SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: ARE WE THERE YET?

Sustainability Sustainabil ity and the Architectu ral Education: Education : Are We We There Yet? Yet?

SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: ARE WE THERE YET? Norhati Ibrahim Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying, MALAYSIA [email protected]

ABSTRACT: In the last two decades there have been active debates on the subject of ar chitecture education reforms to integrate sustainability. The general consensus is that change to address the notion of sustainability is inevitable and every school is expected to attempt at making meaningful contribution and progress towards this objective. However it is anticipated that adoption of ideas and content of the sustainability agenda will differ according to the individual schools of architecture due to the contextual forces determining its direction, the diversity of its philosophy, pedagogical approaches and ability to adopt innovation. The paper reviews crucial issues relating to adoption of sustainability in the architectural education, and later presents a case study analysis on the architectural programmes offered at UiTM. The study reveals that these programmes have elements to support the pursuit of sustainability integration. However, there is a need to review the existing curriculum to significantly include aspects of sustainabili ty integration in the courses content and delivery mode. The study highlights the need to rebalance the focus between artistic pursuit and development of skills with the more crucial educational objective of instilling good values and fostering attitudes compatible with sustainability behavior and needs. Keywords: sustainability, architectural education

1.

I N TR O D U C T I O N

Architectural education has been recognized as one of the leading academic endeavor. With the changes brought about by various forces such as social and environmental context in the last few decades, this may not be the case in the near future. Architectural education has to change according to time and demands to make it relevant. The sustainability agenda for the architectural profession was formally initiated 15 years ago with the release of the “Declaration of Interdependence for a Sustainable Future” by the Union of International Architects (UIA, 1993). This proclamation was renewed in 1996 with the publication of the blueprint of UIA / UNESCO ‘Charter For Architectural Education’. This asserts that incorporation of sustainability elements in the architectural education is inevitable. In response to the spirit of sustainability, many schools have begun to introduce and revise their syllabus content to include technical issues and sustainable design approaches. Hence, the terms such as environmental responsive design, energy conscious design and bioclimatic architecture has become common and form part of the courses objectives. Architecture encompasses both art and science disciplines. There is a lot of subjectivity when discussing architecture. The architectural design process is complex as it does not arise from a linear thought process or equation. It comes about from an iterative and elusive process of synthesis and analysis guided guided by the power of reasoning, as well as calling upon the emotive and intuitive faculties.

617

SENVAR SENV AR + ISESEE 2 008: Humanity + Technology

Essentially an architecture curriculum consists of 4 major fields of study – History/Theory, Technology, Design and Professional Practice. Design i s regarded as the uniting subject, where the knowledge learned from the other fields is applied in simulated design tasks. The overall aim for schools of architecture is to ensure the students receive a balanced education of these fields, as their value judgement of multifaceted issues will influence their architectural design output. The culture of architectural education has been heavily scrutinized, particularly owing to the following characteristics uncovered from a recent survey (Salama, 2008): a. High emphasis on advocacy advocacy,, but low inquiry b. Ambiguous criteria for students’ performance and success c. “Research “Research strategy strategy shaped shaped by low emphasi emphasiss on developing developing or or even critically critically examining examining curren currentt theories of precedents” d. “Emphas “Emphasis is is predomina predominantly ntly on form form and artistic artistic terms, terms, still still focuses focuses on skill skill development development and and superficially adopting fragmented pieces piece s of knowledge on the technology, ecology, socio-political and socio-economic aspect”. Although most schools of architecture recognize the need to implement sustainable design, environmental agenda continue to be regarded as a marginal issue. In a critical review on the current status of the sustainability integration efforts by schools of architecture (Stasinopoulos, 2005), the author concludes with the following observation: a.

Most schools have yet to meaningfully embrace the subject of sustainability, sustainability, whereby most efforts appears sporadic sporadic.. b. The teaching of sustainability of sustainability require requiress a change from the traditional method. method. On the basis of this observation, this paper reviews issues relating to adoption of sustainability in architectural education programmes.

