Facades Education in the United States

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 Importance of Facades in Architectural Education

Knowledge of facades, or building enclosures, is critical for successful professional architectural practice. Thus, academic programs are the first stepping stones for preparing students with the necessary knowledge about building enclosures, design methods, materials, construction techniques, and technical documentation. In practice, building envelope systems are a fundamental component of most architectural projects (Brainard, 2020). The overall design aesthetic is specifically characterized by the building enclosure, which plays a critical role in energy efficiency, environmental impact, and users’ visual, thermal, lighting, and acoustic comfort and sense of well-being (Matheou et. al 2020). Moreover, as computational and technological advancements are ever progressing, including the latest innovations in building materials, facade system technologies, and computational performance simulations – it is imperative that higher education students at least gain exposure, if not experience, in understanding these topics prior to entering professional practice. As facade design becomes increasingly complex and reliant on highly specialized expertise, programs will need to better prepare students for their role on the design team. Yet, in the United States (U.S.), facades education is significantly lacking, as most facade-related curricula continue to be offered as graduate-level, elective courses, or a small, integrated component to core, required design studios (Aksamija et. al 2023). This results in an industry approach that must increasingly rely on facade experts to compensate for these knowledge gaps (Terzich 2018).

This may be the result of the overly broad national accreditation requirements as set by the National Architecture Accreditation Board (NAAB), which do not require courses specific to facade design and construction (Brainard, 2020). However, the latest 2020 revision of NAAB student criteria requirements emphasizes building enclosure, building performance, and synthesis across building systems (NAAB 2020). These specific requirements are elaborated on in later sections of this paper. Another reason may be rooted in the historical trajectories of architectural programs in the U.S., which adopted and evolved their influences over time. These are specifically the Neoclassical, Beaux-Arts pedagogy – which emphasized “beauty”, or design aesthetics and learning through critiqued, design studios, and its divergent and opposite pedagogy, that of the 20^th century “modern”, Bauhaus – which emphasized industrial-technology, technical practicality, and function in design over aesthetics (Bunch 1992, Fazio et al. 2008, Roth and Roth Clark 2017). Depending on which of these two dichotomies had a larger influence, different architectural programs and departments across the country embraced either design/conceptual approach or technology/practical knowledge. These legacies, including their transitions, are detailed by Bunch (1992) with examples of numerous, highly regarded architectural schools and/or programs within academic institutions.

These legacies of historic influences continue to be seen across architectural education in the U.S. to date, and together with overly broad NAAB requirements, lead to a highly diverse approach to architectural education. As the majority of programs continue to emphasize design through the absence or a non-requirement of facade-related courses, the result is an increasing gap between what students learn and the knowledge and skills they need for real-world practice where technical knowledge and building envelope design and performance are critical. This is exemplified by Brainard (2020), where among the program sample of the highly ranked 20 B. Arch and 20 M. Arch programs in the U.S., only 4 programs offered standalone and required courses on facades. In turn, the majority of these top-ranked programs embed facade-related curricula into lecture courses on materials and construction systems or design studio courses.

1.2 Existing Literature on Facades Education in the U.S.

There is limited existing literature on the state of facades education. Regarding publications on the overall education in architecture, predominant trends are an emphasis on the persisting gap between what is being taught in academia and what is needed for architectural practice. One significant publication is a doctoral dissertation by Bunch, from 1992, which describes the historical trajectory of architectural education in the U.S. and the origins and functions of various institutional organizations, such as the NAAB, with a goal of identifying the core curricula for the architectural discipline and its adaptations over time. Bunch (1992) concluded with a call for improving alignment between academic curricula and actual skills needed for professional practice, emphasizing that while the NAAB has been adapting over time, its requirements for a general, all-encompassing curricula, were historically leaving students unprepared for real-world practice as computational and technological advancements, increasing complexity and scale of projects, and multidisciplinary needs in the field were outpacing the broad-scale education in architectural design, building systems, history, and theory. While not recent, it depicts that the gap between academia and practice is not a novel issue, yet something that has historically persisted, and it calls for an urgent need to expand and specialize accredited, graduate-level programs to meet the current competency demands in the field.

