopher at the intersection of practice and talent

and this poses a general question about agency: we

are minded to believe that engagement is better than

passivity. Therefore, if craft gains its agency through

action, and architecture its agency through craft,

then how can craft beget the engagement of architecture

with a larger social project?

Architects as producers of space, can also be producers

of ideologies and of capabilities. Imagining a

route out of poverty, requires architects to think and

to act, to imagine and then to produce objects. These

objects hold new ideologies and offer spaces to improve

capabilities. This means architecture must offer

not just shelter, but systems to operate within,

schools to educate, infrastructure to travel, hospitals

to heal, stages to perform, studios to paint. We cannot

build what we have not first imagined, and architecture

is uniquely positioned to do just that.

7 DEFINING DIGITAL CRAFT

“Virtual craft still seems like an oxymoron; any

fool can tell you that a craftsperson needs to touch

his or her work.” Malcolm, McCullough, Abstracting

Craft (McCullough, x)

What happens then if architecture cedes craft to

the digital realm? Or rather, gives up the very thing,

which gave it agency in the first place? Is the digital

realm an extension of the imaginary space or a replacement

for physical space? And does this cyberspace

extend architectural agency or limit it? Digital

walls do not keep out physical rain or as

McCullough states there is “the seeming paradox of

intangible craft.” Indeed, we may now be entering

an age of the master-builder-craftsman or architectcraftsman

that John Ruskin sought to revive, but getting

there in a way Ruskin could not have anticipated.

Issues of dimension, heft, tactility, and materiality

remain essential to architecture as built

environment, no matter how tantalizing the pixilated

world may be. Digital fabrication and its associated

tools provide a tactile counterpoint to the imagebased

environment otherwise prevalent in digital

work.

“The best way to appreciate the merits and consequences

of being digital is to reflect on the differences

between bits and atoms.”

Nicholas Negroponte, Being Digital

(Negroponte, 1995)

For the purpose of this paper, the digital turn in

architecture occurred in the early 1990s and is defined

as the computerization of design, construction,

and fabrication processes. This is marked by a transition

from designs based upon a Cartesian grid to

those constructed from a digital field condition abstracted

within computational space. Specifically,

the introduction of continuous computational splines

that are variable within defined limits and can be notated

as parametric functions or mathematical relationship

between parts. (Carpo, 9)

Digital craft emerges from computational thinking,

digital fabrication and robotic construction; processes

that allow the full participation of architects

in the production of buildings and thereby extend architecture’s

agency to engage in a larger social and

political project. A close reading of the Human Condition

demonstrates that the spheres presented by

Arendt: labor, work, and action are interconnected

and in the present day are merged through architectural

technology to extend the participation of architects

in the construction process beyond the cultural

and physical confines of bodily practice.

Craft has long been seen as the antithesis of the

evils of modernity and industrialization. Against the

rigorous perfection of the machine, the craftsmen

became an emblem of human individuality, symbolized

by the positive value placed on variations, flaws

and irregularities in handiwork. However, does craft,

like all traditional knowledge, inherit and pass on

prejudice? As members of the University of Virginia

School of Architecture Faculty wrote in an open letter

to the board of visitors, the university administration,

and the university community entitled “What

are the Jeffersonian Architectural Ideals?”

“Is there a problem in choosing an architecture to

stand for the values of a university at the beginning

of the twenty-first century when that architecture

was inaugurated at an historical moment

when racial, gender, social, and economic diversity

were less welcome?” (UVA, 2006)

Does craft gain or cede authority by tethering itself

to the continuity of human thought and event?

Contemporary craft loses it agency when it becomes

associated with the Luddite, romantic, or historic. In

fairness, craft does not need to be mistreated by these

associations. The combination of technology with

craft, termed digital craft, prevents craft from this

characterization.

David Pye defines craft in The Nature and Art of

Craftsmanship: “Craftsmanship…means simply

workmanship using any kind of technique or apparatus,

in which the quality of the result is not predetermined

but depends on the judgment, dexterity and

care which the maker exercises as he works. The essential

idea is that the quality of the result is continually

to risk during the process of making….” (Pye,

1968)

If fabrication and digital craft is seen as the completion

of an idea that is then constructed by the machine,

then indeed the most valuable aspect of craft

is lost to over-determination. Simulation can sidestep

this over-determination but it is a poor substitute

for tactile experience. If the digital is used to

eliminate the feedback loop of question finding

through question answering, then craft itself is at

risk. Machines break down when they lose control;

whereas people make discoveries, stumble upon

happy accidents. There is a nostalgia for a lost space

of freedom – free space in which people can experiment,

a supportive space in which they could at least

temporarily lose control. A radical emancipatory

challenge provokes:

“Power in action requires some largeness and

imaginativeness of vision. Men must at least have

enough interest in thinking for the sake of thinking

to escape the limits of routine and custom. Interest

in knowledge for the sake of knowledge, in

thinking for the sake of the free play of thoughts is

necessary then to the emancipation of practical

life – to make it rich and progressive….”

John Dewey “Concrete and Abstract Thinking”

How We Think (Dewey, 1910)

Therefore, how might digital craft re-engage the

best aspects of craft, thinking through making, and

the power of the digital realm? First, digital craft


must embrace the spatial conditions of the computer

environment. The term cyberspace first appeared in

William Gibson’s 1982 story Burning Chrome and

was subsequently popularized by his 1984 novel

Neuromancer. (Gibson, 1984) The concept of other

or virtual space is woven throughout history, appearing

in literature and cultural commentary from Plato’s

Allegory of the Cave to Descartes’ Evil Demon.

However, the concept of cyberspace is unique in that

it offers not just a space of representation and communication

but also provides a social setting within

which these activities can exist. The resulting social

relationships are what give cyberspace its physical

presence and thereby architectural ramifications. In

architecture, this conceptual space is often considered

to be the space of the screen or monitor and

therefore simultaneously the space within the computer

and the internalized space of perception.

Is it possible, that the future of architecture lies in

our ability to make the parametric sensate or to actualize

the abstraction of cyberspace into meaningful

physical objects? In digital culture, there is a new

continuity between subject and the architectural object,

with no void between them. As if the distance

of vision was abolished by tactility. Craft and its inherent

materiality will prevent architecture from falling

prey to the complete cognitive internalization of

the screen, it will halt the progression toward ocular

space primacy, and it will create the interactive corollaries

between cyber and physical spaces.

For digital craft to promote the agency of thinking

through making, architecture must embrace the

aspects of feedback mechanistic processes offer, by

expanding the field of information to the tools used

in the discipline.

8 CONCLUSION

Digital worlds should not be seen as alternatives

or substitutes for the built world, but rather as an additional

dimension which allows architects a new

freedom of movement in the physical world. In other

words, the transcendence of physicality in the digital

world allows architects to extend their agency in the

physical world. (Carpo, 10)

Digital craft brings together the physical and digital

worlds. The historic and theoretic framework

presented here aims to move forward the agency of

computational thinking and parametric design in the

social project of architecture. The development of a

more robust theoretical position about the social application

of advanced parametric design will expand

architectural agency in the discourse surrounding

parametric design’s relationship to large scale social

issues: Schumaker’s ‘more serious work’.

REFERENCES

Allen, Stan. “Artificial Ecologies.” Reading MVRDV. Rotterdam:

Nai, 2003.

American Institute of Architects Contract Documents, 2015.

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago: University

of Chicago Press ,1958

Carpo, Mario. The Digital Turn In Architecture 1992-2012: Ad

Reader Wiley, 2012

Deamer, Peggy and Phillip G. Bernstein. Building (In) The Future:

Recasting Labor in Architecture. New York: Princeton

Architectural Press, 2010.

Dewey, John. How We Think. Boston: Dc Heath & Company

Publishers, 1910.

Diderot, Denis Encyclopedia, Or Classified Dictionary Of Sciences,

Arts, And Trades, France, 1747-1765.

Frampton, Kenneth. “Intention, Craft, And Rationality.” Building

(In) The Future: Recasting Labor \ In Architecture. New

York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010.

Gibson, William. Necromancer. Michigan: Phantasia Press,

1984.

Marble, Scott. “Imagining Risk.” Building (In) The Future:

Recasting Labor \ In Architecture. New York: Princeton

Architectural Press, 2010.

McCullough, Malcolm. Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital

Hand. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1996.

Negroponte, Nicholas. Being Digital. New York. Knopf 1995

“Open Letter to The Board of Visitors, The University Administration,

And The University \ Community: What Are the

Jeffersonian Architectural Ideals?” Lunch Volume 1: Trespass.

Virginia: University of Virginia School of Architecture

Foundation, 2006.

Pye, David. The Nature and Art of Workmanship.

Cambridge: The University Press, 1968.

Piano, Renzo. “Renzo Piano Building Workshop: In Search of

Balance,” Process Architecture. Tokyo, Japan, N.100, 1992

Ranceiere, Jacques. The Philosopher and His Poor.

Durham [N.C.]: Duke University Press, 2004.

Rudofsky, Bernard. Architecture Without Architects: A Short

Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture New York:

Museum of Modern Art,1965.

Ruskin, John. “The Crown of Wild Olive, Lecture Iv”. The Future

of England, Section 151, 1866.

Scarry, Elaine. The Body In Pain: The Making And Unmaking

Of The World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Schumacher, Patrik. 2015. Parametricism with Social Parameters

‘The Human (Parameter)’ Parametric Approach in Israeli

Architecture’, Curated/Edited by Ionathan Lazovski

& Yuval Kahlon For Zezeze Architecture Gallery, Tel-

Aviv.

EXPLORING LEARNING OBJECTIVES FOR DIGITAL DESIGN IN

ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION

Shelby Doyle & Nick Senske


ABSTRACT: What are the objectives of teaching digital design in architecture? While this seems a rather

primitive inquiry it in fact is loaded with misunderstanding and disagreement. This paper aims to bring accepted

educational research about learning objectives into the discussion of digital design’s relationship to architecture.

In particular, Bloom’s Taxonomy is introduced and referenced as a tool for creating clarity, transparency,

and accountability among educators. The purpose of reflecting upon learning objectives for digital

design in architecture is not to produce a definitive list of what students ought to learn. Learning objectives

are written for specific curricula, student needs, and faculty interests. They are useful because they provide a

clear definition of expected outcomes and which becomes a point of dialogue. In order to evaluate something,

it first must be named. Through evaluation and discussion, a discipline develops. When Bloom created the

learning taxonomy, this was the goal. Not to explain or lay claim to how students must learn, but to provide a

shared structure so educators could compare their approaches. In a similar manner, creating and sharing learning

objectives for digital design instruction, using established tools like Bloom's Taxonomy, can produce a

more organized dialogue about how to align the use of digital tools with the core values of architectural education

and the development of the discipline itself.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

During the past twenty-five years, the increasing

use of computational and digital tools in architectural

production has led many schools to consider and

make changes to curricula and courses. However,

there is little agreement within architecture departments,

much less between schools, on what it means

to design digitally, what it means to teach it well,

and how this integrates with more traditional methods

and understandings of architectural design.

This problem is aggravated because much of architectural

education today is what Bruner calls

“folk pedagogy”, guided by implicit assumptions but

not connected with educational theory or evidence

beyond one’s experiences. (1996) As such, there

have been few attempts to to apply peer-reviewed

curriculum design strategies and instructional methodologies

to the challenge of digital design instruction

in architectural education.

In response to this challenge, this paper proposes

that defining learning objectives for digital design in

architectural education, in connection with established

educational and learning theories, can create a

productive dialogue and a starting point for evaluating

and addressing the challenges of integrating digital

design.

1.2 Pedagogical Alignment and the Value of

Digital Design

The lack of agreement and clarity among schools

regarding digital design creates problems for the discipline.

How can a skillset be taught without a clear

definition? And how can the field evolve when there

is such contention over education in a critical area?

Dialog and common ground are needed.

A key reason for the confusion surrounding digital

design instruction in the university setting is a

misunderstanding of its educational value as a set of

skills beyond technical skilling. In architecture

schools, there tends to be a cultural hierarchy that

places significant importance upon studio courses as

sites where skills are integrated and practiced, and

less importance upon supportive technology courses

(such as a digital representation course) where those

skills are first learned. However, this hierarchy ignores

much about how learning functions and how

effective learning takes place. A more nuanced understanding

of the relationships between digital

skills and design processes is needed.

One of the most significant effects of educational

research has been to redefine the scope and goals of

learning. Decades ago, before the development of

contemporary learning theories, schools emphasized


developing core skills such as reading and memorizing

information such as dates and facts in a history

class. The implicit assumption was that this level of

learning was sufficient for students to write reports,

solve problems, and produce other sophisticated applications

of literacy. However, while many students

could demonstrate ability at, for instance, providing

the correct solution for a specific type of word problem,

educational researchers found that students

rarely understood what they had learned, nor could

they easily apply their skills and strategies to new

contexts. (Clement, 1982) The students knew their

lessons by rote and adapted to succeed at their instructor’s

tests, but they had a superficial understanding

of the material. Today though educational

models and expectations have evolved, digital technology

is often relegated to this type of learning.

While skills and facts remain important to learn,

the goal of education today has been restated: to

provide students with a foundation of deep learning

and the intellectual tools to ask and address meaningful

questions. (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking,

1999) In contrast to superficial learning of facts and

procedures, deep learning entails knowledge of the

underlying principles, domain structure, and strategies

to activate skills and knowledge and apply them

flexibly in a variety of conditions – particularly conditions

which are different from the ones where

learning originally occurred. Such as the translation

of design thinking from an academic to professional

context. Deep learning is what most instructors

would recognize as productive and transferable

learning yet few courses actually achieve. Architectural

studios are examples of a deep learning environment.

In contrast to architectural studios, the current

state of digital design instruction in architecture

tends to follow an educational model which does not

support deep learning. Presently, much of what students

learn in technology skills courses is by rote:

sequences of commands and procedures intended to

produce reliable results. While students can operate

software and other tools with what appears to be

great fluency, the vast majority do not have a deep

understanding of computing or digital media principles

(Senske, 2014). As a result, their work tends to

be inefficient and derivative. Like the school teachers

in the earlier example, digital design instructors

emphasize core skills for using digital tools and then

expect students to apply them towards design projects.

This is the reason a learning gap exists. First,

students do not learn the tools with significant guidance

to develop depth and rigor; second, they are not

taught explicit strategies for applying digital methods

to design tasks. Students often fail to develop an

understanding of digital design methods because the

pedagogy is not aligned with the goal of deep learning.

This leads to a frequently cited criticism of digital

design: work which is repetitive or uninventive

because students are grappling with technology

rather than controlling it. The technology does

not make it this way – it is how it is used.