2.

THE TH E CO CONC NCEP EPT T OF SU SUST STAI AINA NABI BIL LIT ITY Y

Sustainability embodies the concept that human is able to consciously contribute towards meeting the needs of the present generation, while ensuring that the needs of future generation is not compromised. The concept is interdisciplinary in nature, which demands participation from every level of the community, aiming at maintaining a balanced ecological, social and economic system. There have been a number of efforts to define sustainable architecture since the introduction of the term ‘sustainable development’ developme nt’ in the Brundtland Report (World (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). Design approaches in support of sustainable architecture are ‘green architecture’ (Vale (Vale & Vale, 1996), ‘environmentally responsive design’ and ecological design’ de sign’ (Yeang, (Yeang, 1998). Vale Vale (1999) for example exampl e proposes six green design desi gn principles which are conserving energy, working with climate, minimising new resources, re sources, respect for users, respect for site and holism. Sustainable architecture echoes the concept of ‘sustainable development’, targeting on the architectural issues. Sustainable architecture covers the tri-domain of social-environment-economy parameters. There are differing opinions in the placement of priority between these three aspects. From an environmental inclined view point, Ray-Jones (2000) sums up sustainable architecture as “a thoughtful and well considered use of energy systems to make buildi ngs that are more conducive

618


to human use and comfort, without generating pol lutants or borrowing the earth’s resources for the future generations.” While others with a social stance, put social dimension forefront when suggesting that sustainable architecture is regarded to encompass the design and managing of sustainable human settlements which deal largely with creating appropriate human settlements configurations that optimise (not maximise) the consumption of resources, and managing resource extraction and waste disposal in a manner which does not deplete or degrade the environment.

3.

ARCHIT ARC HITECT ECTURA URAL L ED EDUC UCA ATI TION: ON: EX EXTE TERN RNAL AL DE DETE TERM RMINA INANT NTS S

The direction of architectural education is influenced by the needs of its key stakeholders namely, the professional and industry needs, as well as the needs of the university offering the course. The professional and industry needs can be observed from the requirements set by the profession accreditation bodies as well as the state of the architectural practices that receive the students. 3.1

Thee Ac Th Accr cred edit itat atio ion n Bo Bodi dies es

Like other professions, the education and practices of architecture are subjected to accreditati on by its professional bodies. The accreditation process is crucial to maintain the society’s trust on the profession. At tertiary level, architectural programmes are accredited to assure the society of the quality of architects produced, and this mechanism reconciles the differences between the education e ducation and practices. Nowadays universities seek for accreditation or validation as part of their marketi ng strategy to gain reputation and promote their programmes. There are several professional accreditation bodies that award local, regional and/or international recognition. In Malaysia the Board of Architects (LAM) is responsible for determining the standard for entry into the architectural profession and the accre ditation of architectural programmes. LAM established the Council of Architectural Education Malaysia (CAEM) to regulate all matters relating to architectural education. It awards recognized programmes with LAM Part I and Part II qualifications. Optional international accreditation accreditation that schools of architecture in Malaysia are likely to consider are: • • •

The Commonwealth Association of Architects (CAA) The Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA, 2003) UNESCO-UIA: an international architectural education accreditation body. A collaboration between the International Union of Architects (UIA), the world-wide associati on of architects, with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organi sation (UNESCO).

Each of these organizations set their procedure and criteria for accreditation. Due to similar accreditation objectives, the criteria set by each organisation do not differ much. In its accreditation document, UNESCO-UIA, an international architectural education accreditation body, set “a satisfactory balance between theory and practice” as its first qualitative criteria (UNESCO-UIA Council for the validation of architectural educati on, 2002). In terms of the expected breadth of capabilities that an architecture student needs to acquire, UNESCO-UIA identifies design abilities, knowledge, and a nd skills to fulfill an architect’s role as generalists who can