This gap was highlighted by Talwai (2015) who summarizes trends in the last three decades of available literature concerning architectural academia and its relationship to professional practice. Although focusing on summer immersion programs, which are a recent decades’ development geared at onboarding graduate students with no prior architectural education, Talwai asserts that the majority of architectural programs continue to emphasize the conceptual-rhetorical design thinking and the historic, Beaux-Arts studio culture much more than technical proficiency and an awareness for real-world environmental, social, and economic issues that are impacted by architecture – essentially stating that most architectural programs are distant from real-world issues, as well as skills used in practice. Through a case study outlining studio culture at a well-known private university, Talwai exemplified the common studio review criticisms given to students where their projects are deemed too practical or architectural for academia, pushing them to explore artistic creativity, and to – in other words – ignore some significant, real-world issues, that according to the author result in irrational, privileged designs.

Another recent study by Lee and Moore (2017) illustrated this gap through an investigation of published research, both in the U.K. and the U.S., by evaluating historical trends in research topics among two leading journals, the Architectural Research Quarterly (which is aimed at academics and practitioners) and Journal of Architectural Education (which is aimed exclusively at academics). A couple of very significant conclusions were (1) that over time there has been an increased and accelerated gap between academic research and practice, and (2) that the majority of publications continue to focus on history and theory, and the least in areas of technology (around 13%), such as material technology, typology, sustainability, and regionalism, where research related to facade systems, their technology, and computational simulation processes would be grouped. These findings may further reflect that practitioners are not publishing enough research, as well that if faculty are not engaging in these areas of research, then they also may not be specifically teaching these subject areas. These findings may help explain that the majority of available research related to facades has been published by the Facade Tectonics Institute (FTI) organization, with very few results through academic databases.

Looking at the array of FTI’s publications on facade education and facade design processes in academia, a recent study by Doerfler and Pottgiesser (2018) reiterated the same gap between academic areas of focus and the needed skills in professional architectural practice. In cooperation with the European Facade Network (EFN) and FTI, the authors conducted an online survey between the years of 2016-17 to investigate the state of both educational and professional needs in the facade sector (which included facade design, technology, construction, education, and training). Although their study did not separate results between the European and North American participants, their findings were significant. Of the 212 participants, who were primarily individuals with architectural occupation backgrounds, 80% expressed a need for graduate degrees that specialize in facade design and technology to meet the complexities of professional needs. Additionally, 71% of participants identified a need for increased education in facade system detailing and constructability, with 41% identifying a need for sustainable construction knowledge and 58% identifying a need for teamwork and collaboration skills. The need for expanded skill sets was also discussed by Deutsch (2017), who demonstrates the need for skills in interdisciplinary collaboration, professional etiquette, project and process management – or holistic workflows – through several large-scale and varying typology projects by five globally-recognized and influential architectural design firms. The goal was to provide a lens through which students and aspiring architects can either be influenced by the presented processes or criticize their effectiveness.

1.3 NAAB Requirements and Facades Education

The National Architecture Accrediting Board (NAAB) is the sole organization responsible for accrediting professional architecture programs within the U.S., including some international architectural programs (NAAB 2024a). It was created to help address the rapidly evolving demands of the architectural profession as dictated by the technological advancements since the early 20^th century, in efforts to streamline and standardize minimal educational requirements necessary for this increasingly complex profession. The NAAB was founded in 1940 through joint efforts of initially three national professional and academic organizations: 1) the American Institute of Architects (AIA), a voluntary nonprofit organization of professionals that provides standards for professional practice and academic mentorship, founded in 1857; 2) the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA), the original and previous academic accrediting organization, founded in 1912, whose membership was deemed as an accreditation until 1932, and (3) the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), a nonprofit organization that standardizes architectural licensing for U.S. states and territories, founded in 1919 (ACSA 2023, AIA 2023, NAAB 2024b, NCARB 2023). The fourth national organization that was founded a little later, in 1956, the American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS), a voluntary organization that promotes and supplements architectural education and advocates on behalf of the student body, has since joined (AIAS 2023), and - together - these four organizations, referred to as the Collateral Organizations (NAAB 2024b) continue to fund, influence, and lead architectural education standards in the U.S. Additionally, the NAAB’s Board of Directors elects members from each of these four organizations to term positions to support these efforts (NCARB 2024b). Given that, since the 1970s, the NAAB holds the exclusive accreditation authority in the U.S. (NAAB 2024a) and that most state registration boards mandate a NAAB-accredited degree as a prerequisite for licensure, NAAB's educational standards exert primary influence over the training of licensed architects across the nation. Its accreditation includes requirements for architectural degree programs, which can be undertaken in both undergraduate and graduate degree programs.

