unsw | built environment | computational design program ... · theory of urbanism in the...

UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program

YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015

Computational Design Theory II - Contextualising

CODE1210

Scan this QR code to be taken to the course UNSW Handbook site:

© http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=119

Lectures: 2-3pm, Wednesday, Old Main Building (OMB, G32) Tutorials: 3-6pm, Wednesday, Red Centre West 1004, 1005 (K-H13-1004, 1005)



Table of Contents 1. Course Description 3

2. Course Staff 3

3. Course Communication 4

4. Course Websites 4

5. Lectures 5

6. Online teaching 11

7. Assessments 12

8. Assessment criteria and standards 15

9. Assessment feedback 23

10. Resources 23

11. Case Studies: Online resources 25

12. Course aims 26

13. Learning outcomes 26

14. Course Graduate Attributes 27

15. Built Environment and UNSW Academic Policies 27

CODE1210 | Computational

of 27

1. Course Description CoDe Theory II – Contextualising is a second semester theory course that builds on the foundational knowledge of contemporary digital design and architectural thinking established in semester 1. Contextualising expands on the digital paradigm covered in CoDe 1110, to consider past and contemporary positions on technologies for and within the built and urban environment.

Introduced here are a range of influences, ideas, and theories – both popular and scholarly that have informed expectations and attitudes towards the relationships between technologies, society, and built and urban space, as well as design practices, projects, and modes of computational thinking from the 1950s to the present.

Examples of pioneering thinking from architect Cedric Price’s application of cybernetic theory for performative environments, to theories of cyber, hertzian, and hybrid space, through to digital and smart city ideologies will be scrutinised and debated here.

This subject aims to foster critical thinking capabilities in relation to the student’s own developing design practice as well as for the analysis of contemporary design projects.

2. Course Staff Course Convenor: Nicole Gardner

Room: 2007

Phone: (02) 9385 6274

Email : [email protected]

Consultation times:

By email appointment

Other Teaching Staff : Shaowen Wang

Room: 2001

Email : [email protected]



3. Course Communication Most course related announcements are made in the lectures. It is essential that you attend the lectures to receive these announcements. In addition to these formal communication paths, online discussion forums will be available that will allow everyone to post questions and respond to other people’s questions. All students will be expected to participate in the online discussions in Moodle.

Individual student related communication, including the issue of assessment grades and feedback, will be via the Moodle. UNSW Student email will be used to communicate changes that occur with short notice. All students are assigned an e‐mail account on the University's e‐mail server, so that email address will be used as the primary means by which important correspondence is made. You must, therefore, get into the habit of checking your UNSW student email regularly.

Details on setting up your UNSW student email are provided at:

https://www.it.unsw.edu.au/students/index.html

To manage your UNSW account and password, use the IDM site:

https://idm.unsw.edu.au/idm/user/login.jsp

Questions that cannot wait until the next allocated class are best handled by posting a message on the online forums in Moodle. If there are important or urgent matters that require a personal meeting, you are able make an appointment with your course staff. See 3. Course Staff and Contributors for more information on how and when to communicate with course coordinator and tutors.

4. Course Websites Moodle – this is the UNSW wide online teaching platform and has many capabilities. You can access Moodle via: https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/login/index.php

Use https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/moodle-orientation to familiarise yourself with Moodle. Please see section 7.1 Online Teaching for more information.

Note: There is the potential that your lectures will be automatically recorded under the echo 360 platform:

https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/unsw-lecture-recordings-process

All OH&S and workshop training courses are as well located on Moodle. Please follow the Moodle instructions to complete UNSW’s OH&S requirements.


of 27

5. Lectures Week 1 Topic

Contextualising computing: Experimental architectures This lecture introduces key themes that will be addressed during the course, in addition to course objectives, expectations, tutorial formats and assessment tasks. Particularly this lecture will address how the concept of spatial design can be seen in a wider context through the perspective of events, and interactions, and information systems. This will look back to earlier architectural thinking and projects that embraced emerging technologies, including those associated with avant-garde positions in the 1960s and those that re-framed design problems as information problems.

Readings: Explore the Archigram Archive: www.archigram.westminster.ac.uk

Tutorial activities: Discussion: What does computing have to do with the city and architecture? Activity: Working towards Assignment 1 Position: Montages and Manifestos, diagram your own “day the life of …” highlighting the roles technologies play in your day-to-day activities, work and education, construct this as a time line and include images and key words. Reflect on what happens – how life is ‘interrupted’ – when such technologies ‘fail’. ***Students must register online for UTZON lectures in the tutorial and show proof of confirmation certificates to tutor *** UNSW UTZON LECTURE SERIES AUGUST 12th, 6.30pm. www.be.unsw.edu.au/events/utzon-lecture-towards-2026-site-fabrication-innovation-emerging-completing-gaudis-sagrada UNSW UTZON LECTURE SERIES SEPTEMBER 9th, 6.30pm. https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/events/utzon-lecture-second-digital-turn-architecture-computation-simulation-optimization-and-style

Week 2 Topic

Agitating Architecture: Ubiquitous computing concepts This lecture connects earlier architectural and urban projects that engaged emerging computing and communications technologies to core concepts of the more recent and so-called ubiquitous computing (ubicomp) paradigm and compares their underlying objectives.

