2015-‐16 | G RADUATE DESIGN STUDIO
University of Manitoba
F A L L | MON + THURS 10-‐6, fourth fl. ARCH 2
Faculty of ARCHITECTURE
Department of Architecture
ARCH 7050 M1—Arch Studio 5 + Comp. Program Report (9 credits) ARCH 7070 M2—Design Research Studio (9 credits)
[email protected] #300 Arch 2 | 204-‐480-‐1037 Office Hours: Tues 3-‐5
th
COURSE OUTLINE | distributed Sept. 14
http://umanitoba.ca/faculties/architecture/programs/architecture/phantasmagoria.html
Prof. LISA LANDRUM
Dir. Akira K urosawa, Kagemusha (dream sequence), 1980.
Phantasmagoria ... the morphine had its customary effect – that of enduing all the external world with an intensity of interest. In the quivering of a leaf – in the hue of a blade of grass – in the shape of a trefoil – in the humming of a bee – in the gleaming of a dew-drop – in the breathing of the wind – in the faint odors that came from the forest – there came a whole universe of suggestion – a gay and motley train of rhapsodical and immethodical thought... —Edgar Allan Poe, A Tale of the Ragged Mountains, 1844
What does phantasmagoria—with fantasy at its root—imply for architectural imagination? In an era of instant information, when everything seems to be explained away, is it still possible to genuinely wonder about the world, about shared human conditions, and about architecture? In what ways can architecture help restore space and time for genuine wonder? This studio invites students to genuinely wonder about architecture; about the architecture of the human and extra-‐human world; about life in all its manifestations (strange and familiar); and about the ways in which architecture can meaningfully deepen, heighten and extend our lived engagement with the world and with one another. Students will be encouraged to explore all varieties of imagination: material imagination, social imagination, spatial imagination, historical imagination, kinetic imagination, sensual and perceptual imagination, memory, anxiety, desire, humor, anticipation, etc. Students will seriously play with phantasmagorical effects, experiences, modes and mediums, while developing comprehensive design projects that aim to cultivate worldly wonder. For these explorations three precedents can be recalled as helpful guides: 1. Phantasmagoria is a neologism coined by the Belgian stage-‐magician Étienne-‐Gaspard Robertson who began performing wonder-‐inducing entertainments for Parisian audiences in 1798. Phantasmagoria may be a compound word meaning “place of fantasy” – joining phantasm (a ghostly illusion) with agora (Greek for meeting place); or, it may be derived from phantasma (Latin for apparition) with a fanciful ending. Either way, phantasmagoria implies imaginative works and experiences that are simultaneously real and illusory, appealing and frightening, ethereal and tangible, extraordinary in effect yet (relatively) ordinary in w orkings. It is no coincidence that popular desire for phantasmagoria coincided w ith the 1
E.G. Robertson, fantasmagoria, Paris 1789; Piranesi Carceri etching, 1750; Harry Clarke illustration of Edgar Allan Poe’s Descent in the Maelstrom, 1841.
world-‐transforming onslaught of the Industrial Revolution. When every aspect of daily life was being mechanically homogenized, quantified and controlled, there arose a counter-‐desire to re-‐endow reality with intricate mystery, unexpected quality and delightful diversity — to reclaim the magic of technology for the social production of wonder, generating more subtly unique phenomena and liberating experiences. 2. In his 1821 Confessions of an English Opium-‐Eater, Thomas de Quincey described phantasmagoria as a condition of entrancing dreams – especially those “waking-‐dreams” occurring as one is half-‐asleep and half-‐awake, when prosaic reality mixes in strange and inspiring ways with memory and imagination. In th the same work de Quincey recalls a profoundly moving encounter with the 18 -‐century prison etchings (Carceri) of G iovanni B attista P iranesi. In these mysterious labyrinthian etchings—crowded with steep staircases, balconies, bridges, machinery and curiously striving individuals—de Quincey recognizes the peculiar intertwinings and peregrinations of his own waking-‐dreams: “With the same power of endless growth and self-‐reproduction did my architecture proceed in dreams.” Philosopher Gaston Bachelard writes about such “waking-‐dreams” as a state of “reverie,” where oneiric and lived spaces commingle in the play of narrative and symbolic imagination. 3. In a short story entitled Ligeia (1838), Edgar Allan Poe describes the “phantasmagoric influences” of a pentagonal chamber designed specifically by the narrator to accommodate a medley of architectural embellishments and captivating exotica: Egyptian Sarcophagi; billowing gold draperies with anamorphic figures; golden carpets with Bedlam patterns; a lofty vaulted ceiling elaborately-‐fretted with grotesque devices; and a Saracenic censer animating the room with writhing serpent-‐like flames. Yet, the strangest mystery of all, the narrator claims, is that the same phantasmagorical influences and metamorphoses were felt in the commonest objects of the material world: in the contemplation of a moth, a butterfly, a chrysalis, a stream of running water, a falling meteor, the sounds of stringed instruments and passages from books. Similar sentiments are described in Poe’s Tale of the Ragged Mountains, Bernice, The Fall of the House of Usher, Pit and the Pendulum and The Poetic Principle. These stories suggest the possibility of discovering profound surprises and meaningful delights in seemingly simple things – of finding, creating and rediscovering our capacity to perceive poetry in the prosaic fabric of daily life. Poe sometimes attributed the experience of phantasmagoria to morphine, to strong wine, or (like de Quincey) to opium. In this studio, students will indulge in a medium more powerful and transformative than any drug (and I hope addictive): architectural imagination.