Undergraduate architecture programs include the five-year Bachelor of Architecture (B. Arch) professional degree and the four-year pre-professional degrees which may grant a Bachelor of Arts in Architecture (B.A. Arch) or a Bachelor of Science in Architecture (B.S. Arch.) degree. The five-year professional B. Arch programs are accredited by NAAB and therefore must satisfy specific curricular requirements. These programs tend to be more highly organized around the architectural design studio sequence and will typically require more architecture-specific coursework and a much wider range of technical content. However, the B.A. and B.S. pre-professional programs are not accredited by the NAAB, and both the professional and pre-professional programs offer entry into Master of Architecture (M. Arch) programs. Although, for those with a professional, B. Arch degree, a master’s degree in architecture is not required for professional licensure if it is from a NAAB accredited program.

Professional M. Arch. programs offer two typical paths: 1) a nominal three- to four-year path for students entering the field without an undergraduate degree in architectural studies, and 2) a two- to three-year path for students who have completed the B.A. or B.S. in Architecture degree. An advanced standing, two-year path for students with completed pre-professional B.A. and B. S. degrees is most typical, however, and commonly referred to as the “4+2 programs”. Some M. Arch programs, however, require a minimal three-year program for those with completed pre-professional B.A. and B. S. degrees, which are essentially “4+3 programs”. Additionally, although rare, some M. Arch programs may require professional practice experience, or a co-operative, as an integrated component. And, for those with an undergraduate degree in programs outside of architecture, many M. Arch programs offer longer, three- or four-year professional degree programs that embed one to two years of accelerated undergraduate prerequisites within its master’s degree program. Thus, while seemingly flexible, it typically takes about five to eight years to acquire a professional degree in architecture in the U.S., which must be from a NAAB accredited program in order to progress through NCARB licensure. As of October 2023, there are currently 54 NAAB-accredited B. Arch. degree programs, approximately 150 pre-professional undergraduate programs, 118 NAAB-accredited M. Arch. programs, and 1 NAAB-accredited Doctor of Architecture (D. Arch.) program (NAAB 2024a and NAAB 2024c).

Because the undergraduate B.A. and B.S. pre-professional programs are not accredited by NAAB, their curricula and specific programs of study vary widely between institutions. Degree requirements tend to include a large share of general education courses; Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) courses; field of study electives; electives, etc. Required architectural design studios, the curricular heart of U.S. architectural education, may be a sequence of five to eight studios. This immense flexibility and autonomy allow these numerous programs to prioritize architecture-specific coursework as widely or as narrowly in both focus and depth of study. This gives some architecture schools and/or programs a competitive edge in attracting specific students based on students’ interests, where some are reputed for their design emphasis or technically oriented skills. However, the downside of this is that due to the breadth of curricular scope and credit hour limits, few of these pre-professional programs delve deeply into building construction, systems, or technologies, including facade-related topics. Moreover, many students pursue a combination of pre-professional and professional degrees at different universities, and with such wide-ranging differences in curricula among these programs, many students may not gain exposure to the education areas that are pertinent to their ultimate professional practice.

The current NAAB 2020 Conditions for Accreditation and Procedures for Accreditation are markedly different from prior versions in the shift from specific criteria to fewer and much more general Program Criteria (PC) and Student Criteria (SC) (NAAB 2020). The previous, and until recently implemented 2014 NAAB student criteria requirements had twenty-six Student Performance Criteria (SPC) across four broad topic areas (NAAB 2014). Of these, the third area “Realm C: Integrated Architectural Solutions” may have been closest to including language on facade-related requirements but did not specifically mention building enclosure systems. Rather, it called for evaluating design options “across systems and scales” (NAAB 2014) which had left facade-related education open to selective inclusion. However, the latest, 2020 NAAB requirements are organized around eight Program Criteria (PC) and six Student Criteria (SC).

