Building Simple Structures with Timber

Gregory Nolan
Timber Research Unit, Department of Architecture & Urban Design,
University of Tasmania, Launceston, Tasmania

Åbstract
| Introduction | Case studies | Holly Hut 2 | Courtyard Gateway | Conclusions | References |

Architecture, architectural structures and construction practice cannot be taught by discussion or explanation alone. Practical experience is needed to temper the theory expounded in lectures and to illustrate the design ideas formulated in studios. Students learn best by doing, and in the case of undergraduate architects, by building. They benefit from making a decision about aesthetics or structure and then seeing its success or failure in a completed artifact. It allows them to build a repertoire of successful experience and solutions that they can carry into later practice.

At the Department of Architecture and Urban Design at the University of Tasmania, this process of education through decision making and construction has been incorporated into the design and construction Studios and Building Technology streams. Timber is the medium of choice for this construction. It is a local material and easy to use, making it approachable for students who have little constructional experience or skill. For the studio program, small timber buildings are constructed and put on public display, used, and allowed to weather. For the Building Technology stream, timber elements are assessed for strength and serviceability before being tested to destruction.

Introduction
| Abstract | Case studies | Holly Hut 2 | Courtyard Gateway | Conclusions | References |

Architecture is material giving form to space in light and it can be fully appreciated only by the engagement of the human body. (Ref. 1)

Architecture is a practicing profession primarily concerned with the design and construction of buildings that match a client's brief and are sited within a particular physical context. In practice, the architect's professional skill is his ability to apply a combination of technical understandings and the 'art' of design to shape the form of the building. The technical understandings are broad and range across the environmental and structural sciences matching the breadth of understandings required by the art of design. To achieve this synthesis of understandings and to combine them with the practical requirements of client, site and cost, the architect draws from his experience and relies on his judgement to mould a solution for each unique problem. Schon describes this judgement informed by experience as tacit knowing-in-actions. The shape and development of this experience and judgement cannot be attributed to direct technical knowledge as:

the workaday life of the professional depends on tacit knowing-in-action. In his day to day practice he makes innumerable judgements of quality for which he cannot state the adequate criteria, and he skills for which he cannot state the rules and procedures. (Ref.2)

The architect builds up these skills by reflective practice. He draws on successful experience and by doing so acquires a repertoire of solutions that he knows produces satisfactory results that can be adapted to solve the changed requirements of successive problems. He expands this repertoire continually by observing the work of others or by designing buildings and seeing them transformed into reality.

The practitioner (builds up) a repertoire of examples, images, understandings and actions. (The architect's) repertoire ranges across the design domain. It includes sites he has seen, buildings he has known, design problems he has encountered and solutions he has designed for them... (Ref. 3)

In the education of undergraduate architects, conventional studio techniques seek to develop reflective architectural practice by working students through series of graded design problems. Yet undergraduate architecture students usually do not have the opportunity to build the designs they conceive. They can only approximate the built form with models, perspectives and orthographic drawings. This is valuable as these are the same tools professionals use to illustrate a design for a client. Yet limited resources and the cost of building dictate that students miss the chance to translate a concept on a page to three-dimensional reality. As a result, they miss the experience a practitioner regularly faces of resolving the problems of structure and material, connection and detailing and forego the lessons to be gained from realizing a design. Similar constraints apply to structures and construction streams of many architecture courses. Inevitably, this absence of resolution influences the curriculum for architectural education with the theory of architecture design and construction being given increasing weight over the doing of architecture.

Theory separated from concrete doing and making is empty and futileÉ The problem of the relation of theory and practice is not a problem of theory alone; it is that; but it is also the most practical problem of life. For it is the question of how intelligence may inform action, and how action may bear the fruit of increased insight into meaning. (Ref. 4)

The abstraction of modeling, drawing, and writing about architecture became meaningless to me when I no longer knew to what these abstractions referred. After an extensive intellectual education, how was I to embark on a sensual education? The inescapable answer was to build. (Ref. 5)

With the design and construction studios at the University of Tasmania's Department of Architecture and Urban Design, students take their designs to completion. Working to a supplied brief and budget, students design and build a small structure of timber and complementary materials. For the Building Technology stream, they build structural elements to a provided or self-developed plan and test them to destruction.