This assumes that such a goal is recognized in the

first place. Learning digital tools is often seen – by

students and faculty alike – as mere technical skilling

rather than a way of thinking about design. Professional

architectural accreditation (NAAB) in

American schools uses a set of learning criteria

which specify Ability and Understanding (NAAB,

2014). However, this set of criteria does not address

digital design with any specificity. There is no

agreement upon the value or content of a digital design

education, and so student abilities can vary

widely from school to school, and within academic

units. Students are less inclined to develop a thorough

knowledge of digital design because it is not

universally considered a meaningful intellectual and

creative pursuit. This not only hinders progress within

the discipline, but, in practical terms, it affects the

profession. Failure to recognize the principles of

digital tools and structures of problems they address

makes it more difficult for students to learn and retrain

themselves in response to changing technology.

The educational model of the design studio is

unique its approach because it has many elements

which contribute to the production of deep learning,

such as opportunities for synthetic learning, active

learning, complex problem solving, and selfreflection

and critique. This is precisely the kind of

approach that would benefit specialized digital design

courses. Unfortunately, the architectural design

studio is often seen as one type of learning, while

digital design, which is thought of as mere technology,

is seen as another. This disconnection is due to a

misunderstanding about digital design due to a lack

of clearly-defined and shared pedagogical goals. The

present situation in education has come about because

the implied goal of digital design education is

mere tool operation (which does not require deep

learning) when the expected outcome should be increased

agency and sophistication of design ability.

One way to address the problem of pedagogical

misalignment is to develop learning objectives for

digital design. Learning objectives have the benefit

of being a structured, well-understood, and researchbased

approach to curricular development. This

method informs clarity and represents an explicit

way to connect the goal of deep learning with pedagogical

execution.

2 LEARNING OBJECTIVES

2.1 Learning Objectives for Digital Design

The idea of a learning objective is straightforward,

but often misunderstood and misapplied. A

learning objective is a specific statement which describes

what a student will know (knowledge) be

able to do (skills) as a result of engaging in a learning

activity. A learning objective must have three

parts: a measurable verb associated with the intended

cognitive process, the necessary condition (if

any) under which the performance is to occur, and

the criteria for measuring acceptable performance

(this is often implied). A simplistic example of a

learning objective that fits this pattern is: “Given a

set of contours the student will be able to generate a

topographic model.” The condition is having a set of

contours and the implied measurement is an acceptable

model. Learning objectives are focused

solely on student outcomes and do not specify methods

or other expectations for the teacher. They are

not an attempt to create uniform classroom procedures

or hinder instructor creativity through standardization.

The teacher has flexibility in their approach,

so long as the performance criteria are met.

Learning objectives are useful because they help instructors

with course planning and the creation of

content. Furthermore, the explicitness of properlyconstructed

learning objectives establishes a basis

for student assessment as well as the evaluation of

teaching and curricula (Anderson, 2002). A primary

challenge of digital architecture evaluation is the

lack of criteria and therefore a lack of agreed upon

traits for which to evaluate whether digitally produced

code, drawings or images are successful.

In this manner, learning objectives support better

learning and provide a common framework for

schools to organize their efforts at improving education.

For this reason, many Universities have standardized

their syllabus policies to address learning

objectives [see (Vanderbilt, 2016) and (Carnegie

Mellon, 2016) for example]. The use of learning objectives

may seem obvious or unnecessary if one is

only considering their use in one’s own syllabi, but

in terms of disciplinary alignment, digital design instruction

could benefit from the additional clarity offered.

2.2 Bloom’s Taxonomy

A useful tool for developing better learning objectives

is Bloom’s taxonomy. The taxonomy is a

hierarchical framework intended to help instructors

coordinate their planning and assessment using a

common language (Krathwhol, 2002). It represents

the process of learning from acquiring simpler to

more sophisticated thinking skills. The general idea

of Bloom’s taxonomy is that lower levels of cognition

support higher levels. For instance, one must

understand the difference between different methods

of constructing a surface (comprehending) before

choosing which surface to use (applying).

In its revised form, Bloom’s taxonomy lists six

levels of cognitive processes:

1 Knowing: memorization and factual recall

2 Comprehending: understanding the meaning of

facts and information

3 Applying: selection and correct use of facts, rules,

or ideas

4 Analyzing: breaking down information into component

parts

5 Evaluating: judging or forming an opinion about

the information

6 Creating: combination of facts, ideas, or information

to make a new whole

A more recent addition to the discussion of the

taxonomy is the inclusion of types of knowledge.

Anderson and Krathwohl addressed criticisms of the

taxonomy by recognizing that not all knowledge is

equal in complexity and that knowledge tends to be

developed from concrete (facts and concepts) to abstract

(procedural) and finally to knowledge of one’s

own cognition (metacognitive). (2001) In concert

with cognitive processes, the knowledge dimension

of the revised taxonomy enables a more nuanced

discussion of learning objectives. For instance, under

the newer version, the taxonomy does not progress

and stop with creating, but also includes thinking

about one’s learning progress and how one

creates.

Bloom’s taxonomy has been criticized because it

does not represent the complex and interconnected

nature of cognition (Furst, 1981), but the taxonomy

was never conceived of as a model or theory. Nor is

it a prescription for every course to follow. One

could design a course with at least one learning objective

at each level. Depending upon the skills required,

some levels may need additional objectives.

Students with different abilities may be able to begin

learning at higher levels. The value of the taxonomy

is less that it represents exactly how learning works

or that it tells instructors how to teach, but rather in

how it helps to organize and align pedagogical

thinking.

Educational frameworks like Bloom’s taxonomy

are not in common use in architectural education.

The reason for this is unclear but may derive from a

disciplinary resistance to self-articulation. However,

for those developing or revising architectural curricula,

having access to a set of learning objectives that

uses the taxonomy can enable a dialog within the

discipline, with other disciplines and educational researchers.

Bloom’s taxonomy helps support the goal of developing

deep understanding in digital design instruction.

One way it accomplishes this is by establishing

the basic cognitive processes involved in

learning to design thoughtfully. To see all of these

steps organized and consider them with respect to

digital design is to shed light on what is often an

opaque practice. The taxonomy makes it clear that

one does not just use or not use various tools, but

one must understand them, choose from them, and


evaluate those choices as part of a design process. In

this manner, an advantage of learning objectives developed

through Bloom’s taxonomy is that they can

elevate student outcomes towards higher-order

thinking. (Biggs, 1999) For example, without the

proper outcomes articulated, a student might submit

a design, but was merely applying a procedure.

Bloom’s taxonomy makes it clear that creation depends

as much on understanding one’s decisions (the

“why”) as knowing the correct commands (the

“how” – which is often students’ focus). For teachers

and students alike, Bloom’s taxonomy helps clarify

that the goal of digital design instruction is not

only to learn how to use digital tools, but to apply

them towards better designs and more sophisticated

design thinking.

With regards to teaching methodology, the clarity

of learning objectives derived from Bloom’s taxonomy

can help motivate qualities of student performance

which are often lacking in digital design

courses, such as innovative solutions and wellcrafted,

thoughtful representation. As mentioned in

the previous section, many learning objectives are

not specific enough, sufficiently measurable, or targeted

to student’s learning level. Bloom’s taxonomy

can help ensure that students are practicing the skills

that they should be learning in their activities and at

an appropriate level of cognition. This enables the

pedagogical gap between learning digital methods

and creating designs to be filled with deliberate (or

mindful) practice.

Deliberate practice is a recognized process

through which individuals train themselves to high

levels of performance. Research has shown that

learning of complex skills is most effective when

students engage with tasks that are appropriately

challenging, with clear performance goals and feedback,

and sufficiently frequent opportunities for

practice. (Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T. and Tesch-

Römer, 1993) The difference between merely making

and deliberate practice is that a student monitors

their progress towards a specific goal and changes

their performance in response to feedback. The student

continues to do so while increasing the challenge

of the activity to further improve. Learning objectives

assist students in deliberate practice by

creating specific and appropriate performance goals

which they can use to monitor their progress. This

guidance directly supports the development of abilities

on the highest (metacognitive) level of the taxonomy,

which are crucial for sophisticated work and

achieving transfer of skills and knowledge to other

domains. (Perkins and Salomon, 1992) Thus, the notion

of deliberate practice stands in contrast to the

disengaged ways that many students learn and use

digital tools, which is often oriented towards production

for its own sake rather than for quality or

thoughtfulness. Introducing deliberate practice is

one way for schools to motivate deep understanding

and to bring craft back into discussions about digital

representation

2.3 Creating and Teaching with Learning

Objectives

While many digital design courses have learning

objectives listed in their syllabi, these are not often

used correctly, in response to the findings of educational

research. In this section, we propose several

ways to make learning objectives for digital design

more appropriate and effective.

First, many stated learning objectives do not take

into account the learning process for developing

complex skills and thinking. As mentioned earlier,

traditional digital design pedagogy tends to emphasize

learning through design tasks. The tacit learning

objective of most activities, ostensibly, is to design

something via digital methods. However, this does

not acknowledge the steps involved to prepare students

for design, such as learning about the tools,

practicing methods, comparing and selecting methods,

etc. These skills and knowledge are implied by

the goal of designing, but by not stating this explicitly,

the instructor might neglect teaching and assessing

the constituent skills and knowledge that

students need, but might not manage to learn on

their own.

When developing learning objectives, it is important

for digital design instructors to acknowledge

how learning occurs as a developmental process.

Creativity and autonomy, abilities exercised in design

work, are higher order thinking skills. Higher

order thinking is dependent upon requisite technical

skills and other cognitive resources (Weiss, 2003).

As such, these activities may not be beneficial learning

experiences for beginner and intermediate students.

Research shows the importance of matching

learning objectives to student level (Klahr and Nigram,

2004). Novices benefit from direct guidance

in basic skills and knowledge, while objectives for

advanced students should emphasize synthesis and

independence.

Second, many learning objectives for digital design

instruction conflate activities and goals with

learning outcomes. A goal is a statement of the

overall intended outcome of a learning activity or

course. Learning objectives are specific achievements

which contribute to the goal (Ferguson, 1998).

For example, a course description that says “students

will be exposed to digital fabrication technologies”

has presented a goal, but not stated a specific, measurable

outcome. Likewise, a statement such as “students

will fabricate a small-scale physical model”

describes an activity, but does not provide enough

information to discern what students are supposed to

learn from the activity. A learning objective that addresses

these issues would be: “students will use

GIS data to generate a small-scale physical model

using appropriate digital fabrication techniques.”

This objective presents a condition (GIS data), an

outcome (the model), and assessment criteria (are

the techniques appropriate? / is the model is correct?).

Understanding the learning objective helps

define the cognitive skill level of the activity and the

appropriate assessment. For instance, if the objective

was to learn about computing concepts, issuing a

quiz with questions about procedures would not be a

helpful measurement. To facilitate effective instruction,

goals, activities, and learning objectives must

be aligned with one another

Last, many learning objectives as presented do

not support a means of formative assessment. Most

courses only assign grades for projects, which are

typically creative or design work. Again, these are

higher order thinking skills and may not be appropriate

to assess from novices. Grading project submissions

does not give the instructor or the student

much opportunity to remediate skills or knowledge

that were misunderstood or not acquired. Moreover,

feedback on a design artifact may not help instructors

and students achieve the goal of deep understanding

because it makes conceptual and procedural

knowledge indistinguishable from the outcome.

Studies have shown that ability to perform procedural

tasks does not mean students are able to explain

what they are doing or why. (Schoenfeld, 1985) This

is not to say that instructors should never grade projects.

This is appropriate when the intent is to assess

creative work and problem solving, particularly from

an advanced class. Learning objectives should

measure the correct student outcomes for the level of

the student and in a manner that allows students to

respond with changes in their performance.


Fig. 1 Bloom’s taxonomy was first introduced in 1956 and since then has seen widespread use in instructional design. A revised

version was issued in 2001, which changed the levels from nouns into active verbs, added the knowledge dimension, and placed

creation (synthesis) at the top of the hierarchy of cognitive process (Krathwohl, 2002). More recently, Churches created a “digital”

version of Bloom’s taxonomy that updates many its application to computing activities (2004).

3 CONCLUSION

The value of learning objectives is not what they

add to a syllabus, but rather how they prompt a larger

conversation about educational and professional

values and standards. Creating learning objectives

for digital design in architecture exposes many implicit

assumptions about what faculty believe about

learning and the role of computing in the studio. At

the same time, it raises the bar for architecture

schools to consider digital design as more than

merely learning to operate tools and software (activities

which are not themselves valid learning objectives)

and to instead connect these practices to design

thinking and the development of architectural

designs.

Bloom’s taxonomy assists in framing this discussion

about learning to design digitally by offering a

structure of cognitive accomplishments for students.

This helps re-align architectural educators away

from frameworks derived from folk pedagogy and

towards established theories and research into educational

psychology and learning cognition. Instead

of teaching and learning digital skills and knowledge

through a hierarchy of the tool’s features or increasing

complexity, Bloom’s taxonomy foregrounds

processes of remembering, thinking, and judgment.

These objectives are more closely aligned with

deeper understanding and integrative mastery. This

type of learning is precisely the antidote to the kind

of superficial engagement one often finds in architecture

schools that prompts negativity towards the

use of computing in design.

The purpose of reflecting upon learning objectives

for digital design in architecture is not to produce a

definitive list of what students ought to learn. Learning

objectives are written for specific curricula, student

needs, and faculty interests. They are useful because

they provide a clear definition of expected

outcomes and which becomes a point of dialogue. In

order to evaluate something, it first must be named.

Through evaluation and discussion, a discipline develops.

When Bloom created the learning taxonomy,

this was the goal. Not to explain or lay claim to how

students must learn, but to provide a shared structure

so educators could compare their approaches. In a

similar manner, creating and sharing learning objectives

for digital design instruction can produce a

more organized dialogue about how to align the use

of digital tools with the core values of architectural

education and the development of the discipline itself.

Learning objectives are not only for evaluating

one’s students or teaching. They help departments

and educators understand whether they are teaching

the right things. The question should always be:

“how does this improve design?”

REFERENCES

Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R. and Bloom, B.S., 2001. A

taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision

of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn &

Bacon.

Anderson, L.W., 2002. Curricular alignment: A reexamination.

Theory into practice, 41(4), pp.255-260.

Biggs, J., 1999. “What the student does: teaching for enhanced

learning.” Higher education research & development, 18(1),

pp.57-75.

Boyer, Ernest L. and Lee D. Mitgang, 1996. Building Community:

A New Future for Architecture Education and Practice:

A Special Report. Jossey-Bass Inc. (Preface xvi)

Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking,

1999. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school. National Academy Press.

Bruner, J.S., 1996. The Culture of Education. Harvard University

Press.

Carnegie Mellon Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and

Educational Innovation, 2016. “Bloom’s Taxonomy.”

https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/bloomsT

axonomy.html Accessed on January 10, 2016.