Peter Zumthor, Brother Klaus Field Chapel, Mechernich, 2007, photos by Hélène Binet; Vilhelm Hammershøi, Sunbeams, 1900.
2
TERM BREAKDOWN Episode 1: Workings of Wondering (4 weeks)—wonder-‐ inducing DEVICE research, exploration, fabrication, critical analysis, installation and performance (See separate hand-‐out). Episode 2: Intimate Immensities | New York City Field Trip (1.5 weeks)—separate itinerary to follow. Episode 3: Rooms for a wandering wondering dreamer (7 weeks)—site analysis, design development and synthesis of explorations—separate itinerary to follow. Interlude: ROOM to WORLD—public program proposal 3-‐day charrette : comprehensive program report (M1); thesis proposal (M2). —Saul Steinberg Recommendation: keep a sketchbook—fill it up!
RECOMMENDED REFERENCE TEXTS Sir David Brewster, Natural Magic 1883. On Marvelous Things Heard, Antigonus of Carystus (attributed to Aristotle), Loeb 1936. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Aristotle/de_Mirabilibus*.html Gaston Bachelard, Poetics of Space (1958); Poetics of Reverie (1969); Water & Dreams | Air & Dreams (1942/3). Jonathan Crary, Techniques of the Observer. On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century (1990). Robert Harbison, The Built, the Unbuilt, and the Unbuildable. In Pursuit of Architectural Meaning (1991). Matthew Mindrup, The Material Imagination: Reveries on Architecture and Matter (2015). Henriette Steiner and Maximilian Sternberg, eds., Phenomenologies of the City (Ashgate 2015). Malcolm McCullough, Ambient Commons: Attention in the Age of Embodied Information (MIT Press, 2014). Juhani Pallasmaa and Sarah Robinson, ed. Mind in Architecture: Neuroscience, Embodiment, and the Future of Design (2015). Juhani Pallasmaa, Eyes of the Skin (1996); Imagination and Imagery in Architecture (2011). Anthony Vidler, Architecture of the Uncanny: Essays in the Modern Unhomely (1994). Kengo Kuma, Anti-‐Object: The Dissolution and Disintegration of Architecture (2007) and related lecture: https://vimeo.com/30212179 Peter Zumthor, Atmospheres: Architectural Environments -‐ Surrounding Objects (2006). Peter Zumthor, Thinking Architecture (Birkhäuser, 2006). Lawrence Weschler, Mr. Wilson’s Cabinet of Wonder (1995). W.R. Lethaby Architecture, Mysticism and Myth (1892). Walter de la Mare, Behold, this Dreamer! of reverie, night, sleep, dream, love dreams, nightmare, death, the unconscious, the imagination, divination, the artist, and kindred subjects (1939). Francis Ponge, The Voice of Things (1972); Soap (1969). Films Akiru Kurosawa, Kagemusha, 1980; Dreams 1990. Jan Svankmajer, Alice, 1988; Faust, 1994. Tran Anh Hung, Scent of Green Papaya, 1993 Ingmar Bergman, Seventh Seal 1957; Wild Strawberries 1966. Andrei Tarkovsky, Nostalghia, 1983; Sacrifice 1986 http://www.openculture.com/2010/07/tarkovksy.html ATTENTION: Department of Architecture General Studio and Course Information: Please refer to the downloadable PDFs located on the Department of Architecture’s Website under “current students” + “Student Reference Material” for IMPORTANT further clarification as to the rules and regulations governing this course: (“General Studio & Course Information”; “Portfolio Guidelines” and “Studio & Technology Portfolio and Archive Specifications”: http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/architecture/programs/architecture/downloads.html 3
Fall Term 2015 Schedule
(subject to change, as discussed in studio) Studio sessions will typically be conducted as individual desk critiques (one-‐on-‐one discussions about individual student work in progress). Group discussions, presentations and local site visits will take place occasionally.