Readings: Weiser, M., Gold, R. and Seely-Brown, J. 1999, “Origins of ubiquitous computing research at PARC in the late 1980s”, IBM Systems Journal, vol. 38, no. 4, 693-696. Bell, G. & Dourish, P. 2007, “Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on ubiquitous computing’s’ dominant vision”, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, no. 11, pp.133-143. Picon, A. 2008, “Toward a city of events: digital media and urbanity”, New Geographies, 0, pp. 32-43.

Tutorial activities: Discussion: compare and contrast disciplinary perspectives on computing in and for the built and urban environment. Activity: Working towards Assignment 1 Position: Montages and Manifestos and with reference to the montage examples given in the lecture and tutorial, construct your own montage to express your contemporary view of ‘technology’ and its relationship to people and the urban and built environment.



Week 3 Topic 12/08

UTZON LECTURE – PROFESSOR MARK BURRY – Towards 2026: off-site fabrication innovation emerging from completing Gaudi's Sagrada Familia Basil ica - 6.30pm For further information please refer to the following homepage www.be.unsw.edu.au/events/utzon-lecture-towards-2026-site-fabrication-innovation-emerging-completing-gaudis-sagrada

Readings: STUDENTS MUST WRITE A 500word synopsis of Professor Mark Burry’s lecture and with reference to x2 additional scholarly sources DUE UPLOAD TO MOODLE - 23/09/2015.

Tutorial activities: Assignment 01A Position: Montages and Manifestos Interim Presentation & Feedback Activity: Assignment 01B - Writing a synoptic essay. In class read the following article and prepare a written synopsis. Burry, M.C., 2009, “Supporting the Silos: Transdisciplinary Design Research as Defender of the Disciplines”, Cumulus Working Papers: Melbourne 24/09: Publication Series G. Proceedings of the Cumulus 38° South Conference, Swinburne University of Technology and RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, 12-14 November. Edited by Salmi, E. (ed. in chief), Edquist, H., Friedman, K., Langdon, S., Maciak, J., and Oy, K., Melbourne, Australia, pp. 17-22. http://www.cumulusassociation.org/images/stories/Downloads/WP_Melbourne_24_09.pdf

Week 4 Topic

Re-theorising space: social space This lecture explores different ways of understanding the concept of space. Particularly this will explore the notion of space from a social (non-physicalist Soja, 1980) perspective. This introduces prominent social theories of space including those of Henri Lefebvre (1991), Lyn H. Lofland (1973, 1998), Ray Oldenburg (1982, 1996), that are finding renewed interest amongst contemporary scholars researching the nexus between digital technologies, people, and urban and built space.

Readings: Forty, A. 2004, “Space”, in Words and Buildings a vocabulary of modern architecture, Thames & Hudson, London, (19pages). Whyte, William H., 2001 [1980], “The life of plazas”, in The social life of small Urban places, Project for Public Spaces, New York, pp. 16-24. Hampton, K., Goulet Sessions, L., & Albanesius, G. 2015 “Change in the Social Life of Urban Public Spaces: The Rise of Mobile Phones and Women, and the Decline of Aloneness Over Thirty Years” Urban Studies, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1489-1504. REFER ALSO: Hampton, K., Livio, O., Trachtenberg & McEwen, R. 2010, “The social life of wireless urban spaces: A photo essay”, <www.contexts.org > Accessed December 2014.

Tutorial activities: Assignment 1A – due in class / presentation / pin-up Discussion: Discuss the design implications of ‘social space theorisation’. Discuss the ways theories are and can be applied to research questions, design thinking, and strategisation.


of 27

Week 5 Topic

Re-theorising space: hybrid, recombinant, relational , code/space, l iminal Manuel Castell’s argued in the 1980s that social development is inseparable from technological change, given this he reasoned a new theory of urbanism was required for the information-age. This lecture discusses the re-theorisation of ‘space’ in relation to rapid technological change since the modern period and introduces various concepts including cyber, hybrid, and relational space and the space of flows. Introduction to Assignment 02 Practice: The socio-digital life of small urban spaces

Readings: Boyer, M.C. 1992, “The imaginary real world of CyberCities”, Assemblage, no. 18, August, pp.114-127. Castells, M. 2004, “Space of flows, space of places: Materials for a theory of Urbanism in the information age” in The Cybercities Reader, S. Graham (ed.) Routledge, London, pp.82-93. McQuire, S. 2005, “Immaterial Architectures: Urban space and electric light”, Space and Culture, vol. 8, pp.126-140.

Tutorial activities: Introduction to Assignment 02 Practice: The socio-digital life of small urban spaces, adopting theory as a lens to ‘see’ urban public space. Discussion: Compare and contrast the concepts of ‘space’ discussed and theorised by each author. What questions does Boyer pose/ask in relation to the shift from the “machine-city of modernism” to the “informational city of postmodernism”?

