Duration
128h Pr
Number of credits
| Master in architecture (120 ECTS) | 10 crédits |
Lecturer
Coordinator
Language(s) of instruction
French language
Organisation and examination
Teaching in the first semester, review in January
Schedule
Units courses prerequisite and corequisite
Prerequisite or corequisite units are presented within each program
Learning unit contents
The « Habitat / Habiter les interfaces » workshop is part of the « Habitat / Habiter » Master's workshops, which deals with habitability in the broad and complex sense of the term. Housing as a focal point, but also all the everyday places and itineraries that make up the living environment. The spaces in their materiality, but also the complex and dynamic relationships that the inhabitants have with these spaces.
Combining ethnography and architectural design, this workshop focuses on the interfaces between the private space of the dwelling, the collective space possibly linked to it and the adjacent public space, approached from the inhabitants' point of view (uses, representations, perceptions...). It investigates and questions the public/private - private/public transitions of inhabitation, in terms of spatial compositions and the diversified investments made by the inhabitants. Considering the dynamic character of these investments, the interfaces are approached under the dimension of the spatial and temporal sequence (e.g. relations between windows, balconies and the public exterior, circulation and common halls, daily pathways...; variations according to days, hours, weather...).
Placing the lived space at the centre and following a methodology combining project and research, this workshop aims to raise awareness of the mediations between spatial and social devices, and invites to question the architect's posture.
Depending on the fields of observation and the projects developed, the student has the opportunity to approach, in a reflexive and personal way, the transversal axes of the master programme: sustainability (impact of human habitation on its daily living space, place of nature in the city...); art (poetic and sensitive dimension of the occupation of public, collective and private space, creativity of the inhabitants, spatial interventions in space...); digital (spatial and social impacts of the diffusion of digital technology in daily life, use of digital technology to observe and project...); society (occupation, privatisation, segregation, appropriation... of public, collective and private spaces).
Learning outcomes of the learning unit
The workshop allows the student to enter a final phase of his architectural training in which complexity and demands are increasing, requiring the mobilisation of all the learning accumulated in the bachelor's cycle, but also a progressive capacity for autonomy, working methods, organisation and reflection.
At the end of this particular workshop, the student will be able to :
Reason about the complexity and nuances of the interfaces between public, collective and private spaces;
Interpret and mobilise them in an architectural project;
Understand the data relating to the lived space;
Interpret and mobilise them in an architectural project.
Prerequisite knowledge and skills
The prerequisites are made up of all the theoretical or practical notions and methodologies learnt in the previous courses and workshops, which are exploited and extended by the practice of the project. The workshop requires the demonstration of the evolutionary potentiality of assimilation and the appropriate use of all the prerequisites.
Planned learning activities and teaching methods
The main teaching device is the workshop: a place for individual or collective exchange between students and teachers, based on the students' weekly production and their pro-activity. The workshop organises the learning process in various and free means: collective brainstorming sessions, instruction or debriefing sessions, round tables to pool questions and disseminate information, personalised interviews based on the student's personal work, presentations and collegial criticism. Other pedagogical devices are introduced to feed into the development of projects according to needs and opportunities (internal presentations within the workshop, quick exercises, external lectures, lectures by speakers within the workshop, reading of articles, etc.).
In a logic of experiential pedagogy, the exercise is established by two inseparable and simultaneous joint approaches to space, allowing the understanding of data relating to the lived space, their interpretations and their mobilization in an architectural project.
The first approach to space is established by the analysis of a given sequence by groups of students, by means of the inhabited and/or walking survey, understood as ethnographic observation and understanding tools paying equal attention to spaces, objects and uses (1). In order to guarantee the specificity of the analyses, each group will be assigned a particular focus for reading the interfaces of the sequence they are in charge of (e.g. cohabitation, privatisation, exclusion, culture, gender...), fed by specific theoretical inputs (2).
The second approach will be individual. The students will propose an architectural project on their sequence reflecting a position statement. This approach to the shaping of architecture will evolve as the objective and sensitive data from the first approach are collected. The particularity of this project exercise lies in the way it is carried out, during which the student's observations and understanding of the living space will help the architectural project to evolve. A project which, in the process, will have to demonstrate a position on the interfaces of the living space.
(1) The inhabited survey and the walk are ethnographic observation tools which allow to highlight the relationships between physical space, social practices and symbolic representations. They provide information on the lived space at various levels (e.g. practices, habits, comfort level, appropriation and diversion tactics, etc.). They thus provide information on the multiple nuances and subtleties of the spatial and social context.