The specific language of these current, 2020 requirements that relate, directly or tangentially, to facades and enclosure systems include the following:

• PC.5 Research and Innovation: How the program prepares students to engage and participate in architectural research to test and evaluate innovations in the field.
• SC.4 Technical Knowledge: How the program ensures that students understand the established and emerging systems, technologies, and assemblies of building construction, and the methods and criteria architects use to assess those technologies against the design, economics, and performance objectives of projects.
• SC.5 Design Synthesis: How the program ensures that students develop the ability to make design decisions within architectural projects while demonstrating synthesis of user requirements, regulatory requirements, site conditions, and accessible design, and consideration of the measurable environmental impacts of their design decisions.
• SC.6 Building Integration: How the program ensures that students develop the ability to make design decisions within architectural projects while demonstrating integration of building envelope systems and assemblies, structural systems, environmental control systems, life safety systems, and the measurable outcomes of building performance.

The Design Synthesis (SC.5) requires higher attention to design competency and “measurable” environmental impacts of proposed design solutions, which indirectly relate to facades and enclosure systems as any study on environmental impacts of building design must include passive and active facade performance metrics. Moreover, the specific student criteria SC.6 Building Integration finally uses the term “building envelope” and calls for its integration across building systems and quantitative building performance outcomes (NAAB 2020). These recent requirements will likely lead to an increase in this area of architectural education, as exemplified by Caldwell (2022) where the implementation of these technical requirements aligns academic design studios more closely with design processes of professional practice.

1.4 Current Strategies for Integrating Facades Education

Several recent publications express the need for an integrated approach to facades education, where specifics related to the design, technology and performance of facades are emphasized to a higher degree in core design studios. Caldwell (2022) reports on a year-long, master’s thesis design project where integrated design and a significant focus on building enclosure systems design and tectonics have been embraced as a guiding framework for design innovation. Schroeder and Ebert (2022) exemplify an undergraduate course on facade system design that integrates a lecture and workshop component, offering students a chance to design their own rainscreen systems using BIM software technology in tandem with lectures on these cladding systems.

A similar opportunistic approach has been illustrated with integrated design courses by Brainard (2020), where course sequencing of a core lecture course, a core technical studio, and advanced-level elective courses can be linked. Another publication by Terzich (2018) illustrates three different approaches that may help with the integration of facade-related curriculum into the overall studio-centric architectural education. The three proposed approaches include 1) the integration of a guest, facade-expert lecturer(s) to the comprehensive design studio course that is taught by others, 2) a stand-alone facade-design studio, and 3) a technical facade seminar. The first method is most similar to the professional model of practice of an architect/designer working with different specialists. Meanwhile, the two later options would likely be limited to being elective, graduate-level courses, due to their sole emphasis on facade systems. However, those methods would provide students with a more in-depth knowledge of facades, including the technical development and computational simulation software training for facade design and performance. Aksamija (2020) illustrated teaching methods for a technical seminar course, focusing on high-performance facades, where students and professionals were enrolled in the same course (students in a graduate-level course, and professionals in a continuing education course). The course focused on different facade systems, climate-based approaches for improving their performance, passive sustainable design techniques, impacts of facades on buildings’ energy consumption, building science relating to facades, occupants’ comfort (visual and thermal), daylight, advanced facade materials and systems, innovations in facades, technical documentation, and simulation and modeling tools that can be used during the design process to assess facade performance.

Publications such as these demonstrate pedagogical methods for exposing students to a comprehensive design process from conceptual design, coordination with supporting building systems (such as structural, mechanical, lighting, landscape, etc.), performance and design optimization simulations, as well as physical model building and technical drawing and detailing, emulating processes that are common in professional practice.

2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS

2.1 Research Goals and Questions

Given such a limited number of existing research on this topic, the FTI Education Committee initiated a research project in 2020, with the aim of identifying facade-related coursework and educational opportunities offered by architecture programs at U.S. and Canadian institutions of higher education. The overall objective was to investigate the current state of facades education in architecture programs, the types of courses that are being offered, and the teaching methods employed within a geographic context.

Research questions that were addressed include the following:

• Which universities offer facade-related courses?
• What is the geographic distribution of these universities, and are these public or private institutions?
• Which topics are covered by facade-related courses? Who typically teaches these classes? Are these undergraduate or graduate courses? Are these pre-professional or professional degree programs? Are these required or elective courses?
• What types of teaching methods are utilized by faculty?

