SECTION 1
Title 1
Title 2
Title 3

SECTION 2
Title 1
Title 2
Title 3
Title 4

SECTION 3
Title 1
Title 2
Title 3
Title 4
Title 5

SECTION 4
Title 1
Title 2
Title 3
Title 4
Title 5
Title 6

Introduction

Post-Design evaluation is one of the most needed  methodologies for the Design Studio. It is particularly important for  Design Studio levels beyond the "Basic Design"/ that is those introductory to Architectural Design levels during the first and second years of study, in which students are exposed to the basic "language", the "grammar" and "syntax" of Architectural design. Post Design evaluation starts to be necessary at the levels in which the REAL parameters and components of Architecture enter in the picture, that is, when "Function" , "Construction", "Building Technology", concerns for "Energy" and "Sustainability", as well as all the other parameters  that have to do with the function, safety and public welfare enter into the picture of the Design problem. It is obvious, that as the levels of Design study advance, there is need for "generalist expertise" and personal  experience of the "Design Instructor", professional qualification and professional experience on his or her part. And yet, the reality of Architectural academia, is different from country to country, as there are differences in cultural and professional values, as well as attitudes of individuals toward Theoretical vr. Reality values ;  while as a rule , in Europe, one may easily find well seasoned architects, involved in the teaching simultaneously with professional activity,   in the United States, the values are such that very few professional architects , especially professional architects of the highest stature and experience, prefer teaching over practice. These differences represent a subject in itself which would take us beyond the scope of the present concern. What is important though, is to make sure that , no matter what the teaching vr. practice realities are, the design instructors in levels above the third year, find ways, to help their students get "Post-Design feedback" or be able to "Post-design evaluate" their design projects in the school, in ways beyond the basic theoretical of the "Basic Design level", those often associated with what most of us understand and easily referred to  as "Form".

The Post-Design evaluation, as approached here, owes its theoretical and subsequently academic existence  in the theoretical and environmental psychological concerns. It evolved out of what we know as Post-occupancy evaluation of Buildings.

Post-occupancy evaluation had been advocated since the early '70's  by Dr. Bechtel as a tool for professional architects to learn about  the performance of their buildings; He had suggested that this be done via User-input , during the first five years of occupancy. His goal was to eventually accumulate knowledge for the development of a data base on the reciprocity between space and behavior, a "Graphic Standards" for "Environmental Psychology" . He had called his process "Neo-Medievalism", an empirical way of learning,  even though his ultimate goal was  "Scientific" ; to help create  a "Graphic Standards" for Environmental Psychology.  I had kept detailed notes of Dr. Bechtel's  presentation at the  City Planners conference in Boston, in 1972(for more click here) . He had impressed me enormously; a continuation of the "empirical way of learning" through the measuring of buildings by which we had been rigorously trained during me basic architectural studies in Greece. Through architectural impressions we could learn , or speculate, about the use,       function and construction of buildings in the past; Could it not be , that this Post-occupancy thing be something useful for the buildings we were doing in our own time? And to go one step further : could not empiricism , be perhaps  more scientific than any scientific theory and method? I   had been greatly impressed by Dr. Bechtel and tortured my mind for immediate action ; something for Post-design evaluation in the architectural design studio was necessary . And so, I conceived what   Bechtel's methodology had inspired  me , a Post-design evaluation methodology , which I found to have been particularly meaningful  and useful as an experience for students, particularly from the third year up. 

As Architectural students around the world do not have as a rule the slightest chance to see their student designs built, unless of course they are of the "Philip Johnson type' (filthy rich), who had actually built his Thesis Project-a house for himself,  on Harvard square and took the jurors there to see it already built, and as the  architecture students around the world , besides the Traditional and historic precedents, works of previous eras, do not possess a depository of knowledge regarding the possible performance of their contemporary building types, they are asked to to design, the post-design evaluation method comes handy and is very useful to overcome these problems. The methodology , was developed by this writer in his own studios in order to give his students a chance to get responsible feedback on the possible performance of their proposals, by contemporary professional architects, preferably well known and renown, whose projects were meritorious but  were not widely known, at least through the pages of the local architectural magazines and media,   who had already designed and knew about the post-occupancy performance of their buildings.