The primary aim of the design and construction studios is to imitate that portion of architectural practice that relates to a small building commission and reflects the processes and decisions encountered in other architectural design problems. The methodology adopted is student centered with the role of the staff focused on guidance and assistance. Students work through the design process with considerable design freedom. The basis of design is not supplied. They are given only a general brief and an instruction that their design must be constructed from a limited palette of materials within a set period of time. As in practice, the design is developed through stages of individual and group work, using drawing and models. Students are encouraged to explore the constructional and expressive opportunities of materials and assembly through experimental fabrication, assessment and testing. In addition to formal instruction on timber design and construction, new construction skills are taught and existing ones developed. Construction scheduling is explained. The students then have to realize the design: to build and finish the structure themselves. While much of the apparent pride and display after the event is given to the completed structure, the primary outcome of the studios is the education of architecture students. The building is just an enduring sign of their achievement.

For the Building Technology Stream, students build one of a series of structural designs first before experimenting with designs of their own.

For environmental and local reasons, timber is the preferred medium for construction. Tasmania is a considerable timber producer and local timber industries provide significant support. Using wood, (either sawn timber or related timber products such as LVL and plywood) also reduces potential restrictions in skill and capability. Timber is easy to use so it is not daunting to students who have little constructional experience or skill.

Nothing teaches better than building a design.

The strategy of building is not intended as a nostalgic refusal of the broader social obligations of architecture but rather as a beginning, a grounding of architectural understanding in the built environment before applying it to more complex issues. (Ref. 6)

Many of the major benefits of teaching by doing result from the students being able to build what they design and then reflecting on the consequences. Having been committed to a decision, they can experience the architecture and structure of their conception. They can sit on the building, feel it and watch others use it. These physical consequences drive a richer understanding of many of the aspects of architectural design and practice. Nothing informs a student's decisions on bracing and structure more than finding that a building they have designed and built, wobbles. Nothing reinforces their need to understand the principles of anthropometrics more than to sit on a seat they have carefully constructed and find that it is unbearably uncomfortable.

However, other important understandings are gained during this process are not so easily defined. During the studios, students progressively realize that the things that they design on paper have a place in the three dimensional world. For the majority of students involved, especially those who do not come from a tradition of making, this is a slow and sometimes threatening process. Their previous experience is often confined to formulating designs whose resolution and presentation includes generous allowances for scale and detail. The cosiness of this arrangement is challenged immediately by the basis of the studio. The student knows from the start that what they design is going to be built.

As the studio progresses, the inevitable clash arrives between design practice based on graphic approximation and practice focused on developing the form of a physical object. The students understand the rudiments of architectural representation but the concept that this representation is only a vehicle for the manufacture of an artifact is new. Understandably, the students resist. Vague drawings can be shuffled around with a mixture of embarrassment and defiance. Since this level of presentation has been adequate before, they can become confused when they are told it is inadequate in this situation. Never having built a complex artifact before they do not realise the complexity of construction. Different students realise the importance of this step at different times, depending on their skill and experience but all have to face it before the end.

Once the process of design is founded on the requirements of designing a physical object, students embark on explorations of detail, structure and form. Drawing, now recognized as only one means of representation, is followed by modeling and full scale testing of details and assemblies. Modeling becomes the medium of choice as it represents a transition away from two dimensional design processes towards the exploration and realisation of three-dimensional composition. It frees the student from the restrictions and difficulties of using graphic conventions such as plans section and elevation, and allows them to gauge scale, proportion, form and composition in their designs. This releases imaginative potential in the students because as they model one thought in space, others suggest themselves.

