Sustainable Makerspace Pedagogy in Architecture Education

Abstract

Design studios are an essential and significant part of the curriculum of Bachelor of Architecture degree. Typically design studios are conducted in a specific realm, and the results are gauged as per charted outcomes, which are often pre-determined. There are some studies that research different methods of teaching design studio as part of the architecture degree. Inquiry by design is one of them. The pedagogy of “makerspace” within this paradigm was recently implemented as a test in the design studio of third-year architecture students at Indus Valley School of Art and Architecture, Karachi. The implementation of this pedagogy resulted in various interesting outcomes that were connected to sustainable design practices in responsive design, which are presented in this paper.

1. Introduction

The notion of making the makerspace a part of the architectural pedagogy surfaced in the late eighties, as a response to surface-driven and glossy architecture, that did not respond to contextual and social realities of a place [1, 2]. This type of architecture also lacked depth of research and functional understanding and was very superficial. The idea of the makerspace was, as the name suggests, entrenched in making. It included equipment and tools that facilitated the making aspect. Tools enabling working in different mediums like fabric, cardboard, metal, and wood would be part of the makerspace. A makerspace, by making the various tools available to work in different materials, would train architects to think creatively and objectively, while relying on certain observation and analytical skills. A makerspace also brought together a group of makers, where collaboration, problem-solving, skill development, and innovation became the highlights of the space.

Based on these ideas, various studio exercises were initiated within the Bachelor of Architecture program at Indus Valley School of Art and Architecture, in Karachi, Pakistan. The first studio assignment lasted over four weeks, and third-year students were a part of the design and hands-on making of a flood-responsive model house. The materials used for the construction of this model house ranged from sun-dried blocks, to concrete blocks, to bamboo screens and bamboo poles, and to polyvinyl chloride (PVC) sheet. The foundation was made of concrete blocks, and the roof was made from PVC sheets. The choice of materials was based on an in-depth research of the context, structural necessities in the event of a flood, and other requirements like structure, cost, adaptability, and availability of the materials. The students were part of the various stages of design and construction, ranging from calculating quantities of material, purchasing the materials from various local markets, budgeting the cost, preparing the bill of quantities, and identifying various vendors.

During the process of design and construction of the flood-responsive model house, the students took on the roles of a project estimator, a contractor, a mason, a project manager, quantity surveyor, and above all, a maker. The process enhanced their comprehension of proportions, space, esthetics, scale, and material joinery. Another outcome achieved via this project was the development of an understanding within the students about technical joinery details, structural systems, and how various materials can be put together in actual construction. Furthermore, the students learned how to work as a team as they were required to plan daily activities, delegate tasks, and schedule productive hours. The students also developed problem problem-solving attitude as at times they had to think of alternative strategies when faced with challenges during the project. For instance, at a couple of points the joinery details of materials had to be rethought as they were not working as they had been designed on paper. Thus, a “can-do mentality” [3] was developed, which is an essential ingredient in design thinking and helps in overcoming any mental and design blocks.

As part of these studio projects, the design thinking process was utilized to pinpoint issues, generate ideas for fixes, create prototypes, and test various concepts. To find problems, generate ideas for solutions, create prototypes, and test concepts, the design thinking approach was employed. The second studio was designed and built in Pakistan’s northern mountains. The students were exposed to a new environment and had the opportunity to engage with a village community in Gilgit Baltistan’s upper Hunza Valley through the Mountain Studio. In this specific studio, the students discovered the value of using contextually and locally relevant materials. The site’s natural geology and terrain, as well as the existing Poplar trees on the site, dictated this structure’s design. Furthermore, the students got exposed to the idea of responding to natural terrains and topography, as they were required to take into consideration an existing water channel on the site. Thus, the students gained knowledge about site gradients and contours and resultant watersheds for identifying the location of the structure, which was a storage shed.

The students’ exposure multidisciplinary learning was further cemented by the Mountain Studio, where they were again able to incorporate the perspectives of surveyors, builders, and project managers. This aspect encouraged innovation and teamwork. They also practiced reflection as they jotted down their ideas, observations, and design concepts as the Mountain Studio stressed the importance of critical thinking and self-evaluation in the profession of architecture.

Yet another studio that took place in the winters as a follow-up was named “City Studio”. This six-week studio was devised as an experiment, and the students were encouraged to learn from their failures. Strategies were planned to illustrate and translate concepts into architectural compositions, make connections between appropriate functional relationships and user requirements, and formulate and organize project background research and design strategies. A water purification system was designed and constructed here as part of a system design approach where various components of the process were designed and constructed by the third-year students.

