·     Area of study:  Architecture design, urban design and the city.
·     Beginning and ending date: 
11 of October 2012 – 14 February 2013
·     Number of students: 
Aprox. 35
·     Schedule: 
Thursdays 10:00 – 18:00
·     Credits: 
9 ECTS credits
·     Teaching team: 
Head teacher: Constantin Spiridonidis - Other teaching staff: Antonis Moras
·     Cluster: Chile, Cuba, Venezuela, Guatemala, Grecia, Bolivia

Theme: (Re)searching contemporary communities
The studio focuses on the development of bottom-up strategies and designs  on social housing and the production of working/thinking scenarios that incorporate the concept of time as a parameter of change and programmatic adaptability. The objective of the design studio is to emphasize how meaning in architecture and urbanism is closely connected to the tools and strategies that designers use.
The study area is characterized by urban sprawl, large drive-to retail spaces and is located in the eastern suburban/peripheral area of the city of Thessaloniki. Street living is proposed as a means to connecting the dispersed activities.

Objectives of the local design studio
a) Synecdoche diagram. Students (in teams of 2-3 persons) are encouraged to produce their own synecdoches of social living. Their approaches should incorporate elements of bottom-up design and techniques and will be diagramatically presented with emphasis on the constructive role of the parameter of time.  The concepts of scaleless and abstraction are crucial to the approach.

b) (Re)search. A standard analysis of the “raw data” of the study area is provided to the studio. The teams of students are assigned with the problem of producing different readings of the study area with concern to their specific social housing diagram. Different methods and tools are discussed in order for each team to select and use one that is appropriate to their synecdoche diagram.

c) Time is used as a parameter of adaptability for the synecdoche diagrams and (re)search. This way students are introduced to a more dynamic and unstable creative environment that is due to these qualities more open to change, otherness and the creation of design events.

ADU aims to be tested
1. Creative design
The studio encourages the use of alternate methods of analysis and design tools as a means to open the design process to aspects and information that derive from socio-cultural factors that are intuitively understood in architecture.

2. Transdisciplinary thinking
Student teams are encouraged to use methods and concepts from fields not necessarily and directly related to architecture in order to approach urbanism as a field of possibilities and social housing as the catalyst to urban connectivity and events.

3. New professional areas / new educational strategies
Incorporating bottom-up strategies and time dependent scenarios design is approached as an open process that is not finite either in terms of thinking or in terms of objectives or methods. The role of the architect/designer is reappropriated with the emphasis put on the reconsideration or renegotiation of the processes in which architecture/design typically applies.

Methodology and relation with ADU partners
The studio is divided in three divergent phases:
a)          development of design concepts and abstract strategies that incorporate social housing as their core,
b)         use of different readings as an alternate method to opening up the design process to  bottom-up strategies
c)           incorporation and reevaluation of the urban context as a test-tube to time dependent scenarios.
The different phases of the studio incorporate public discussions, presentations and the constructive use of the ADU platform as a means to keep the studio open to new ideas and criticism that could contribute to the way that proposals should be adaptable to different situations, events, scenarios and sociocultural criteria.
Periodical reviews and final project evaluations are expected to take place between partner institutions.

Calendar of Tasks and activities
week 1 (October 11 -18): Synecdoches of social living Α’. Discussion on the particularity of “bottom-up design” and techniques. Examples of social living and cohabitation will be presented with emphasis on the constructive role of the parameter of time. Introduction to the concept of the diagram as a design tool.
All students will be grouped in design teams of 2 to 3 persons. Each team will design a blog that will be linked to the main page of the UrbanDesignDiploma2012-13 blog.

week 2 (October 18-25): Synecdoches of social living B’. All design teams will present their synecdoches of diagrams of cohabitation. These diagrams could be prototypes or products of criticism on existing models of cohabitation and should spacially address the problems of the structuring and happening of cohabitation as well as the manner in which they (the diagrams) incorporate the parameter of time. The diagrams should be abstract enough in order to adjust to different functional scenarios of social living.

week 3 (October 25-November 1): Synecdoches of social living C’. Presentation and discussion of proposals and diagrams.

week 4 (November 1): Synecdoches of social living D’. Presentation and discussion of proposals and diagrams. Students are presented with the study area and their teams are assigned with a subdivision of this area to study. Their readings will be presented using any kind of format that they want in each of their blogs.

 Step 1: Share background within cluster partners*

week 5 (November 8-15): The different teams present their different readings on the six subdivisions of the study area that they are assigned to and are asked to discuss the multiplicity of their approaches and to combine their findings.

week 6 (November 15-22): Different readings 2 and presentation. All teams will present their final diagrams of social living and all students are going to vote for the diagram that they believe meets best the demands of social living and cohabitation. All proposals will be presented in A2 paper format. The template will be arranged in the studio. Every student votes for three diagrams (3 votes for the best, 2 for the second and 1 for the third). The proposal that scores higher will be incorporated as a reference diagram for the second phase of the studio.

Step 2: Comparison of partner outcomes: mid way + remarks by other partners

weeks 7-12 (November 22-end): Each team is asked to make a hybrid of their diagram (from the previous phase) and of the reference diagram. In advance the final diagram should progressively adjust to the study area. In terms of presentation all teams should work at the same time on two different levels: a. on the general study area (scale 1/2000) and b. on the subdivision that they are assigned with (scale 1/500). In terms of representation this refers to two feedback schemes in which any transformation, change, mutation in a microscale affects the structure of the macroscale and vice versa.

week 14 (February 14):  Public presentation of projects

Step 3: Comparison of partners. Final presentation to all partners

* ADU 2020 shared activities, indicated in red (to be detailed)

Leave a Reply