Through this process, students' appreciation of structure, material and detailing grows. Usually treated as a separate theoretical or practical stream in most architecture courses, these areas are necessarily one step removed from most studio based design exercises. This is not the case in practice, or in the design and construction studios where discussions develop on the aesthetic and construction qualities of particular detailing arrangements or on the correct visual and structural scale of a building element. Driven by a desire to design and build something memorable with the resources available, the students realize that the treatment of these issues is now a vitally important aspect of the design. Implicitly they begin to make judgements about them and repertoire and skill develop. As Cadwell (Ref. 7) describes "the hand and the eyeÉ gain a sense of material - heft, strength, texture, luminosity.'

Learning from the studio does not conclude with the completion of the building. It stands for years as an example of what can be achieved, what is successful and what is not. It is a constant source of reflection for those directly involved in the construction and their peers. They watch the building age and weather and can revisit their design as their skills grow and mature. This naturally informs future practice and decisions making. Also, as the number of buildings grows, a tradition of experimental solution forms. This provides reassurance and an important starting point for the students in following studios as they can examine and learns from the solutions of others in similar circumstances.

Building Technology subjects take a more structured course with more deliberate results. Students have to construct a timber beam of a particular size to one of a series of simple designs. The quality of the construction is up to them. Once they are built, the beams are loaded on a specially designed 100 tonne capacity testing machine and tested to destruction. The quality of the beams varies due to the skill and care of the students. So, their structural capacity and causes of failure are unpredictable. From strong beams students can determine load deflection curves and the principle of elastic behavior can be demonstrated. Some beams fail due to web or flange buckling, poor detailing or weak glue lines. Each failure provides a vehicle for the explanation of a structural, constructional or detailing concept. With luck, the performance of two beams built to the same design will vary widely. This provides an excellent illustration for key principles and endless amusement for the students.

Case studies in teaching by building.
| Abstract | Introduction | Holly Hut 2 | Courtyard Gateway | Conclusions | References |

Developing and teaching this type of studio requires careful consideration and patience. The studio process seeks to copy the experience of practice but unlike a process in practice, the studio has fixed time constraints and an unpredictable level of resources. The students become the project's builders and their level of skill and production is initially difficult to judge. A full design process is essential for the students, yet while construction can not be allowed to dominate, the designed artifact must be completed to everyone's satisfaction. While the momentum of the studio must be maintained, staff must take advantage of the unique educational opportunities that present themselves. Students face problems they may have never encountered and their skill to address them in both design and construction vary considerably. Lack of skill or confidence cannot be concealed and the final product is an obvious remainder of the process. Staff must remain flexible in action, seek to exploit present opportunities while remaining aware of the program's progress.

Two case studies illustrate the process in action; the Holly Hut 2 project built in second semester 1996 and the Courtyard Gateway project built in first semester 1997. Both were design and construction studios with a group of twelve to fourteen first-degree undergraduate students, working on a single project on a one-day a week schedule for the whole of fourteen weeks the semester.

Holly Hut 2
| Abstract | Introduction | Case studies | Courtyard Gateway | Conclusions | References |

The general brief for the Holly Hut 2 project was to design a generic day shelter for recreation areas throughout the state. The program was scheduled so that after initial project analysis, the students designed and modeled individual schemes, then developed and built a group design based on one preferred scheme or drawn together from the best points of a number of schemes. Criteria for assessing the performance of students in each stage were established. Peer assessment was to be used for group work while staff would assess individual work.

Staff from Forestry Tasmania and the Tasmanian Department of Parks Wildlife and Heritage were recruited as clients/advisors. Client groups serve a variety of functions in these studios. Their involvement allows the process to better simulate practice as the students must respond and take advice and instruction from an outsider whose language, expression and expectation is different from their own and from the culture of their educators. Clients range from school children to practicing building professionals and the student, like the architectural practitioner, must be able to relate to each of them on their own level and accept their experiences and requirements. Contact with professional clients also allows students to gauge their knowledge and skill against those already in practice and compare the techniques that they have been taught with accepted professional techniques. Finally, the involvement of a client convinces students that the problem they are addressing is a real one and that it needs a definite solution.