When the students returned to their typical studio the next semester, they were seen using what they had learned in these three studios to debate and think about materials, joinery details, scale and proportions, and details of wall sections, form, and elevations, in a way that prioritized problem-solving.

2. Literature review

Design studio is an intrinsic part of any architectural curriculum. The aspects addressed within this studio range from understanding of space, scale, proportions, esthetics, materials, textures, and certain construction principles. Different architectural schools prescribe different thought processes, and based on the focus of the studio, the approach of design changes from space, to technical details, and to larger social understanding to esthetic qualities and proportions. According to Salama and Wilkinson [4, 5], the four different kinds of the pedagogical approaches to architecture teaching can be classified into: “academic, craft, technological, and sociological”. Each of these approaches emphasizes a different aspect of the built form, which becomes the driving force of the design studio, and is governed and linked to the larger vision and design philosophy of the teaching institution. While the academic approach emphasizes the traditional principles of design, linking it up to design and compositional theories, the craft training views architecture as a discipline in which hands-on experience is of supreme importance, is to be achieved by direct exposure to building sites, or can be achieved as an apprentice to a master crafts person. Thirdly, in schools where technological aspects of design are considered of supreme importance, beauty and esthetics may take a back seat and be preceded by pragmatics and scientific principles.

Lastly, in design studios being backed with “sociological” approaches, the understanding and requirements of the society take precedence, and studios are oriented towards an urban scale addressing social aspects with emphasis on contextual connections in terms of society, economy, and geography [4, 5]. Whichever school of thought is followed by an academic institution, the studio is always the main forum for assimilation, acquisition, and processing of knowledge gained through various inputs. Studio assignments are designed to develop a sense of inquiry, enhance critical thinking, and analyse the stimulus being received from the environment in various forms. The student is taught to process the information in order to not only make sense of the various stimuli, but also to conceptualize and create a meaningful built environment, which connects back to the original cues. Over the years, a number of tools have been developed to create this connection, which ranges from heavy reliance on digital technologies [6], working on live sites, hands-on material exploration, and engagement with community [4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. In developing an understanding of design and its outcome, the drawing board may take a back seat, if these alternative tools of design are used. The emphasis then is on using these alternative tools to achieve similar results of developing critical thinking, sense of inquiry, and taking cues from the environment, but there is greater emphasis on consciously enhancing and using all five senses.

The alternate pedagogy revolved around the art of self-education [14], project-based work, rapid iteration of design solutions, formal and informal critiques, use of precedent, and thinking about the whole and the creative use of constraints [15].

Reliant on the craft and technological models, the following three studios were designed and executed, and the results and learnings are presented here.

3. The flood responsive studio

A four-week flood-responsive housing design and build exercise was undertaken within the Department. The idea behind this project was to conceptualize a low-cost house that was an appropriate response and was resilient to natural disasters associated with climate change, particularly flooding. The third-year students (a group of 28 students), along with their tutors and mentors, completed the exercise of developing the agreed design. In developing the design, details were worked around what materials are to be procured, the quantity of the materials, and construction joinery and details. In the process, the students gained knowledge about how to develop contextually relevant design both in terms of physicality as well as sociocultural aspects of rural areas of Sindh. The students also gained an understanding of methods of developing design in terms of responding to local vernacular materials and customs, climate, material joinery, working with a mixed material palette, procurement of materials, role and workings of labour on site, and various other construction details and practices. The materials explored were bamboo, sun-dried brick, concrete block, bamboo screens [16], and recyclable PVC sheets.

The idea was to construct a model house which was sensitive to the idea of affordable housing, was a practical solution, integrated within the context, and was owned by the locals in terms of construction and habitability [16]. When presenting solutions, the students were encouraged to think innovatively about methods and ideas that can help combat or embrace the water that inundates the locality in the scenario of flooding [16]. As flooding can cause structures to float, shift, submerge, or block, thus it was emphasized that the solutions can be challenging and out of the box as long as the function of the architecture is retained. “The house was to accommodate a family of six and was to be thought of as a unit within a larger village settlement having communal toilets and at times communal kitchens too” [16].

As a requirement of the project, it was mandatory for the students to acquaint themselves with the living conditions and norms in villages in Sindh and elsewhere in Pakistan. Local building methods were to be researched upon and understood to encourage designs for construction and reconstruction using local vernacular methods. Usage of local materials and techniques also ensured cost-effective solutions. Designing successful modules took advantage of local materials and techniques while also preserving the context. Students were also encouraged to be sensitive to the physiological and psychological requirements of the locals and to design while respecting the community structure [16].