Week 6 Topic

Mobile Technology Practices This lecture introduces the concept of ‘mobile technology practices’ that brings Lefebvre and de Certeau’s ideas of ‘practice’ together with the conditions of contemporary mobile smart device engagement. This explores how our engagement with contemporary technologies influences our everyday practices and consequently modes of thinking around the concepts of time and space and relatedly the concept of public space.

Readings: Campbell, S.W. & Ling, R.S. 2009, “Mobile communication in space and time: furthering the theoretical dialogue” in S Campbell & R. Ling (eds). The reconstruction of space and time: mobile communication practices, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J. pp. 251 – 260. Willis, K. 2012, “Being in two places at once: The experience of proximity with locative media” in in P Abend et al, (eds) Medialität der Nähe: Situationen - Praktiken – Diskurse, Germany, Transcript, pp.178-193.

Tutorial activities: Assignment 02 interim Presentation & Feedback: selection of public space, research to date, details of the applied theoretical lens.



Week 7 Topic

UTZON LECTURE – PROFESSOR MARIO CARPO The second digital turn - 6.30pm For further information please refer to the following homepage: www.be.unsw.edu.au/events/second-digital-turn-architecture-computation-simulation-optimization-and-style-big-data STUDENTS MUST WRITE A 500 word synopsis of Professor Mario Carpo’s lecture and and with reference to x2 additional scholarly sources DUE UPLOAD TO MOODLE - 23/09/2015.

Readings: Watch BBC 3-part series “All watched over by machines of loving grace” – prepare notes and discussion points for tutorial.

Tutorial activities: Discussion: What were the key ideas/positions advanced through the BBC 3 part series “All watched over by machines of loving grace”? Assignment 02 Interim Presentation & Feedback: The socio-digital life of small urban spaces

Week 8 Topic

Mobile Technology Practices: experience & interaction This lecture addresses how phenomenological concepts have been adopted to explain and theorise the relationships between people, technologies, communication, interaction, information and space.

Readings: Farman, J. 2012, “Embodiment and the mobile interface” in Mobile Interface Theory, Routledge, New York, NY, pp 16-34. Turkle, S. 2008, “Always-on/Always-on-you: The tethered self”, in Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies, J. E. Katz p.121 -137. Virilio, P. 2003 [1997], “The third Interval: A critical transition”, in P. Braham & J. Hale (eds) Rethinking technologies, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 358-367.

Tutorial activities: Discussion: How is the engagement with contemporary technologies different from previous? What are the implications socially, organisationally, and politically? Compare and contrast the views in the two readings, what is each author arguing? Assignment 02 Interim Presentation & Feedback: The socio-digital life of small urban spaces

Week 9 Mid Semester Break Assignment 1B – MOODLE UPLOAD BY 12pm (midnight)

BE Non teaching Week

Week 10 Topic

Crit ical positions and ideologies: the too-smart city (1 ) This lecture looks at the various contemporary perspectives around the concept of so-called smart things, smart places and smart cities. This asks who are the current producers of the smart-everything polemic? What are there claims? And what are their underlying assumptions and objectives? What role are, and can, designers/architects play in this realm? Introduction to Assignment 03 Publicities – debates and exhibition catalogue

Readings: Doody, L. 2014, “In defence of the Smart City”, Japan Architecture + Urbanism, vol. 11, pp. 115-116. Greenfield, A. 2013, Against the Smart city: the city is here for you


of 27

to use Book 1, Do Projects, New York. Kindle Edition. Koolhaas, R. 2015, “The smart landscape: Rem Koolhaas on intelligent architecture”, Artforum April 2015, pp.1-4. <https://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201504&id=50735>

Tutorial activities: Assignment 02 Presentation / pinup: The socio-digital life of small urban spaces.

Week 11 Topic

Crit ical positions and ideologies: the too-smart city (2) This lecture continues to examine various contemporary perspectives around the concept of so-called smart things, smart places and smart cities. This asks who are the current producers of the smart-everything polemic? What are there claims? And what are their underlying assumptions and objectives? What role are, and can, designers/architects play in this realm?

Readings: Goodspeed, R. 2015, “Smart cities: Moving beyond urban cybernetics to tackle wicked problems”, Cambridge Journal Of Regions Economy And Society, vol.1, 79-92. Townsend, A. 2013, “A new civics for a smart century”, in Smart Cities: big Data, Civic Hackers, and the quest for a new utopia, W.W. Norton & Company, New York, pp. 282-320. “Clever cities: The multiplexed metropolis”, The Economist, September 7, 2013.www.economist.com/news/briefing/21585002-enthusiasts-think-data-services-can-change-cities-century-much-electricity Recommended Texts: Townsend, A. 2013, Smart Cities: big Data, Civic Hackers, and the quest for a new utopia, W.W. Norton & Company, New York. Kitchin, R. 2014, The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & Their Consequences, Sage.