619


co-ordinate interdisciplinary objectives. UNESCO-UIA endorses teaching based on project realization as the principle teaching method. This approach places students under the direct and personal guidance of lecturers. This method provides “a synthesis of knowledge, aptitudes, and atti tudes”. 3.2

Arcchi Ar hite tect ctur ural al Pra Praccti ticces

As a key team player in the building industry, architects are in the position to promote positive ideologies such as sustainable architecture to the clients and other built environment community. This makes the choice and behaviour of architects in conducting their practices an essential aspect to promoting sustainable development. Despite having said this, it is important to note that operating in a commercial world and in a global economy, architectural practices are tempted to adapt themselves to societal values and demands in order to survive. This asserts the suggestion that the process of embracing sustainability depends to a large extent on the readiness of the community as a whole. It is inevitable that human’s perception of and behaviour towards the environment will affect how well the environment is i s safeguarded. Although much has been said about how architects can and should strive to promote sustainability, eventually the final endorsement to adopt an idea or otherwise usually rests on the client. Several authors have noted that although many architects acknowledge the importance of sustainability, sustainable practices amongst architects are still few (Franz, 1998; Ibrahim & Abbas, 2001). Surveys on architects’ attitude towards sustainable architecture revealed barriers to sustainable practices including lack of knowledge, lack of opportunity and lack of sense of personal responsibili ty ty.. The view is that the success of realizing sustainability must take into consideration technological (knowledge, information and skills to produce sustainable design) and social perspective s (attitude, behavior and commitment). In the local scene, a 2001 survey on the Malaysian architect’s attitude and perception on sustainability (Ibrahim, 2003) reveal a significant degree of complacency among the local architects in responding to sustainability. sustainability. This is partly attributed to the multi-faceted nature of the architectural disciplines itself which demands a multitude of complex considerations such as design concept, structural stability, buildibility, buildibility, building materials specification, environmental control, interaction with other professionals, building technology, technology, legal responsibility etc. The attitude and intention of those involved in the design and building activities, namely the architects, clients, project consultants, contractors and project managers are crucial towards realising sustainable architecture. The preceding paragraphs assert the role the architectural education system could play towards nurturing and fostering an environmental attitude amongst future architect .

4.

SUST SU STAI AINA NABI BILI LITY TY IN INTE TEGR GRA ATI TION ON IN IN THE THE CURR CURRIC ICUL ULUM UM

There have been many discussions on the subject of curriculum transformation in response to the sustainability agenda. In the USA, a conference was held in August 2001 that brought together architectural schools from across the country wit h the overriding purpose of charting a three to five year plan for a comprehensive transformation of architectural curriculum so as to address the sustainability agenda (Second Nature, 2001). The programme w as initiated alongside and builds on the substantial and innovative foundation developed by others over the past decade. These include

620


projects such as EASE at Ball State University, Vital Vital Signs at University of California, Berkeley, the work of the Society of Building Science Educators (SBSE), the work of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (ACSA) and American Institute of Architects – Committee on the Environment (AIACOTE). At this platform, the concluding comment made by the Director of Programs on the changing architectural education was: Transforming architecture education means focusing on how to teach as well as what is being taught. Teachers Teachers need to expose students to the best ideas, exemplify commitment in their own work and expand the boundaries of the discipline and the profession. A primary requirement of moving architecture education beyond architecture is an understanding of design that goes beyond buildings. Central to this new vision is the conviction that architects are generalists, although this is often masked by the necessity of specialization. (Second Nature, 2001: 3)