(2) These theoretical contributions should allow the questioning of the modern relationship to the inhabitant. In addition to exposing the dominant debates in the scientific and professional literature, these contributions will be based on the history of inhabiting it. The aim will be to recall that modern housing and ways of living are recent cultural constructions, but also to provide keys to a critical reading of these constructions.
Mode of delivery (face to face, distance learning, hybrid learning)
Teaching takes place mainly face-to-face at the workshop and in the project field.
Organisational adjustments related to the current health context
In case of yellow code :
- Workshops are given in person. If a student cannot physically attend the workshop, the exchanges are done remotely via Lifesize and Miro. At a minimum, the following are present during remote exchanges: the students involved in the absent student's sequence and the weekly reporters. Any absence must be announced and duly justified by a medical certificate.
- Evaluations are made by face-to-face juries.
- If the workshops cannot take place face-to-face, they are given remotely, via Lifesize and Miro. A schedule will be established. Are at least present during the remote exchanges: the students involved in the sequence of the absent student and the weekly reporters. Any absence from appointments must be announced and duly justified.
- If the evaluations cannot take place in person, the juries are organized remotely, via Lifesize and Miro.
Recommended or required readings
More generally, students are encouraged to engage in their own research and to nourish their reflections (library, conferences, trips...), in order to form a critical judgement.
Common reference texts are made available to students via the eCampus platform. More specific texts are sent to students or groups as needed.
The following books and articles are recommended for reading:
- Awan, N, Schneider, T. et Till, J., 2013, Spatial agency: other ways of doing architecture, Routledge.
- Champy, F., 1997, L'architecte, le sociologue et l'habitant, Plan construction et architecture.
- Habraken, N. J., 2005, Essays on Everyday Environment and the Architect, Taylor & Francis.
- Lawrence, J. R. et Barbay, G. (dir.), 2014, Repenser l'Habitat : donner du sens au logement, Infolio.
- Le Maire de Romsée, J., Loir, C. et Desprechins, A., 2013, « Vers une approche pluridisciplinaire de la marche et de l'espace urbain », Clara, n°1, pp.9-25.
- Mathieu, N., 2004, « Mode d'habiter: un concept à l'essai pour penser les interactions hommes milieux », in Chenorkian, R. et Robert, S. (dir.), Les interactions hommes milieux, Quæ, pp.97-130.
- Pinson, D., 2016. " L'habitat relevé et relevé par le dessin : observer l'espace construit et son appropriation ", Espaces et Sociétés, n°164-165, pp. 49-66
- Rémy, J., 2001. « Privé/public : entre pratiques et représentations », Villes en parallèle, 32(1), pp.23-29.
- Thibault, S., 2008. « La vie quotidienne des lieux habités », Echelles de l'habiter, Plan urbanisme construction architecture, Recherche, pp.95-149.
Assessment methods and criteria
Below you will find information on the evaluation methods planned for in-person and remote exams as well as those planned for hybrid sessions. Depending on how the health crisis evolves, the chosen method will be communicated to you no later than one month before the start of the exam session.
Any session :
- In-person
oral exam
- Remote
written work
- If evaluation in "hybrid"
preferred in-person
Additional information:
Attendance and participation in all activities organised within the workshop and in the field are compulsory. Work, whether personal or collective, is monitored and commented on weekly.
The progress of the work is subject to cumulative evaluations by the workshop team, at pre-defined stages, and according to pre-established criteria which may vary according to the nature of the stages: analyses and preparatory work, thematic approaches, sketches, preliminary project, developed project. In some cases, self-evaluation will be advocated in order to develop the student's autonomy and sense of self-criticism and organisation of thought and work progress. The final project is evaluated by an enlarged final jury consisting of the teaching team, other teachers and external experts; this jury has an impact of 50% of the total year points. The weighting of the other stages of the project is defined in proportion to the duration and importance of the phases.
The presence of students at the workshops is compulsory: the unjustified absence of a student at more than 30% of the workshops can be a reason for refusing to present his or her final project.
Unless there is a valid justification and exceptional reasons of force majeure, the submission of a work that is late in relation to the instructions given in good time is sanctioned by an evaluation of 0/20.
Work placement(s)
Organizational remarks
Contacts
Pierre de Wit : pdewit@uliege.be
Julie Neuwels : Julie.Neuwels@uliege.be