Churches, A., 2009. “Bloom's digital taxonomy.”

http://burtonslifelearning.pbworks.com/f/

BloomDigitalTaxonomy2001.pdf Accessed December, 30,

2015.

Clement, J., 1982. “Students’ preconceptions in introductory

mechanics”. American Journal of Physics, 50(1), pp.66-71.

Ericsson, K. Anders, Ralf T. Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-

Römer, 1993. "The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition

of expert performance." Psychological review 100.3, p.

363.

Ferguson, L.M., 1998. “Writing Learning Objectives.” Journal

for Nurses in Professional Development, 14(2), pp. 87-94.

Furst, E.J., 1981. “Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives

for the cognitive domain: Philosophical and educational issues.”

Review of Educational Research, 51(4), pp.441-453.

Kieran, Stephen and James Timberlake, 2003. Refabricating

Architecture: How Manufacturing Methodologies Are

Poised to Transform Building Construction. McGraw-Hill

Education.

Klahr, D. and Nigam, M., 2004. “The equivalence of learning

paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction

and discovery learning.” Psychological Science,

15(10), pp.661-667.

Krathwohl, D.R., 2002. “A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An

overview.” Theory into practice, 41(4), pp.212-218.

National Architecture Accreditation Board, 2014. “2014 Conditions

for Accreditation.”

http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2014_Conditions. Accessed

January 16, 2016.

Perkins, D.N. and Salomon, G., 1992. “Transfer of Learning.”

International Encyclopedia of Education, 2.

Pallasmaa, J., 1996. The eyes of the skin: architecture and the

senses. John Wiley & Sons.

Schoenfeld, A.H., 1985. Mathematical Problem Solving. Orlando,

FL: Academic press.

Senske, N. 2014. “Confronting the Challenges of Computational

Design Instruction.” Computer Aided Architectural

Design and Research in Asia (CAADRIA) Conference,

Kyoto, Japan, pp. 821-829.

Weiss, R.E., 2003. “Designing problems to promote higher-order

thinking.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning,

2003 (95), pp.25-31.

Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, 2016. “Bloom’s

Taxonomy.”https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-subpages/blooms-taxonomy/

Accessed January 10, 2016.


INTRODUCING DIGITAL SOFT SKILLS: BRIDGING THE GAPS IN

ARCHITECURAL EDUCATION

Shelby Doyle & Nick Senske


ABSTRACT: Developing technologies, such as computational design and digital fabrication, are transforming

the design and construction of contemporary architecture. However, the understanding of how to teach

technology as an essential design skill has not kept pace with these rapid changes. Design education and technology

education continue to be seen as separate loci of learning. In response, this paper argues that a set of

complementary “soft” skills are missing from most discussions of digital design pedagogy in architecture and

that these soft skills can bridge the current gap between digital education and design education in architecture.

Soft skills are “soft” in contrast to more easily quantifiable “hard” skills such as operating a machine or

knowledge of art history. Failure to acquire soft skills such as resourcefulness, good electronic communication,

etc. negatively impacts how technology is introduced, practiced, and developed in architectural studio

culture. Introducing soft skills will help bridge the gap between studio learning and technology learning. The

first section of this paper describes a list of soft skills that support students as they learn digital design. In the

second half of the paper, several methods for integrating soft skills into digital design instruction are proposed.

Contemporary architecture schools are tasked with introducing digital technologies as they are changing,

creating an opportunity to develop innovative curricula and democratize access to these skills. With the

rapid pace of technological change, students need to be comfortable with and capable of learning, relearning,

and integrating new programs and tools throughout their career. Therefore, this paper proposes that soft skills

can and should be taught in architectural education and that teaching them will make digital instruction more

effective in the design studio.

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction

Computer-Aided Drafting and Design (CADD)

technologies have become commonplace in architectural

practice as tools of efficiency and production.

For these very reasons the introduction of CADD in

early architectural curricula has been fraught with

anxieties along a continuum: from the undoing of

creativity through positivist and reductionist logic

(Pullasmaa, 1996) to a firm belief that these technologies

will revolutionize the way architects practice

and think about design. (Kieran and Timberlake,

2003) At the same time, there is a presumption that

students who have grown up with digital technologies

are “digital natives” who possess special aptitudes

or insights which are disruptive to learning

computing. The presence of these anxieties and biases

often leads to gaps in architectural pedagogy, as

digital tools are misunderstood and misappropriated

by students and teachers alike.

Defining and using the term “digital design” is

somewhat problematic, as there is very little architectural

work today which does not use the computer

in some capacity, and yet there are also designs

which consciously engage in digital aesthetics and

processes. For the purposes of this paper, digital design

refers to the use of the computer and computerdriven

tools (such as CNC machines, robots, etc.)

when one designs architecture. The key is not what a

person designs, rather whether that person employs

the computer or not as a tool in architectural work.

Design is the verb in architectural education and

in architecture; it is what architects do. It is necessary

to distinguish between design and digital design

– and to speak of teaching digital design – in this

moment, because the introduction of the computer in

architecture changes both what and how architects

design. It introduces both new capabilities and new

sources of bias and error. Therefore, architectural

education must address and teach specific ways of

designing with the computer -- not how to use software

or operate machines, but how to design digitally.

The very existence of the category of digital design

is problematic because it implies two cultural

silos in architecture: those who are digital and those

who are not. This outlook potentially limits students’

educational and professional development. To be

clear, this paper interprets digital design as a broad

skillset that should be available to all students, rather

than a niche specialization.

The aim of this paper is to take control of the

pedagogical agenda for digital design in architectural

education by debunking the myth of the digital native

and applying proven educational research to the

pursuit of digital design. This paper is a discussion

of architecture, design, and education; not an argument

for software and computer use in design. The

relevance of this educational conversation extends

only so far as it impacts the development of the profession’s

relationship to digital technologies as these

technologies are changing. The goal of this, and any,

educational proposal for architecture must be improving

the state of architectural design in addition

to advancing learning in both the academy and the

profession.

1.2 Myth of the Digital Native

The common belief that students are selfregulating

when it comes to learning and using technology

may come from the notion of digital natives.

The label “digital native” derives from a series of articles

written by the technologist Marc Prensky during

the early 2000s. Prensky describes the generation

of young people born since 1980 as “digital

natives” due to what he perceives as an innate confidence

in using new technologies such as the internet,

videogames, mobile telephones and “all the other

toys and tools of the digital age.”(Prensky, 2011)

Enrique Dans counters Prensky’s claims: “Simply

being born into the internet age does not endow one

with special powers. Learning how to use technology

properly requires learning and training, regardless

of one’s age.” Dans goes on to expand upon the issues

of assuming students do not need to be taught

to use technology thereby becoming “digital orphans”,

lacking in any model to copy or experiences

that might have generated criteria for understanding.

(Dans, 2014)

For this reason, beyond basic fluency, architectural

instructors are uniquely positioned to model

substantive content creation and healthy critical

thinking about these technologies. By perpetuating

the myth of the digital native, architectural education

is missing the opportunity to establish strong pedagogical

foundations from which future digital advancements

will emerge.

2 DIGITAL SOFT SKILLS

2.1 Soft Skills and Fostering Learning Habits

Computer use in architecture is often discussed

and taught as a series of technical or “hard (as in absolute)”

skills. In contrast, “soft” skills are related to

emotional intelligence, attitudes, habits, and interpersonal

relationships. An example of a soft skill is

resourcefulness: being inclined and able to find alternate

solutions to a problem, rather than giving up

or deferring responsibility. In this manner, soft skills

influence the ways that an individual applies technical

skills to achieve goals, such as a design. Learning

soft skills has been related to improved employment

outlook and better job performance. (Andrews

and Higson, 2008; Nealy, 2005) Professions such as

business and information services have cited employees’

lack of soft skills as one of the primary reasons

why projects fail. (Bancino and Zevalkink,

2007) Thus, for students, developing soft skills is

equally as important, if not more important, than

learning technical skills.

Knowing how to operate a smartphone does not necessarily

make one an effective computer user.

The influential Boyer report on architectural education

concluded that: “[A]rchitectural education is

really about fostering the learning habits needed for

the discovery, integration, application, and sharing

of knowledge over a lifetime.” (Boyer, 1996) Soft

skills are the learning habits Boyer references, and

so are a critical element of architectural education in

general. While this paper focuses on digital soft

skills, this finding is not to be overlooked.

Soft skills must be taught rather assumed to be

pre-existing skills. This especially applies to soft

skills which relate to digital design in architecture.

Architectural education must recognize that university

students are not comprehensively or consistently

trained in digital technologies when they arrive on

campus. This is exacerbated when less privileged

students are potentially less digitally skilled than

students from economically privileged backgrounds.

By not addressing these inequalities, institutions,

such as architecture schools, are perpetuating disparities

through education and leaving students underprepared

for the future. Soft skills can be reapplied

to changing technology, whereas hard skills may fall

away as technology changes.


2.2 Traditional vs. Digital Soft Skills

The type of soft skills described in this paper are

not entirely the same as soft skills introduced in the

previous section. While traditional soft skills such as

conscientiousness and empathy are helpful for architects,

digital soft skills have a different purpose and

apply specifically to the tools and processes used in

digital design. Digital soft skills, such as asking

clear questions, estimation, and planning skills, enable

effective collaboration with other people while

using digital tools and promoting effective workflows

for collections of digital tools. Digital soft

skills support students as they are learning digital

design and, later, help students apply technical skills

successfully and with sophistication and to adapt to

a rapidly changing technologic landscape.

Digital soft skills also differ from traditional soft

skills because they take into account the particular

challenges of computing and digital machinery. The

special attributes of digital tools that make them

powerful, such as symbolic logic, abstraction, and

automation, can invite cognitive biases when designers

operate those tools simplistically, at facevalue

(i.e. using a computer like a cell phone, a pencil,

or a typewriter). Humans must adapt their thinking,

expectations, and habits, as their natural inclinations

can interfere with working effectively with

digital tools. (Sheil, 1983) Even those who work

with digital tools frequently need to learn digital soft

skills, as they may have developed bad habits and

misconceptions over time. Merely using digital tools

is not enough to cultivate mindfulness of the medium

and one’s responses to it.

To cite an example: digital tools are often “black

boxes” with complex layers of interrelated procedures

that make it difficult for users to be aware of

what they are doing and how their software operates.

Users expect simple cause-and-effect relationships

between their operations and the results on a screen,

when the reality is that many “hidden” processes are

at work and can affect the outcome of an interaction.

(Blackwell, 2002) This is also one reason why computers

are not always dependable and why they tend

to break down in obscure and obtuse ways. Working

responsibly with digital tools requires a certain level

of comfort and responsiveness with an opaque tool.

Students who lack the digital soft skills to understand

and respond to this condition often have a poor

attitude when faced with computer problems and

may spend their time in unproductive ways trying to

“hack” solutions to technical problems. (Pea, 1987)

This affects not only the quality of their final designs,

but their outlook on technology in general.

Digital soft skills are similar to traditional soft skills

in the way they affect how students apply technical

skills. They are the bridge across the gap that often

exists between design skills and technical (hard)

skills like digital methodologies. Unfortunately, very

little time, if any, is given in architectural curricula

to the explicit cultivation of digital soft skills.

The top diagram demonstrates a curriculum where design (architecture)

and hard skills (technology) are typically taught in

parallel.

The bottom diagram demonstrates that soft skills (learning habits)

create the bridge between design (architecture) and hard

skills (technology). Over time these skills become mutually

supportive.

2.3 Samples of Digital Soft Skills

The following list is a representative sample of

digital soft skills which could be taught in an architectural

curriculum, organized according to four

primary headings.

A.) Communications Skills

Communication is an essential skill for architects.

One could argue it is the majority of what a professional

architect does. Whether it is through drawings,

models, written, or oral, an architect must be

able to clearly express their ideas and intent to an

audience. Unfortunately, in architectural education,

digital communications are often overlooked as a

medium with unique challenges. For instance, many

students have never been explicitly taught how to

ask a question via email: to provide necessary information

and files upfront, anticipate follow-up

questions, and to communicate their expectations for

resolution. This is important not only professionally,

but especially when trying to learn or fix something

like a new piece of software. Communicating well

through digital media is critical, particularly as it has

become a primary means of interacting with others.

Collaboration - The ability to work with others

digitally, particularly at a distance. One aspect of

this is organizing files and sharing them across computing

platforms and software versions.

.

Example of a downloaded Grasshopper definition. Working

digitally demands questions of authorship and intellectual

property be discussed with students.

Authorship - This is the ability to understand

digital intellectual property and to distinguish between

resourcefulness and plagiarism. This notion of

authorship becomes increasingly important when the

line between programmer and architect is blurred by

the use of digital tools. Of particular note is the

downloading of code or Grasshopper definitions

which are then deployed as design generators.

Support - Architects should be able to seek, locate,

and pursue support for software and technical

issues, many of which might exceed the abilities of

the instructor or the support offered by an academic

institution. These skills include asking fellow students,

contacting the software maker directly, and

using the Internet as a resource.

B.) Adaptability

Adaptability is resiliency in response to imperfect

tools and a field constantly in change. Architects using

digital tools should work with the understanding

that failures are to be expected, while being empowered

to seek alternatives. They must also update their

skills and abilities often while remaining critical users

of technology.

Autodidacticism – The ability and inclination to

teach oneself (quickly) is a valuable skill for designers.

This includes planning and scheduling regular

time to learn and a recognition of common concepts

and methods shared between tools, which can make

learning more efficient.

Conversion – An effective strategy for error recovery

is knowing how to share data several between

types of files and programs. It is important to

also note that many computer programs are able to

convert various file formats and often have similar

procedures

C.) Time Management

Digital design projects in architecture are often

complex, involving many different programs and

machines, as well as human team members. Some of

these elements can be hands-off (such as rendering)

.

or very hands-on (supervising CNC fabrication).

Part of completing them successfully is knowing the

workflows involved and having a sense of their coordination

and time requirements.

Estimation - There is a common misconception

that technology makes design faster and easier. It

takes experience and skill to determine the full

amount of time needed to complete a digital task or

processes (e.g. milling, printing, rendering).

Example of a response to a large print which failed. Soft skills

encourage students to anticipate such failures and to develop

alternatives, such as printing on smaller paper, creating analog

versions, and using a projector.

Example of a time management and workflow issue common

in digital production. It must be reiterated that the computer is

not automatic nor is digital production in and of itself ‘fast.’ A

tedious laser file will become a tedious model to assemble.

Sourcing – The ability to identify the most effective

tool and process for the development of the idea

and in relation to the time available for production.

This requires understanding the different elements of

digital production such as the difference between a

raster and a vector.

Preparation - Plan for contingencies and alternatives.

Assume some things will inevitably not go as

expected and know the options available.