Thus, the design ideas revolved around vernacular housing solutions that respectfully conversed with the context of rural Sindh. Therefore, a study was initiated by the students about the lifestyle and daily routines of the locals. Eventually, the designs were based on the idea of permanence and outdoor living, as well as the flood resistance solutions. Studying the communities helped the students understand the lifestyle choices and desires of the people in Gharo, Sindh (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 1.

Study models developed in the third-year studio.

Figure 2.

Various studies to develop contextual understanding during third-year studio.

During the design phase, the students attempted to respond to the flood conditions by catering for the lifestyle of rural Sindh. There was a ground plus one module designed that could be connected to other modules through ladders. The design had nine bamboo columns reaching to the top. To meet the requirements for strength and load, four columns were joined together on the ground floor and extended vertically. The overall design consisted of nine bamboo columns which were supported by repurposed oil canisters. The bamboo was prevented from absorbing moisture from the ground by treating it with a sealant. This also strengthened the structural capacity of the bamboo columns (Figure 3) [16].

Figure 3.

Final prototype house designed and constructed by third-year students.

Locally sourced building materials that were readily available on-site were used for the material palette. The materials were either indigenous or readily available at the location. The materials of choice were bamboo, clay bricks, and limestone. Cement gave the required strength to the foundation and plinth by strengthening the bamboo structure and mud brick wall. The primary bamboo structure was supported by a mud brick wall. These two building materials helped to ensure structural integrity. Providing a cost-effective solution was the goal of the design, and bamboo proved to be a reliable and straightforward material, while mud bricks bolstered the structure (Figure 4) [16].

Figure 4.

Structure during construction.

The main strength of the design stemmed from the simplicity of form leading to an easy construction process. A comfortable solution was facilitated by the material palette, which was based on contextual familiarity (mud bricks and bamboo). The versatility and durability of the structure ensured sustenance during storms and embraced the inhabitants [16].

4. The mountain studio

In this era of rapid changes in construction industry and related architectural practices, unpredictable weather patterns, diminishing resources, and growing population trends, the practice of architecture calls for eco-friendly passive solutions and designs around the globe. The physical distance between Hunza and Karachi is 2000 km, with Karachi being at the southern tip of Pakistan and sitting right next to the Arabian Sea, and Hunza being the northern edge of the country housing the Karakoram and Hindu Kush Mountain ranges. The two cities are connected and dependent via the country’s numerous vital but diminishing resources, such as the rivers, agricultural land, and energy networks. Thus, the objective of this studio was to develop a larger geographical understanding in the students about these related geographical and environmental patterns, learn from physical and culturally sensitive design interventions in the context of ethnically homogenous and relatively smaller towns of Hunza, and explore possibilities of replicating them in the multicultural and global city of Karachi in the south (where the school of architecture is located). Both Karachi and Hunza face the brunt of the climate change in the form of urban flooding and heat island impacts; however, the small-scale and place-based lifestyles of the Hunza Valley have many learnings to offer.

The focus of this studio was to harness a dialog between practice and academia and move beyond, by questioning what role does architecture play in climatic challenges? Is a shift in the process of making space able to counter the draining resources possible? What kinds of materials and construction methods, inspired by nature, allow us to alter our lifestyles? Can our practices in the cities be aligned with the cultural values of the mountain landscape?

The Mountain Studio was a rigorous and demanding exercise, where the tone of possibilities was a crucial and vital part of the studio. The students explored how the land, rivers, and mountains and all inseparably connected to the idea of a place via history, culture, materiality, and methods of construction. Simultaneously, the students examined the symbiotic relationship between spatial language, morphology, topography, structure, and material and techniques of construction.

The interconnection between spatial realities and the influence on the tectonic character of the place was focused upon in the studio. The interest in architecture was the reaction to the specifics of the context, both physical and cultural, and the aim was to include social value by offering conscientiousness, Diligence, and sensitivity.

The success of this studio depended on vigorous engagement of the students. As part of the Mountain Studio, the students focused on the following aspects:

1. Craftsmanship—The students were not only expected to craft their skills, but to craft their minds as well. The daily work required an appropriate level of refinement to reflect the degree to which the project itself was developed. Sketches and diagrams were a vital and constant part of the studio.

2. Documentation of work—The students were required to provide documentation of their work at the end of the studio. Documentation included drawings, mapping, site studies, writings, poetry, and thoughts.

3. Fundamental design skills—The students were required to show the ability to effectively use architectural principles in an intuitive and iterative process of drawing, critiquing, and making.

4. Critical thinking skills—The students were expected to demonstrate the capability to establish connections between various ideas and comprehend the implications of these concepts based on examining multiple political, cultural, environmental, theoretical, and economic contexts.