WEEK 1
Tues. Sept. 8 Sept. 9-‐11
Studio Presentations—Center Space Studio Interviews
WEEK 2
Mon. Sept. 14 Studio lists posted | First meeting in studio Course Outline and Episode #1 Introduction Thurs. Sept. 17 Studio: In-‐class presentations
| Episode #1 | Workings of Wondering
WEEK 3
WEEK 4
Mon. Sept. 21 Studio Thurs. Sept. 24 Studio
Mon. Sept. 28 Studio: Group Presentations Thurs. Oct. 1 Studio
WEEK 5
Mon. Oct. 5 Thurs. Oct. 8
Studio Studio
WEEK 6
Mon. Oct. 12 No Studio, Thanksgiving Tues. Oct. 13 INTERIM REVIEWS Fri. Oct. 16/17 Field Trip departure | Episode #2 Intimate Immensities
WEEK 7
————————— Episode #2 FIELD TRIP NEW YORK CITY —————————
WEEK 8
Mon. Oct. 26 No Studio (field trip return) Thurs. Oct. 29 Studio | Episode #3 Rooms for a Wandering Wondering Dreamer
WEEK 9
Mon. Nov. 2 Thurs. Nov. 5
Studio Studio
WEEK 10
Mon. Nov. 9 Studio Thurs. Nov. 12 Studio
(Voluntary Withdraw Letters go out)
Mon. Nov. 16 Studio Thurs. Nov. 19 Studio
(Voluntary Withdraw Deadline Nov. 18 )
WEEK 11
th
WEEK 12
Mon. Nov. 23 Studio Thurs. Nov. 26 Group Presentations – comprehensive program charrette
WEEK 13
Mon. Nov. 30 Thurs. Dec. 3
Studio Studio
(Design Thesis DRAFT Proposals due)
Mon. Dec. 7
Studio
WEEK 14 WEEK 15
WEEK 16
Mon. Dec. 14 FINAL STUDIO REVIEW
Mon. Dec. 21 Tues. Dec. 22
PORTFOLIO HAND-‐IN 3pm Design Thesis FINAL Proposals + Panels due
6
2015-‐16 | G RADUATE DESIGN STUDIO
University of Manitoba
F A L L | MON + THURS 10-‐6, fourth fl. ARCH 2
Faculty of ARCHITECTURE
Department of Architecture
ARCH 7050 M1—Arch Studio 5 + Comp. Program Report (9 credits) ARCH 7070 M2—Design Research Studio (9 credits)
[email protected] #300 Arch 2 | 204-‐480-‐1037 Office Hours: Tues 3-‐5
th EPISODE #1 | distributed Sept. 14
Prof. LISA LANDRUM
Phantasmagoria
Nick Cave, Soundsuits; Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Spring; Theo Jansen, Strandbeest; Arthur Gansen, Wishbone.
Workings of Wondering in wonder lies the desire for learning —Aristotle, Rhetoric 1371a32
… it is owing to their wonder (thauma) that humankind both now begin and at first began to philosophize; they wondered originally at the obvious difficulties, then advanced little by little and stated difficulties about the greater matters — about the phenomena of the moon and those of the sun and the stars, and about the genesis of the universe… —Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1.982b11-28
HYPOTHESIS: to genuinely wonder one must have the willingness, humility and courage to perceive potentialities beyond the limits of one’s own present knowledge. Similarly, in order to truly create one must have a mix of modesty, audacity and tenacity to work in spite of unknown and unknowable conditions. In the world of magic, drama and architecture, this requires not only what Coleridge called “a willing suspension of disbelief,” but also the willing suspension of many tacit assumptions and opinions that hinder imagination. ASSIGNMENT You will each research a wonder-‐inducing device and ambitiously devise a variation of your own while exploring what you (and others) are genuinely wondering about concerning architecture.