Scheduling - Develop internal deadlines, realistic

calendars, and skills for planning and implementing

a multi-step process. For instance: development of a

digital file for fabrication, then fabrication, then

post-production.

Example of a back up protocol. Soft skills enable students to

feel confident that computers will fail and that they are empowered

to seek alternatives

D.) Digital hygiene

Digital hygiene refers to the good habits of caring

for equipment, computer hardware and software as

well as preventing and recovering from errors.

Organization - Maintain files in a structure

which is both navigable and searchable by users.

Backups - Create a backup routine that is an embedded

part of the digital process (cloud, physical

media, & storage). This also includes knowledge and

use of software auto-backup and recovery. Keep at

least one physical backup off-site.

Maintenance – Keep software up to date (but

never upgrade before a deadline). Remove dust and

other particles from sensitive equipment, such as laser

lenses, after each use. Vacuum computer cases,

power supplies, and hard disk enclosures often.

Clean-up – Regularly sort, store, and purge project

files to manage storage and make important files

easier to locate.

2.4 Teaching Digital Soft Skills

Many of the examples listed under soft skills can

be classified as character or personality traits. Successful

students may already practice soft skills and

therefore it is often assumed that these are character

traits rather than teachable attributes. One might

wonder, given the age of many college students, if

such habits can be changed. However, the very notion

of “soft skills” implies that these behaviors and

habits can be taught to students. There is evidence to

support the idea that, with training, young adult students

can learn new traits and learning strategies.

(Perkins, 1989)

Another common argument is that soft skills are

best learned in the workplace. While the workplace

presents an authentic context, it does not offer the

same opportunities for focused learning as design

school. Moreover, one of the reasons for learning

soft skills is to make one more competitive in finding

employment. Students should have a sense of

how these skills translate into practice before they

enter the market.

How can schools teach digital soft skills? Merely

lecturing to students about them is not an effective

strategy. While lectures can be helpful for delivering

information or persuading an audience, changing

and developing habits requires more engagement.

The method of training varies depending upon the

attribute and the audience, however, generallyspeaking,

habits of learning can be developed

through a process of investment and practice.

Supporting a new habit which a student does not

create themselves requires helping them understand

its meaningfulness. It can be easy to dismiss soft

skills out of hand because they might seem to be obvious

or less interesting than learning technical

skills. For this reason, it is important for the instructor

to communicate why new strategies and habits

are helpful. (McCombs, 1996) Investment begins by

identifying the soft skills in question and explaining

to students the value of the skills within design and

production workflows. To be most effective, those

values should be immediate and goal-oriented. Although

it is true that developing soft skills can help a

student get a job in the future, explaining to a student

(for example) how organizing their files saves

them time and reduces errors on their current project

is less abstract and applies to their current situation.

Helping students understand the usefulness of learning

soft skills is the first step toward effective habituation.

In many architecture schools, there is a cultural

separation between studio courses and technical

courses. Students tend to think of studio as their

most important course, because it is where they

practice design and spend most of their time. For

this reason, it is where most of their learning habits

develop. This affects how they learn and integrate

skills from their other courses. Introducing soft skills

can help bridge the gap between studio learning and

technology learning by explicitly connecting them

through habits.

To be most effective, teaching soft skills should

be integrated with hard skills teaching and preferably

in the context of projects. (White and Frederickson,

1998) It is not necessary to revamp an entire

course around soft skills. An instructor can introduce

and reinforce them where they naturally occur within

design and production processes. For example, using

an error that students commonly encounter to introduce

search, problem-solving, and communications

skills. Relevant material like this helps focus

student attention while a legitimate context helps

them retain and access what they have learned later.

Demonstrations can be more effective when they

are supported by teaching materials that help organize

knowledge for students. (Bransford, Brown, and

Cocking, 1999) A simple check-list, for example,

can help students remember how to organize a digital

group project. Once students have mastered the

soft skills involved, the student will not need the

scaffolding provided by the list. However, if the student

makes a mistake or needs to refresh their learning

later, the list provides a useful reference and a

prompt for activating digital soft skills. Externalizing

implicit practices and helping students focus on

relevant information and methods improves the effectiveness

of soft skills teaching.

Delivering soft skills in class benefits from a

coaching approach. Because the goal is to change

student attitudes over time, rather than delivering in

formation or procedures, a “one and done” demonstration

is not an appropriate teaching style. (Mistrell,

1989) (Bransford and Stein, 1984) With coaching,

the instructor discusses the advantages of a skill

(creating investment), then models the behavior

while explaining to the student what they are doing

and why. This last step is important because students

need to understand when to apply a skill as much as

they need to know the technical operations involved.

(Scardamalia, Bereiter, and Steinbach,1984) (Simon,

1978)

Next, students demonstrate the skill and receive

feedback from the instructor on their performance.

This is followed by more practice and feedback over

time and in concert with other skills to approximate

holistic design activities. The goal of coaching is to

cultivate not just practice but deliberate practice over

time – making the student aware of their own actions

and motivating retention and refinement. (Ericsson,

Krampe, and Clemens,1993). This creates deep and

lasting learning.

Adopting a coaching style of instruction requires

a change in how students are graded and given other

feedback. Most assessment in studios and seminars

is summative, meaning it measures the final outcome

of a students’ work. This is suboptimal for

shaping behaviors, as it does not measure the process

sufficiently and is often too late to influence a

student’s soft skills. Formative assessment techniques,

which encourage personal reflection, timely

feedback, and student response are useful support

for the “coaching”. (Vye et al., 1998) To supplement

these techniques, instructors should not only observe

student behaviors but review digital files, as well.

Many courses emphasize the final artifact and never

look at the files involved. Reviewing files is critical

so the instructor can observe attributes such as organization,

efficiency, and other procedural nuances.

Lastly, in order to properly cultivate habits, soft

skills should be reinforced in the studio and lab even

when they are not being formally taught. Instructors

should be mindful and consistent in their own habits,

demonstrating modeled behaviors in their personal

actions. For example, an instructor’s demonstration

files should be well-organized to set a good example

for the students. Student interactions should also

emphasize consistent behavior. If a student asks for

help with a tool, for instance, the instructor should

evaluate how the student asks questions and replay

the scenario with them while making explicit the

strategies involved. Learning should be embedded in

the classroom experience. It must be a continuous

practice, not merely an exercise.

3 DISCUSSION

The challenge of making claims about design

pedagogy interventions is proving their success. In

educational research the difficulties of empirical

measurement in traditional subjects like math and

reading are well-known (Black and Wiliam, 1998;

Shepard, 2000) but the challenges of demonstrating

the impact of an intervention upon design outcomes

– which are not easily measured or quantified –

make this task even more burdensome and its conclusions

unreliable. As such, there is no accepted

model for proving the effectiveness of design pedagogy.

At the same time, articulating these soft skills

and naming them allows a conversation to begin as

to why there is such inconsistency in digital education

across architectural curricula. Digital methodologies

have roosted and flourished in elite institutions

whereas other schools have been slow to change

(particularly in the area of early design education)

and to integrate digital and computational thinking.

What is more important and perhaps easier to

‘prove’ is that well-articulated digital soft skills create

a framework and a platform where technology

can be used expansively and in unique ways rather

than reductively and repetitively. The value of digital

soft skills is to suggest a replicable model which

remains relevant and useful for students as technology

changes, improves, and adapts.

4 CONCLUSION

While digital design skills are critical for 21st

century architects, architectural education must also

recognize and deliver more than technical proficiency.

Working creatively and effectively with computers,

digital fabrication machines, and other devices

requires a new set of workflows and adaptations to

professional behaviors. Boyer’s report makes it clear

that one of the key values of an architectural education

is developing learning habits. A present gap in


student learning is that traditional learning habits

have not been updated in response to changes in

technology. (Boyer, 1996) Digital soft skills can

help to bridge this gap.

Soft skills can and should be taught in architectural

education. Soft skills support the goal of not

only working well with technology, but together

with other people in technologically-supported

ways. They help support students who may not have

had access to technology or formal training prior to

college. Knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and habits

not only shape one’s process, but one’s design goals

and outcomes, as well. Soft-skills impact design and

so they extend beyond pedagogical or semantic arguments.

They should be of interest to anyone who

values good design.

REFERENCES

Andrews, J. and Higson, H., 2008. Graduate employability,

‘soft skills’ versus ‘hard’ business knowledge: A European

study. Higher education in Europe, 33(4), pp.411-422.

Bancino, Randy, and Claire Zevalkink, 2002. "Soft Skills: The

New Curriculum for Hard-Core Technical Professionals."

Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers (J1) 82.5,

pp. 20-22.

Black, P. and Wiliam, D., 1998. Assessment and classroom

learning. Assessment in education, 5(1), pp.7-74.

Blackwell, A., 2002. "What is Programming?" 14th Workshop

of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group.

Bransford, John D., and Barry S. Stein, 1984. "The IDEAL

problem solver."

Dans, Enrique, 2014. “The Absurd and Unfounded Myth of the

Digital Native.” Jun 4, 2014 https://medium.com/enrique-

dans/the-absurd-and-unfounded-myth-of-the-digital-native-

45d1ff397785#.t959mvxza Accessed January 9, 2016

Klahr, D. and Nigam, M., 2004. “The equivalence of learning

paths in early science instruction effects of direct instruction

and discovery learning.” Psychological Science,

15(10), pp.661-667.

McCombs, Barbara L., 1986. "Alternative perspectives for motivation."

Developing engaged readers in school and home

communities,pp. 67-87.

Mistrell, J., 1989. “Teaching Science for Understanding”.

pp129-149 in Resnick, Lauren B., and Leopold E. Klopfer.

Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research.

1989 ASCD Yearbook. Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Nealy, C., 2005. Integrating soft skills through active learning

in the management classroom. Journal of College Teaching

& Learning (TLC), 2(4).

Pea, R.D., 1987. Logo programming and problem solving.

Perkins, D.N. and Salomon, G., 1989. Are cognitive skills context-bound?.

Educational researcher, 18(1), pp.16-25.

Prensky, Marc., 2001. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.”

On the Horizon. MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5.

Raths, J., 2002. Improving instruction. Theory into Practice,

41(4), pp.233-237.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. and Steinbach, R., 1984. “Teachability

of reflective processes in written composition.”

Cognitive Science, 8(2), pp.173-190.

Schoenfeld, A.H., 1985. Mathematical Problem Solving. Orlando,

FL: Academic press.

Shepard, L.A., 2000. The role of assessment in a learning culture.

Educational researcher, 29(7), pp.4-14.

Simon, H.A., 1978. Problem solving and education. Carnegie-

Mellon University, Department of Psychology.

Sheil, B.A., 1983. “Coping with complexity.” Office Technology

and People, 1(4), pp.295-320.

Weiss, R.E., 2003. “Designing problems to promote higher-order

thinking.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning,

2003 (95), pp.25-31.

White, B.Y. and Frederiksen, J.R., 1998. “Inquiry, modeling,

and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students.”

Cognition and instruction, 16(1), pp.3-118.

Vye, N.J., Schwartz, D.L., Bransford, J.D., Barron, B.J. and

Zech, L., 1998. “SMART environments that support monitoring,

reflection, and revision.” Metacognition in Educational

Theory and Practice, pp.305-347.

Soft Skills for Digital Designers

Shelby Doyle and Nick Senske, Iowa State University

Introduction

Computer-‐Aided Drafting and Design (CADD) technologies have

become commonplace in architectural practice as tools of

efficiency and production. For these very reasons the

introduction of CADD in early architectural curricula has been

fraught with anxieties along a continuum: from the undoing of

creativity through positivist and reductionist logic 1 to a firm belief

that these technologies will revolutionize the way architects

practice and think about design. 2 At the same time, there is a

presumption that students who have grown up with digital

technologies are “digital natives” who possess special aptitudes

or insights which are disruptive to learning computing. The

presence of these anxieties and biases often leads to gaps in

digital design instruction, as tools are misunderstood and

misappropriated by students and teachers alike.

The aim of this paper is to take control of the pedagogical agenda

for digital design in architectural education by debunking the

myth of the digital native and by defining a new set of soft skills

for computational design and digital representation. This paper is

a discussion of architecture, design, and education; not an

argument for software and computer use in design. Soft skills

provide a framework for learning and understanding digital skills

which in turn support the development of technical skills. These

base proficiencies in turn facilitate the development of

sophisticated digital architectural designs.

Soft Skills and Fostering Learning Habits

Computer use in digital design is often discussed and taught as a

series of technical or “hard (as in absolute)” skills. In contrast,

“soft” skills are related to emotional intelligence, attitudes, habits,

and interpersonal relationships. An example of a soft skill is

resourcefulness: being inclined and able to find alternate

solutions to a problem, rather than giving up or deferring

responsibility. In this manner, soft skills influence the ways that an

individual applies technical skills to achieve goals. Professions

such as business and information services have cited employees’

lack of soft skills as one of the biggest reasons why projects fail. 3

For students, developing soft skills is equally as important, if not

more important, than learning technical skills.

This paper proposes that a set of complementary “soft” skills is

missing from most discussions of digital pedagogy and that

teaching these skills can improve student outcomes and the

integration of digital technologies into architectural pedagogy.

Fig. 1 Knowing how to operate a smartphone does not necessarily make

one an effective computer user.

While soft skills have a role to play in professional education and

practice, they are not to be confused with professionalism. 4

Professionalism is a social construct about social behavior in a

professional setting. At their core, soft skills support and activate

learning. The influential Boyer report on architectural education

concluded that:

[A]rchitectural education is really about fostering the learning

habits needed for the discovery, integration, application, and

sharing of knowledge over a lifetime. 5

Soft skills are the learning habits Boyer references and as such

must be taught rather assumed to be pre-‐existing skills. This also


Doyle and Senske


extends to those soft skills which relate to digital design and

digital tools. 6 Architectural education must recognize that

university students are not comprehensively or consistently

trained in digital technologies when they arrive on campus. This

is exacerbated when less privileged students are potentially less

digitally skilled than students from economically privileged

backgrounds. By not addressing these inequalities institutions,

such as architecture schools, are perpetuating disparities

through education.

The Myth of the Digital Native

The common belief that students are self-‐regulating when it

comes to learning and using technology may come from the

notion of digital natives. The label “digital native” derives from a

series of articles written by the technologist Marc Prensky during

the early 2000s. Prensky describes the generation of young

people born since 1980 as “digital natives” due to what he

perceives as an innate confidence in using new technologies such

as the internet, videogames, mobile telephones and “all the

other toys and tools of the digital age.” 7 Enrique Dans counters

Prensky’s claims: “Simply being born into the internet age does

not endow one with special powers. Learning how to use

technology properly requires learning and training, regardless of

one’s age.” Dans goes on to expand upon the issues of assuming

students do not need to be taught to use technology thereby

becoming “digital orphans”, lacking in any model to copy or

experiences that might have generated criteria for

understanding. 8

For this reason, beyond basic fluency, architectural instructors

are uniquely positioned to model substantive content creation

and healthy critical thinking about these technologies. By

perpetuating the myth of the digital native architectural

education is missing the opportunity to establish strong digital

foundations from which future digital advancements will

emerge.

