SPRING 2016 COURSE SYLLABUS
"The landscapes that are ultimately created are essentially new to the earth. Cities, for example, are often built of materials that are thermally and hydrologically extreme to the land, and in structural forms that are geomorphically atypical in most landscapes. It is a landscape distinctly different from the landscapes it displaced and, in many respects, decidedly inferior as a human habitat. The modern metropolitan environment that results tends to be less healthy, less safe, and less emotionally secure than most people desire. Moreover, the very existence of such environments poses a serious uncertainty to future generations owing to the high cost of maintaining both the environment and the quality of human life within them. In addition, their relationship with the natural environment of water, air, soil, and ecological systems is a lopsided one that does not adequately fit our notion of a sustainable balance between an organism and its habitat. Herein lies much of the basis for land use planning, landscape design, and urban and regional planning"
William Marsh, Landscape Planning Environmental Applications, page 8
Add to this the fact that fun and happiness are such elusive concepts yet they are something every human desires. How can we design places that perform for society ad its many cultures, the environment, economics, and aesthetically while promoting human health and happiness? Can landscape designs' be memorable and fun for all age groups? This semester we will explore the fun factor in various aspects of design and at various scales.
INSTRUCTOR
Assistant Professor: Isabel Fernández
Office location: 334 Marshall Hall
Office hours: Mondays 1:00 - 2:30 + Wednesday 12:30 - 2:30 or by appointment
Telephone: 303.525.8563
Email: [email protected]
MEETING TIMES
Four (4) credit hours | one hour of lecture and 5 hours of studio meeting time per week
Mondays 2:55 pm - 5:00 pm
Wednesdays 10:30 am - 12:30 pm
Fridays 10:00 am - 1:00 (TBA) proposal = let's meet early on most Fridays?
On review/crit days work shall be ready/pinned up by the beginning of class. Studio work days will be assigned per brief, during these days your instructor is available but not physically present. Some class meetings will occur outside of the ESF campus.
MEETING LOCATION
Marshal Hall 317 unless otherwise specified by your instructor or GA
CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION
Five hours of studio and one hour of lecture per week. The second in a sequence of studios applying the concepts, skills and methods of design in a critical analysis of various natural and human systems in community scale environments. Concentration is on the evaluation of options concerning a variety of land use activities, with special emphasis on landscape analysis and the functional and spatial quality of built environments. The requirements for this course include readings, examinations, field trips, design exercises and projects. Spring.
Prerequisites: Graduate status in landscape architecture and LSA 600, LSA 552, or permission of instructor.
Source:http://www.esf.edu/catalog/courses/default.asp?Prefix=LSA
COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course is designed to engage students in the rich, intense and at times chaotic process of design that can lead to solutions improving both the condition of our environment (built and “natural”) at a diversity of scales, and the quality of the human experience. This process requires the engagement of operations and techniques that are both analog and digital, and the gathering of field and archival data that is both of qualitative and quantitative. Students will learn to analyze and synthesize the data via mapping and diagraming exercises that can eventually lead to solutions responding to the site and its unique conditions and context. To enrich the process real world projects and real clients will be engaged. The class will learn to carry out thoughtful community engagement, field investigation and field work as methods for gathering those intangible matters that are usually deeply embedded in a place and its complex histories. Although technology can remotely aid in generating an understanding of place it’s imperative to experience the place in order to truly understand its context, the vibrant matter that comprises it and the latent possibilities awaiting a creative reveal. This will require students to learn how to negotiate issues of the site, the contextual environment, society and client’s needs, regulatory guidance and other factors. When all of this is well balanced and carefully choreographed landscapes that perform optimally and move the soul are the result. Moreover, this semester we will explore designing for happiness/fun, as the topic of play intersects both studio projects.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Upon the successful completion of this course students should know how to:
[1] articulately utilize an ample design vocabulary to include: development types and their impacts, architectural terms of form and massing, density, programming diversity and function, landscape as framework, technology and the interrelationship of environmental, economic, community and aesthetic functions
[2] demonstrate the ability to gather, analyze and synthesize quantitative and qualitative data via mapping and diagramming to derive a site specific design solution for any given project
[3] generate a well crafted project dilemma, vision, goals and objectives
[4] communicate the expansion of base knowledge with regard to contemporary issues in landscape architecture via the creation of technically competent, aesthetically pleasing, economically sustainable, culturally and environmentally sensitive and innovative design solutions at multiple scales (macro, meso and micro)
[5] demonstrate an understanding of materiality and scale and how they affect space and people
[6] demonstrate effective teamwork strategies and a grasp of the critical process of client/community participation/engagement, and multi-disciplinary collaboration
[7] fluidly move between well crafted hand graphics, computer generated products, and physical models as design solutions are explored and refined
[8] deliver strong verbal and graphic presentations to a diversity of audiences
COLLEGE WIDE OUTCOMES ADDRESSED BY THIS COURSE
Students will be able to:
PROGRAM WIDE OUTCOMES ADDRESSED BY THIS COURSE
This course is a required course in the department’s studio sequence meeting the program required outcomes of optimally preparing students to critically and creatively solve projects of increase challenge and complexity at a diversity of scales.