The conference recognizes that there is no one strategy towards adoption of ideas and content of the sustainability agenda due to the diversity di versity of schools in terms of their philosophy, pedagogical approaches and ability to adopt innovation. The following are the gist of crucial findings from this conference (extracted from Second Nature, 2001: 4): General recommendations • Need to move architecture beyond architecture, design that goes beyond buildings • To focus on how to teach (delivery method) and what is being taught (content) • Conviction that architects are generalists, although this is often masked by the necessity of specialization • Change general approach: link li nk Curriculum, the Campus and the Community. Recommendations on curriculum elements • Transform the curriculum ♦ Introduce strategies to integrate sustainable design concepts in all areas, History/Theory, Technology, Studio and Professional Practice Prac tice ♦ Create symposia at architectural schools to address the cutting edge ideas and developments; and ♦ Develop a course for all students on the idea of the Campus as a dynamically integrated sustainable community connected to a larger community. • Transform studio teaching ♦ Find workable methods to breakdown the usual differentiation of the studio and the lecture; ♦ Work on real life problems at different scales either on the campus itself or in the community at large. Begin studio with urban and regional-scale problems; ♦ Develop ecological footprint exercises and faculty training. Develop an icon for the ecofootprint to use on all projects similar to the use of the compass north arrow. Develop layered drawings to include Geographic Information System (GIS) information; and ♦ Bridge the major disciplinary division in design training, using a three-dimensi three-dimensional onal approach solving problems, addressing the t he issues of beauty, performance and ecological simultaneously. simul taneously. [extracted from Second Nature, 2001:4]

Similarly, draws from a survey conducted on the attitude of architects and designers towards 621


sustainability, Franz (1998) recommends that architectural education focuses on inculcating appropriate sustainability, attitudes amongst students through the following: i.

Making the design design students students aware of of their own and and others’ others’ attitudes attitudes and how how they can influence influence behavior ii.. Give the students the opportunity ii opportunity to form an appreciation of themselves themselves as role models in society with an increased ascription of responsibility; and iii. Students allowed to develop a detailed knowledge knowledge of the range range of issues associated with sustainability as well as appropriate strategies for its implementation.

5.

CASE STUD CASE STUDY Y OF UND UNDER ER GRA GRADUA DUATE TE ARC ARCHIT HITEC ECTUR TURAL AL PRO PROGRA GRAMME MMES S AT UITM

This section presents the Architectural Programmes offered at the Universiti Teknologi MARA as a case to assess the readiness of sustainability implementation at a university in the Malaysian context. The architectural programmers are run by the Department of Architecture, Faculty of Architecture, Planning and Surveying. 5.1

Prog Pr ogra ramm mmee Bac ackg kgro roun und d

Objective and mission statement: The Department of Architecture at the Universiti Teknologi MARA was established in 1967 with the aim of training graduates at semi-professional semi-professional and professional level, to meet the manpower manpow er needs of the nation in the architectural a rchitectural field and the building industry. Its mission statement underlines the concerns to produce competent architectural graduates who are innovative and sensitive towards the environment through integrated and balanced learning. Programme structure: The university offers two (2) full-time architectural programmes: the Bachelor of Science (Architecture) and Bachelor of Architecture (Hons.). The study period is four and two respectively. The programme is subjected to the university policy that demands syllabus review to be conducted every three years. Teaching modules have been progressively improved and the curriculum is continually updated in order to keep pace with new technologies and challenges. The latest revision was conducted in 2005. Through the years the overall structure have not been subjected to major transformation, adhering to the traditional studio-based system. The curriculum: Part I / B. Sc. (Arch.) programme emphasises on developing architectural skills among students. The curriculum design for Part II / B.Arch. progra mme is the continuation of the previous knowledge gained from Part I. The syllabus focuses on producing competent graduates that integrates the aspects of science, technology and culture in design. Ultimately, the goal is to produce a well rounded individual with a high sense of social responsibility and high self-esteem and confidence. All these make a sound foundation towards creating an architecture that cares not only for the current generation but also the future generations to come. Apart from academic excellence, excellence , the University emphasises on students’ involvement in other activities such as sports and community, comm unity, as well as other forms of self development. To achieve this several additional non-core subjects are made compulsory for all students in UiTM, such as Third Language, Islamic Studies and Co-curriculum.