In the Holly Hut project, Forestry and Parks & Wildlife staff briefed the students on the general requirements for day shelters and provided commentary on issues such as maintenance and local construction expertise. With these requirements in mind, the students developed a post occupancy evaluation procedure for buildings of this type and used it to assess eight existing shelters in the region. In conjunction with this briefing and analysis work, formal technical sessions were held, including lectures on timber and its characteristics, and different types of timber assemblies and structures.

By week 4, individual design began with each student working to develop a brief and design for a shelter to suit one size of user group; a single person, a couple, a family (4-6), an extended family (6-10) or a larger group. In subsequent weeks, students developed their design in drawings and models in a standard studio environment. The variety of skill in the group became immediately apparent. A few were confident and could conceive and express their aspirations in three dimensions. The majority could describe an aspiration and concept for a design and even represent it well on paper but were reticent to model it at a large scale. Having little confidence in their understanding of connection and details, they were unsure of how their design could work as a physical entity. To overcome this reticence, key facets of the design were identified and discussion and modeling techniques were demonstrated.

Fig. 2. A scheme for a large group shelter.

Fig. 3. The selected scheme

With the presentation of individual designs, the students had to choose one of the schemes for development and construction so a simple and open voting system was agreed as the selection process. Several major factors had to be considered in making the selection and these were explained to the students openly. The first was that as a construction team, there was only so much they could build in the time remaining. Also, there was a limit on the amount of material available for the project. This placed a limit on the complexity of the design selected. The second was that the selected design would have to cease to be the individual design of one person and become the property of the group. As in practice, design development would have to be by teams working in agreement, not by individual direction. The group took these considerations into account, and after two rounds of voting, chose their preferred design. Staff did not vote but were involved in the discussion.

The selected scheme was one of the least developed of those presented but it was chosen as the best form on which to base a more developed design. This lack of resolution assisted in the design development. Though one student could claim to have contributed the basic form of the design, the scale, fittings, detail and finish of the project were free for the group to determine. The students broke into smaller teams and began working on various components of the design: refining the form and scale of the main structure and working up the possibilities for screen walls, furniture, and fittings. As students do not have the repertoire of solutions that the experienced architect calls on in daily practice, staff regularly led then to explore new solutions through discussions on aesthetic, scale and arrangement. They also regularly reminded the teams of structural and building issues.

The development of the design was an iterative process. As particular parts of the structure were refined, the teams brought their proposed resolution back to the group for analysis and decision. Often, alternative schemes were presented. Drawings were used to develop ideas but issues were generally resolved by modeling at 1:10 or by mocking up the situation at 1:1 scale. In one instance, the perimeter of the shelter was marked out in plan on the floor and the intended screen and table shape was set out, reconsidered and adjusted as students sat at mock facilities and played out preparing lunch and passing plates. The sociology of picnics and group meals were discussed and the perspectives of the intended users were explored.

Project scheduling was explained in the first week of design developments in order for deadlines to be set for the key milestones of the process. This maintained a controlled pressure on the design process as the group knew that design issues could not remain unresolved for long without substantial repercussions during the construction phase. As particular sections of the building approached resolution, individuals or pairs of students took responsibility for them and prepared for construction.

Fig. 4. The working model of the developed scheme

Once set in the correct direction, members of the team learnt as much from each other as from formal guidance. Several students immersed themselves in the design, detailing and fabrication of the I-section purlins. They particular attention to the scale and position of the flanges so that a distinct shadow line would be created, and to the trimming of the end: should it be squared off, tapered, or curved. Simple structural experiments were undertaken to make sure the purlins were corrected sized for the span. Similar processes occurred with other elements. As in practice, test sections were constructed for evaluation and discussed before final production began.

While the skills of individual students in construction naturally varied, there were other skills necessary in this process of design, development and construction, such as mediation, organisation and coordination in which particular students excelled. One student kept many of the design discussions on course yet was contented to act as a painter and assistant in many of the construction tasks. Another was highly explicit in their design opinions yet put them in such a way that it helped to cement the group into a cohesive unit. As a result, discussion was generally very vocal but amicable. Those who had established construction skills found themselves able to display their ability. Those without construction experience were shown skills that they would need or took on tasks that did not require a high degree of expertise. The staff kept careful track of student involvement and moved to head off those students who withdrew to simpler tasks too often. They also adopted a deliberate policy of teaming up students with little constructional experience with those more highly skilled.