“Students will be able to:
source: suny esf dla program
STUDIO FRAMEWORK
The present condition and trajectory of our built environment, our health and that of our ecosystems affords the study of a myriad of complex problems across a diversity of scales. To learn how these issues are realistically dealt with we will engage real clients with real project sites. A series of traveling activities/workshops are part of the course in an effort to strengthen and deepen your knowledge and understanding of Landscape Architecture, improve the class discourse, instigate critical thinking and promote hands on learning. For eight (8) Mondays (begins Feb. 8 and ends April 18) we will engage in 45 minutes of pure theory discussion led by one student. The readings to be discussed can be found in the Required Readings Tab in this site.
During the first week of studio you will engage in an intense Grading Workshop led by Prof. Robin Hoffman. The final review for this workshop is Monday, January 25. See schedule below.
Students will work in teams, not unlike in a professional office setting, and at times individually, to research and prepare synthesized site analysis, case studies and precedents, branding and identity concepts, architectural and site design at the macro, meso and micro scales. This project will also allow you to attain an understanding of the financial implications of your design proposals. A series of reviews with your faculty and jurors are scheduled to actively provide necessary feedback to improve your products. Both studio projects will culminate in the form of a comprehensive written and design report, and a visual and oral presentation, by which each team will make recommendations to an actual owner/client and a selected jury of professionals.
COURSE SCHEDULE + IMPORTANT DATES
Project briefs will be delivered as the course develops containing more details. Schedule is subject to minor changes that will be announced during class and the course website.
o Wednesday, January 20 - January 25
TOPO Workshop with Prof. Robyn Hoffman
o Monday, January 25
Workshop REVIEW
o Wednesday, January 27
Studio Intro + Project 1 Intro
o Friday, January 29
SITE VISIT
o Wednesday, February 10
REVIEW @ Residence
o Friday, February 26
Final Review @ Residence
o Monday, February 29
Project II Introduction + Study of selected projects + research topic distribution
o Wednesday, March 2
studio work day
o Friday, March 4
Caroline SITE VISIT
o March 7 and 9
Research Presentations
o Spring Break
March 12-20
o March 21 - 25 (CELA in Utah)
studio work days (Development of concept designs)
Prof. Fernández in Utah TBD
o March 28
Internal Review of Concepts
o Friday, April 8 - Sunday, April 10
BOSTON FIELD TRIP
o Friday, April 8
REVIEW Brief 5
o Friday, April 15
INTERNAL FACULTY REVIEW
o Friday, April 22
GRAPHICS REVIEW
o Friday, April 29
Internal FINAL REVIEW
o Monday, May 2
LAST DAY OF STUDIO
o May 11
CE FINAL REVIEW @ Caroline
from: 10 am - noon
o May 13
CLASS PORTFOLIOS DUE to: FTP site and weebly site revisions: revise the class projects 1 and 2 websites and your individual portfolio site
o May 18
grades due
*It is a course requirement to complete a final review therefore you must be available and in town. Failure to participate of this final review will result in course failure.
o May 16-22
Optional 1 credit volunteer design build event at CE
ATTENDANCE POLICY
In order to complete the course work and be able to participate you shall be present at every class. Although attendance will not be used as a grading criterion and attendance records will not be kept, participation and course work will be graded as indicated within the grading section below.
If you encounter a situation beyond your control in which you will be missing 3 or more days of classes, you can contact the Office of Student Life (110 Bray, 315-470-6658) and they will contact all your instructors for you. Supportive documentation may be required.