5. Design thinking skills—The students were expected to showcase the aptitude to ask precise and clear questions, use ideas to understand information, reflect upon varied viewpoints, arrive at well-thought-out conclusions, and test alternate results against pertinent standards and criteria.

6. Collaboration skills—The students were required to show the ability to work together on group exercises in a positive and respectful way that encourages optimism, respect, sharing, engagement, and innovation.

7. Communication skills—The students were required to show the ability to listen, speak, read, and write effectively and show the capability to use adequate representational skills, ranging from use of conventional digital and graphic technology.

8. Making skills—All students were required to show the ability to use various tools and machines and make decisions around methods for construction with respect to materials and outcomes to be achieved.

It is important that as a part of the first Mountain Studio team, the students considered the terrain, landscape, and geographical features as sacred and fragile and respected the traditions, way of life, and community structure of Hunza Valley. The need was to tread carefully and sensitively in a place that is in a state of rapid transitions and societal transformation. The primary objective of the studio was to develop the ability to see and make architectural space that were sensitive to human needs and requirements in terms of use, scale, and materiality—always through critical thinking (Figure 5).

Figure 5.

The Mountain Studio in progress in Gulmit, Hunza.

5. The City studio

As a follow-up to the above two studios, this six week’s workshop was devised as an experiment, and the students were encouraged to learn from their failures. Strategies were planned to illustrate and translate concepts into architectural compositions, make connections between appropriate functional relationships and user requirements, and formulate and organize project background research and design strategies.

In order to obtain distilled water at the end of the process, a system was designed and built by the students and the mentor where various processes were included, ranging from chemical cleansing to bioremediation and to aqua phonics. The design of a solar trough, a solar still, and a solar dish, along with an automation and sensor-based management system was also part of the entire system design.

The chemical cleansing system worked around the idea of pumping the gray water up the alum chamber, using an agitator to chemically treat the water, and finally mixing the water in a flocculator. Eventually the water entered the septic tank and went through sedimentation. The water moved through the barrels acting as baffles and cleansing on its way. The second step of biomediation had water pass through water plants which were placed vertically, one on top of the other, and acted as filters that took away impurities from the water. The next step involved filling water with nitrates and inhabited by catfish, to convert nitrates into nitrogen and purify the water further. This process is known as aqua phonics and was designed and built by the students to plug into the overall system of water purification. Next, the solar still was designed and constructed. A solar parabolic through was used here to capture solar energy. This was monitored by pressure and temperature sensors, with the automation and sensor designed and constructed by the students themselves. The solar still received heated water from the through. As the water entered the still the temperature of the water rose, and it transitioned from liquid to gas state, while separating all impurities in the process. Eventually the steam was condensed back into liquid form, and distilled water was collected. This studio created a strong link between spatial design and understanding of systems, as students of architecture designed and executed various parts of the system design based on their spatial and functional requirements (Figure 6). They worked with materials, tools, and machines and were also introduced to the use and experimentation of the 3D printer. The roof of the University was the physical site, and the larger premise was the availability of many such rooftops in the urban scape of Karachi. These can become potential sites for installing similar systems to obtain pure drinking water for the city.

Figure 6.

Outcomes and process of the City Studio.

6. Conclusion

The pedagogy models of self-education and project-based work, rapid iteration of design solutions, formal and informal critiques [14], use of precedent and thinking about the whole, and the creative use of constraints [15] based on multi-disciplinary methodology were the most appropriate models for these studios. Within these larger research methods, the methods operationalized relied on the makers’ studio, experimentation, learning by doing, and incorporation of expert opinions and collective sessions with peers and tutors which followed cue from other models [4].

Some of the strategies that helped during the studio exercises from the part of the tutors were to stay focused, accept the challenges of technology, and use it to maximum potential, video recordings of progress by the students every week, peer reviews, and feedback, juries where external jurors were invited from various local contexts and various professional backgrounds, critical and creative thinking about mitigation measures, constant communication between tutors and students, shortlisting and convergence of scattered ideas towards one or two options, development of limited options in accordance with the student capacity and available resources/time, and lastly consolidation of ideas into selected options.

Acknowledgments

This is to acknowledge Architecture Design and Research Lab (ADRL) at Indus Valley School, Mountain Getaway, Architect Ebne Sajjad, Architect Mehmooda Maqsood respectively for conducting the Mountain and City Studios and to the students and faculty members (Architects Ira Kazi, Mujahid Sadiq, Yasir Rai, and Shahid Khan) of the Department of Architecture, Indus Valley School of Art and Architecture, Karachi, Pakistan, who were a part of these studios at various stages.

All the images used in the chapter are owned by the department and are the author’s own reproduction. I have permission from the persons visible in the pictures to be included in this research.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.