622


In line with efforts to gain validation from RIBA, the department has regrouped the courses according to the theme recommended by RIBA – Design, Cultural/Context, Practices and Technology. Emphasis is on the Design subjects whereby the Design courses account for 38% and 40% for the B. Sc. (Arch.) programme and B. Arch. (Hons.) programme respectively. The design studios culminates with a comprehensive design task that places the student as the centre of the design process. The project is self generated and each student is to work independently, efficiently and effectively in carrying out and completing his/her thesis project, with close supervision by lecturers. Detailed descriptions of each course were studied to observe if sustainability design issues are in built into the curriculum. It is observed that descriptions on sustainability integration are limited to Studio courses and a few Architectural Science and Environmental subjects. On the overall the emphasis is on developing skills and technical knowledge. Environmental responsibility is generally covered in the final year subject for f or B.Sc. programme, and at the beginning of the B. Arch programme, under the Sustainable Design subject. The teaching method: Generally the approach outlined in the syllabus describes a traditional teaching method namely, lectures, tutorials, studio projects, practical training and academic visits. However the department encourages innovation in course delivery, which depends on efforts and creativity of individual lecturers. In the past there are numerous efforts by studio coordinators to plan out learning activities that involve participation with the community and outside organizations. However, often there are missed opportunities as this potential remained unexplored when such tasks are undertaken by lecturers who are less inclined towards change. On the overall, the traditional teaching practices still prevailed and the overall view on architecture as primarily an art-based profession persists. Research culture: The future of the Department Depart ment is in line with wi th the Faculty’s and UiTM’s vision that focuses on excellence in terms of students, teaching and resea rch, in preparation to be a WorldWorldClass university. As a more aggressive measure to tap research opportunities in the area of built environment, the faculty has set up its own research centres. The Departme nt is slowly but steadily migrating its mindset from a teaching to a research based department. The Department sees itself to fully embrace the research culture in a very near future. The quality of academic staff is vital to the successful operation of a university. Compared to other architectural department in the country, the Department has the most number of professionally registered architects serving as full time academic staff. About 30% of the department lecturers specialize in environmental studies. Seven of the Department’s full time lecturers hold Ph.D. in varying areas of expertise such as Sustainability, Sustainabil ity, Buildings Performance, Design Process, Behavioural and Cultural. The University is continually making efforts to collaborate with other organizations within and beyond UiTM boundary. 5.2

The Uni Universi sitty Ag Agenda

UiTM intents to increase its student numbers. The Department of Architecture intents to increase its student intake especially at the Part I le vel. UiTM encourages collaborative and business linkage efforts, and supports internationalization initiatives. These are positive agenda that open opportunity for sustainability practices to blossom.

623


UiTM was awarded the ISO 9001:2000 Certificate from Lloyd’s Register Quality Assurance (LQRA) for all aspects of teaching and learning in 2004. The Department’s quality in terms of its procedures and managing the programme is well maintained as it is subject ed to two quality audits: (1) external Surveillance Audit conducted twice a year, and (2) internal audit, conducted every 6 months, or as deemed necessary by the faculty. Now with the recent move by the government to make university programme auditing and adoption of Outcome Based Learning compulsory, the quality of the education system in UiTM is expected to be enhanced, and the overall approach of the teaching and learning processes made more transparent. 5.3

Acccre Ac redi dittat atio ion n Bod odie iess

The architectural programmes program mes in UiTM are amongst the first to be accredited by the local professiona l bodies (LAM) with Part I and II recognitions, since 1982. In the past the criteria for accreditation are vague, relying strongly on the value judgement of the approving visiting panel. The tendencie s were to place strong emphasis on the students technical ability and skills. LAM’s recently released revised accreditation criteria criteri a (LAM, 2008) is seen as a very positive move towards a structured and transparent accreditation process. The university conducted a RIBA exploratory visit in 2006 and currently the proggramme is now under consideration for a RIBA full validati on. 5.4

Gove Go vernm rnmen entt Stan Standi ding ng and and the the Mal Malay aysi sian an Soc Socie iety ty

