Beyond design, detail, print: The Tech Futures Lab design-build studio

Rohini Contractor; Adrian Janus; Yusef Patel

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2018)

Student Contributions

Beyond design, detail, print: The Tech Futures Lab design-build studio

Published 2018-10-31

Rohini Contractor
Adrian Janus
Yusef Patel

Rohini Contractor
Unitec Institute of Technology

Adrian Janus
Unitec Institute of Technology

Yusef Patel

Authors who publish in this journal agree to the following terms:

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. on their own website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.

Spark: UAL Creative Teaching and Learning Journal has made best effort to ensure accuracy of the contents of this journal, however makes no claims to the authenticity and completeness of the articles published. Authors are responsible for ensuring copyright clearance for any images, tables etc which are supplied from an outside source.

Abstract

This article describes an assignment that enabled students to undertake a design-and-build project. The educational facility, Tech Futures Lab, acted as client for which an interior was designed and fabricated using rapid learning process. In architectural design, 3D modelling software is becoming more readily available in fabrication activities. If the software used dictates the design, it can lead to the oversimplification of a rational, well thought-out design process. This article describes how students created ‘iterative prototypes’, and how this experience facilitated abilities to translate virtual designs into real-world constructs. Using a hybrid of digital and conventional making methods, the paper describes a modern studio, where students can actively participate in how making and design are taught.

Keywords

Architectural pedagogy, digital fabrication, prototyping, iterative design, Architecture

HTML PDF

Author Biography

Rohini Contractor

Rohini Contractor is a second Master of Architecture Student at Unitec Institute of Technology. Her research interest centres on open source plywood construction. Contractor has been a student teaching assistant at Unitec for the past two years and has led a variety of collaborations with award-winning New Zealand architects. Over the past two years, her design-build research with plywood construction has been successfully exhibited at industry events in Auckland.

Adrian Janus

Adrian Janus is a second Master of Architecture Student at Unitec Institute of Technology. Janus has been a student teaching assistant at Unitec for the past two years and has worked upon a variety of research design builds since the Tech Futures Lab Interior Project. His current research focus is investigating how computational architecture can create complex bamboo structures.

Yusef Patel

Yusef Patel is a part-time lecturer at Unitec Institute and a doctoral candidate at University of Auckland. His interests lie in the application of automated CNC fabrication technologies within the construction industry. He hosts a number of research experimental design-build projects every year for both undergraduate and postgraduate students to participate and learn from.

References

Burgess, T. and Mamou-Mani, A. (2015) ‘Entrepreneur makers: Digitally crafted, crowdfunded pavilions’, Architectural Design, 85(3), pp.130–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1912.
Chaszar, A. and Glymph, J. (2010) ‘CAD/CAM in the business of architecture, engineering and construction’ in Corser, R. (ed.) Fabricating architecture: Selected reading in digital design and manufacturing. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, pp.86–93.
Kieran, S, and Timberlake, J. (2004) Refabricating architecture: How manufacturing methodologies are poised to transform building construction. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Lucas, R. (2016) Research methods for architecture. London: Laurence King Publishing.
Parsons, M. (2014) ‘Tolerance and customisation: A question of value’, Australian Design Review, 2 April. Available at: https://www.australiandesignreview.com/architecture/tolerance-and-customisation-a-question-of-value/ (Accessed 16 August 2018).
Thornton, J. (2005) ‘Fabrication research’ in Sheil, B. (ed.) Manufacturing the bespoke: Making and prototyping architecture. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, pp.58–78.
Willis, D. and Woodward, T. (2010) ‘Diminishing difficulty: Mass customisation and the digital production of architecture’ in Corser, R. (ed.) Fabricating architecture: selected reading in digital design and manufacturing. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, pp.184–208.