Traditional vs. Digital Soft Skills

The kind of soft skills described in this paper are not entirely the

same as soft skills introduced earlier. While traditional soft skills

such as conscientiousness and empathy are helpful for

architects, digital soft skills have a different purpose and apply

specifically to the tools and processes used in digital design.

Digital soft skills, such as asking clear questions, estimation, and

planning skills, enable effective collaboration with other people

while using digital tools and promote effective workflows for

collections of digital tools. Digital soft skills support students as

they are learning digital design and, later, help students apply

technical skills successfully and with sophistication.

Digital soft skills also differ from traditional soft skills because they

take into account the particular challenges of computing and

digital machinery. The special attributes of digital tools that make

them powerful, such as symbolic logic, abstraction, and

automation, can invite cognitive biases when designers operate

those tools simplistically, at face-‐value (i.e. using a computer like

a cell phone, a pencil, or a typewriter). Humans must adapt their

thinking, expectations, and habits, as their natural inclinations

can interfere with working effectively with digital tools. 9 Even

those who work with digital tools frequently need to learn digital

soft skills, as they may have developed bad habits and

misconceptions over time. Merely using digital tools is not

enough to cultivate mindfulness of the medium and one’s

responses to it.

To cite an example: digital tools are often “black boxes” with

complex layers of interrelated procedures that make it difficult

for users to be aware of what they are doing and how their

software operates. Users expect simple cause-‐and-‐effect

relationships between their operations and the results on a

screen, when the reality is that many “hidden” processes are at

work and can affect the outcome of an interaction. 10 This is also

one reason why computers are not always dependable and why

they tend to break down in obscure and obtuse ways. Working

responsibly with digital tools requires a certain level of comfort

and responsiveness with an opaque tool. Students who lack the

digital soft skills to understand and respond to this condition

often have a poor attitude when faced with computer problems

and may spend their time in unproductive ways trying to “hack”

solutions to technical problems. 11 This affects not only their final

designs, but their outlook on technology in general.

Digital soft skills are similar to traditional soft skills in the way they

affect how students apply technical skills. Unfortunately, very

little time, if any, is given in digital design curricula to the explicit

cultivation of soft skills.


The following list is a representative sample of digital soft skills

which could be taught in an architectural curriculum, organized

according to four primary headings.

1. Communications Skills

Communicating clearly with others is a critical set of soft skills for

digital designers. For instance, many students have never been

explicitly taught how to ask a question via email: to provide

necessary information and files upfront, anticipate follow-‐up

questions, and to communicate their expectations for resolution.

This is important not only professionally, but especially when

trying to learn or fix something like a new piece of software.

Fig. 2 Example of a downloaded Grasshopper definition. Working

digitally demands questions of authorship and intellectual property be

discussed with students.

• Collaboration -‐ The ability to work with others digitally,

particularly at a distance. One aspect of this is

organizing files and sharing them across a digital

platform.

• Authorship -‐ This is the ability to understand digital

intellectual property and to distinguish between

resourcefulness and plagiarism. This notion of

authorship becomes increasingly important when the

line between programmer and designer is blurred by

the use of digital tools. Of particular note is the

downloading of code or Grasshopper definitions

which are then deployed as design generators.

• Support -‐ Designers should be able to seek, locate, and

pursue support for software and technical issues,

many of which might exceed the abilities of the

instructor of the support offered by an academic

institution. These skills include asking fellow students,

contacting the software maker directly, and using the

Internet as a resource.

2. Adaptability

Adaptability is resiliency in response to imperfect tools and a field

constantly in change. Digital designers should work with the

understanding that failures are to be expected, while being

empowered to seek alternatives. They must also update their

skills and abilities often while remaining critical users of

technology.

• Autodidacticism – The ability and inclination to teach

oneself (quickly) is a valuable skill for designers. This

includes planning and scheduling regular time to learn

and a recognition of common concepts and methods

shared between tools, which can make learning more

efficient.

• Conversion – An effective strategy for error recovery is

knowing how to share data several between types of

files and programs. It is important to also note that

many computer programs are able to convert various

file formats and often have similar procedures.

Fig. 3 Example of a response to a large print which failed. Soft skills

encourage students to anticipate such failures and to develop

alternatives, such as printing on 8.5x11 paper, creating analog versions,

and using a projector.

3. Time Management

Digital design projects are often complex, involving many

different programs and machines, as well as human team

members. Some of these elements can be hands-‐off (such as

rendering) or very hands-‐on (supervising CNC fabrication). Part of

completing them successfully is knowing the workflows involved

and having a sense of their coordination and time requirements.


Doyle and Senske


Fig. 4 Example of a time management and workflow issue common in

digital production. It must be reiterated that the computer is not

automatic nor is digital production in and of itself ‘fast.’ A tedious laser

file will become a tedious model to assemble.

• Estimation -‐ Determine the full amount of time

needed to complete a task or processes (e.g. milling,

printing, rendering).

• Sourcing -‐ Identify the most effective tool and process

for the development of the idea and in relation to the

time available for production.

• Preparation -‐ Plan for contingencies and alternatives.

Assume some things will inevitably not go as expected

and know the options available.

• Scheduling -‐ Develop internal deadlines, realistic

calendars, and skills for planning and implementing a

multi-‐step process. For instance: development of a

digital file for fabrication, then fabrication, then post-production.

4. Digital hygiene

Digital hygiene refers to the good habits of caring for equipment,

computer hardware and software as well as preventing and

recovering from errors.

Fig. 5 Example of a back up protocol. Soft skills enable students to feel

confident that computers will fail and that they are empowered to seek

alternatives.

• Organization -‐ Maintain files in a structure which is

both navigable and searchable by users.

• Backups -‐ Create a backup routine that is an

embedded part of the digital process (cloud, physical

media, & storage). This also includes knowledge and

use of software auto-‐backup and recovery. Keep at

least one physical backup off-‐site.

• Clean-‐up – Regularly sort, store, and purge project files

to manage storage and make important files easier to

locate.

Teaching Soft Skills

Many of the examples listed under soft skills can be classified as

character or personality traits. Successful students may already

practice soft skills and therefore it is often assumed that these are

character traits rather than teachable attributes. One might

wonder, given the age of many college students, if such habits

can be changed. However, the very notion of “soft skills” implies

that these behaviors and habits can be taught to students. There

is evidence to support the idea that, with training, young adult

students can learn new traits and learning strategies. 12

Another common argument is that soft skills are best learned in

the workplace. While the workplace presents an authentic

context, it does not offer the same opportunities for focused

learning as design school. Moreover, one of the reasons for

learning soft skills is to make one more competitive in finding

employment. Students should have a sense of them before they

enter the market.

How can schools teach digital soft skills? Merely lecturing to

students about them is not an effective strategy. While lectures

can be helpful for delivering information or persuading an

audience, changing and developing habits requires more

engagement. The method of training varies depending upon the

attribute and the audience, however, generally-‐speaking, habits

of learning can be developed through a process of investment

and practice.

Supporting a new habit which a student does not create

themselves requires helping them understand its

meaningfulness. It can be easy to dismiss soft skills out of hand

because they might seem to be obvious or less interesting than

learning technical skills. For this reason, it is important for the

instructor to communicate why new strategies and habits are

helpful. 13 Investment begins by identifying the soft skills in

question and explaining to students the value of the skills within

design and production workflows. To be most effective, those

values should be immediate and goal-‐oriented. Although it is true

that developing soft skills can help a student get a job in the

future, explaining to a student (for example) how organizing their

files saves them time and reduces errors on their current project

is less abstract and applies to their current situation. Helping

students understand the gaps in their present abilities and how

learning soft skills can help close those gaps is the first step

toward effective habituation.

To be most effective, teaching soft skills should be integrated

with hard skills teaching and preferably in the context of a

project. 14 It is not necessary to revamp an entire course around

soft skills. An instructor can introduce them where they naturally

occur within design and production processes. For example,

using an error that students commonly encounter to introduce

search, problem-‐solving, and communications skills. Relevant

material like this helps focus student attention while a legitimate

context helps them retain and access what they have learned

later.

Demonstrations can be more effective when they are supported

by teaching materials that help organize knowledge for

students. 15 A simple check-‐list, for example, can help students

remember how to organize a digital group project. Once

students have mastered the soft skills involved, the student will

not need the scaffolding provided by the list. However, if the

student makes a mistake or needs to refresh their learning later,

the list provides a useful reference and a prompt for activating

digital soft skills. Externalizing implicit practices and helping

students focus on relevant information and methods improves

the effectiveness of soft skills teaching.

Delivering soft skills in class benefits from a coaching approach.

Because the goal is to change student attitudes over time, rather

than delivering information or procedures, a “one and done”

demonstration is not an appropriate teaching style. 16, 17 With

coaching, the instructor discusses the advantages of a skill

(creating investment), then models the behavior while explaining

to the student what they are doing and why. This last step is

important because students need to understand when to apply

a skill as much as they need to know the technical operations

involved. 18, 19 Next, students demonstrate the skill and receive

feedback from the instructor on their performance. This is

followed by more practice and feedback over time and in concert

with other skills to approximate holistic design activities. The goal

of coaching is to cultivate not just practice but deliberate practice

over time – making the student aware of their own actions and

motivating retention and refinement. 20 This creates deep and

lasting learning.

Adopting a coaching style of instruction requires a change in how

students are graded and given other feedback. Most assessment

in studios and seminars is summative, meaning it measures the

final outcome of a students’ work. This is suboptimal for shaping

behaviors, as it does not measure the process sufficiently and is

often too late to influence a student’s soft skills. Formative

assessment techniques, which encourage personal reflection,

timely feedback, and student response are useful support for the

“coaching”. 21 To supplement these techniques, instructors

should not only observe student behaviors but review digital files,

as well. Many courses emphasize the final artifact and never look

at the files involved. Reviewing files is critical so the instructor can

observe attributes such as organization, efficiency, and other

procedural nuances.

Lastly, in order to properly cultivate habits, soft skills should be

reinforced in the studio and lab even when they are not being

formally taught. Instructors should be mindful and consistent in

their own habits, demonstrating modeled behaviors in their

personal actions. For example, an instructor’s demonstration

files should be well-‐organized to set a good example for the

students. Student interactions should also emphasize consistent

behavior. If a student asks for help with a tool, for instance, the

instructor should evaluate how the student asks questions and

replay the scenario with them while making explicit the strategies

involved. Learning should be embedded in the classroom

experience. It must be a continuous practice, not merely an

exercise.

Conclusion

While digital design skills are critical for 21 st century designers,

architectural education must also recognize and deliver more

than technical proficiency. Working creatively and effectively

with computers, digital fabrication machines, and other devices

requires a new set of workflows and adaptations to professional

behaviors. Soft skills support the goal of not only working well

with technology, but together with other people in

technologically-‐supported ways. Attitudes, habits, and

workflows not only shape one’s process, but one’s goals and

outcomes, as well. Soft skills impact design and so they should be

of interest to anyone who values good design.

Incorporating soft skills into existing digital instruction may

require more work from both the instructor and the students,

but the benefits are lasting. Becoming more aware of one’s


Doyle and Senske

process and developing good digital habits pays off, no matter

what software or tools one encounters. Ultimately, teaching soft

skills is about making students more independent and self-directed

learners. With the rapid pace of technological change,

students need to be comfortable with and capable of learning,

relearning, and integrating new programs and tools throughout

their career. For these reasons, soft skills can and should be

taught in foundation design.

Notes

1

Pullasmaa, Juhani. The Eyes of the Skin: Architecture and the Senses.

John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.

2

Kieran, Stephen and James Timberlake. Refabricating Architecture:

How Manufacturing Methodologies Are Poised to Transform Building

Construction. McGraw-‐Hill Education, 2003.

3

Bancino, Randy, and Claire Zevalkink. "Soft Skills: The New Curriculum

for Hard-‐Core Technical Professionals." Techniques: Connecting

Education and Careers (J1) 82.5 (2007): 20-‐22.

4

Professionalism accounts for the skills, good judgment, and polished

behavior crucial to professional success. These traits include: consistent

academic preparation, actively engaging in discussions, meeting

deadlines, collaborating courteously with classmates, giving and

receiving respectful academic criticism, incorporating design feedback,

managing time effectively, respecting the course space and building,

and communicating in a polite and considered manner.

5

Boyer, Ernest L. and Lee D. Mitgang. Building Community: A New

Future for Architecture Education and Practice: A Special Report.

Jossey-‐Bass Inc., 1996. (Preface xvi)

6

Hereafter, digital tools refers to software programs, computing

devices such as laptops, tablets, etc., fabrication systems (laser cutters,

3d printers, CNC machines, etc.), robots, embedded systems, and

anything else that involves computers.

7

Prensky, Marc. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” On the Horizon.

MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5, October 2001.

8

Enrique Dans, “The Absurd And Unfounded Myth Of The Digital

Native.” Jun 4, 2014 https://medium.com/enrique-‐dans/the-‐absurd-and-‐unfounded-‐myth-‐of-‐the-‐digital-‐native-‐45d1ff397785#.t959mvxza

Accessed January 9, 2016

9

Sheil, Beau A. "Coping with complexity." Office Technology and People

1.4 (1983): 295-‐320.

10

Blackwell, A. "What is programming?" 14th workshop of the

Psychology of Programming Interest Group. 2002.

11

Pea, Roy D. "Logo programming and problem solving." (1987).

12

Perkins, David N., and Gavriel Salomon. "Are cognitive skills context-‐

bound?." Educational Researcher 18.1 (1989): 16-‐25.

13

McCombs, Barbara L. "Alternative perspectives for motivation."

Developing engaged readers in school and home communities (1996):

67-‐87.

14

White, B. Y., and J. Frederickson. “Inquiry, modeling, and

metacognition: Making science accessible to all students." Cognition

and Instruction 6: l. 1998.

15

Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking. How people

learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press,

1999.

16

Mistrell, J. Teaching Science for Understanding. pp129-‐149 in

Resnick, Lauren B., and Leopold E. Klopfer. Toward the Thinking

Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research. 1989 ASCD Yearbook.

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1989.

17

Bransford, John D., and Barry S. Stein. "The IDEAL problem

solver."1984.

18

Scardamalia, Marlene, C. Bereiter, and R. Steinbach. "Teachability of

reflective processes in written composition." Cognitive Science 8.2

(1984): 173-‐190.

19

Simon, Herbert Alexander. Problem solving and education. Carnegie-‐

Mellon University, Department of Psychology, 1978.

20

Ericsson, K. Anders, Ralf T. Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-‐Römer. "The

role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance."

