CALIFORNIA COLLEGE OF THE ARTS DIVISION OF ARCHITECTURE
2012 ANNUAL REPORT SUBMISSION for BArch Program MArch Program
Director of Architecture: Dr. Ila Berman BArch Program Chair: Mark Donohue MArch Program Chair: Chris Falliers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part II: NARRATIVE REPORT
BArch Program: • Program Response to Conditions Not Met Listed in the 2011 VTR • Program Response to Causes of Concern Listed in 2011 VTR MArch Program: • Program Response to Conditions Not Met Listed in the 2011 VTR • Program Response to Causes of Concern Listed in 2011 VTR APPENDIX A
PROGRAM RESPONSE TO EACH DEFICIENCY LISTED IN THE 2011 PROGRAM ACCREDITATION VISIT VTR: On January 22-26, 2011, the Bachelor of Architecture and Master of Architecture Programs at the California College of the Arts underwent re-accreditation. The professional architecture programs were each granted six-year terms of accreditation effective January 1, 2011, with the following conditions “not met” or “causes for concern.”
BArch Program Conditions Not Met: II.1.1.A.7 II.1.1.B.11
Use of Precedents Building Services Systems
Causes of Concern : 1) Consistency of Life Safety and Environmental Systems within the Comprehensive Design Studio. MArch Program Conditions Not Met: II.1.1.B.11
Building Services Systems
Causes of Concern : 1) Consistency of Life Safety and Environmental Systems within the Comprehensive Design Studio. 2) Detailed building programming and analysis
PROGRAM RESPONSE TO EACH DEFICIENCY LISTED IN THE 2011 VTR CONDITIONS NOT MET: BArch As we have only received the 2011 VTR over the summer, we are in the process of integrating the comments and concern. The following reflects our initial response and plans to adjust our curriculum. A. 7. Use of Precedents: Ability to examine and comprehend the fundamental principles present in relevant precedents and to make choices regarding the incorporation of such principles into architecture and urban design projects. 2011 Team Evaluation: The Team found that this criterion was not met in the BArch Program. While evidence of Use of Precedents was given in the Studio 4 course and previous studio sequences, the team did not feel the evidence was substantial enough to demonstrate Ability of students to use the precedents as a design tool and subsequently to inform the design process. Specifically analytical skills as they relate to precedent studies was lacking in student work displayed. BArch Program Response: The BArch Program has worked diligently over the past four years to teach students explicit analytical skills related to understanding precedents (both built and published) and to integrate precedents and their lessons directly into studio coursework. Upon receiving this feedback from the Visiting Team, we have realized that there is a gap between what we are teaching and how that work is both documented (as evidence of instruction) and, more importantly, integrated into student design work. In response to this we are doing the following: In Studio 1, which focuses on the relationship of the body to space and dwelling, students analyze a residential precedent for space making and lighting strategies. The strategies form the basis for designing a small scale urban infill project. The list of building precedents is shared with the Materials and Methods class which studies how buildings are constructed. Lessons learned are exchanged between classes through critiques and direct use of drawings and models. In Studio 2, which investigates building relationship to site, and where students perform precedent analysis, we will be working with students to draw and apply specific lessons from their precedents and make explicit reference to them throughout the design process. Students will start by identifying and using strategies from their precedent for handling sloped site conditions as the catalyst for their design solution. Successful final projects will demonstrate an understanding of their building precedent and the lessons learned in Materials and Methods by drawing an exploded axonometric drawing illustrating the building’s tectonics. In Studio 3, students travel to New York City and do a multi-use building along the high line. The high line itself and all the building that have been built along it along with several other buildings are used as precedents. Precedents are also used to gain a better understanding of how the program of hotels function and for the development of the building’s exterior envelope. In the Architecture Analysis class, which was instituted four years ago, we will continue to teach and sharpen analytical techniques to understand architectural precedents. In addition, documentation of student work in this course will be more clearly assembled and curated. This course, which is taught in parallel with Studio 4, provides analysis of precedents tied to the studio project (multi-family housing). We will sharpen the connection between the two courses, assuring that the understandings drawn from the analysis in the seminar course translate explicitly into the studio design work. While Studio 2 will continue to be an introduction to the use of precedents, Arch Analysis and Studio 4 will be the place where we ensure that they are understood and applied.