As the end of semester neared, additional building sessions were scheduled to ensure the work was completed in time. Construction continued in the workshop until the building was as far advanced as possible. In keeping with the brief for a generic shelter, the chosen site at the Department's Hollybank prototype building station was flat and the footing system was kept as simple as possible. Hole were dug and steel posts on welded sole plates were set into them before they were back filled with rammed earth. The group worked well to assemble the building though most of them had never been involved in setting out a site before. Again, work was spread between teams, with at least one person experienced in on-site construction included in each. The building took about three working days to complete: the structure was up, level and squared in the first day; with internal fitting and roofing, and final detailing and finishing on the following work days. The only major complication was a day and a half lost to rain and the movement of the curved roof sheet. The building had two curved sections of roof and these proved difficult to complete. The students were very pleased with their design and the final product. Student feedback on the process was also positive.

At a final debriefing session, the performance criteria for each of group stages: analysis, design development and construction were revisited and each student was asked to reflect on their performance and that of their colleagues. They then marked each student with a score out of ten for each of the performance criteria. With staff grading student performance in the individual design stage, the marks were tabulated and moderated. Moderation was necessary to take out the top scores and to allow for any special circumstance in the groups. The students had been assured that the relative standing of grades would not be changed without reason and this was adhered to. In the end, the students' assessments of their own performance and that of their peers was reasonably accurate and little rearrangement of marks was necessary.

Fig 5. Erecting the building at Hollybank

Fig 5.1. Detailing before the final roof sheet was installed.

Courtyard Gateway
| Abstract | Introduction | Case studies | Holly Hut 2 | Conclusions | References |

The second project was the Courtyard Gateway. The brief for this project was to design and build an entry structure for the Architecture Courtyard at the University's Launceston campus. The structure was to be built in a 6 m. diameter landscaped circle set into the original paving. The clients for the projects were the student body of the Department, other users of the Courtyard and the Building and Property section of the University's administration.

Though the program for the Courtyard Entry was planned along similar lines to the Holly Hut project, there were several subtle but significant differences between the two. Feedback from the earlier project was reviewed and discussed between staff experienced in this type of studio. The Holly Hut group had said that they felt that they had spent too much time in post occupancy evaluation and not enough time in building and detailing the structure. From the students' point of view this was a valid criticism, as they had enjoyed the development and construction. However, the staff recognised that a full design process was essential. As a compromise, the schedule for the Courtyard program was varied so that after initial research and site analysis, the group would proceed directly into group design. The stage for individual design was omitted and the extra time scheduled for detailing and construction.

This appeared to have little initial effect. The site analysis progressed well and was combined with technical lectures and demonstrations. A brief for the site was explored in line with initial design experimentation. As a distinct individual design stage was not included, the group was run through a group of preliminary design exercises. Drawing from their own aspirations for the site, students had to express on paper a quick design concept which were pinned up and discussed. This process was repeated, seeking to draw out and develop the main points of the concept. The resulting schemes were modeled. As in the Holly Hut process, the students also had to search the literature for exemplary buildings. These were also presented and analyzed, adding to the design possibilities for the site.

At this point, the progress of the design process and the balance of the group changed. The group was originally made up of about one third second year architecture students, two thirds third year architecture students, of whom about half were full fee paying overseas students, and one second year art student. This art student had been particularly active in initial design discussion and had influenced the group considerably. In Week 4, she was gone, having left the Art School, and the balance of the group shifted. The figurative playfulness that she had unwittingly inspired in many initial designs disappeared to leave a more austere sculptural aesthetic dominant. Progress was also slowed by the skill of the remaining group. Only the second year students had taken a design through to construction before in studios the previous year but they had worked with a simple design and never had to progress a design from a brief, through an initial concept, to a complex solution. The third years had developed a design to a complex solution but only in studio. They generally had limited experience with construction while most of the overseas students had no tradition of construction.

