The design and build style educational programme has become a global phenomenon in schools of Architecture. The Bauhaus in Weimar, Germany, was an early exponent of this pedagogical model that emphasises students acquiring practical, craft skills alongside more formal design expertise. Inevitably the scope and complexity of these projects are dependent on the very real time, organisational and economic constraints. The resulting constructions have a tendency towards temporary structures, simple materials and a pavilion character, in place of pilot studies of full-scale buildings that consider the inner climate of buildings. As this pedagogical method continues to evolve and be popularised it becomes relevant to discuss these two approaches in relation to each other.
This article investigates two exemplary masters courses within the Oslo School of Architecture and Design (AHO), which have successfully integrated “learning by making” into the semester based studio course in two very different ways. The first is The Wave: Public Performance Space project, designed within the latest Scarcity and Creativity course (2015) led by Professor Christian Hermansen Cordua. The project has been nominated for the The Mies Crown Hall Americas Prize (MCHAP). The second is The Oslo Project run by Professor Marius Nygaard (2010). This project was selected as an example of interdisciplinary teaching and innovative building by the Bygg strategy group for the Norwegian Building industry and the government appointed Skog 22 strategy group for Forest and Wood based solutions.
Semi-structured interviews will be undertaken with the course leaders, their assistants, students, and industry experts involved in the projects. Some key topics will be investigated:
The degree of involvement of students
The social relevance of the projects
The relevance in development of building solutions at an industry level
The increased level of competence of architectural students
The increased level of competence of other students (development of industry through interdisciplinary projects)
The aim of the article is to explore the potential and limits of the two approaches, the strengths and real outcomes: to students, industry, architectural education and society.