2.2 Study Set-up and Data Collection Method

The study was initiated by first identifying universities that offer courses and programs based on personal and professional networks, as well as the FTI Education Committee’s input. Then, a survey was distributed to a wider FTI membership and two organizations (the Society of Building Science Educators and the Building Technology Educators’ Society) to reach a broader network of educators.

The survey asked participants to identify facades-related courses in their institutions, and to provide the following information: 1) name and contact information of instructor(s); 2) course name and course number for every identified course; 3) course level (graduate or undergraduate); 4) course type (studio, lecture, or seminar); and 5) relation to the overall curriculum (elective or required course). Instructors were also asked to share their course syllabi if they wished to do so.

Initially, around 70 courses offered by higher-education institutions in the U.S. and Canada were identified. Of the identified institutions, detailed syllabi (syllabi that included descriptive information on the facade-related topics, organization, assignments, methods of evaluation, and a class schedule) were available for 36 courses, all of which were offered by the programs in the U.S. Due to these limitations, the study adapted to the evaluation of facade-related courses for only the U.S. context. Therefore, the evaluated data set of the 36 courses represents 22 higher education institutions in the U.S. and 23 NAAB-accredited programs as shown in Table 1. The authors acknowledge the potential for future research that expands on both the number of participating institutions and other geographic regions.

Table 1: List of the collected data set, indicating the name of higher education institution, course level, course degree requirement, and the NAAB accredited programs at the hosting institution based on the current NAAB accreditation.

Note: *symbol designates instances where the collected data of a given course syllabus was associated with the institution’s NAAB accredited program.

• Total # of represented NAAB accredited programs = 23/172 (13%)
• Total # of represented NAAB accredited B.Arch programs = 7/54 (13%)
• Total # of represented NAAB accredited M.Arch programs = 16/118 (14%)

Once the data set was established, quantitative and qualitative analysis of each submitted syllabus was conducted. The collected information was classified into different categories, which included location, institution type (private or public), program type (pre-professional or professional), instructor position (tenure-line or adjunct faculty), course level (undergraduate or graduate), requirements in terms of the overall curriculum (required course or an elective), course format (lecture, seminar, or design studio), integration of facade-related content (primary course focus or an integrated component), course assignments and evaluation methods, and a list of implemented course topics. Figure 1 summarizes the research process, data collection, and analysis procedures.

3.0 RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Quantitative Analysis

Per Table 1, the collected data includes courses from 22 higher education institutions in the U.S. and 23 of the total 172 NAAB accredited programs. Of these accredited programs, 7 of the total 54 were associated with a B.Arch program and 16 of the total 118 were associated with an M.Arch program. Thus, the collected data represents a limited scope of 13% of all NAAB-accredited programs in the U.S. All of these courses were taught during the span of the fall semester 2019 through the spring semester 2023. The authors recognize the limitation of the data set. There may be additional courses offered in institutions which were not identified during the data collection process. Thus, the quantitative results in this analysis section should be understood in this context.

The supporting Figure 2 shows the distribution of the total number (172) of B. Arch and M.Arch NAAB accredited programs per state, based on the Accredited Programs List (NAAB 2024a). It helps provide perspective on the limited number of accredited programs that integrate facades education as well as the distribution of these programs across the U.S. states and its territories. As identified in this study, Figure 3 indicates the distribution of collected facade-related course syllabi among 12 of the 50 U.S. states. Of these, the majority are located in the East region (21 courses), followed by the Midwest region (7 courses), then the West region (5 courses), and lastly the Southeast region (3 courses).

The collected data on facade-related courses indicates that the majority are taught in large, major U.S. cities and metropolitan areas. Among these, the predominant cities were New York City (9 courses), Philadelphia (6 courses), Chicago (3 courses), and Los Angeles (2 courses). Figure 4 shows that the distribution of facade-related courses between private and public universities in our data set is close to equal, with private universities very slightly leading (53%). While data set limitations exist, the comparative analysis between the maps of Figure 2 and Figure 3 does indicate that the geographic distribution trends fall in line with the number and concentration of NAAB-accredited programs in the U.S. They also inform of significant gaps for courses in the largely NAAB-represented states of Texas and Florida for a future study. The geographic distribution of our data set illustrates another result in the collected data, which shows that 20% of the evaluated facade-related courses are taught at Ivy League institutions which tend to be concentrated in the U.S. Northeast region. Yet, these institutions comprise less than 10% of NAAB-accredited programs. Despite the limitations of data sets, these results are significant. These institutions are generally reputed as highly prestigious and as more selective for enrollment, which may indicate that students who gain exposure to facade-related courses may be of a more privileged background or hold exceptional academic achievements.