CHOOSE a wonder-‐inducing device from the list below; RESEARCH the most compelling examples of the device, its intentions, contexts, workings and effects; EXPERIMENT with producing phantasmagorical effects informed by your study – engage materials, found objects, processes, elements, spaces and settings appropriate to your research and curiosities; DOCUMENT your experimentation process with carefully crafted analytic drawings, plans, sections, elevations, photography and any other mode of representation suitable to your investigations; CREATE a phantasmagorical device and devise its INSTALLATION and PERFORMANCE
REQUIREMENTS: • research documentation • wondrous device + installation • interpretive and experimental drawings (plans, sections, etc.), photographs, models and experimental representations of your wonder-‐inducing device, its workings and effects 1
DEADLINES: th Thursday, Sept. 17 th Monday, Sept. 28 th Tuesday, Oct. 13
In-‐class presentation of wonder-‐inducing device research Group Presentations | phantasmagoric rehearsals Final Phantasmagoric performances
Magic Lantern, Athanasius Kircher Ars Magna Lucis et Umbrae, 1671; Museum Wormianum Cabinet of Curiosity, 1655; Camera Obscura, Ars Magna, Lucis et Umbrae, 1646
WONDER-‐PRODUCING DEVICES Magic Lanterns (Kircher) Camera Obscura (Abelardo Morell, Descartes) Flying Machines (Carlo Mollino, Daedalus, Archytas, Leonardo DaVinci) Perpetual Motion Machines (Rube Goldberg, Jean Tinguely, Arthur Gansen, Paul Sheerbart, Alfred Jarry) Wunderkammer (Cabinets of Curiosity, Memory Theatres, Museum of Jurassic Technology, LA) Automata (Daidala) (Theo Jansen, Arthur Gansen) Miniature Theatres (William Kentridge) Perspective & Anamorphic Box (Pieter Janssens Elinga, David Hockney’s ‘Secret Knowledge’) Capriccio & Follies (Francisco Goya, Giuseppe Arcimboldo, Piranesi, Watts Tower) Costumes/Masks (Julie Taymor, Jacques Lecoq, Nick Cave, Mummenshanz) Music Boxes (Kircher) Monsters/Grotesques (Jim Kazanjian, Marco Frascari, Tim Burton) Stereoscope / Zootrope / Praxinoscope / Phenakistiscope / Thaumatrope / Praxinoscope (Edward Muybridge) Ciphers, Riddles (Daniel Libeskind reading machines/Reading Wheel by Agostino Ramelli) REQUIRED READING David Leatherbarrow, “Atmospheric Conditions” in Phenomenologies of the City, eds. Henriette Steiner and Maximilian Sternberg (Farnham, UK: Ashgate 2015), 85-‐100. Liane Lefaivre and Alexander Tzonis “The Machine in Architectural Thinking,” Daidalos 18 (1985): 16–26. Alberto Pérez-‐Gómez, “Architect’s Metier: An Exploration into the Myth of Dedalus” in Section A #2, 5/6 (Montreal 1985).