Psychological review 100.3 (1993): 363.

21

Vye, Nacy J., et al. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt.

“SMART environments that support monitoring, reflection, and

revision." Metacognition in educational theory and practice: 305-‐346.

1998.

Fig. 1 Bloom’s taxonomy was first introduced in 1956 and since then has seen widespread use in instructional design. A

revised version was issued in 2001, which changed the levels from nouns into active verbs, added the knowledge dimension,

and placed creation (synthesis) at the top of the hierarchy of cognitive process ( Krathwohl , 2002). More recently,

Churches created a “digital” version of Bloom’s taxonomy that updates many its application to computing activities

(2004).

The real issue is not that learning objectives do not exist for digital design courses, but rather that they are not

often used correctly, in response to the findings of educational research. First, many stated learning objectives do

not take into account the learning process for developing complex skills and thinking. As mentioned earlier,

traditional digital design pedagogy tends to emphasize learning through design tasks. The tacit learning objective

of most activities, ostensibly, is to design something via digital methods. However, this does not acknowledge the

steps involved to prepare students for design, such as learning about the tools, practicing methods, comparing

and selecting methods, etc. These skills and knowledge are implied by the goal of designing, but by not stating this

explicitly, the instructor might neglect teaching and assessing the constituent skills and knowledge that students

need, but might not manage to learn on their own.

When developing learning objectives, it is important for digital design instructors to acknowledge how

learning occurs as a developmental process. Creativity and autonomy, abilities exercised in design work, are

higher order thinking skills. Higher order thinking is dependent upon requisite technical skills and other cognitive

resources (Weiss, 2003). As such, these activities may not be beneficial learning experiences for beginner and

intermediate students. Research shows the importance of matching learning objectives to student level (Klahr

and Nigram, 2004). Novices benefit from direct guidance in basic skills and knowledge, while objectives for

advanced students should emphasize synthesis and independence.

Second, many learning objectives for digital design instruction conflate activities and goals with learning

outcomes. A goal is a statement of the overall intended outcome of a learning activity or course. Learning

objectives are specific achievements which contribute to the goal (Ferguson, 1998). For example, a course

description that says “students will be exposed to digital fabrication technologies” has presented a goal, but not

stated a specific, measurable outcome. Likewise, a statement such as “students will fabricate a small-scale

physical model” describes an activity, but does not provide enough information to discern what students are

supposed to learn from the activity. A learning objective that addresses these issues would be: “students will use

GIS data to generate a small-scale physical model using appropriate digital fabrication techniques.” This objective

presents a condition (GIS data), an outcome (the model), and assessment criteria (are the techniques

appropriate? / is the model is correct?). Understanding the learning objective helps define the cognitive skill level

of the activity and the appropriate assessment. For instance, if the objective was to learn about computing

concepts, issuing a quiz with questions about procedures would not be a helpful measurement. To facilitate

effective instruction, goals, activities, and learning objectives must be aligned with one another.

Last, many learning objectives as presented do not support a means of formative assessment. Most courses

only assign grades for projects, which are typically creative or design work. Again, these are higher order thinking

skills and may not be appropriate to assess from novices. Grading project submissions does not give the instructor

or the student much opportunity to remediate skills or knowledge that were misunderstood or not acquired.

Moreover, feedback on a design artifact may not help instructors and students achieve the goal of deep

understanding because it makes conceptual and procedural knowledge indistinguishable from the outcome.

Studies have shown that ability to perform procedural tasks does not mean students are able to explain what

they are doing or why. (Schoenfeld, 1985) This is not to say that instructors should never grade projects. This is

appropriate when the intent is to assess creative work and problem solving, particularly from an advanced class.

Learning objectives should measure the correct student outcomes for the level of the student and in a manner

that allows students to respond with changes in their performance.


Soft Skills and Fostering Learning Habits

The development of rigorous learning objectives is the first part of creating a learning environment for digital

design. The second proposal of this paper is to cultivate a set of complementary “soft” skills which are currently

missing in most digital design instruction. Computer use in architecture is often discussed and taught as a series of

technical or “hard (as in absolute)” skills. In contrast, “soft” skills are related to emotional intelligence, attitudes,

habits, and interpersonal relationships. An example of a soft skill is resourcefulness: being inclined and able to find

alternate solutions to a problem, rather than giving up or deferring responsibility. In this manner, soft skills

influence the ways that an individual applies technical skills to achieve goals, such as a design. Learning soft skills

has been related to improved employment outlook and better job performance. (Andrews and Higson, 2008;

Nealy, 2005) Professions such as business and information services have cited employees’ lack of soft skills as one

of the primary reasons why projects fail. (Bancino and Zevalkink, 2007) Thus, for students, developing soft skills is

equally as important, if not more important, than learning technical skills. This is because soft skills can be

reapplied to changing technology, whereas hard skills may fall away as technology changes

Fig. 2 Knowing how to operate a smartphone does not

necessarily make one an effective computer user.

symbolic logic, abstraction, and automation, can invite cognitive biases when designers operate those tools

simplistically, at face-value (i.e. using a computer like a cell phone, a pencil, or a typewriter). Humans must adapt

their thinking, expectations, and habits, as their natural inclinations can interfere with working effectively with

digital tools. (Sheil, 1983) Even those who work with digital tools frequently need to learn digital soft skills, as they

may have developed bad habits and misconceptions over time. Merely using digital tools is not enough to

cultivate mindfulness of the medium and one’s responses to it.

To cite an example: digital tools are often “black boxes” with complex layers of interrelated procedures that

make it difficult for users to be aware of what they are doing and how their software operates. Users expect

simple cause-and-effect relationships between their operations and the results on a screen, when the reality is

that many “hidden” processes are at work and can affect the outcome of an interaction. (Blackwell, 2002) This is

also one reason why computers are not always dependable and why they tend to break down in obscure and

obtuse ways. Working responsibly with digital tools requires a certain level of comfort and responsiveness with an

opaque tool. Students who lack the digital soft skills to understand and respond to this condition often have a

poor attitude when faced with computer problems and may spend their time in unproductive ways trying to

“hack” solutions to technical problems. (Pea, 1987) This affects not only the quality of their final designs, but their

outlook on technology in general. Digital soft skills are similar to traditional soft skills in the way they affect how

students apply technical skills. They are the bridge across the gap that often exists between design skills and

technical (hard) skills like digital methodologies. Unfortunately, very little time, if any, is given in architectural

curricula to the explicit cultivation of digital soft skills.

Fig. 3 The top diagram demonstrates a curriculum

where design (architecture) and hard skills

(technology) are typically taught in parallel.

The influential Boyer report on architectural education concluded that: “[A]rchitectural education is really

about fostering the learning habits needed for the discovery, integration, application, and sharing of knowledge

over a lifetime.”(Boyer, 1996) Soft skills are the learning habits Boyer references and as such must be taught

rather assumed to be pre-existing skills. This also extends to those soft skills which relate to digital design in

architecture. Hereafter, ‘digital tools’ refers to software programs, computing devices such as laptops, tablets,

etc., fabrication systems (laser cutters, 3d printers, CNC machines, etc.), robots, embedded systems, and anything

else that involves computers.

Architectural education must recognize that university students are not comprehensively or consistently

trained in digital technologies when they arrive on campus. This is exacerbated when less privileged students are

potentially less digitally skilled than students from economically privileged backgrounds. By not addressing these

inequalities institutions, such as architecture schools, are perpetuating disparities through education.

Traditional vs. Digital Soft Skills

The type of soft skills described in this paper are not entirely the same as soft skills introduced in the previous

section. While traditional soft skills such as conscientiousness and empathy are helpful for architects, digital soft

skills have a different purpose and apply specifically to the tools and processes used in digital design. Digital soft

skills, such as asking clear questions, estimation, and planning skills, enable effective collaboration with other

people while using digital tools and promoting effective workflows for collections of digital tools. Digital soft skills

support students as they are learning digital design and, later, help students apply technical skills successfully and

with sophistication and to adapt to a rapidly changing technologic landscape.

Digital soft skills also differ from traditional soft skills because they take into account the particular challenges

of computing and digital machinery. The special attributes of digital tools that make them powerful, such as

The bottom diagram demonstrates that soft

skills (learning habits) create the bridge between

design (architecture) and hard skills

(technology). Over time these skills become mutually

supportive.


The following list is a representative sample of digital soft skills which could be taught in an architectural

curriculum, organized according to four primary headings.

Communications Skills

Communicating clearly with others is a critical set of soft skills for architects, particularly when using digital

tools. For instance, many students have never been explicitly taught how to ask a question via email: to provide

necessary information and files upfront, anticipate follow-up questions, and to communicate their expectations

for resolution. This is important not only professionally, but especially when trying to learn or fix something like a

new piece of software.


Fig. 4 Example of a downloaded Grasshopper definition.

Working digitally demands questions of authorship and

intellectual property be discussed with students.

Fig. 5 Example of a response to a large print which

failed. Soft skills encourage students to anticipate such

failures and to develop alternatives, such as printing on

smaller paper, creating analog versions, and using a

projector.

Collaboration - The ability to work with others digitally, particularly at a distance. One aspect of this is

organizing files and sharing them across computing platforms and software versions.

Authorship - This is the ability to understand digital intellectual property and to distinguish between

resourcefulness and plagiarism. This notion of authorship becomes increasingly important when the line between

programmer and designer is blurred by the use of digital tools. Of particular note is the downloading of code or

Grasshopper definitions which are then deployed as design generators.

Support - Architects should be able to seek, locate, and pursue support for software and technical issues,

many of which might exceed the abilities of the instructor or the support offered by an academic institution.

These skills include asking fellow students, contacting the software maker directly, and using the Internet as a

resource.

Adaptability

Adaptability is resiliency in response to imperfect tools and a field constantly in change. Digital designers

should work with the understanding that failures are to be expected, while being empowered to seek

alternatives. They must also update their skills and abilities often while remaining critical users of technology.

Time Management

Digital design projects in architecture are often complex, involving many different programs and machines, as

well as human team members. Some of these elements can be hands-off (such as rendering) or very hands-on

(supervising CNC fabrication). Part of completing them successfully is knowing the workflows involved and having

a sense of their coordination and time requirements.

Fig. 6 Example of a time management and workflow issue

common in digital production. It must be reiterated

that the computer is not automatic nor is digital production

in and of itself ‘fast.’ A tedious laser file will become

a tedious model to assemble.

Autodidacticism – The ability and inclination to teach oneself (quickly) is a valuable skill for designers. This

includes planning and scheduling regular time to learn and a recognition of common concepts and methods

shared between tools, which can make learning more efficient.

Conversion – An effective strategy for error recovery is knowing how to share data several between types of files

and programs. It is important to also note that many computer programs are able to convert various file formats

and often have similar procedures.

Estimation - There is a common misconception that technology makes design faster and easier. It takes

experience and skill to determine the full amount of time needed to complete a digital task or processes (e.g.

milling, printing, rendering).

Sourcing - The ability to identify the most effective tool and process for the development of the idea and in

relation to the time available for production. This requires understanding the different elements of digital

production such as the difference between a raster and a vector.

Preparation - Plan for contingencies and alternatives. Assume some things will inevitably not go as expected and

know the options available.

Scheduling - Develop internal deadlines, realistic calendars, and skills for planning and implementing a multi-step

process. For instance: development of a digital file for fabrication, then fabrication, then post-production.

Digital hygiene


Digital hygiene refers to the good habits of caring for equipment, computer hardware and software as well as

preventing and recovering from errors.

Fig. 7 Example of a back up protocol. Soft skills enable

students to feel confident that computers will fail and

that they are empowered to seek alternatives.

Organization - Maintain files in a structure which is both navigable and searchable by users.

Backups - Create a backup routine that is an embedded part of the digital process (cloud, physical media, &

storage). This also includes knowledge and use of software auto-backup and recovery. Keep at least one physical

backup off-site.

Clean-up – Regularly sort, store, and purge project files to manage storage and make important files easier to

locate.

Teaching Digital Soft Skills

Many of the examples listed under soft skills can be classified as character or personality traits. Successful

students may already practice soft skills and therefore it is often assumed that these are character traits rather

than teachable attributes. One might wonder, given the age of many college students, if such habits can be

changed. However, the very notion of “soft skills” implies that these behaviors and habits can be taught to

students. There is evidence to support the idea that, with training, young adult students can learn new traits and

learning strategies. (Perkins, 1989)

Another common argument is that soft skills are best learned in the workplace. While the workplace presents

an authentic context, it does not offer the same opportunities for focused learning as design school. Moreover,

one of the reasons for learning soft skills is to make one more competitive in finding employment. Students

should have a sense of how these skills translate into practice before they enter the market.

How can schools teach digital soft skills? Merely lecturing to students about them is not an effective strategy.

While lectures can be helpful for delivering information or persuading an audience, changing and developing

habits requires more engagement. The method of training varies depending upon the attribute and the audience,

however, generally-speaking, habits of learning can be developed through a process of investment and practice.

Supporting a new habit which a student does not create themselves requires helping them understand its

meaningfulness. It can be easy to dismiss soft skills out of hand because they might seem to be obvious or less

interesting than learning technical skills. For this reason, it is important for the instructor to communicate why

new strategies and habits are helpful. (McCombs, 1996) Investment begins by identifying the soft skills in

question and explaining to students the value of the skills within design and production workflows. To be most

effective, those values should be immediate and goal-oriented. Although it is true that developing soft skills can

help a student get a job in the future, explaining to a student (for example) how organizing their files saves them

time and reduces errors on their current project is less abstract and applies to their current situation. Helping

students understand the gaps in their present abilities and how learning soft skills can help close those gaps is the

first step toward effective habituation.

To be most effective, teaching soft skills should be integrated with hard skills teaching and preferably in the

context of a project. (White and Frederickson, 1998) It is not necessary to revamp an entire course around soft

skills. An instructor can introduce them where they naturally occur within design and production processes. For

example, using an error that students commonly encounter to introduce search, problem-solving, and

communications skills. Relevant material like this helps focus student attention while a legitimate context helps

them retain and access what they have learned later.

Demonstrations can be more effective when they are supported by teaching materials that help organize

knowledge for students. (Bransford, Brown, and Cocking, 1999) A simple check-list, for example, can help

students remember how to organize a digital group project. Once students have mastered the soft skills involved,

the student will not need the scaffolding provided by the list. However, if the student makes a mistake or needs to

refresh their learning later, the list provides a useful reference and a prompt for activating digital soft skills.

Externalizing implicit practices and helping students focus on relevant information and methods improves the

effectiveness of soft skills teaching.