B. 11. Building Service Systems: Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of building service systems such as plumbing, electrical, vertical transportation, security, and fire protection systems. 2011 Team Evaluation: The Team did not find evidence of student understanding of the application and performance of communication, security and fire protection. This condition is not met. BArch/MArch Program Response: Building service systems are explicitly introduced to students in the Advanced Technical Systems course. To better clarify student understanding of this information, a lecture specifically addressing specifically fire - communication, security and protection was added to the spring 2012 course. Demonstration of student comprehension is gauged through questions on a quiz and exam, which allows us to evaluate specifically what the students are learning in this regard. One of the many aspects of building design incorporated into the Comprehensive Building Design (CBD) Advanced Studios is space, including vertical chases and electrical rooms, for these systems as well as very specific in-studio discussions of fire suppression issues in relation to design. These include protection of steel structures, sprinkler requirements and distribution and so on. As we continue to evolve the format for documenting the complex processes and products of the CBD Studios (See (1) Causes of Concern below) we have incorporated specific requirements on these issues, including adding to the required list of drawings a fire suppression page that illustrates through text, diagrams and details, the fire suppression strategies for the building.
CAUSES OF CONCERN 1) Consistency of Life Safety and Environmental Systems within the Comprehensive Design Studio (BArch/MArch) 2011 Team Evaluation: While the team for appropriate evidence of the majority of criteria required of the comprehensive design requirement (B.6) there was a lack of consistency in the integration of life safety issues and environmental systems. Specifically, the clarity of egress and the integration of building envelope and environmental distribution systems was lacking. BArch/MArch Program Response: Over the past nine years we have initiated a requirement in Comprehensive Building Design Advanced Studios that each student produce a set of 11 x 17 drawings that document their project and that contains pages that explicitly diagram issues of egress/life safety and other pages that diagram the relationships of environmental systems and envelope/enclosures in exploded axonometrics and section perspectives and details. These areas of the curriculum is continuously being developed to ensure that integrated practice that addresses life safety and other systems is a critical component of the comprehensive building design studio education, and that evidence of the outcomes of this education is fully documented in CD sets for these studios. However, we recognize and acknowledge the Visiting Team’s concern that these aspects of the projects are not always consistently documented. To ensure better consistency and delivery of the educational goals of the Comprehensive Building Design (CBD) Advanced Studios, we have created a formal paid CBD Coordinator position. The Coordinator regularly teaches CBD Studios and works with other CBD studio faculty to assure consistency in the educational outcomes and documentation products of the studios. The Coordinator organizes workshops
with consultants who are Structural Engineers and with experts in Building Energy, Building Materials, and Envelope/Enclosure development. Finally, the Coordinator has standardized a set of required pages in the CBD Workbooks that cover these and other important issues. This helps ensure that students document this aspect of their work. While this student performance criteria is demonstrated in the Comprehensive Building Design Advanced Studios, the foundation is built up in core studio and technical courses. BArch Studio 3 and MArch. Studio 2 introduce students to life safely via an egress lecture and exercise. Students are lectured on the reasons and requirements for egress. They then design egress plans for their studio projects. ATS, Advanced Technological Systems, taken in parallel or just prior to the Comprehensive Building Design Advanced Studios introduces students to environmental systems as part of the integrations of building systems.
