Restructuring Jury Critique in Architecture and Design Reviews Benedict D. Ilozor, Ph.D. Architecture Professor, Hampton University 03-05, USA Michael I. Okoroh, Ph.D. Reader in Facilities Management, University of Derby, UK

Introduction Essence of studio critique Reasons for underperformance Varying jurors emphasis Jurors reinforcing inadequacies of design Jurors distance from the projects reviewed Less accolades for accomplishments The need for restructuring and balance

Aim To provide avenues to a more representative jury selection and assignment for fruitful application to comprehensive design reviews – Case study – Review and format – Final review compilation and discussion – Recommendation – Conclusion

Case Study – Gethsemane Baptist Church A student-community-collaboration project In fulfilment of Advanced Comprehensive Architecture Design Studio for Fall 2004 Comprised of three main parts – Sanctuary – Educational facility – Sports facility Comprehensive design opportunities presented Students learning tied to: – Department objectives – National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) Student Performance Criteria (SPC) Required activities and students evaluative measurements shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3

Sample Site-plan Capturing the Three Parts Student: Moti, Marziano

Reviews and format Two major reviews – Mid term review – Final reviews Five supplemental milestone reviews – Time management – Acquainting of potential jurors to the projects/students One hall, two review groups; two juror groups – Roaming jurors Making up for less than 100% students participation – Jurors requested to set down their comments (see Table 3) – Comprehensive feedback of jurors comments – Publication such as this one Compare jurors remarks with their ratings

Final review compilation and discussion Jurors Initials and Professions SK – Senior Planner, Newport News City, Virginia AH –Senior Planner, Newport News City, Virginia AJ – Adjunct Professor of Hampton Universitys Department of Architecture DH – Client Representative, Gethsemane Baptist Church, Newport News, Virginia DR – Client Representative, Gethsemane Baptist Church, Newport News, Virginia DeH – Assistant Professor of Hampton Universitys Department of Architecture CS – Associate Professor of Hampton Universitys Department of Architecture SC – Assistant Professor of Hampton Universitys Department of Architecture BM – Project Manager, Livas Group Architects, Norfolk, Virginia – An alumnus of Hampton Universitys Department of Architecture, whose firm had designed another Church auditorium for Gethsemane Baptist Church, Newport News, Virginia

Sample Jurors Comments & Ratings of Student 13s Project AHAJDeH Dual entrances encourage cut-through traffic (-ve) No landscaping to protect existing residential community (-ve) No 3D model representation of the building (-ve) Visibility has a few issues – view blocked (- ve) Drawings are clear. (+ve) Justification okay, but needs a little more work (+ve) Your design really needs to be seen in 3D (- ve) The roof hurts your design – flat ceiling inside does not support plan of uplifting (- ve) Roof structure needs work (-ve) Roof trusses too big (-ve) Lower level plan needs site relations to show how it works (-ve) Connecting space needs to be shifted (-ve) Facades seem unappealing (-ve) Entry needs work (-ve) Project was designed in plan exclusively (-ve) Truss system seems a little overly scaled (- ve) No 3D representation (- ve) Indicative rating: 3Indicative rating: 4Indicative rating: 2

Final review compilation and discussion contd. Observed jurors rating practice – Comments inconsistent with ratings Deficiencies criticized Accomplishments less commended – Negative comments more than double the positive ones Most students still rated above average – Jurors comments rather than their ratings reflected their interests, biases, and backgrounds Jurors who are practising planners dwelt more on planning deficiencies*** Jurors rated as they liked, and not as they were requested – No significant disparity in remark and rating styles between faculty and guest jurors – Jurors remarks varied in length, content, and emphasis

Recommendation Good evaluation tool inappropriately/inadequately utilised – Call for a modified approach to jury selection & assignment Architects work with urban designers, landscape architects, contractors, engineers, building consultants, public officials, etc. – Students should be exposed to these disciplines through jurors selection and reviews Jurors assigned review responsibilities corresponding with their backgrounds and areas of interest – Jurors from planning background concentrate on the planning aspects of students projects – Jurors from civil engineering discipline focus on site and civil engineering issues

Ideal jury Constitution for Comprehensive Design Studio Reviews Regulatory Compliance

Recommendation contd. Some form of rating for students work necessary – Collaboration encouraged – Harmful individualism and competition discouraged Negative critics to balance with positive ones Democratization of the jury review process – Opportunities for respectful, two-way exchanges between students and jurors Students guided on ways to present their projects – Inability to communicate in the most basic terms is a challenge facing architectural education and profession Assessment to focus on process, not end-product

Recommendation contd. Early education preparations for better juror-student presentation interaction & dialogue – Students educated on the art of presentation and verbal communication – Instructors to help recognize ideas and theories embedded in students work – Explicitly explaining learning, unencumbered by self-styled jargons, is a responsibility about which instructors ought to be more forthcoming – Students should not be led too far away to the extent that their communication and touch with practice and reality become limited, if not impossible – The gap between theory and practice must be bridged, especially at advanced comprehensive design studio level Studio to connect students with the community – Students exposed to collaboration, real clients and sites, hands-on learning, community interaction, socio-economic and cultural issues, and realities of designing within constraints – Studio designs ignoring the needs of society leads to advanced and future difficulties in communicating with and designing for clients

Conclusion The problem of jury critique is not very much associated with the instruments of evaluation, but with the organisation or structuring of the jurors Jurors varied concentrations on students work do not always guarantee that all vital critic areas will be adequately covered – This has direct impact on overall value students derive from jury process A representative jury constitution or composition and assignment can address this problem – This will ensure that all vital critic issues are considered – Offers a greater value, and enriches students learning experience and exposition – Best applicable to the upper design studio levels