Restructuring Jury Critique in Architecture and Design Reviews

1
Restructuring Jury Critique in Architecture and
Design Reviews

• Benedict D. Ilozor, Ph.D.
• Architecture Professor, Hampton University 03-05,
  USA
• Michael I. Okoroh, Ph.D.
• Reader in Facilities Management, University of
  Derby, UK

2
Introduction

• Essence of studio critique
• Reasons for underperformance
• Varying jurors emphasis
• Jurors reinforcing inadequacies of design
• Jurors distance from the projects reviewed
• Less accolades for accomplishments
• The need for restructuring and balance

3
Aim

• To provide avenues to a more representative jury
  selection and assignment for fruitful application
  to comprehensive design reviews
• Case study
• Review and format
• Final review compilation and discussion
• Recommendation
• Conclusion

4
Case Study Gethsemane Baptist Church

• A student-community-collaboration project
• In fulfilment of Advanced Comprehensive
  Architecture Design Studio for Fall 2004
• Comprised of three main parts
• Sanctuary
• Educational facility
• Sports facility
• Comprehensive design opportunities presented
• Students learning tied to
• Department objectives
• National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)
  Student Performance Criteria (SPC)
• Required activities and students evaluative
  measurements shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3

5
Sample Site-plan Capturing the Three Parts
Student Moti, Marziano
6
Reviews and format

• Two major reviews
• Mid term review
• Final reviews
• Five supplemental milestone reviews
• Time management
• Acquainting of potential jurors to the
  projects/students
• One hall, two review groups two juror groups
• Roaming jurors
• Making up for less than 100 students
  participation
• Jurors requested to set down their comments (see
  Table 3)
• Comprehensive feedback of jurors comments
• Publication such as this one
• Compare jurors remarks with their ratings

7
Final review compilation and discussion

• Jurors Initials and Professions
• SK Senior Planner, Newport News City, Virginia
• AH Senior Planner, Newport News City, Virginia
• AJ Adjunct Professor of Hampton Universitys
  Department of Architecture
• DH Client Representative, Gethsemane Baptist
  Church, Newport News, Virginia
• DR Client Representative, Gethsemane Baptist
  Church, Newport News, Virginia
• DeH Assistant Professor of Hampton Universitys
  Department of Architecture
• CS Associate Professor of Hampton Universitys
  Department of Architecture
• SC Assistant Professor of Hampton Universitys
  Department of Architecture
• BM Project Manager, Livas Group Architects,
  Norfolk, Virginia
• An alumnus of Hampton Universitys Department of
  Architecture, whose firm had designed another
  Church auditorium for Gethsemane Baptist Church,
  Newport News, Virginia

8
Sample Jurors Comments Ratings of Student 13s
Project
AH AJ DeH
Dual entrances encourage cut-through traffic (-ve) No landscaping to protect existing residential community (-ve) No 3D model representation of the building (-ve) Visibility has a few issues view blocked (-ve) Drawings are clear. (ve) Justification okay, but needs a little more work (ve) Your design really needs to be seen in 3D (-ve) The roof hurts your design flat ceiling inside does not support plan of uplifting (-ve) Roof structure needs work (-ve) Roof trusses too big (-ve) Lower level plan needs site relations to show how it works (-ve) Connecting space needs to be shifted (-ve) Facades seem unappealing (-ve) Entry needs work (-ve) Project was designed in plan exclusively (-ve) Truss system seems a little overly scaled (-ve) No 3D representation (-ve)
Indicative rating 3 Indicative rating 4 Indicative rating 2
9
Final review compilation and discussion contd.

• Observed jurors rating practice
• Comments inconsistent with ratings
• Deficiencies criticized
• Accomplishments less commended
• Negative comments more than double the positive
  ones
• Most students still rated above average
• Jurors comments rather than their ratings
  reflected their interests, biases, and
  backgrounds
• Jurors who are practising planners dwelt more on
  planning deficiencies
• Jurors rated as they liked, and not as they were
  requested
• No significant disparity in remark and rating
  styles between faculty and guest jurors
• Jurors remarks varied in length, content, and
  emphasis

10
Recommendation

• Good evaluation tool inappropriately/inadequately
  utilised
• Call for a modified approach to jury selection
  assignment
• Architects work with urban designers, landscape
  architects, contractors, engineers, building
  consultants, public officials, etc.
• Students should be exposed to these disciplines
  through jurors selection and reviews
• Jurors assigned review responsibilities
  corresponding with their backgrounds and areas of
  interest
• Jurors from planning background concentrate on
  the planning aspects of students projects
• Jurors from civil engineering discipline focus on
  site and civil engineering issues

11
Ideal jury Constitution for Comprehensive Design
Studio Reviews
Regulatory Compliance
12
Recommendation contd.

• Some form of rating for students work necessary
• Collaboration encouraged
• Harmful individualism and competition discouraged
  
• Negative critics to balance with positive ones
• Democratization of the jury review process
• Opportunities for respectful, two-way exchanges
  between students and jurors
• Students guided on ways to present their projects
• Inability to communicate in the most basic terms
  is a challenge facing architectural education and
  profession
• Assessment to focus on process, not end-product

13
Recommendation contd.

• Early education preparations for better
  juror-student presentation interaction dialogue
  
• Students educated on the art of presentation and
  verbal communication
• Instructors to help recognize ideas and theories
  embedded in students work
• Explicitly explaining learning, unencumbered by
  self-styled jargons, is a responsibility about
  which instructors ought to be more forthcoming
• Students should not be led too far away to the
  extent that their communication and touch with
  practice and reality become limited, if not
  impossible
• The gap between theory and practice must be
  bridged, especially at advanced comprehensive
  design studio level
• Studio to connect students with the community
• Students exposed to collaboration, real clients
  and sites, hands-on learning, community
  interaction, socio-economic and cultural issues,
  and realities of designing within constraints
• Studio designs ignoring the needs of society
  leads to advanced and future difficulties in
  communicating with and designing for clients

14
Conclusion

• The problem of jury critique is not very much
  associated with the instruments of evaluation,
  but with the organisation or structuring of the
  jurors
• Jurors varied concentrations on students work
  do not always guarantee that all vital critic
  areas will be adequately covered
• This has direct impact on overall value students
  derive from jury process
• A representative jury constitution or composition
  and assignment can address this problem
• This will ensure that all vital critic issues are
  considered
• Offers a greater value, and enriches students
  learning experience and exposition
• Best applicable to the upper design studio levels