RESOURCES Peter Olshavsky, “Situating Pataphysical Machines: A History of Architectural Machinations,” Chora 6 (2011). John Bell, Puppets Masks and Performing Objects (New York 2001). Stanford Anderson, “The Fiction of Function,” Assemblage 2 (Feb. 1987): 18-‐31. Joseph Rykwert, “Organic and Mechanical” in RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, Vol. 22 (Autumn 1992): 11-‐18. Albert Borgmann, Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life (Chicago, 1984), especially chapeter 9, on the “device paradigm.” Hugh Kenner, The Mechanic Muse (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987). Liane Lefaivre and Alexander Tzonis “The Machine in Architectural Thinking,” Daidalos 18 (1985): 16–26. Dalibor Vesely, “Architecture and the Question of Technology” in Architecture, Technology and Ethics, ed. Louise Pelletier & Alberto Peréz-‐Gómez, 28–49. Montréal: McGill-‐Queen’s University Press, 1994. E.M. Forster, The Machine Stops (a short story), 1909. Abram, David, The Spell of the Sensuous – Perception and Language in a More-‐Than-‐Human World, Vintage Books, N.Y., 1996. Ackerman D., A Natural History of the Senses, Vintage, N.Y., 1990. 2
2015-‐16 | G RADUATE DESIGN STUDIO
University of Manitoba
F A L L | MON + THURS 10-‐6, fourth fl. ARCH 2
Faculty of ARCHITECTURE
Department of Architecture
ARCH 7050 M1—Arch Studio 5 + Comp. Program Report (9 credits) ARCH 7070 M2—Design Research Studio (9 credits)
[email protected] #300 Arch 2 | 204-‐480-‐1037 Office Hours: Tues 3-‐5
th EPISODE #3 | distributed Oct. 29
Phantasmagoria
Prof. LISA LANDRUM
Henry Fuseli, The Nightmare, 1781.
Rooms of Reverie
The hallucinatory effect derives from the extraordinary clarity and not from mystery or mist. Nothing is more fantastic ultimately than precision. —Alain Robbe-Grillet, on Kafka in For a New Novel (1965, p.165)
If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost; that is where they should be. Now put the foundations under them… —Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
ASSIGNMENT Drawing on your phantasmatoric investigations, design a dwelling for a wonderer sited in an appropriate location. The site should be selected for its potential to intensify, elaborate and complicate the wondrous effects you have been exploring. The dwelling should accommodate all the basics: for living (sleeping, dreaming, dining, bathing, etc.); for producing the peculiar wonders with which your dweller is preoccupied; for collecting, analyzing and archiving these wonders; and for sharing these wonders with others. Extending your explorations of intimate immensities, the dwelling should be small—as compact as possible (about 900 sq.ft./80 sq. meters, or smaller). But within this intimate space, vast and nested worlds should be accommodated, implicated, and represented. In the course of designing this complex dwelling, you will also be inventing a complex dweller, whose dreams and desires test the limits of functional requirements and architectural potential. Although these dwellings should propagate mysterious effects, they must be devised with meticulous precision. High degrees of tectonic (material and constructional) resolution are expected. REQUIREMENTS: Plans, Sections & Elevations @ 1:20 (and other scales, as appropriate) Site Plans and Sections @ 1:100 (and other scales, as appropriate) Details at appropriate scales (1:1 – 1:10) Phantasmagorical drawings, sketches, photo-‐performa-‐graphic explorations + other appropriate imagery & perspectives Ambitious model revealing spatial and sectional relationships of dwelling @ 1:20 + other models, prototypes, mock-‐ups 1
Marco Frascari, “The Pneumatic Bathroom” / Dream House for the Next Millenium.
DEADLINES: Monday, Nov. 2 Progress Presentations (site decision, drawing precedent) Monday, Nov. 16 Progress Pin-‐up Thursday, Nov. 26-‐30 Comprehensive Program Report Charrete (M1); Thesis Proposal Charrette (M2) Monday, Dec. 14 Final Reviews Monday, Dec. 21 Final Portfolio submission, by 3pm PRELIMINARY DRAWING RESEARCH Become familiar with the drawings of all of the following individuals. Choose one drawing from one individual. Present to the group what you find unique about the work and why it is instructive.