The Malaysian government supports the world sustainable development agenda whereby in 1999 Malaysia became a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol 1997 (Malaysia Institute of Nuclear Technology Research 1999). Signatories of the Kyoto Protocol are committed to strive to reduce greenhouse gas emission. Several major national policies have made sustainable development as its prime objective; The Outline Perspective Policy 1 (OPP 1) (1971-1990) and 2 (OPP 2) (1990-2000), developed from the National Economic Policy (NEP) and the 8th Malaysia Plan 2001-2005 (Economic Planning Unit 2001a), reasserts the national environmental policy introduced in the Third Malaysian Plan 1976-1980. The government’s concern for environment is positive, initiating serious efforts in embracing an energy efficiency agenda. This poses a new challenge for architects and the building industry and community as a whole.

6.

C O N C LU S I O N S

This paper identifies aspects of sustainability adoption in the architectural education. This forms a basis to analyse the current state and readiness of the Department of Architecture, Faculty Architecture, Planning and Surveying to pursue the sustainabilit y agenda. The study reveals that the architecture programmes offered in UiTM have the necessary ingredients to champion pursuit of sustainability in architecture. The growing number of environmental experts and research activities in the Department are signs of the Department’s future inclinations towards sustainability sensitivity. However obstacles to the integration as observed in past studies

624


conducted overseas (Franz, 2005) are apparent. Currently inclusion of sustainability aspects are fragmented relying heavily upon individual efforts of lecturers that are familiar and inclined towards the subject matter. There is a need to review the existing curriculum to significantly include the worthy aspects of sustainability in the courses content and delivery mode. The open ended approach of describing the studio delivery deliver y mode may not contribute well towards sustainability.. The study highlights the need for the architectural education system to place emphasis sustainability on fostering attitudes compatible with sustainability behavior and needs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author acknowledges appreciation to members of the department who contributed to the preparation of all department documents that this paper has made reference to.

REFERENCES Franz, J. M. (1998). Attitude towards sustainability and their implications for education, practice and future research. Paper presented at the FORUM II: Architectural Education f or the 3rd Millennium. Ibrahim, N. (2003, 13-14 September 2003). Sustainable architecture: Perception of local architects. Paper presented at the Seminar on Women in Energy & Architecture: WEA 2003, Kuala Lumpur. Ibrahim, N. & Abbas, M. Y. Y. (2001, 31 3 1 Oct.-2 Nov. 2001). Perception of local architects on sustainable architecture. Paper presented at the Seminar Penyelidikan UiTM 2001, Melaka, Malaysia. Ray-Jones, A. (Ed.) (2000). Sustainable Architecture in Japan: The Green Buildings of Nikken Sekkei . GB: Wiley-Academy. RIBA (2003). Criteria for validation. Salama, A. M. (2008). A theory for integrating knowledge in architectural design education. International Journal of Architectural Research, 2 (1), 100-128. Second Nature (2001, 24-26 August 2001). How can the architects contribute to a sustainable world? Paper presented at the Wingsprea Wingspread d Conference, Wingspread Conference Centre, Racine, Wisconsin. Stasinopoulos, T. T. N. (2005, 13-16 November). Sustainable architecture architecture teaching in non-sustainable societies. Paper presented at the PLEA2005 - the 22nd Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Beirut, Lebanon. UIA (1993, 18-21 June 1993). Declaration of Interdependence for a sustainable future. Paper presented at the UIA/AIA World World Congress of Architects, Chicago. UNESCO-UIA Council for the validation of architectural education (2002). UNESCO-UIA Validation Validation system for architectural education. Vale, B. & Vale, Vale, R. (1996) (1996).. Green architecture: architecture: Design for a sustainable future . London: Thames & Hudson. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yeang, K. (1998). Research Information: Infor mation: Designing Designi ng the Green Skyscraper. Building Research and Information, (2), 122-141. 26 (2),

625

SUSTAINABILITY AND THE ARCHITECTURAL EDUCATION: ARE WE THERE YET?

Recommend Documents