A higher number of facade-related courses are taught in large, major U.S. cities and metropolitan areas. Among the evaluated courses, the predominant cities were New York City (9 courses), Philadelphia (6 courses), Chicago (3 courses), and Los Angeles (2 courses). Figure 4 shows that the distribution of facade-related courses between private and public universities is close to equal; however, private universities are slightly leading, with 53%. Another significant result in the collected data shows that 20% of the facade-related courses are taught at Ivy League institutions, yet they comprise less than 10% of NAAB accredited programs. These institutions are generally reputed as highly prestigious and as significantly more selective for enrollment, which may indicate that students who gain exposure to facade-related courses may be of a more privileged background or hold exceptional academic achievements.

The analyzed data set of facade-related courses in the U.S. indicates predominantly graduate-level, elective courses, as illustrated in Figure 5. These results may indicate that the overall pool of students who gain exposure and knowledge of facades and facade systems in the U.S. is significantly smaller than anticipated and alarmingly small given the importance of this subject matter.

Figure 6 indicates that among the analyzed facade-related courses that are taught in the U.S., not all of them are specifically focused on facades or facade systems. Our collected data indicates that some facade-related courses may include only a single ninety-minute lecture on facade systems. This figure also shows that the majority of the analyzed facade-related courses in the U.S. are taught by full-time, tenure-line faculty. For roughly one-third of these courses (36%), facades education is an integrated, partial component to an overarching topic of the course. However, a very large proportion of these courses (44%) are taught by adjunct faculty who are professionals in architectural and related fields and may teach these courses out of a passion for these topics. This may reflect the lack of resources among some of these universities to hire full-time faculty with expertise in facades.

Looking at the course structure in Figure 7 and the course evaluation methods in Figure 8, most of the analyzed facade education courses are structured as lecture courses (92%) that include a design project (92%) with presentations of those results (89%). Another trend observed in the results was that courses tended to integrate workshops (56%), which mostly involved demonstrations and tutorials on computational and simulation software. This was followed by a number of courses that integrated field visits and tours (36%), which involved sites for precedent analysis, sites for the assigned design projects, and sites of manufacturing and testing facilities. Of the evaluated courses, only about one-third (28%) were structured as traditional design studios. Additionally, about half of the courses included verbal discussions (50%), reading assignments (58%), writing assignments (44%), and the production of drawing assignments (47%). Very few facade-related courses assess student knowledge through quizzes or exams; rather, the primary graded component includes design projects, which may reflect the nature of these courses and focus on real-world applications and design methods used in the architectural and engineering industries.

The course topics, shown in Figure 9, illustrate a more detailed breakdown of all the facade-related topics that have been implemented in the course descriptions and course assignments of the evaluated syllabi. The majority of the evaluated facade-related courses in the U.S. focus on facade materials and material assemblies (89%), general knowledge of facade systems and their design (81%), and environmental response and analysis (81%). Similarly, 75% of evaluated courses integrate precedent research and analysis for either historic or contemporary facades and facade systems, and more than half of the evaluated courses focus on technical drawing and documentation of facade systems (58%) and the integration of facade systems with other building systems (56%).

About half of the evaluated courses focus on computational modeling (50%). Less than half of the evaluated courses integrate performance simulations (42%), sustainability and mitigation of the effects of climate change (47%), and building codes and standards, including fire safety (42%). Less than half of the evaluated courses focused on facade system detailing or tectonics (44%).

The last analyzed aspect in the data set focused on the listed course textbooks and technical reports for both the required and recommended reading materials among these courses. Of the total 182 citations, Table 2 summarizes course texts in the order of most cited to least cited. This table may be useful to readers who may be interested in reading some of these most utilized texts for facades education. This list shows that most of these textbooks are technically focused on innovative technologies and topics of environmental sustainability.

Table 2: Top assigned texts for the analyzed courses. Note that the texts that were only listed in a single syllabus are not included in this table.

3.2 Qualitative Analysis

The analyzed courses fall into four major categories: 1) building technology lecture course, 2) integrated studio and technology course; 3) facade elective; and 4) other courses.