Delivering soft skills in class benefits from a coaching approach. Because the goal is to change student

attitudes over time, rather than delivering information or procedures, a “one and done” demonstration is not an

appropriate teaching style. (Mistrell, 1989) (Bransford and Stein, 1984) With coaching, the instructor discusses the

advantages of a skill (creating investment), then models the behavior while explaining to the student what they

are doing and why. This last step is important because students need to understand when to apply a skill as much

as they need to know the technical operations involved. (Scardamalia, Bereiter, and Steinbach,1984) (Simon,

1978)

Next, students demonstrate the skill and receive feedback from the instructor on their performance. This is

followed by more practice and feedback over time and in concert with other skills to approximate holistic design

activities. The goal of coaching is to cultivate not just practice but deliberate practice over time – making the

student aware of their own actions and motivating retention and refinement. (Ericsson, Krampe, and

Clemens,1993). This creates deep and lasting learning.

Adopting a coaching style of instruction requires a change in how students are graded and given other

feedback. Most assessment in studios and seminars is summative, meaning it measures the final outcome of a

students’ work. This is suboptimal for shaping behaviors, as it does not measure the process sufficiently and is

often too late to influence a student’s soft skills. Formative assessment techniques, which encourage personal

reflection, timely feedback, and student response are useful support for the “coaching”. (Vye et al., 1998) To

supplement these techniques, instructors should not only observe student behaviors but review digital files, as

well. Many courses emphasize the final artifact and never look at the files involved. Reviewing files is critical so the

instructor can observe attributes such as organization, efficiency, and other procedural nuances.

Lastly, in order to properly cultivate habits, soft skills should be reinforced in the studio and lab even when

they are not being formally taught. Instructors should be mindful and consistent in their own habits,

demonstrating modeled behaviors in their personal actions. For example, an instructor’s demonstration files

should be well-organized to set a good example for the students. Student interactions should also emphasize

consistent behavior. If a student asks for help with a tool, for instance, the instructor should evaluate how the

student asks questions and replay the scenario with them while making explicit the strategies involved. Learning

should be embedded in the classroom experience. It must be a continuous practice, not merely an exercise.

Discussion

The challenge of making claims about design pedagogy interventions, like soft skills, is proving their

effectiveness. In educational research the difficulties of empirical measurement in traditional subjects like math

and reading are well-known (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Shepard, 2000) but the challenges of demonstrating the


impact of an intervention upon design outcomes – which are not easily measured or quantified – make this task

even more burdensome and its conclusions unreliable. As such, there is no accepted model for proving the

effectiveness of design pedagogy. What is more important and perhaps easier to ‘prove’ is that well-articulated

digital soft skills create a framework and a platform where technology can be used expansively and in unique

ways rather than reductively and repetitively. The value of digital soft skills is to suggest a replicable model which

remains relevant and useful for students as technology changes, improves, and adapts.

With regards to learning objectives, their value is not what they add to a syllabus, but rather how they prompt

a larger conversation about educational and professional values and standards. Creating learning objectives for

digital design in architecture exposes many implicit assumptions about what faculty believe about learning and

the role of computing in the studio. At the same time, discussing learning objectives is a provocation towards

architecture schools to consider digital design as more than merely learning to operate tools and software

(activities which are not themselves valid learning objectives) and to instead connect these practices to design

thinking and the development of architectural designs.

Bloom’s taxonomy assists in framing a more constructive discussion about learning to design digitally by

offering a structure of cognitive accomplishments for students. This helps re-align architectural educators away

from frameworks derived from folk pedagogy and towards established theories and research into educational

psychology and learning cognition. Instead of teaching and learning digital skills and knowledge through a

hierarchy of the tool’s features or increasing complexity, Bloom’s taxonomy foregrounds processes of

remembering, thinking, and judgment. These objectives are more closely aligned with deeper understanding and

integrative mastery. This type of learning is precisely the antidote to the kind of superficial engagement one often

finds in architecture schools that prompts negativity towards the use of computing in design.

The purpose of reflecting upon learning objectives for digital design in architecture is not to produce a

definitive list of what students ought to learn. Learning objectives are written for specific curricula, student needs,

and faculty interests. They are useful because they provide a clear definition of expected outcomes and which

becomes a point of dialogue. In order to evaluate something, it first must be named. Through evaluation and

discussion, a discipline develops. When Bloom created the learning taxonomy, this was the goal. Not to explain or

lay claim to how students must learn, but to provide a shared structure so educators could compare their

approaches. In a similar manner, creating and sharing learning objectives for digital design instruction can

produce a more organized dialogue about how to align the use of digital tools with the core values of architectural

education and the development of the discipline itself. The development of a more coherent set of evaluation

criteria in digital education will increase the rigor of conversations about the future of digital design in

architecture. Learning objectives are not only for evaluating one’s students or teaching. They help departments

and educators understand whether they are teaching the right things. The question should always be: “how does

this improve design?”

Conclusion

While digital design skills are critical for 21 st century designers, architectural education must also recognize and

deliver more than technical proficiency. Working creatively and effectively with computers, digital fabrication

machines, and other devices requires a new set of workflows and adaptations to academic and professional

behaviors. Boyer’s report makes it clear that one of the key values of an architectural education is developing

learning habits. A present gap in student learning is that traditional learning habits have not been updated in

response to changes in technology. (Boyer, 1996) Learning objectives and soft skills for digital design can help to

bridge these gaps.

Incorporating learning objectives and soft skills into existing digital instruction may require more work from

both the instructor and the students, but the benefits are lasting. Becoming more aware of one’s process and

developing good digital habits pays off, no matter what software or tools one encounters. Ultimately, teaching

learning objectives and soft-skills is about making students more independent and self-directed learners. With the

rapid pace of technological change, students need to be comfortable with and capable of learning, relearning,

and integrating new programs and tools throughout their career. For these reasons, learning objectives and soft

skills can and should be implemented throughout digital design education.

Learning objects and soft skills support the goal of not only working well with technology, but together with

other people in technologically-supported ways. Knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and habits not only shape one’s

process, but one’s design goals and outcomes, as well. Soft-skills and learning objectives impact design and so

they extend beyond pedagogical or semantic arguments. They should be of interest to anyone who values how

technology supports good design.

References

Anderson, L.W., Krathwohl, D.R. and Bloom, B.S., 2001. A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A

revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. Allyn & Bacon.

Anderson, L.W., 2002. Curricular alignment: A re-examination. Theory into practice, 41(4), pp.255-260.

Bancino, Randy, and Claire Zevalkink, 2002. "Soft Skills: The New Curriculum for Hard-Core Technical

Professionals." Techniques: Connecting Education and Careers (J1) 82.5, pp. 20-22.

Biggs, J., 1999. “What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning.” Higher education research &

development, 18(1), pp.57-75.

Blackwell, A., 2002. "What is Programming?" 14th Workshop of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group.

Boyer, Ernest L. and Lee D. Mitgang, 1996. Building Community: A New Future for Architecture Education and

Practice: A Special Report. Jossey-Bass Inc. (Preface xvi)

Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, 1999. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and

school. National Academy Press.

Bransford, John D., and Barry S. Stein, 1984. "The IDEAL problem solver."

Bruner, J.S., 1996. The Culture of Education. Harvard University Press.

Carnegie Mellon Eberly Center for Teaching Excellence and Educational Innovation, 2016. “Bloom’s Taxonomy.”

https://www.cmu.edu/teaching/designteach/design/bloomsTaxonomy.html Accessed on January 10, 2016.

Churches, A., 2009. “Bloom's digital taxonomy.” http://burtonslifelearning.pbworks.com/f/

BloomDigitalTaxonomy2001.pdf Accessed December, 30, 2015.

Clement, J., 1982. “Students’ preconceptions in introductory mechanics”. American Journal of Physics, 50(1),

pp.66-71.

Dans, Enrique, 2014. “The Absurd and Unfounded Myth of the Digital Native.” Jun 4, 2014

https://medium.com/enrique-dans/the-absurd-and-unfounded-myth-of-the-digital-native-

45d1ff397785#.t959mvxza Accessed January 9, 2016

Ericsson, K. Anders, Ralf T. Krampe, and Clemens Tesch-Römer, 1993. "The role of deliberate practice in the

acquisition of expert performance." Psychological review 100.3, p. 363.

Ferguson, L.M., 1998. “Writing Learning Objectives.” Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 14(2), pp.

87-94.

Furst, E.J., 1981. “Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives for the cognitive domain: Philosophical and

educational issues.” Review of Educational Research, 51(4), pp.441-453.


Kieran, Stephen and James Timberlake, 2003. Refabricating Architecture: How Manufacturing Methodologies Are

Poised to Transform Building Construction. McGraw-Hill Education.

Klahr, D. and Nigam, M., 2004. “The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction effects of direct

instruction and discovery learning.” Psychological Science, 15(10), pp.661-667.

Krathwohl, D.R., 2002. “A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview.” Theory into practice, 41(4), pp.212-218.

McCombs, Barbara L., 1986. "Alternative perspectives for motivation." Developing engaged readers in school and

home communities,pp. 67-87.

Mistrell, J., 1989. “Teaching Science for Understanding”. pp129-149 in Resnick, Lauren B., and Leopold E. Klopfer.

Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research. 1989 ASCD Yearbook. Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

National Architecture Accreditation Board, 2014. “2014 Conditions for Accreditation.”

http://www.naab.org/accreditation/2014_Conditions. Accessed January 16, 2016.

Pea, R.D., 1987. Logo programming and problem solving.

Perkins, D.N. and Salomon, G., 1989. Are cognitive skills context-bound?. Educational researcher, 18(1), pp.16-25.

Perkins, D.N. and Salomon, G., 1992. “Transfer of Learning.” International Encyclopedia of Education, 2.

Prensky, Marc., 2001. “Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants.” On the Horizon. MCB University Press, Vol. 9 No. 5.

Pallasmaa, J., 1996. The eyes of the skin: architecture and the senses. John Wiley & Sons.

Raths, J., 2002. Improving instruction. Theory into Practice, 41(4), pp.233-237.

Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C. and Steinbach, R., 1984. “Teachability of reflective processes in written

composition.” Cognitive Science, 8(2), pp.173-190.

Schoenfeld, A.H., 1985. Mathematical Problem Solving. Orlando, FL: Academic press.

Simon, H.A., 1978. Problem solving and education. Carnegie-Mellon University, Department of Psychology.

Senske, N. 2014. “Confronting the Challenges of Computational Design Instruction.” Computer Aided Architectural

Design and Research in Asia (CAADRIA) Conference, Kyoto, Japan, pp. 821-829.

Sheil, B.A., 1983. “Coping with complexity.” Office Technology and People, 1(4), pp.295-320.

Weiss, R.E., 2003. “Designing problems to promote higher‐order thinking.” New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, 2003 (95), pp.25-31.

White, B.Y. and Frederiksen, J.R., 1998. “Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all

students.” Cognition and instruction, 16(1), pp.3-118.

Vanderbilt University Center for Teaching, 2016. “Bloom’s Taxonomy.” https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-subpages/blooms-taxonomy/

Accessed January 10, 2016.

Vye, N.J., Schwartz, D.L., Bransford, J.D., Barron, B.J. and Zech, L., 1998. “SMART environments that support

monitoring, reflection, and revision.” Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice, pp.305-347.


Shelby Elizabeth Doyle AIA NCARB LEED AP





Events

Back to Table

of Contents

BTES Conference 2017 | 1

BUILDING TECHNOLOGY EDUCATORS’ CONFERENCE

Summer 2017 co-hosted with Tom Leslie and Rob Whitehead

POETICS AND PRAGMATISM

Call for Papers

“Talk is cheap and easy; making dreams real takes hard, humble

work. Dreams in the Midwest are acceptable, just keep them to

yourself. Maybe tell your family, but don’t just talk—do something

about it.”

Peter Jenkins, Looking for Alaska

Poetics and Pragmatism Proceedings

Papers Presented at BTES 2017

co-editors

Shelby Doyle, Thomas Leslie, Rob Whitehead



2017 Conference Des Moines, IA 8-10 June 2017

btes2017.wordpress.com

The building technology educators’ society serves the community

of academics and professionals who are involved most directly

with the construction and structure of the built environment.

The mission of BTES is to promote and publish the best

pedagogic practices, relevant research, scholarship, and other

creative activity to facilitate student learning, advance innovation,

and enhance the status of building technology disciplines in the

profession at large. BTES:

__Shares the best architectural technology teaching practices

__Hosts critical discourse in focused research areas

__Enhances the mentoring process among faculty, students,

and practitioners

__Hosts discussions among building technology researchers

and professionals

__Facilitates connections and between researchers,

professionals, industry, and associated regulatory agenciese

Iowa opened to European-American settlers in 1834, and ever

since it has been a place where Americans have held a tenuous

grip on the land and against a climate that resists occupation.

Its soil produces grain for the entire continent; its legendary work

ethic has fueled generations of farmers but also writers, poets,

musicians, and astronomers. It is a place that takes the real

world seriously, but that has also raised the products of such

engagement to poetic levels; the novels of Marilynne Robinson,

the music of Greg Brown, and the paintings of Grant Wood

all speak to this possibility among the sublime landscapes of

our state. But it is also a place of technological engagement

and advancement: Iowa State can make a legitimate claim to

be the birthplace of digital computing, a legacy reflected in its

investment in fabrication and analysis initiatives today.

BTES’ first meeting in the Midwest offers an opportunity to ask

how building can address both practical and poetic desires. The

‘hard, humble work’ of constructing in an indifferent environment

can balance our needs with what that environment has to offer

while touching our deeper sensibilities. Indeed, cognitive science

has produced evidence suggesting that beauty, in the words

of Denis Dutton, is “nature’s way of acting at a distance,” an

instinctive preference for objects, landscapes, and sustenance

that can leverage our relations with the world.

How do the pragmatics and the poetics of building coincide?

How do they resist, challenge, or provoke one another? How do

buildings and the ways in which we build bridge realms of material

performance and aesthetics? And how does a new generation of

tools collide with, enhance, or critique these traditions? We seek

papers on a broad range of topics that address how and why

we build, that examine technology and techne in the contexts of

function, beauty, and poetics, and that reveal these links both

in contemporary practice and throughout history. Papers that

address Midwestern traditions are particularly welcome, but we

seek a broad mix of geographical, conceptual, and disciplinary

approaches.


MILLER FACULTY FELLOWSHIP


Office of the Senior Vice

President and Provost

1550 Beardshear Hall

Ames, IA 50011-2021

Phone 515 294-0070

FAX 515 294-8844

Interoffice Communication

Date: February 17, 2016

To:

From:

Nick Senske, Architecture

Shelby Doyle, Architecture

Jonathan Wickert

Senior Vice President and Provost

Computational Foundations Colloquium Schedule

Subject:

Miller Faculty Fellowship Award

Congratulations! I am delighted to inform you that your Miller Faculty Fellowship proposal

“Computational design and digital fabrication technology integration” has been funded in the

amount of $12,380 beginning July 1, 2016.

