Catalytic Conversion

“We require from buildings as from people two kinds of goodness: first, that they do their practical duty well; and second, that they be graceful and pleasing in doing it.” John Ruskin¹

In 2020, the National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) revised its Conditions for Accreditation, revising student criteria (SCs) into a tighter set that places greater emphasis on Design Synthesis and Building Integration. NAAB now will evaluate not various fragments of education, but will look at students’ total scope across all classes that work towards fulfilling integrated design understanding and ability. Integration of building envelope and assemblies is stated as a primary aspect of this ability. This must be viewed as a bold pedagogical statement from the various academic and professional stakeholders; that building envelope design is fundamental to the future of the profession, and therefore must be fundamental to the education of tomorrow’s architects.

Yet integrated design is also a “controversial aspect of the architectural curriculum,” wherein some programs and faculty “see it as inordinately broad and too narrowly evaluated by accreditation teams.” ²Thus integrated design is still marginalized within many architectural curricula, treated as mere technical coursework. As a perceived impediment to design exploration, it is shunted onto mundane projects with normative facades, expressly shifting students’ focus away from design innovation and on to simple and straightforward application of standard technical knowledge. The resulting designs are obedient to the rules, but do little to advance design as a broader process of experimentation with envelopes, assemblies, and systems. This unfortunately creates a feedback loop which reinforces integrated design as a too-soon introduction of complicated, yet uninteresting, systems and rules that stunt the development of more poetic notions of space, light, form, and texture. If approached this way, systems and technical requirements understandably become framed as burdens to be mitigated, instead of opportunities to be explored. This paper investigates an alternative approach, where design integration and envelope development are embraced as the guiding framework of a robust studio sequence specifically bent towards design innovation.

Successfully design integration requires knowing and embracing the guiding spirit of the design while applying knowledge derived from research. Given the diversification of consultants, the expansion of technology, the growth of building regulations, and the impact of climate on envelope performance; the architect as focal point, integrating all aspects into a maintained vision, is more critical than ever. Instead of fighting technical knowledge, or learning it begrudgingly, the overall pedagogy of the degree highlights the integration criteria, implement them as much as — instead of as little as — possible. Within our 4+1 degree system, many aspects of integrated design are repeated throughout the undergraduate, pre-professional sequence; smaller preparatory projects for the official evidence studios in the professional Master’s degree. NAAB integrated design and systems requirements are then used to structure a year-long Master’s project, wherein varied aspects, from inception to detailed technical documentation, are developed and integrated into students’ individual projects. This approach allows the time needed for students to investigate and achieve the technical knowledge embedded in their formal and spatial aspirations. The multiplicity of integrated design concerns is celebrated as developmental tools in the design process. Development of tectonic aspects happens concurrently with complex design investigation; each used as lens to critique the other. Systems and envelope assemblies are thus platforms for design exploration, feedback loops which intertwine innovation and technical knowledge.