Tutorial activities: Tutors to organise debate teams. Discussion: Compare and contrast the various perspectives presented by each of the readings. Develop arguments supporting your debate teams allocated position for or against

Week 12 Topic

Guest Lecture Crit ical spatial practices: Evelyn Kwok -Agency in Appropriation: the Informal Territory of Foreign Domestic Helpers in Hong Kong Ms Kwok will outline aspects of her PhD research that explores the material culture of ‘public spaces’ in Hong Kong and critically engages with and responds to local contemporary social and cultural issues.

Readings: Refer Evelyn Kwok.

Tutorial activities: PREPARATION: Assignment 03 Publicities: CLASS DEBATES – The too-smart city Please complete the CATEI feedback evaluations in your tutorial class. Upload images of your Learning Stage 3 project on to Moodle. Deadline for the upload is Week 12 day of normal class 5pm.



Week 13 Topic

Guest Lecture Crit ical spatial practices: Shaowen Wang - Where the action is? Post-disciplinary futures This lecture will summarise the course content and speculate on the ways digital culture has challenged critical assumptions about everyday practices, as well as architecture and design practice. This lecture further introduces the concept of critical spatial practice as theorised by Professor Jane Rendell, and considers this in relation to digital technology practices.

Readings: Rendell, J. 2013, Working Between and Across: Some psychic dimensions of architecture’s inter- and transdisciplinarity”, Architecture and Culture, vol. 1, issue 1 & 2, November 2013, pp. 128-141. Recommended: Rendell, J. 2006, Art and Architecture: A Place Between, I. B. Tauris London.

Tutorial: Assignment 03 Publicities: CLASS DEBATES – The too-smart city

Week 15 PARITY SESSION of all courses in the semester Presentation of all work of all courses. THIS IS ONLY COMPULSORY FOR CODE PROGRAM STUDENTS via a selection of the five best images with descriptions presented one poster for each course. Hand in on Wednesday in Week 15 before 1 pm at the DD unit on Level 4. See Parity Session for detailed information.

Online Learning: N/A

Tutorial activities: Parity session hand in at Wednesday week 1 prior to 1pm at DD unit. Parity session set up for Year 1 students from 9 – 10pm; Parity session for tutors with compulsory students attendance between 10 – 1pm; Take down of work Year 1 from 1 pm onwards. Parity session set up for Year 2 students from 1 – 3pm; Parity session for tutors with compulsory students attendance between 3 – 5pm; Take down of work Year 2 from 5 pm onwards, followed by drinks.


of 27

6. Online teaching Students will be provided with additional links to online material during the semester such as:

BBC 3 part Series: All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving Grace

• Episode 1) - Love And Power http://primoa.library.unsw.edu.au/UNSWS:TN_informit_edutv175065

• Episode 2) - The Use And Abuse Of Vegetational Concepts http://primoa.library.unsw.edu.au/UNSWS:TN_informit_edutv176404

• Episode 3) - The Monkey In The Machine And The Machine In The Monkey http://primoa.library.unsw.edu.au/UNSWS:TN_informit_edutv177661

Picon, A. 2014 “Smart Cities A New Challenge for design”

Computer History available on: www.computerhistory.org/revolution/early-computer-companies/5/103/442?position=1



7. Assessments

Assessment task Weight Learning outcomes assessed

Graduate attributes assessed

Due date

1. Position: Montages and Manifestos A) Montage as Manifesto (PAIRS 10%) B) Utzon lecture series synoptic essays (INDIVIDUAL 15%)

25 1., 3. 1., 2., 3. Week 4 (A) 23/09/15 (B)

2. Practice: The socio-digital life of small urban spaces (GROUP)

30 2., 3., 4. 2., 3., 4. Week 10

3. Publicity: Technology debates (GROUP)

40 1., 2., 3., 4. 2., 3. Week 13

4. Online Quiz 5 1., 2. 1. Week 14

Assignment 1

Name: Position: Montages and Manifestos

Description: A) Montage as Manifesto Emulating the techniques and aesthetic of the 1960s avant-garde in architecture, and in student pairs, design a montage using a range of media, a combination of text, images, diagrams (and/or 3D elements) that communicates your own manifesto regarding current relationships to technology and the future of technology and the urban and built environment. Presentation size and format to be discussed and agreed in tutorial with tutor. Group grade. Due Week 4 in tutorial pin-up & 3 minute verbal presentation.

B) Utzon Lecture Series Synoptic Essays STUDENTS MUST WRITE A 500word synopsis of Professor Mark Burry’s lecture and with reference to x2 additional scholarly sources MOODLE UPLOAD 23/09/2015 by midnight STUDENTS MUST WRITE A 500 word synopsis of Professor Mario Carpo’s lecture and include reference to x2 additional scholarly sources MOODLE UPLOAD 23/09/2015 by midnight Individual grade.


of 27

Assignment 2

Name: Practice: The socio-digital life of small urban spaces

Description: “I will pull together, piece by piece, the perfect city, made of fragments mixed with the rest, of instants separated by intervals discontinuous in space and time, now scattered, now more condensed, you must not believe the search for it can stop” (Italo Calvino Invisible Cities 1972, p. 164).