This combined inexperience lead to hesitancy in decision making by the group, especially as they knew that there was some slack already built into the construction period. The Courtyard group did not this confidence and the teaching strategies that kept the Holly Hut group moving now made only slight headway. Progress was made but slowly and at the expense of the extra time allowed for detailed development. Split into teams, the students worked on separate sections of the building, the main structure, the roof, the seat and the paving. The key was to develop the main structural form and the other sections followed quickly. The last of all to be resolved was the seat as that design team was reluctant to commit themselves. Eventually, after intensive engagement, they came through with a successful scheme.

The process now moved towards documentation and construction. A 1:1 mockup of the main structure was made and placed in the Courtyard circle. It was assessed and varied to take advantage of the possibilities revealed. A working 1:10 model was made and shop drawings were prepared for the structural elements. Staff insisted on these as construction began. A revised construction program was mapped out and milestones agreed. As with the Holly Hut process, details developed with the construction process. The adequacy of elements was tested. For the fan roof members, prototypes were cut and tested for strength and appearance. The pace of construction increased slowly. The momentum lost during the delay in the design stage had not been fully regained and the construction skill of the students was limited. Enthusiasm grew however as the main sections of the structure began to come together. A coordination meeting with one of the client group, the University's gardener, showed the students the interest the intended building was generating. They drew encouragement from this and increased their workload.

Figure 6: Gateway, wavy roof and seat.

Figure 7: Approaching the gateway.

Three events in the construction period illustrate the unpredictable opportunities and need for versatile planning in this type of studio. The project was delayed for almost ten days by a water line that burst under the site two days before construction on site was to begin and rain that set in just after the water line was rectified. This delay was completely unforeseen and had to be made up by the perseverance of the students, who labored in the rain and scheduling of additional work days.

Unlike the Holly Hut, which had very simple foundation, the Courtyard structure was more substantial and required considerable concrete footing to resist wind load. The ground under and around the building was also to be paved with timber blocks. This meant excavation and the laying of a solid gravel base on the underlying layers of clay. Fortunately, the excavator used to fix the pipe also removed most of the soil from the site and the students removed the remainder. However, this work and the angled foundation led to further delay.

Lastly, when the prefabricated roof battens were installed, the team that had made them decided that visually, they were the wrong size. Thought larger than the battens on the model, the end detailing and the available viewpoints made them look two small. Considerable discussion followed and prototypes of revised battens were set up and judged. Mainly overseas students, the team came to the conclusion that their original elements would not do and that they would have to make a new set. Consequently they contributed all their available time over the next two days to fabricate the new set without upsetting the construction schedule.

Figure 8: Wavy roof bearers with hardwood joists

Figure 9: Seat and paving of timber rounds.

With the building complete, students assessed each other and again their marks needed only minor moderation. Even given the vagaries of construction and the discomfort of the weather, student satisfaction was still high

Reflection on the process for both building yields some strong guides for success in this type of studio

1. The primary outcome of the design and construction studios is the education of architecture students, not the construction of a building. The construction process is just another opportunity for experience and education

2. Any building project is a balance between size, quality and the budget. Studio building projects are no different except that the concept of budget needs to be viewed in its widest sense. Here budget includes the combined value of all construction resources: the amount of money and material available for the project, the skill of the student group and the amount of time that the students are available to spend on both design and construction. Estimating these resources is one of the hardest aspects of the studio for the staff as the true skill and productivity of a group of students is hard to gauge before having built something. Students that are confident and skilled in design may be completely inexperienced in construction while those that draw away from design involvement may flower when construction gets underway. This budget estimate must be made early in the design process and revised continually throughout it. As the resources available necessarily influence the size and quality of the project that can be attempted, the lecturer must maintain a balance between what they believe can be achieved and the content of the design solution.

3. As much as possible in the design and construction studios, the students design the building within a general and agreed brief. Only one design can be built and it is their design. The resulting structure is a public and enduring reminder of the studio and an important point of reflection for the students. Consequently, the lecturer must allow the students to design what they will and not impose, either overtly or covertly, their personal solution on the process. Yet, it is the lecturer's place to guide, encourage and suggest.