For building technology lecture courses, these are typically 2 to 4 credit hours classes in which enclosure materials and systems are presented as a module within a broader technology course. These courses are often organized around building materials (concrete, masonry, earth, metals, stone, glass) or building systems (structural systems, enclosure systems, mechanical systems). Enclosures may be addressed via their materials (concrete, brick, terracotta, glazing, metal panel, GFRC, etc.) or their system typologies (mass wall, barrier wall, rainscreen, window wall, curtain wall). Typically, these courses introduce common building materials and their origins and explore how materials are combined into assemblies that achieve specific performance criteria, including structural and environmental performance. Materials and detailing of building assemblies are explored through case studies, orthographic drawing, and modeling. These courses are fact-based and may use quizzes and exams as methods of assessment. The required building technology lecture course in B. Arch and M. Arch programs typically addresses technical NAAB criteria and is often designed to complement and reinforce the content of the integration studio.

The comprehensive architectural design studio, sometimes implemented as the capstone studio, addresses comprehensive building design with a focus on the technical resolution of building systems and their integration into a functional whole. Enclosure systems are typically one of many building systems that may be addressed in a comprehensive studio, such as structural/HVAC/lighting systems, accessibility, and life safety. These studios treat systems and assemblies as a studio module so enclosures material might be delivered in concert with the project development phase. A co-requisite technical lecture course may be offered concurrently with the comprehensive design studio. Case study research and analysis help develop the studio design and technical detailing at the same time, or students may revisit a design project from a previous semester with a technical lens. Instructors are often subject matter experts drawn from the adjunct faculty pool, which may include practicing facade specialists depending on the location of the school. The deliverable is typically a set of “construction documents” modeled on a drawing set from a professional environment. The integration studio (with or without a co-requisite technical course) has typically satisfied a number of the NAAB Student Performance Criteria.

The most diverse category of courses includes the facade electives. These optional courses are typically 2 to 3 credit hours and cover a wide range of topics related to the building enclosure, including the history and theory of facade design, environmental simulation, parametric design, architectonics, technical detailing, and building science. These courses may be taught by either tenure-line or adjunct faculty, but typically reflect the professional and/or research interests of the instructor. These courses also may be offered in various formats, such as lectures, seminars, or workshops. For this reason, the course content is highly variable and subject to frequent change. While elective courses may offer a comprehensive introduction to building enclosure systems and design, they are only taken by a small fraction of students in any graduating class. As elective courses, they typically do not address the NAAB criteria for professional degree programs.

Content on enclosure systems may be found outside the course types noted above, for example within lecture courses on environmental control systems, within core or advanced studios, or in courses offered by other university departments. This “distributed” content is more difficult to identify based on course syllabi alone and therefore may be under-represented in the study’s dataset.

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The findings of this research study indicate that architectural programs in the U.S. typically integrate educational materials on exterior wall systems into building technology lecture courses and integrated design studios. Undergraduate students in B. Arch programs have many more options for facade-related courses than those undergraduates studying in pre-professional programs. There are very few stand-alone elective courses focusing on facades. Those that exist are likely offered in professional programs (B. Arch and M. Arch) located at urban sites with ready access to active professionals having specific technical backgrounds in facade systems. Moreover, graduate programs that solely focus on facades (such as specialized graduate programs or certificates) are very rare.

In order to improve the state of facade education in the U.S. it is necessary to expand course offerings that focus on in-depth study of facade systems, design processes, physical behavior, structural analysis, technical detailing, materials, building performance analysis, etc. Courses that introduce emerging materials and facade technologies, new fabrication methods, as well as rapidly evolving construction techniques would greatly benefit the architectural/engineering/construction industry.

The recommendation for architectural programs is to carefully consider, especially in light of changing NAAB accreditation requirements, how technical topics are to be more fully integrated into curricula. For undergraduate pre-professional programs, an introduction to basic principles of facade design is beneficial since this allows students to understand the relationships between architectural design and building aesthetics, materials and assemblies, and to develop an understanding of the relationships between enclosure design and building performance. For NAAB-accredited professional programs, a deeper understanding of facades’ design and performance, impact on building systems, integration with structure and HVAC/lighting systems, technical detailing, and emerging technologies is critical to prepare students for professional careers.