In groups of no more than x3 students, using the City of Sydney, State Library, Powerhouse Museum FlickR archives, or another approved source, find an historic photo of a public space in Sydney (location to be agreed with your tutor). Visit the site and re-take a series of photographs and or video from a similar vantage point. Develop a code system to analyse and describe what is observable in the photographs/films – analyse the differences and reflect on your observations. Use a theoretical concept to interpret and explain your observations. Additionally locate any references of this place/and/or same views on popular social networking sites such as Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter / Facebook and represent this information and your observations in your presentation. Using a series of your contemporary images (or time-lapse film technique) spatially map the movements and intensities (densities) of people/objects/animals/technology engagement through the site and represent in a 3 dimensional model to a conventional scale. Reflect on, and compare, what is learned about the space through each observational technique, archival, in-situ/on-site, and on-line. Describe any perceived limitations. Reflect on ways to you could use this analysis in a future design. Produce a mixed-media style presentation including 500words, images, movement analysis model, mounted exhibition-style, with 3 minute verbal presentation. Group Assessment Due Week 10 in-tutorial pin-up & verbal presentation.

Assignment 3

Name: Publicity: Technology Debates

Description: This assignment focuses on developing critical thinking in the form of a group debate conducted in class around the broader theme of thinking technologies for the built and urban environment and tied to current discussions and/or events. This activity intends to foster critical thinking skills by investigating arguments, engaging in research, gathering information, performing analysis, assessing arguments, questioning assumptions and demonstrating interpersonal skills. The purpose of critical thinking is to use questioning techniques to achieve understanding, evaluate view-points, and solve problems. Teams for the debate and resource material will be organised in Week



10. Team sizes of no more than 4 people, no less than 3. Teams will be allocated a declarative statement and a side to support or oppose, see examples below. The affirmative team will argue to support the resolution/declarative statement, while the negative team will be tasked with opposing it. Students will need to build a case for their allocated resolution and in doing so, try to prove or disprove the opposing side’s resolution through evidence, scholarly references, and argument. A debate is characterised by the method of persuasion. Compelling, engaging and persuasive communication is the key to success in a debate. EXAMPLE STATEMENTS: Declarative statement: The ‘smart’ city concept is leading us towards dumber cities. Declarative statement: The digital world gives us license to behave differently, to hold different values than we have and did in the analog world. Declarative statement: Mobile digital technologies have transformed urban public space Declarative statement: Technology is a means for advancing freedom and democracy Group assessment. Due Week 13 in-tutorial

Assignment 4

Name: On line quiz

Description: Multiple choice questions based on material presented in lectures and tutorial readings. Last date to attempt the quiz to be advised. The assignment will be marked based on the accuracy of selected answers.

Parity / Moodle submission

Name: Parity / Moodle submission

Description: See 7. Parity Session.


of 27

8. Assessment criteria and standards Assignment 1 / Learning Stage 1: Submission Assessment Marking Sheet

CODE1210 Computational Design Theory I I - Contextualising

Learning stage 1 : Position: Montages and Manifestos

STUDENT NAME:

STUDENT #:

# Assessment Criteria: % US S G VG O / 100

1 Quality of presentation content: strength and depth of contemporary technological issues addressed and communicated through the montage

2 Quality and strength of graphic presentation, including attention to composition, structure, scale, imagery, text narrative

3 Clarity and convincingness of verbal presentation

OVERALL MARK out of 100

FEEDBACK:



Assessment 1 / Learning Stage 1 : Assessment Criteria

Unsatisfactory Fail 0-49

• Criteria 1: Minimal depth and breadth of knowledge communicated • Lack of relevant ideas • Criteria 2: Poor quality graphics and unreasoned composition • Criteria 3: Vague, unintelligible, inarticulate, and unconvincing verbal

presentation

Satisfactory Pass 50-64

• Criteria 1: Basic depth and breadth of knowledge communicated • Simple use of relevant ideas • Criteria 2: Basic quality and structure of graphics • Criteria 3: Basic level of verbal communication

Good Credit 65-74

• Criteria 1: Some relevant ideas communicated • Criteria 2: Graphic quality and composition contributes to effective

communication of ideas • Criteria 3: Verbal presentation is clear and outlines understanding of

graphic presentation

Very Good Distinction

75-84

• Criteria 1: Relevant ideas are effectively communicated • Criteria 2: Graphic presentation communicates depth and breadth of

comprehension of ideas • Graphic quality effectively communicates ideas • Criteria 3: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate and

reinforces understanding of graphic presentation

Outstanding High Distinction

85-100

• Criteria 1: Relevant ideas are synthesised to form new ideas and are innovatively communicated

• Criteria 2: Graphic presentation communicates a rich and compelling depth and breadth of ideas

• Criteria 3: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate persuasive and expands on and extends understanding of graphic content.


of 27

Assignment 1 / Learning Stage 2: Submission Assessment Marking Sheet


Learning stage 2: Position: Montages and Manifestos – Synoptic essays

STUDENT NAME:

STUDENT #:


1 Quality of written expression (clear, concise, accurate, original)

2 Quality of thinking (analysis and position) in evidence

3 Relevance of x2 additional scholarly sources and effectiveness in the way they are brought to bear on the construction of the synoptic essay

4 Adherence to academic writing conventions


FEEDBACK:





• Criteria 1: Unclear writing and inaccurate spelling • Criteria 2: Minimal depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated • Criteria 3: Lack of x2 additional scholarly sources • Criteria 4: Lack of UNSW standard academic referencing.