You will soon receive accounting information from my colleague Connie Bates. A final report

will be due to the Center for Excellence in Learning and Teaching within 30 days of the project’s

completion, or by July 31, 2017, whichever is sooner. In addition, Miller Faculty Fellows are

invited to give remarks on their projects at the Miller Faculty Fellowship luncheon. I look

forward to seeing the impact on undergraduate education that you will make as your project

progresses.

This year’s proposals were excellent and imaginative, making the task of reviewing and selecting

awardees enjoyable but challenging. The CELT Advisory Board, which includes faculty

representatives from each college, evaluated the proposals and prepared the ranking from which I

have chosen a final group of awardees. The Board applied the criteria listed in the Guidelines for

Preparation of Proposals and as outlined in the program’s scoring rubric.

Again, congratulations on being selected as a Miller Faculty Fellow, and thank you for your

creativity in making Iowa State be even more student-focused.

JW/jj

cc:

Steven Leath, President

Luis Rico-Gutierrez, Dean

Deborah Hauptmann, Chair

Connie Bates, Office of the SVPP

Sara Marcketti, CELT Associate Director

You’re invited to join us: April 17-18, 2017

Department of Architecture

Computational Foundations

Colloquium

Hosted by Shelby Doyle and Nick Senske, ISU Department of Architecture.

Made possible by the ISU Miller Faculty Fellowship

Jeana Ripple

University of Virginia

Carl Lostritto

Rhode Island School of Design

Chris Beorkrem

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Monday, April 17, 2017

10.00-12.00 Doyle + Senske Introduction

Miller Goals + ARCH 202 and 230

ISU Computation + Construction Lab

12.00-1.00 Lunch + Continued Discussion

01.00-6.00 Walk through of ARCH 202 Work

06.00-9.00 Dinner with ARCH 202 Faculty

Department of Architecture Faculty Invited

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

10.00-01.00 Invited Presentations + Discussion

01.00-02.00 Lunch + Continued Discussion

02.00-04.00 Open Discussion

10.00 Jeana Ripple, University of Virginia

Jeana Ripple is an Assistant Professor at the University

of Virginia School of Architecture. Her background as a

professional hacker and computer science engineer informs

a rigorous attention to detail, complex systems, and a

willingness to take risks in her approach to design.

11.00 Carl Lostritto , Rhode Island School of Design

Carl Lostritto conducts research and teaches in the area

of computational design, with an emphasis on drawing

and media within the discipline of architecture. He

also co-founded and operates the RISD Code Studio,

an interdisciplinary group of RISD/Brown faculty and

students devoted to the critical, conceptual and technical

opportunities surrounding the craft of computing.

12.00 Chris Beorkrem, U of N Carolina at Charlotte

Chris Beorkrem is an Associate Professor in the School of

Architecture at the University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

He currently serves as coordinator for the Design +

Computation Dual Degree and works in the Digital Arts

Center in the College of Arts + Architecture.


ISU Architecture Welcomes >

Adaptive Facades Symposium

Scheman Center | 1st Floor Northwest | Thursday | April 19. 2018

ISU Architecture Welcomes >

Adaptive Facades Symposium

Scheman Center | 1st Floor Northwest | Thursday | April 19. 2018

9.00 AM Registration OPENS

9.45 AM Deborah HAUPTMANN

Chair and Professor of Architecture

Welcome

10.00 AM Ulrich KNAACK

Professor and Chair, TU Delft & TU Darmstadt

Facade Roadmap

11.00 AM Doris SUNG

Associate Professor, University of Southern California

Founding Principal, DOSU Studio Architecture

Taming Smart Materials to Behave

12.00 PM Shrikar BHAVE

Design Lead at Transsolar KlimaEngineering, New York

Climate Responsive Building Facades– Case Studies

1.00 PM Lunch BREAK

John Breidenbach, Tremco

Remarks

2.00 PM Steen ELSTED

Senior Constructing Architect & Facade Specialist

Henning Larsen Architecture, Copenhagen

Filtering the Environment

3.00 PM Lisa RAMMIG

Associate, Eckersley O-Callaghan Engineers San Francisco

Transparency and Innovation

4.00 PM Afternoon BREAK

4.30 PM Concluding Panel DISCUSSION

Speakers and Conveners

OVERVIEW

Building facades, like the human

skin, have to mediate a large

variety of external parameters and

conditions, such as sun, heat, wind,

water. Facades which can change

according to these conditions based

on their material, mechanical or kinetic

properties have been an architect’s

dream for many decades. Like the

lens of the camera or eye these façade

should be able to adapt to changing

external or internal conditions. Material

development, digital manufacturing

and computational advances in respect

to parametric environmental building

performance modeling have advanced

thus far, that adaptive facades are

the current and future innovations

constructed to mediate, sun, light and

heat to provide more energy efficiency,

more comfort, more conceptual

freedom and more opportunities for

occupants to adjust their environment

to their individual requirements.

SPONSORED BY

www.tremcoinc.com

CONVENERS

Deborah Hauptmann

Chair and Professor of Architecture

Ulrike Passe

Associate Professor of Architecture

Shelby Doyle


THANK YOU

Thank you to the ISU Architecture Public

Programs student team: Erin Copeland,

Tom Goetz, Tomi Laja, Kimya Salari,

and Wade Vollink.

Thank you also to the College of Design

Adminstrative Services Office staff Jean

Holt and Hope Kepler.

Department of Architecture Public Programs

www.design.iastate.edu/architecture







Workshop

Back to Table

of Contents

Constructing Textiles

Virtual Frictions All School Workshop

Louisiana State University

School of Architecture

INSTRUCTOR

Shelby Doyle AIA LEED AP

Assistant Professor of Architecture Iowa State University

ccl.design.iastate.edu @ISU_CCL

WORKSHOP DESCRIPTION

In groups of five to six people, students will design and construct textile

installations that explore the friction between digital simulations of textiles and

their physical construction. This will include modeling proposals in Kangaroo

Physics for Grasshopper then fabricating large peg looms, knitting panels,

and installing the knits to reflect the initial design proposal.

RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGY

The following are not required but will aid in participating in the digital design

and production aspects of the workshop: Laptop, Rhinoceros (Rhino) v5.0 PC

Version + Grasshopper or Rhino v6.0, Kangaroo Physics. Adobe Creative

Suite (AfterEffects, Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign).

Cory Natal (5)

Harris Quadir (2)

Braiden Beam (3)

Erin Steinkamp (4)

Berry Lee (2)

Luz Castro (G)

Neel Vyas (G)

Madeline Laperouse (2)

Samantha Siliezar (3)

Isabelle Veneracion (2)

Bryce Humbrecht (3)

Kire Thomas (5)

Chase Welch (3)

Mandisa Ndhlukula (2)

Zach Bell (4)

Rachel Barnett (2)

Andrea Barrios (G)

Allie White (5)

Anna Norman (3)

Maddy Cappy (2)

Holland Garner (3)

Alexander Vinet (5)

Thu Nguyen (2)

Clinton Boles (3)

Chryshanna Williams (5)

Willie Goliday (G)

Ian Ledo (4)

Natalie Angelette (2)

Andie Ottenweller (3)

Antonio Tejeda (5)

Brooke Loupe (2)

Pei Yu (5)

Hannah Mollere (3)

Zyzenti Brito (2)

Roberto Vindel (2)

Virtual

Frictions

Louisiana State University

School of Architecture

FEB 13 FEB 14 FEB 15

OPEN TO PUBLIC

KICK-OFF LECTURE

BRANDON CLIFFORD

“Professor Doyle sees ‘building technology education’ not simply as a noun, but as

a verb. She simultaneously explores how tools are learned and used, the

expanded possibilities of artifacts created by these tools, the way these artifacts

can influence public environments, and the cultural conditions that complicate

who participates in the design and production of architecture,” Whitehead said.

7 WORKSHOPS

“Of particular importance is Professor Doyle’s ability to frame design practices

and service as forums to critique and improve societal issues of equity. Who holds

“Virtual craft still seems like an oxymoron; any [CROP CIRCLES]

[INTER-DIMENSIONAL NARRATIVES]

fool can tell you that a craftsperson needs the to pen, the analog mouse algorithms

the hammer shouldn’t be a decision based VR designed on gender, and 3D forms

touch [their] work. This touch can be indirect I’ve seen Brandon her actively work Clifford to address and improve these conditions; Olga Mesa our students

—indeed no glassblower lays a hand on

benefit greatly Massachusetts from her advocacy,” Institute of he Technology

said.

Roger Williams University

molten material—but it must be physical and

continual, and it must provide control of whole Mystery and speculation surround the nocturnal

Prior to joining the Iowa State faculty, Doyle was a visiting assistant In pairs, students professor will inrespond to prompts to construct

processes ... more abstract endeavors such as creations of geometries in the landscape: Crop a spatial inter-dimensional narrative within a virtual

the Louisiana Circles. State As University cryptic as School their of creation Architecture stories and a research environment. fellow They with will examine the frictions and

conducting an orchestra or composing elegant are, the geometries that describe them are reciprocities inherent in traveling between physical

software have often been referred to as craft, the LSU Coastal universally Sustainability rule-based. Studio. Students She will also begin served by as an and instructor digital with space, theand the spatial perception and

this has always been in a more distant sense establishing their rule-based geometries at the

University of Houston Pan Asia Mekong Summer Program, Parsons physical The sensations New triggered by visual stimuli.

desk, then translate them into a computation

of the word ... Our digital practices seem more

Participants are encouraged to test the connection

School for method Design, that and constructs Urban Lab Phnom a code Penh to deploy and Limkokwing a between University the body Faculty and its movements to measure,

akin to traditional handicrafts, where a master drawing at a geological scale.

model, and control phenomena. A portion of their

continuously coaxes a material.” 1 for the Built Environment, both in Cambodia.

scenes will be translated into 3D printed objects that

[ZIP FORM]

embody their spatial constructs and appeal to our

Digital technologies have provided watershed A licensed digital architect curved and a LEED forms Accredited Professional, she imagination. is a member of the

moments for innovation and progress (promised AIA and Iowa Emily Women Baker in Architecture. She formerly served on [ROBOTIC the BTES board “AUGMENTED” of

VISION]

and realized). Innovations in computation

directors

University

and co-organized

of Arkansas

the 2017 BTES conference in Des Moines.

have offered exciting new possibilities for the

robotically captured AR videos

construction, consideration, and design of Contacts the The mathematical concept of parallel transport Ebrahim Poustinchi

will be physicalized as students design and create

built world. Architects tackling this new area of

Kent State University

Shelby Doyle, curving Architecture, steel forms (515) that 294-8711, “zip” together doyle@iastate.edu

from flat

expertise have long grappled with the challenge parts. Students will digitally model unique forms RAV investigates a possible medium to establish a

of reconciling the new languages of scripting, Rob Whitehead, using a Architecture, provided parametric (515) 294-8276, strategy. rwhitehd@iastate.edu

Simple workflow between a custom-made AR application

software, and virtual environments with Heather the analog jigs will enable the fabrication of these and a curated robotic motion. Enhanced through

Sauer, complex Design forms Communications, large scale. This (515) workshop 294-9289, hsauer@iastate.edu

established traditions of material craft, physical

the lens of the existing contemporary discourse

aims to reveal how analog fabrication techniques about representation, students use RAV workflow to

drafting and measure, and tactile response. -30- paired with computational design strategies can develop a hybrid actual/virtual video, that is half digital

make fabrication of complex geometries easy, and half physical. As an outcome of the workshop,

At the same time that the discipline has June seen 26, 2019 efficient, 12:10 and pm fun.

students will develop a robotic videography path for

digital fabrication shift from niche specialization

the UR5 robot arm to capture a curated video of the

towards a new status quo, some architects Tags: and Awards [REFLATE]

AR scene.

digitally designing inflatables

designers have shifted their investigations from

[GRAVITY-ASSISTED CASTING]

exploring the potentials new computational Jonathan Desi-Olive

variable parametric casting molds

and fabrication technologies present towards Kansas State University

Lavender Tessmer

possible reciprocities between computational

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

processes and traditional crafts or insights.

How can digital technologies learn from physical

craft? This is the sincere and challenging

question which Virtual Frictions proposes as

a launching point for a series of investigations

exploring the reciprocities between digital craft

and physical materials and tools. Seven invited

workshop instructors will lead investigations

into timely questions in digital fabrication.

Through their work, students will learn new

skills, explore new aspects of technologies, and

be introduced to making in new and exciting

ways. The three-day event will be kicked-off

with a lecture by Brandon Clifford, of MIT and

Matter Design, and will culminate in a roundtable

and reception to share the results of the

workshops.

1 McCullough, Malcolm. Abstracting Craft: the Practiced Digital

Hand. Cambridge (Massachusetts): MIT Press, 1998.

Organized by:

Niloufar Emami, Zachary Angles, and Soo Jeong Jo

sarch@lsu.edu

OPEN TO PUBLIC

ROUND TABLE &

RECEPTION

In teams, workshop participants will design and

build their own inflatable environments under

a very simple premise: the structures must be

made of HDPE plastic sheeting and must fit

within a volume of 5m x 5m x 5m with the whole

team inside. Upon completion, the “village” of

inflatable pavilion-like structures will be exhibited

across the LSU campus.

[CONSTRUCTING TEXTILES]

parametric knit forms

Shelby Doyle


In groups of five to six people, students will

design and construct textile installations that

explore the friction between digital simulations of

textiles and their physical construction. This will

include modeling proposals in Kangaroo Physics

for Grasshopper then fabricating large peg

looms, knitting panels, and installing the knits to

reflect the initial design proposal.

The workshop will focus on casting as a scalable

form of production, examining the trade-offs

between geometric complexity, variation, and timing.

Projects will investigate a “gravity-assisted” casting

technique, using multiple possible orientations of

a partially filled casting mold to generate different

geometric permutations. Each team will produce

a mold that is capable of producing more than

one geometry using gravity-assisted variation—a

casting “machine” for producing an array of unique

geometries. Using digital modeling to maximize

the potential of geometric relationships in the mold

design, students will explore the interior and exterior

mold geometries along with different volumes of

casting material and number of separate material

deposits.

Funding provided by:

The LSBAE Mary “Teeny” Simmons Architectural Education and Research Fund

The LSU Center for Collaborative Knowledge

The LSU College of Art & Design

Poster Design: Zachary Angles

Loom Construction and Stitch Diagram

ELEVATION

16'-0"

3 1/2" 3 1/2"

3 1/2" 3 1/2"

3 1/2"

3 1/2"

3 1/2"

3 1/2"

4"

PLAN

4"

4"

4"

4"

4"

4"

4"

8'-0"

8'-0"

16'-0"

12'-0"

12'-0"

12'-0"

12'-0"

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

7

6

5

4

3

2

1






Back to Table

of Contents

II - Scholarship

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?