Duration
10h Th, 45h Pr, 0,5d FW, 70h Proj.
Number of credits
| Bachelor in engineering : architectural engineering | 5 crédits | |||
| Master in architectural engineering (ir.) (120 ECTS) | 5 crédits |
Lecturer
Language(s) of instruction
French language
Organisation and examination
Teaching in the second semester
Units courses prerequisite and corequisite
Prerequisite or corequisite units are presented within each program
Learning unit contents
As a continuation of the Architectural Studio IIA course, the Architectural Studio IIB course covers, on a four-month period, the design of a medium-sized project regrouping several living and / or working functions in some rural or urban areas. The composition focuses on the articulation of these spaces and functions, and on the integration of the building into a more ambitious site.
Learning outcomes of the learning unit
At the end of the course the student will be able to analyze an architectural program in a critical way and to initiate his/her work by seeking balance for the project as well as development of a personal approach in harmony with the rationality of the art of building.
He/she will be able to propose a coherent solution integrating all constraints and architectural parameters: programming constraints, ergonomics and user needs, constructive constraints, spatial environments and qualities, plastic qualities, relation to the context and the external environment.
He/she will also have gradually mastered the graphic expression and the verbalization of his/her production.
Prerequisite knowledge and skills
Cours d'Ateliers d'architecture IA, 1B et IIA - ARCH3270-1, ARCH0066-2 et ARCH3260-1
Cours de Techniques de construction des bâtiments 1 : Eléments - ARCH0003-7
Cours de Méthodologie du projet architectural I ARCH0002-01
Planned learning activities and teaching methods
The proposed theoretical sessions nurture open debates in which students take a proactive role. Everyone is then invited to compose, either alone or in small groups, his/her proposal of architectural artifact in response to specific statements.
The student discusses and defends his/her choices in front of his/her peers and supervisors, who suggest constructive ways to improve the project. The supervision mode and the possibility of individualized follow-up encourage an iterative and co-constructed learning approach. Most of the work will be carried out on a face-to-face basis, but a personal investment is expected from the student outside the sessions to benefit from the supervision. Participation to practical sessions is mandatory and opens access to the evaluation.
Several mandatory visits to exemplary buildings in rural or urban environments are organized during the year.
Mode of delivery (face-to-face ; distance-learning)
Face-to-face.
The workshops are organized in the drawing room, Building B52 floor 0, Sart-Tilman Campus.
Recommended or required readings
Steen Eiler Rasmussen, « Découvrir l'architecture - Experiencing Architecture » Eds. Du Linteau, 2002
Christian Norberg-Schulz, « La signification dans l'architecture occidentale », Eds. Mardaga, 2007
Greig Crysler, Stephen Cairns et Hilde Heynen (Eds), « The Sage Handbook of Architectural Theory », Sage Publications Ltd, 2013
The consultation of architectural journals is also essential to the acquisition of pedagogical objectives, as well as any participation to architectural visits, conferences or exhibitions.
Assessment methods and criteria
To have access to the final evaluation, the student must have been present at the studio sessions and have done all of his / her work on time. Without valid proof of absence, the teaching staff reserves the right to refuse access to the final assessment.
The evaluation will cover work done during the year (in paper or digital format) as well as the projects defenses conducted in front of juries, including the final examination defense. The juries, during these defenses, will be composed of faculty supervisors and external professional experts. Their deliberation is sovereign.
The faculty and the members of the juries evaluate the adequacy of the student's proposal in regard of the question asked; the coherence of the discourse given the constraints of the program; the conceptual, technical and formal mastery implemented to express the architectural artifact as well as the quality and attention to detail provided by the student in regard of his/her graphic and verbal communication of ideas.
The weighting of the scores obtained for projects and defenses will depend on the level of difficulty of each exercise and the overall evolution curve of the whole class group.
The examination concerns the graphic and verbal presentation of a project elaborated during the quarter, usually during the last sessions of the course. If the student obtains a grade of less than 10/20 for the quarter, and if he / she has regularly participated to the studio sessions and regularly returned his / her work, he / she will be allowed to rework the last design project and represent it to the next session. The rating obtained at this second session will replace the previous rating for this project in the overall weighting.
Work placement(s)
Organizational remarks
Contacts
Catherine Elsen - Associate Professor catherine.elsen@ulg.ac.be
Didier Mans - Assistant
Didier.Mans @ ulg.ac.be