• Criteria 1: Clear, yet basic writing style • Criteria 2: Basic depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated • Criteria 3: x2 additional scholarly sources, yet minimal relevance and

relationship to overall analysis and argument • Criteria 4: Basic, sometimes inaccurate application of academic

referencing

Good Credit 65-74

• Criteria 1: Clear and communicative writing style • Criteria 2: Depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated and sound

level of analytical reflection • Criteria 3: x2 additional scholarly sources are relevant and establish

relationship to overall analysis and argument • Criteria 4: Adherence to UNSW academic referencing system


75-84

• Criteria 1: Clear, communicative, and sophisticated writing style • Criteria 2: Sophisticated depth and breadth of knowledge

demonstrated and substantiated analysis and argument • Criteria 3: x2 additional scholarly sources are relevant and enhance

analysis and argument • Criteria 4: Adherence to UNSW academic referencing system


85-100

• Criteria 1: Highly sophisticated writing style • Criteria 2: Sophisticated depth and breadth of knowledge

demonstrated, substantiated analysis and unique arguments/reflections presented

• Criteria 3: x2 additional scholarly sources are innovative, relevant, and enhance analysis and argument

• Criteria 4: Adherence to UNSW academic referencing system


of 27

Assignment 2: Submission Assessment Marking Sheet


The socio-digital l i fe of small urban spaces

STUDENT NAME:

STUDENT #:


1 Quality of written expression (clear, concise, accurate, original)

2 Demonstrated rigour of research, and quality, and strength of analysis reflected in the mixed media presentation

3 Quality and convincingness of observations and findings

4 Quality and effectiveness of overall graphic communication, including drawings, images, text and model

5 Clarity and convincingness of verbal presentation


FEEDBACK:





• Criteria 1: Unclear writing and inaccurate spelling • Criteria 2: Minimal depth and breadth of research demonstrated • Criteria 3: Lack of analysis and observations • Criteria 4: Crude graphic quality, poor composition. • Criteria 5: Vague, unintelligible, inarticulate, and unconvincing verbal

presentation


• Criteria 1: Clear, yet basic writing style • Criteria 2: Basic depth and breadth of research demonstrated • Criteria 3: Basic analysis and observations, minimal attempt to apply

theory • Criteria 4: Basic, clear graphic composition • Criteria 5: Basic level of verbal communication

Good Credit 65-74

• Criteria 1: Clear and communicative writing style • Criteria 2: Depth and breadth of research and sound level of analytical

reflection • Criteria 3: Demonstrates an application of theory to analysis • Criteria 4: Graphic presentation effectively communicates research

and analysis • Criteria 5: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate and

reinforces overall presentation


75-84

• Criteria 1: Clear, communicative, and sophisticated writing style • Criteria 2: Sophisticated depth and breadth of research and analysis

demonstrated • Criteria 3: Sophisticated application of theory to interpret observations • Criteria 4: Graphic presentation communicates the research and

analysis in a visually compelling way • Criteria 5: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate and extends

overall presentation


85-100

• Criteria 1: HIghly sophisticated writing style • Criteria 2: Sophisticated depth and breadth of knowledge

demonstrated, substantiated analysis and unique observations presented

• Criteria 3: Highly sophisticated application of theory to interpret observations.

• Criteria 4: Graphic presentation compellingly and engagingly enhances the understanding of research and observations

• Criteria 5: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate persuasive and expands on and extends understanding of overall presentation


of 27

Assignment 2: Submission Assessment Marking Sheet


The socio-digital l i fe of small urban spaces

STUDENT NAME:

STUDENT #:


1 Quality, originality, and persuasiveness of argument (Composition, order, construction, innovation)

2 Quality of verbal delivery (clarity, projection, attitude, professionalism)

3 Quality, relevance, and depth of research referenced to substantiate claims and establish argument

4 Quality and convincingness of rebuttal

5 Cohesiveness of team presentation


FEEDBACK:





• Criteria 1: Lack of, or weak argument presented • Criteria 2: Vague, unintelligible, inarticulate, and unconvincing verbal

presentation • Criteria 3: Minimal depth and breadth of research demonstrated • Criteria 4: Lack of rebuttal during debate. • Criteria 5: Team members presented individually and not as a unified

debate group


• Criteria 1: Evidence of argument reflected, yet unconvincing. • Criteria 2: Basic level of verbal presentation • Criteria 3: Basic research utilised - minimal reference to additional

sources to substantiate argument • Criteria 4: Basic rebuttal presented • Criteria 5: The team presented in a somewhat unified manner