Douglas Darden Brodsky & Utkin Giovanni Battista Piranesi Jean-‐Jacques Lequeu Marco Frascari Carlo Scarpa John Hejduk Lebbeus Woods Michael Sorkin Friedensreich Hundertwasser Mark Smout and Laura Allen; & Perry Kulper Frederick Kiesler, Endless House Open City / Diane Lewis & Cooper Union projects RESOURCES: Walter de la Mar, Behold, This Dreamer (1939). Robert Harbison, Eccentric Spaces, 1977. Vittorio Gregotti, “On Precision,” Inside Architecture Elias Canetti, Earwitness. Fifty Characters (New York, 1979). ———
Michael Sorkin, Wiggle. Igor Marjanovic & Jan Howard, Drawing Ambience: Alvin Boyarsky and the Architectural Association (2015). Diane Lewis, Open City: Existential Urbanity (New York: Charta, 2015). Marco Frascari, Eleven Exercises in the Art of Architectural Drawing (Routledge, 2011). + Sam Ridgway, Architectural Projects of Marco Frascari: The Pleasure of a Demonstration (Ashgate, 2015) Douglas Darden, Condemned Building (Princeton, 1993) + articles by Marc Neveu http://thoughts-‐out-‐of-‐season.blogspot.ca/2014/08/overturning-‐architecture-‐douglas.html Chris MacDonald & Peter Psalter https://lebbeuswoods.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/once-‐upon-‐a-‐time/ Umberto Riva http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/collection/2527-‐umberto-‐riva-‐fonds B.J. Archer, Follies: Architecture for the Late-‐Twenthieth-‐Century Landscape (Rizzoli, 1983). 2
2015-‐16 | G RADUATE DESIGN STUDIO
University of Manitoba
F A L L | MON + THURS 10-‐6, fourth fl. ARCH 2
Faculty of ARCHITECTURE
Department of Architecture
ARCH 7050 M1—Arch Studio 5 + Comp. Program Report (9 credits)
Interlude: ROOM to WORLD | distributed Nov. 26th
Prof. LISA LANDRUM
[email protected] #300 Arch 2 | 204-‐480-‐1037 Office Hours: Tues 3-‐5
Phantasmagoria
Comprehensive Program Report
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM REPORT The Comprehensive Program Report is an integral part of the M1 Arch Studio 5 requirements, (20% of the studio grade for ARCH 7050). The intent of this document is to support students in clearly framing individual project trajectories by defining the parameters of the second term comprehensive design project. Students are expected to write a thoughtful description of the program proposal and compile thorough documentation of architectural design criteria, including the following: DESIGN PROPOSAL [1-‐2 pages] • a written description of the proposed project, including its conceptual framework in relation to current and ongoing studio explorations, as well as overall design criteria and general objectives; SITE CONDITIONS [one paragraph written description + supporting materials] • description and definition of site selection and assessment criteria (including site plan); • an analysis of contextual site conditions (urban and/or natural relationships); • review and assessment of relevant laws and regulations pertaining to the site; PROGRAM DESCRIPTION [one paragraph written description + supporting materials] • detailed proposal and analysis of all aspects of programming (a spatial assessment, in both quantitative and qualitative terms, of user needs); • description of anticipated inhabitants; • an inventory of special equipment and systems requirements; • design guidelines, parameters and criteria (relevant laws and building codes); TECTONICS [one paragraph written description + supporting materials] • anticipated material and construction methods and technological needs; • building/construction system precedents; DESIGN PRECEDENTS [one paragraph written description + supporting materials] • a critical review of appropriate precedents (min. 6 programmatically related projects); Assemble the above materials into a one-‐inch 3-‐ring binder with labeled divider tabs for each section. This document is intended to serve as a helpful resource as you move forward with your comprehensive design in the Winter Term. DEADLINES: Mon. Nov. 30th Draft due Mon. Dec. 21st Final Report Due (with final portfolio hand-‐in)
Alvaro Siza, sketching Lisbon
CALENDAR DESCRIPTION: ARCH 7050 -‐ Arch Studio 5 and Comprehensive Program Report Develop design explorations and seek to clarify relations between architectural criteria and the urban/natural environments in national or international contexts. Conceptual, programmatic, material, technological, economic, and political principles and systems employed are to be evident in the Comprehensive Programme Report. FROM THE GENERAL COURSE OUTLINE: M1 ARCH 7050 – Comprehensive Studio By April 2016, M1 students must demonstrate an ability to produce an architecture project informed by a comprehensive program, from schematic design through to detailed development of spaces, structural and environmental systems, life-‐safety provisions, wall sections, and building assemblies, as may be appropriate; and to assess the completed project with respect to the program's design criteria. Students shall assemble and submit a comprehensive program report at the end of the Fall term for an project to be completed in the Winter term. The report shall include an assessment of client and user needs, a critical review of appropriate precedents, an inventory of space and equipment requirements, an analysis of site conditions, a review of the relevant laws and standards and an assessment of their implications for the project, and a definition of site selection and design assessment criteria. The Portfolio (80%) and the Comprehensive Program Report (20%) contribute to the final letter grade assessment for the Fall term.