CONDITIONS NOT MET: MArch B. 11. Building Service Systems: Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of building service systems such as plumbing, electrical, vertical transportation, security, and fire protection systems. 2011 Team Evaluation: The Team did not find evidence of student understanding of the application and performance of communication, security and fire protection. This condition is not met. BArch/MArch Program Response: Building service systems are explicitly introduced to students in the Advanced Technical Systems course. To better clarify student understanding of this information, a lecture specifically addressing specifically fire - communication, security and protection was added to the spring 2012 course. Demonstration of student comprehension is gauged through questions on a quiz and exam, which allows us to evaluate specifically what the students are learning in this regard. One of the many aspects of building design incorporated into the Comprehensive Building Design (CBD) Advanced Studios is space, including vertical chases and electrical rooms, for these systems as well as very specific in-studio discussions of fire suppression issues in relation to design. These include protection of steel structures, sprinkler requirements and distribution and so on. As we continue to evolve the format for documenting the complex processes and products of the CBD Studios (See (1) Causes of Concern below) we have incorporated specific requirements on these issues, including adding to the required list of drawings a fire suppression page that illustrates through text, diagrams and details, the fire suppression strategies for the building. CAUSES OF CONCERN 1) Consistency of Life Safety and Environmental Systems within the Comprehensive Design Studio (BArch/MArch) 2011 Team Evaluation: While the team for appropriate evidence of the majority of criteria required of the comprehensive design requirement (B.6) there was a lack of consistency in the integration of life safety issues and environmental systems. Specifically, the clarity of egress and the integration of building envelope and environmental distribution systems was lacking. MArch Program Response: Over the past six years we have initiated a requirement in Comprehensive Building Design Advanced Studios that each student produce a set of 11 x 17 drawings that document their project and that contains pages that explicitly diagram issues of egress/life safety and other pages that diagram the relationships of environmental systems and envelope/enclosures in exploded axonometrics and section perspectives and details. These areas of the curriculum is continuously being developed to ensure that integrated practice that addresses life safety and other systems is a critical component of the comprehensive building design studio education, and that evidence of the outcomes of this education is fully documented in cd sets for these studios. However, we recognize and acknowledge the Visiting Team’s concern that these aspects of the projects are not always consistently documented. To ensure better consistency and delivery of the educational goals of the Comprehensive Building Design (CBD) Advanced Studios, we have created a formal paid CBD Coordinator position. The Coordinator regularly teaches CBD Studios and works with other CBD studio faculty to assure consistency in the educational outcomes and documentation products of the studios. The Coordinator organizes workshops with consultants who are Structural Engineers and with experts in Building Energy, Building Materials, and
Envelope/Enclosure development. Finally, the Coordinator has standardized a set of required pages in the CBD Workbooks that cover these and other important issues. This helps ensure that students document this aspect of their work. While this student performance criteria is demonstrated in the Comprehensive Building Design Advanced Studios, the foundation is built up in core studio and technical courses. MArch Studio 2 introduces students to life safely via an egress lecture and exercise. Students are lectured on the reasons and requirements for egress. They then design egress plans for their studio projects. ATS, Advanced Technological Systems, taken in parallel or just prior to the Comprehensive Building Design Advanced Studios introduces students to environmental systems as part of the integrations of building systems. 2) Detailed building programming and analysis 2011 Team Evaluation: While the team found strong evidence of programming and analysis at the urban and site scales, this strength was not found at the individual building scale. MArch Program Response: Within the core studios, Arch. Analysis course, and ARL+ARS Thesis preparatory courses, the MArch program has foreground analysis both to further understanding and as a primary generator of design. Site and internal building scale analyses are engaged in terms of programmatic, environmental, and cultural understandings, critiques, and potentials. The outcomes for these include mappings to programmatic diagrams. Through more specific coordination between MArch Studio 2 and MArch Studio 3, the demonstration of internal building programming has been developed and demonstrated. Studio 2 will continue to lecture on the use of programmatic understandings as a design tool, but has developed specific graphic outcomes as part of design development. MArch Studio 3 engages programmatic analysis in its precedent analysis exercise and has students develop some aspects of program within a design problem. Its curriculum has been refined to make these two exercises more graphically demonstrative. It will also add a requirement for students to provide a programmatic analysis of their final designs.