Good Credit 65-74

• Criteria 1: Somewhat persuasive argument presented • Criteria 2: Clear, cogent, and articulate verbal presentations • Criteria 3: Depth, breadth, variety and relevance of research reflected • Criteria 4: Convincing rebuttal presented • Criteria 5: The team presented in unified manner


75-84

• Criteria 1: Engaging, original and persuasive argument presented • Criteria 2: Clear, cogent, articulate and compelling verbal

presentations • Criteria 3: Relevant and constructive research utilised to substantiate

and support arguments presented • Criteria 4: Strong, astute, and convincing rebuttal presented • Criteria 5: The team presented in a strong and unified manner


85-100

• Criteria 1: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate persuasive and expands on and extends understanding of

• Criteria 2: Clear, cogent, articulate, compelling and memorable verbal presentations

• Criteria 3: Highly sophisticated utilisation of research and sources to substantiate claims and arguments presented

• Criteria 4: Creative, astute, and convincing rebuttal presented • Criteria 5: The team presented in a strong and unified manner


of 27

9. Assessment feedback Formal Assessment feedback will be provided following verbal assessment presentations (where applicable) and a feedback sheet with indicative grading and brief comments will be provided within 2 weeks of the assessment deadline.

10. Resources 10.1 Essential readings

Bell, G, & Dourish, P, 2007, ”Yesterday’s tomorrows: Notes on ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision”, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 11(2), pp. 133–143.

Boyer, M.C, 1992, “The imaginary real world of CyberCities”, Assemblage, no. 18, August, pp.114-127.

Campbell, S.W. & Ling, R.S. 2009, “Mobile communication in space and time: furthering the theoretical dialogue” in S Campbell & R. Ling (eds). The reconstruction of space and time: mobile communication practices, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J. pp. 251 – 260.

Castells, M. 2004, “Space of flows, space of places: Materials for a theory of Urbanism in the information age” in The Cybercities Reader, S. Graham (ed.) Routledge, London, pp.82-93.

Doody, L, 2014, “In defence of the Smart City”, Japan Architecture + Urbanism, vol. 11, pp.115-116. F arman, J. 2012, “Embodiment and the mobile interface” in Mobile Interface Theory, Routledge, New York, NY, pp 16-34.

Greenfield, A, 2013, Against the Smart city: the city is here for you to use Book 1, Do Projects, New York. Kindle Edition.

Hampton, K., Goulet Sessions, L., & Albanesius, G. 2014 “Change in the Social Life of Urban Public Spaces: The Rise of Mobile Phones and Women, and the Decline of Aloneness Over Thirty Years” Urban Studies, vol. pp. 1-31.

McQuire, S. 2005, “Immaterial Architectures: Urban space and electric

light”, Space and Culture, vol. 8, pp.126-140.

Picon, A. 2008, “Toward a city of events: digital media and urbanity”, New Geographies, 0, pp. 32-43.

Rendell, J. 2013, Working Between and Across: Some psychic dimensions of architecture’s inter- and transdisciplinarity”, Architecture and Culture, vol. 1, issue 1 & 2, November 2013, pp. 128-141.

Turkle, S. 2008, “Always-on/Always-on-you: The tethered self”, in Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies, J. E. Katz p.121 -137.

Virilio, P. 2003 [1997], “The third Interval: A critical transition”, in P. Braham & J. Hale (eds) Rethinking technologies, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 358-367.

Willis, K. 2012, “Being in two places at once: The experience of proximity with locative media” in in P Abend et al, (eds) Medialität der Nähe: Situationen - Praktiken – Diskurse, Germany, Transcript.

10.2 Recommended Reading

Cook, P, 1970, Experimental Architecture, Universe Books, London.

de Souza e Silva, A, & Frith, J, 2012, Mobile Interfaces in Public Spaces: Locational Privacy, Control, and Urban Sociability, Routledge, New York.

Dourish, P. & Bell, G. 2011, Divining a digital future, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Ekman, U (ed.) Throughout: art and culture emerging with ubiquitous computing, MIT Press, Cambridge.

Farman, J, 2012, Mobile interface theory: Embodied space and locative media, Routledge, New York.

Foth, M. & IGI Global 2009, Handbook of research on urban informatics, IGI Global 701 E. Chocolate Avenue, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 17033, USA, Hershey, Pa.



Foth, M, Forlano, L, Satchell, C, & Gibbs, M, 2011, From social butterfly to engaged citizen: Urban informatics, social media, ubiquitous computing and mobile technology to support citizen engagement, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.

Kitchin, R. 2014, The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data Infrastructures & Their Consequences, Sage

Kitchin, R. & Dodge, M. 2011, “Introducing Code/Space” in R. Kitchin & M. Dodge (eds.), Code/Space: software and everyday life, MIT Press, London England, pp.20 – 60.

Rendell, J. 2006, Art and Architecture: A Place Between, I. B. Tauris London.

Thrift, N. 2010, Lifeword Inc—and what to do about it, Environment and Planning D: society and Space 2011, vol.29, pp, 5-26.