Developing more specialized graduate programs, such as graduate certificate programs, Master of Science and Doctoral programs, that focus on facades is necessary in order to expand research and development efforts, as well as the collective “state-of-knowledge” relating to facade systems. Fostering alliances between academia and industry may also inform educational programs and provide opportunities for integrating theoretical knowledge with real-world applications, as well as interdisciplinary collaborations and research.

The authors thank Alex Terzich and Becher Neme for their assistance in identifying courses and collecting some of the course syllabi. The authors also thank the Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE) and Building Technology Educators’ Society (BTES) for assisting us with the data collection and for sharing surveys with their members, as well as all faculty members who shared their course syllabi.

ACSA. (2023). “About ACSA”, Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA). https://www.acsa-arch.org/about/, Accessed October 27, 2023.

AIA. (2023). “History”, American Institute of Architects (AIA). https://www.aia.org/history, Accessed October 27, 2023.

AIAS. (2023). “History”, The American Institute of Architecture Students (AIAS). https://www.aias.org/about/his... Accessed, October 27, 2023.

Aksamija, A., (2020). “Facades Education in the Time of the Pandemic—Perhaps We Can Learn Something from This?”, Facade Tectonics Institute (FTI). https://www.facadetectonics.or...

Aksamija, A., Brainard, G., Brown, T., and Milosevic, S. (2023). “The State of Facades Education in Academic Institutions: U.S.- based Perspectives”, Report Prepared by the Façade Tectonics Institute (FTI), May 2023. https://www.facadetectonics.or...

Brainard, G. (2020). “Systems Thinking: Teaching Facade Design in Professional Architecture Degree Programs”, Proceedings of Facade Tectonics Institute (FTI) 2020 World Congress, Virtually held, August 5-27. https://www.facadetectonics.or...

Bunch, M.A. (1992). “Core Curriculum in Architectural Education”, Doctoral Dissertation, University of Houston.

Caldwell, D. (2022). “Catalytic Conversion: The Technical as Stimulant for Innovative Façade Development”, Proceedings of Facade Tectonics Institute (FTI) 2022 World Congress, Los Angeles, October 12-13. https://www.facadetectonics.or...

Deutsch, R. (2017). “Understanding Architectural Workflows in Global Practice”, Architectural Design, 87(3), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.217...

Doerfler, J., and Pottgiesser, U. (2018). “International Facade Education”, Proceedings of Facade Tectonics Institute (FTI) 2018 World Congress, Los Angeles, March 12-13. https://www.facadetectonics.or...

Ebert, J. A. (2022). “Facade Technology in Educational Methodology”, Proceedings of Facade Tectonics Institute (FTI) 2022 World Congress, Los Angeles, October 12-13. https://www.facadetectonics.or...

Fazio, M., Moffett, M., and Wodehouse, L. (2008). A World History of Architecture (Second Edition). McGraw-Hill.

Lee, J.D. and Moore, S.A. (2017) “The Trajectory of Architectural Research in the UK and US: 1995–2016,” Arq (London, England), 21(4), pp. 321–327.

NAAB. (2024a). “Accredited Programs”, National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). https://www.naab.org/accredita... Accessed May 3, 2024.

NAAB. (2024b). “Our History”, National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). https://www.naab.org/who-we-ar... Accessed May 3, 2024.

NAAB. (2024c). “About NAAB”, National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). https://www.naab.org/who-we-ar... Accessed May 3, 2024.

NAAB. (2020). “Procedures for Accreditation, 2020 Edition” (Revised October 28, 2022), National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). https://www.naab.org/accredita... Accessed May 3, 2024.

NAAB. (2014). “2014 Conditions for Accreditation”, National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB). https://www.naab.org/accredita... Accessed May 3, 2024.

NCARB. (2023). “Earn Your Architecture License”, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). https://www.ncarb.org/become-a...

Roth, L. M. and Roth Clark, A. (2014). Understanding Architecture: Its Elements, History, and Meaning (Third edition). Westview Press.

Talwai, P. (2015). “Toward a New Architectural Pedagogy: Marketing and Teaching Architecture in the Experience Economy,” International Journal of Design Education, 9(3), pp. 17–26.

Terzich, A. (2018). “Teaching Facades: One Goal, Three Approaches to Facade Design Curriculum”, Proceedings of Facade Tectonics Institute (FTI) 2018 World Congress, Los Angeles, March 12-13. https://www.facadetectonics.or...