GRADING
Grades are assigned in all credit bearing courses to reflect how well students have met the student learning outcomes of the course. Details about the grading components:
+ individual student website linked to the course’s website
+ on a collective class cd with all of the semester's work
***Projects include homework that is to be completed in and outside of studio on your own time. You will be evaluated on your work ethic, contribution and attitude, accuracy and completion of work as per the brief and jury suggestions. They also include reviews: A review evaluates your work holistically taking into consideration your work ethic up to that point, the delivery of your team/individual presentation, the quality/craftsmanship and depth of your work and deliverables.
GRADING RUBRIC
There will be multiple informal and formal reviews during which you will present your interim and final products to your faculty and/or a jury. These presentations are equivalent to quizzes/exams and will be evaluated as per the following rubric:
From 1-5 on each of the categories below (1=fails to meet expectations, 2=partly meets expectations, 3=meets expectations, 4= exceeds expectations, 5=exceptional)
student has completed all of the required work on time as per the project requirements
the proposed solutions are creative and innovative
functional and viable
student shows up on time and is professionally dressed
student delivers a clear, comprehensive and effective verbal presentation
student delivers a clear, comprehensive and effective graphic presentation
student is open and receptive to feedback
STUDIO GRADE DESCRIPTIONS
Excellent Work: A, A- | 100-90
As a faculty we are enthusiastic about giving A’s for excellent student work; however, we intend these grades to be meaningful. Therefore, with the bar set high there may be few A’s in the class. Students who receive A’s in studio will have earned their grade by:
1. Producing design work that utilizes a strong conceptual foundation, clearly articulates forms derived from that concept, and articulates a cohesive spatial design.
2. Fully and exhaustively researching and developing design proposals, utilizing ideas not touched on directly in class. (For example, researching built or proposed works similar to the assigned problem for inspiration or technical approach; or pursuing readings outside of what has been assigned to broaden your understanding of the problem.)
3. Demonstrating the ability to achieve and excel in the development of studio work by positively responding to faculty criticism, as well as showing the ability to work independently (this means you do not require constant input, supervision and approval before progressing).
4. Fully utilizing the design process, creating iterative trace studies, overlays and alternatives, creating study models, and other means of fully exploring ideas prior to producing final drawings and models.
5. Demonstrating superior craft—beautifully made drawings and models with precise attention to details.
6. Actively participating/ proposing in a critical dialogue in both group and individual discussions about assignments. A leader who helps faculty foster an atmosphere of inquiry about studio problems.
7. Enthusiastic about the assignments and discussions, working to exceed the minimal expectations.
8. Making the most of each and every studio session (i.e. working the entire period, discussing relevant project-related issues with classmates, effectively using desk crits, participating in discussion, etc.)
9. Using both oral and written communication (on boards) to completely articulate the full range of ideas. Spelling and grammar are excellent.
Notable Work: B+, B | 89-80
A grade of B or higher is reserved for students who go beyond minimal competency and begin to demonstrate a willingness to work hard and consistently with some notable success. Working hard is both a time and effort commitment and success is measured by
1. Producing design work that utilizes a reasonable conceptual foundation, clearly articulates forms derived from that concept, and articulates a cohesive spatial design.
2. Demonstrating not only understanding but also achievement in directing the investigations and development of studio work.
3. Researching and developing design proposals, utilizing ideas not touched on directly in class. (For example, researching built or proposed works similar to the assigned problem for inspiration or technical approach; or pursuing readings outside of what has been assigned to broaden your understanding of the problem.)
4. Utilizing the design process to explore design ideas, as demonstrated by trace studies, overlays and alternatives, study models, etc., prior to producing final drawings and models.
5. Demonstrating strong competence in craft.
6. Often participating in group discussions
7. Demonstrating enthusiasm about the assignments and discussions.
8. Attending and working during each studio session.
9. Using both oral and written communication (on boards) to articulate ideas. Spelling and grammar are good.
Competent Work: B-, C+ | 83-78
A student who consistently meets all deadlines and project requirements as well as:
1. Producing design responses that are derived from an effective conceptual foundation, and are based on forms derived from that concept.
2. Showing a basic understanding of issues introduced in studio.
3. Demonstrating a willingness to think critically about studio design problems by asking good questions of faculty and peers. Student may have some difficulties but actively work to address gaps in their understanding.
4. Demonstrating only a core competence in craft.
5. Occasionally contributing to group discussions.
6. Occasionally enthusiastic about the assignments and discussions.
7. Attending and working during each studio session.
8. Meeting required work for each studio session.
9. Using both oral and written communication (on boards) to articulate ideas. Spelling and grammar are acceptable.
Satisfactory (Marginal) Work: C | 77-74
Student work that meets only a minimal level of competence. This is borderline work and should be considered a warning of the potential for problems in upper level studios. It is important to note that satisfactory work must surpass mere completion by exhibiting an acceptable level of competence.