Townsend, A. 2013, Smart Cities: big Data, Civic Hackers, and the quest for a new utopia, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.

10.2 Online resources Social network resources

UNSW CoDe has a Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Youtube account and all lecturerare using these accounts to share information with their students. Thus please join and follow us on @UNSWCoDe (for all above listed networks) we will use “UNSW” + “CODE” + the course number as a hash tag to help finding the relevant info (for this course #UNSWCODE1210). Feel also free to post images of your design on social media using the hash tag.

Video resources

Most lectures given in this course have videos embedded as part to illustrate what projects are and look like as well as give background knowledge to fabrication methods. In general I found these videos on the internet by searching either in Google or Youtube via the use of a search term. Naturally the lecture shows only one

video out of potentially dozen of video clips. Thus search the internet for good clips and share them using social networks and use “UNSW” + “CODE” + the course number as a hash tag to help finding the relevant info (for this course #UNSWCODE1210).

Presentation resources

Final presentation poster template to be used for the Graduand Exhibition will be posted to students in mid semester. It is a requirement to use this template with the fonts and logos embedded in the template. Any alterations of the format will exclude you from the Graduand Exhibition.

Studio class requirements

It is expected that you will bring your laptop with the below mentioned software packages to each class. Not bringing a laptop means we cannot look, comment and help you with your work, as we do not run this class in a computer classroom. Using your friend’s laptop means that he or she cannot work in the time given in class and thus is not an option either.


of 27

11. Case Studies: Online resources Fun Palace, Cedric Price 1961

Cedric Price, The Fun Palace 1961, see: http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/collection/540-cedric-price-archive; (Accessed: June 2015).

Archigram, various 1960ties

The Archigram Archival Project, see: http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk, (Accessed: June, 2015).

City Interchange Project, Archigram, Ron Herron 1964 http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?revID=271, (accessed February 2015).

The Plug-In City Project, Archigram, 1964.

http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=56, (accessed February 2015).

Fernando Montès and Bernard Tschumi ‘Do-It-Yourself-City’, 1970

Fernando Montès and Bernard Tschumi ‘Do-It-Yourself-City’, 1970, L’Architecture d’aujourd’hui, 178 (February-March 1970): 98-105.

Gardner, Haeusler, Mahar, Interchanging 2015

Gardner, N, Haeusler M.H, & Mahar, B 2014, Interchanging: Future designs for responsive transport environments, Spurbuch, Germany. See also: http://responsivetransport.org/wp/



The MIT Media Lab

http://www.media.mit.edu/research/groups-projects

Centre for Information Technology and Architecture (CITA)

http://cita.karch.dk/Menu/Research+Projects/Interface+Ecologies

12. Course aims Course Aim 1: To develop knowledge, and understanding of, the various trajectories of design thinking in relationship to ‘technologies’ for the built and urban environment, in an historical sense, but also in connection to contemporary conditions and issues. Course Aim 2: To develop informed design decision making procedures and be able to locate these relative to theoretical concepts Course Aim 3: To develop, advance, and express critical thinking skills.

Course Aim 4: To develop and advance a range of communication skills through various platforms and mediums including reading, writing, and project presentations.

13. Learning outcomes At the successful conclusion of this course the student will be able to:

1: Comprehend concepts, positions, and theories related to digital design, be they contemporaneous or separated by vast amounts of time, and clearly articulate the ideas of others as well as their own, in written, verbal, and other mediums such as model making.

2: Explore, integrate, utilise, and test new and extant concepts, theories and research approaches in their own projects to better understand their project’s wider implications.

3: Critically reflect on and evaluate the work of the profession as well as their peers and more critically engage with the content of studio courses

4: Effectively seek out concepts, positions, and theories to strengthen studio (& future professional) projects


of 27

14. Course Graduate Attributes

15. Built Environment and UNSW

Academic Policies The Built Environment Protocols and UNSW Policies & Procedures document supplements this course outline providing detail on academic policies and other administrative matters. It is your duty as a student to familiarise yourself with the expectations as not adhering to them will be considered as academic misconduct. Ignorance of the rules is not an acceptable defence. The document can be found in your Moodle course as well as: http://www.be.unsw.edu.au/student-intranet/academic-policies It covers:

• Built Environment Student Attendance Requirements

• Units of Credit (UOC) and Student Workload

• Course and Teaching Evaluation and Improvement (CATEI)

• Academic Honesty and Plagiarism • Late Submissions Penalties • Special Consideration - Illness &

Misadventure • Extension of Deadlines • Learning Support Services • Occupational Health & Safety

CODE1210 course Graduate attributes Learning outcome

Activity/Assessment

Scholars who are understanding of their discipline in its interdisciplinary context

1., 2., 3. 1., 2., 3., 4.

Scholars who are rigorous in their analysis, critique and reflection

1., 2., 3. 1., 3.

Scholars who are capable of effective communication

1. 1., 2., 3.

Global citizens who are culturally aware and capable of respecting diversity and acting in socially just/responsible ways

2., 3., 4. 1., 2.

unsw | built environment | computational design program ... · theory of urbanism in the...

Documents