4. As all students must work to build the structure, all need to be involved in and own the final design. Where necessary, reluctant students must be drawn into the process using differing design and demonstration techniques. This is essential for the educational benefits of the students and for their protection. If a finished structure attracts criticism or comment, it belongs to the whole group. All can take responsibility, refute or accept the criticism, provide mutual solace and learn from the experience. If the design 'belongs' predominantly to one student, the emotional ramifications can be considerable.

5. The scheduling of the studio has considerable implications for the contents and success of the studio. As shown in the case studies, many factors can influence the progress of the studios. Generally, students working individually or in small groups can be productive in block studios or in studio sessions held each week. They can be reasonably expected to achieve progress from one weekly studio session to another. Care must be taken with students working in larger groups.

6. Removing potential problems from the building program is important to give most time to the development of the design and in overcoming unforeseen group and construction difficulties. Timber is the medium of choice for the construction as it is light, economical and requires relatively simple tools. It is reliable in both tension and compression and combines with other materials well. The amount of highly technical construction, even complicated steel detailing, included in the design should be considered. This type of work often requires skills rare in the student population. If these skills are available, they should be used with discretion.

7. The majority of our buildings have been designed for flat neutral sites with simple assumed foundation conditions. This simplifies footing design and students can concentrate on detailing and structure. Until confidence in this type of studio is developed, sitework should be kept to a minimum. If it cannot, measures should be taken to ensure the bulk earth works are completed economically by others prior to the students taking over the site. This is accepted practice in commercial building and has distinct advantages here.

8. As much of the work as possible should be prefabricated in a workshop. This requires preplanning but greatly simplifies scheduling and construction. Ideally, the building should be assembled first in the workshop under controlled conditions before being transported to site. This minimizes potential disruption to the studio by adverse or unexpected site conditions and ensures that any assembly problems can be addressed with due deliberation.

9. Client involvement is to be encouraged. Their involvement results in a process that better simulates practice as must students take into account the requirements of people whose skill and expectation is different to their own.

Conclusions
| Abstract | Introduction | Case studies | Holly Hut 2 | Courtyard Gateway | References |

The concept of teaching by doing is an established principle. However, architectural educators tend not to embrace it. This is understandable given the cost and inherent risks of the process. However, at the University of Tasmania's Department of Architecture and Urban Design, it has been shown that the process can be controlled with considerable educational benefit.

Students who take part in the design and construction studios come in contact with a dialogue that is common in practice but hard to reproduce in other studios or in lecture streams. They become involved with the nature of construction, structures and design. They must decide between alternatives and face the physical result of that decision. As they are working in groups, discussion ensues about the relative merit of one scheme or detail. This is driven by the need for the final object to be built, to perform and to function. Though the primary aim of the studio is not the final structure, every studio to date has produced a quality functional small building.

Building with timber is one major factor for this success. Timber allows considerable scope for design expression while simplifying the construction process. This lowers the threshold of effort needed to achieve a successful structure, making it easier for the students to conceive and develop a design by modeling and experimentation. It allows lecturers to concentrate on the processes of education and construction.

The philosophy of teaching by doing for architectural undergraduates is now a tradition at the University of Tasmania. As part of that tradition, students make decisions about aesthetics and structure and then see the success or failure of those decisions in the clear light of day. It is not a simple process but one that delivers valuable educational outcomes.

References
| Abstract | Introduction | Case studies | Holly Hut 2 | Courtyard Gateway | Conclusions |

1. M. CADWELL: Small Building, Pamphlet Architecture 17, Princeton Architectural Press, 1996, p. 5

2. D. SCHON: The Reflective Practitioner, Basic Books, New York, 1983, p. 138.

3. Ibid. p. 49.

4. J. DEWEY: Art as Experience, Capricorn Books, New York, 1958, p. 136.

5. M. CADWELL: Small Building, Pamphlet Architecture 17, Princeton Architectural Press, 1996, p. 5

6. Ibid. p. 5

7. Ibid. p. 6

| Top of page |