APPENDIX A:
FINANCIAL RESOURCES: Below is a breakdown of the information summarized in Section F 6a. and 6b of Part I: Statistical Report. Note: As the administration of revenue is centralized within the College, the total revenue from all sources (6a) refers only to the actual instructional, administrative and operating budgets allocated to the Division of Architecture for the BArch and MArch programs and is not a true reflection of total revenue. Total instructional, administrative and operating budgets allocated to Architecture for 2011/12 is: $1,969,817 or 17.8% of total revenue. This reflects the allocation for professional coursework but does not include instructional costs for BArch students’ general education coursework requirements, additional administrative costs, and any costs for facilities that are centralized within CCA. Tuition revenue for Architecture (BArch and MArch programs) for 2011/12 is $11,072,820. PROGRAM BUDGET ALLOCATIONS WITH PER STUDENT EXPENDITURES
The BArch and MArch budgets and total Architecture Division budgets for 2011/12 are listed below. INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGETS BARCH
MARCH
PROGRAM BUDGETS
2011/12
2011/12
Instruction*
$754,764
$742,680
Advising**
$11,000
$6,300
$765,764
$748,980
192
99
$3988
$7,565
TOTAL Instruction Total # of Students in Program Instructional Expenditure/ student
*Since instructional budgets for all classes shared between BArch and MArch students are divided equally rather than representing the actual number of BArch and MArch students in each class, the instructional expenditure per student on a program basis is less accurate than the average expenditure for both programs together. Additional differences between instructional budgets by program is that they do not include team teaching instructional stipends which are included in the Divisional totals.
Architecture Division Budgets (BArch/MArch) Architecture Faculty Instruction
2011/12 $1,555,444
Architecture Faculty Advising
$17,300
Architecture Faculty Sabbatical
$33,638
TOTAL Instruction
$1,606,382
Instructional Lines Advising Lines / (Stipends) Faculty Administration Lines
173.5 (4) 17
TOTAL Lines
190.5
Total Students in Architecture Total Faculty Advising Expenditure/Student Total Staff Advising Expenditure/Student Total Instructional Expenditure/Student
291 $59.5 $132 $5,520
ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGETS Architecture Division Budgets (BArch/MArch)
2011/12
Architecture Faculty Administration*
$213,714
Architecture Staff Administration
$145,360
TOTAL Architecture Administration
$359,074
Total Students in Architecture Total Administration Expenditure/Student
291 $1,234
*Faculty Administration includes all funding for architecture academic administration including director, chair, and faculty coordinator funding and all additional faculty administrative lines and stipends.
OPERATING BUDGETS Architecture operating budgets include all discretionary budgets for each of Architecture’s two professional programs. Architecture Division Budgets (BArch/MArch)
2011/12
Total Architecture Operating Budgets
$218,075
Total Students in Architecture
291
Total Administration Expenditure/Student
PROGRAM BUDGETS Honoraria Postage
$749
BARCH
MARCH
2011/12
2011/12
$15,000
$18,500
$2,300
$1,000
$12,000 $1,250 $1,000 -$6,400 $500 --$21,200 $3,200
$15,400 $1,250 $1,300 -$3,200 $500 $1,000 $20,500 $1,900
Student Exhibitions
$6,000
$7,500
Other Events
$8,400
$8,100
Dues & Memberships
$1,500
$475
Federal Work Study
18,000
$12,700
Teaching Assistants
---
$28,000
Printing Personnel Advertising Photography Photocopying Supplies-Instructional Supplies-Non-Instructional Furniture-NonCap Travel Conference Registration
$96,750
$121,325
Total # of Students in Program
2011/12 PROGRAM TOTAL
192
99
Total Operating Budget/Student
$504
$1225.5
TOTAL DIVISIONAL BUDGETS: INSTRUCTION, ADMINISTRATION, OPERATING Architecture Division Budgets (BArch/MArch) Total Instruction Total Administration Total Operating Total Architecture Budget Total Students in Architecture Total Architecture Expenditure/Student
2010/11 $1,449,118 $438,275 $199,320 $2,086,713 304 $6,864