1. All work is complete and turned in on time.
2. Work shows minimal understanding of issues introduced in the assignments.
3. Student has shown some minimal willingness to think critically about studio design problems, although often creating superficial or reflexive responses not related to a concept.
4. Conceptual foundation for work is weakly defined and articulated, with design responses utilizing forms, patterns, and objects that are applied in loosely arranged space(s).
5. Minimal utilization of the design process, showing little design exploration.
6. Craft is problematic, but ideas are readable.
7. Student is an active member of studio culture.
8. Student attends all studios, arriving on time and departing only at the end of the period.
9. Both oral and written communications (on boards) are minimally effective. Spelling and grammar are problematic.
Unsatisfactory Work: C-, D | 73-70 and 69-60
A student who does not demonstrate the minimal competence to advance in the program. Students receiving a C- or lower must petition to advance to the next studio. Student work that receives this grade has the following characteristics:
1. All deadlines are met, however projects are not complete (see policy on late work).
2. Exhibiting difficulty in demonstrating recognition and understanding of the issues presented in the studio problems.
3. Conceptual foundation for work is poorly defined and articulated, with design responses utilizing unrelated forms and patterns as well as randomly applied objects.
4. Poor utilization of the design process, showing no design exploration and solutions that “appear” on the due date.
5. Little or no willingness to think critically about the studio assignments.
6. Little or no evidence of student work maturing over course of semester.
7. Unacceptable level of craft where accuracy and precision are problematic.
8. Missing or leaving studio sessions early without notice.
9. Repeatedly coming to class late.
10. Being a distraction rather than an asset to the working environment of the studio.
11. Oral and written communications are unclear and poorly articulated. Spelling and grammar are abysmal.
Course Failure: F | 59 and less
1. Student work does not meet minimal academic standards for passing the course.
2. Completion and deadlines are not met.
3. No recognition or understanding of the issues and concepts presented in the studio problems.
4. No willingness to think critically about the studio assignments.
5. No evidence of student work maturing over course of semester.
6. Unacceptable level of craft where accuracy and precision are absent.
7. Missing or leaving studio sessions early without notice.
8. Repeatedly coming to class late.
9. Disciplinary problems.
STUDENTS WITH LEARNING AND PHYSICAL DISABILITIES
SUNY-ESF works with the Office of Disability Services (ODS) at Syracuse University, who is responsible for coordinating disability-related accommodations. Students can contact ODS at 804 University Avenue- Room 309, 315-443-4498 to schedule an appointment and discuss their needs and the process for requesting accommodations. Students may also contact the ESF Office of Student Affairs, 110 Bray Hall, 315-470-6660 for assistance with the process. To learn more about ODS, visit http://disabilityservices.syr.edu. Authorized accommodation forms must be in the instructor’s possession one week prior to any anticipated accommodation. Since accommodations may require early planning and generally are not provided retroactively, please contact ODS as soon as possible.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
Academic dishonesty is a breach of trust between a student, one’s fellow students, or the instructor(s). By registering for courses at ESF you acknowledge your awareness of the ESF Code of Student Conduct (http://www.esf.edu/students/handbook/StudentHB.05.pdf ), in particular academic dishonesty includes but is not limited to plagiarism and cheating, and other forms of academic misconduct. The Academic Integrity Handbook contains further information and guidance (http://www.esf.edu/students/integrity/). Infractions of the academic integrity code may lead to academic penalties as per the ESF Grading Policy (http://www.esf.edu/provost/policies/documents/GradingPolicy.11.12.2013.pdf).
STUDIO ETIQUETTE
Punctual attendance and the timely delivery and presentation of all assignment and projects is required and non-negotiable to realize the learning benefits of this course. If dire circumstances prevent you from attending studio, please notify your Graduate Assistant and/or professors immediately. To pass the course, students must complete all parts of the projects, and submit them at the date and time specified on their project statements—regardless of the degree of completion. Work submitted late will not be given full credit. Extensions without penalty may be given to students with written medical excuses, or to students who can document circumstances beyond their control that prevented them from completing the work. In any event, students must advise studio faculty of their problem at the earliest possible moment—definitely prior to the due date.
Refrain from any activity that distracts surrounding people are inconsiderate and disrespectful, including texting, emailing, browsing the web or using cellular phones while in class for non-class related purposes.