The methodology consisted of the following: The instructor, in previous arrangement with an architect whose building he had visited personally or he had studied substantially and he was considering it meritorious , prepared a program tailored to the requirements of the design expectations for the particular level as per the school's criteria. It was important that the project had not been published, or in case it had been published abroad, the publication source would not be made available. In pre-internet times, there was little chance a student could find out , without having been told , where a realized project had been published. The students were not told where and by what architect the building had been already designed and built. In order to safeguard this information, projects were usually selected from countries and architects abroad. The instructor had visited the buildings he was assigning, or , in case there had been a competition , he knew everything and all the entries regarding this competition. The selection of competition awarded buildings was a favorite means, as there the publication of the various awards, gave the students the opportunity, following the completion of their own proposals, to study and compare them to the series of "meritorious"  alternatives of  the competition awards. The most significant part of this process was the final critique with invited guests, the commonly known in the United States as Design  Jury; during the jury occasion  every effort was made to have the architect of the building on board as  honored head of the jury; or if this was not possible, to offer a final critique by a selected group of professional architects, who probably had experience in similar building types and meritorious such examples, and then forward to the architect of the original project photocopies of the students' project for his personal feedback. This was done twice in my classes, on two the two occasions, that projects were given, one after a realized kindergarten and a High school Gym by Kazuhiro Ishii in Japan, and the second time, when a project was given after a cultural center that had been won through a competition process by Kristian Gullichsen. In these two instances , the architects provided written feed back to the students.  The Jury system in the Design Studio in the United States, is  wholesomely covered in Kathryn H. Anthony's "Design Juries on Trial" ,Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York 1991, in which  references are also made in the present author's Post-design Evaluation methodology (see pp. 127) . It is also possible, and desirable, to make a post-design evaluation project, out of a meritorious project, already realized by the Architect/Instructor himself, assuming that the students are not aware of this building's existence. This is possible but it is also very dangerous, because, if it is found there is a similar project in the vicinity already realized by the instructor, several projects may appear strikingly resembling to the instructor's own work....! This ,I had easily found out, had great handicaps, and ever since I gave a project on one of mine that had been built, I never repeated it. For this reason In the  cases that follow I present post-design evaluation projects that were developed out of projects of other architects and competitions :   the Naoshima Gym and the Naoshima Kindergarten by Kazuhiro Ishii, I go quickly through the New Museum of the Acropolis first Panhellenic competition in 1978 and finally I focus in detail to the Cultural Center in Pieksämäki - Finland , a project, that evolved following the competition that had been won  by Kristian Gullichsen in 1983.

The "inside" information regarding these two projects, correspondance and the whole studio-Jury experiences are published here for the first time. It is believed, that the "Post-Design evaluation" method, may benefit enormously in the current "computer" era, as the feedback could become substantially easy, although I believe, the visitation of the project to be assigned by the instructor is a MUST, that ought to be encouraged and supported by Architecture schools , by all means, and that Architectural instructors, who visit projects for this particular goal in mind with their own expenses, ought to enjoy tax benefits for this expenditures, while "retired" teacher/architects and academics like the writer, ought to enjoy benefits of "continuing education", as they help pass "educational experience" to the future generations and as such they ought to be encouraged to stay within the "professional" ranks through life, without the occasional biennial harassment for Bureaucratic procedures.

A. A gymnasium for a real site at UTA ,                                                                            based on a program tailored after the NAOSHIMA Gym by Kazuhiro Ishii.

1.     On Project by Loren Dale

 Project by Loren Dale

Feedback by Kazuhiro Ishii to the project of Loren Dale above:       Loren Dale (If  his is name   name not written in plans and model.) The most similar idea to mine in colonnade and hall.  Changing the ceiling height is wonderful for lighting. Real Bldg.
 

2.  Project of Hunter Collins

             Project by Hunter Collins  Feedback by Kazuhiro Ishii below :

Hunter Collins

One of the most similar plan to the realized gym. (by Ishii) in the composition of lot of spaces , (open corridor, gym, martial art gym.

It seems that too many big skylights in gym will be trouble in direct sun light and in heat.

3.  Project by Craig  Sawvel

"Pass between the two buildings is an interesting idea, however Kendo and Judo space need a lot of higher ceiling, and air conditioning or big windows. Especially Tatami mats for Judo is a trouble, ( Kendo and Judo). Facade toward field is boring, it doesn't look like anything and it looks like anything. Skylight system in Gym is fine !  There should be no windows ideally. Pass in between two buildings should need more expression except floor level deck and smooth walls. Judo and Kendo , need Tokonoma (ask Anthony about it.). It is nice that the massive volumes of Gym are broken into smaller space, and impression is softened. For Kendo and Judo glass wall is a bit dangerous. 

4.  Project by Rand  Hood

This project was only in "flimsy", yet Kazuhiro had no problem offering substantial commentary, since the opportunity arose to say things that had not been addressed by other projects, i.e comments regarding the divisions of the handrailing.

"Post-Design Evaluation" Continues ,                                                                                                                       

PRESS HERE for : B. A daycare center for a real site at UTA, based on a program tailored after the NAOSHIMA Kindergarter by Kazuhiro Ishii.                                                                                                                                             PRESS HERE for : C. A Cultural Center in Pieksämäki -Finland, based on a program tailored after the  Pieksämäki award winning project by Kristian Gullichsen 

Note/request: Any omission of  designer's name or drawings,  not appearing next to his or her project above, was due to the effects of time and the instructor's lapse of memory. or unavailability of drawings. Please contact the author in case you see a project which is yours and your name does not appear or mail me any documents you may have that may enrich these presentations ; it  will be greatly .

For more on the teaching methodologies of  A.C.Antoniades, illustrated by his student works                                   see here ,  here and here . Materials for all of the above from the personal archive and                                personally taken photographs by A.C.Antoniades

© A.C.Antoniades

BACK