We encourage: student contribution to the overall progress of the group, interactive participation, solid teamwork and constructive criticism.
It is necessary that students have a professional and ethic behavior through the entire course. Lectures are a group activity, and so it requires social consideration and respect among members of the group, teachers and professors.
Interest, effort, diligence and a positive attitude towards the quality of your work
By this time you have all been here long enough to know how to treat each other, how to treat the facilities and to maintain a civil code. Be aware of others feelings, do nothing to offend. If you are unsure of what this civil code is, please ask.
TEXTBOOKS & MATERIALS:
Although there are no formal textbooks required, there will be required and recommended readings assigned that will either be provided digitally or will need to be downloaded or found (via library resources or internet) by the students. Students are required to purchase or have access to a variety of traditional graphic communication media and tools such as:
Trace paper
Pens and pencils in a variety of sizes and colors
Access to a computer with Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Auto Cad, SketchUP or any other 3d program you know how to use or plan to quickly learn. If you do not own you may use the computer lab in Marshall Hall
Software programs: Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign CS5 or higher | Auto CAD 2014 or higher | SketchUp, Rhino or similar 3D software
Any type of camera (cell phone camera ok).
Sketchbook/journal
An incredibly positive attitude and a solid work ethic
***Students will participate in a 3-4 day field trip to Boston, MA; costs associated with such a trip (outside of vehicular transportation and gas)are the students responsibility and may total up to $400 per student.
RECOMMENDED READINGS/RESOURCES:
MOVIES
Human Scale - netflix
The Powers of ten
BOOKS
The Image of the City by Kevin Lynch
The Smart Growth Manual by Andres Duany
Urban design health and the therapeutic environment by Moughtin
Health & Community Design by Frank Engelke Schmid
Toward Sustainable Communities by Mark Roseland
Sustainable Communities by Hugh Barton
Sustainable Urbanism Urban Design with Nature by Doug Farr
Design with Nature by Ian McHarg
Walkable City by Jeff Speck
The Hidden Dimension by Edward T. Hall
The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs
Resilience in Urban Ecology and Design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities Julie Bargmann, “Just Ground: a social infrastructure for urban landscape regeneration,” in Resilience in Urban Ecology and Design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities, ed. Steward Pickett, (New York: Springer, 2013)
Groundwork: Between Landscape and Architecture
Diana Balmori and Joel Saunders, “Urban Outfitters Headquarters,” Groundwork: Between Landscape and Architecture. (New York: Monacelli, 2011), 148-151.
Growing Urban Habitats
William Morrish, Susanne Schindler and Katie Swenson, “GreeNOLA.” Growing Urban Habitats, (Richmond:Stout) 2009, 190-193.
Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture Liat Margolis and Alexander Robinson, “Ground Reconstitution Strategy,” Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture, (Basel:Birkhäuser, 2007), 114-117.
Women in Green: Voices of Sustainable Design
Kira Gould & Lance Hosey, Women in Green: Voices of Sustainable Design, (Bainbridge Island: Ecotone), 2007.
Weathering and Durability in Landscape Architecture: Fundamentals, Practices, and Case Studies
Niall Kirkwood, Weathering and Durability in Landscape Architecture: Fundamentals, Practices, and Case Studies, (New York: Wiley), 2004.
JOURNALS
PAISEA | Jose Manuel Vidal, “Semi-Private Urban Spaces/Brooklyn Navy Yard Visitors Center,” Paisea, September, 2014.
GARDEN DESIGN | Virginia Small, “Julie Bargmann: Regenerating Down and Out Landscapes,” Garden Design, July/August 2009, 74-75.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | Elizabeth K. Meyer, “Sustaining Beauty: The Performance of Appearance,” Landscape Architecture October 2008, 92-131.
CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION RECYCLING MAGAZINE | Curt Harler, “Urban Outfitters Brownfields Case Study,” February 2008, 48-54.
GREEN SOURCE MAGAZINE | Jenna McKnight, “The Landscape Healer,” Green Source Magazine, October 2007, 35-36.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | Susan Hines, “Julie Bargmann Unexpurgated,” Landscape Architecture, October 2007, 132-139.
GARDEN DESIGN | “ASLA/Garden Design Residential Awards of Honor,” Garden Design, September 2007, 81.
METROPOLIS | Inga Saffron, “A Stitch in Time,” Metropolis, May 2007, 121-135.
PUBLIC ART REVIEW | T. Allan Comp, “A Place of Regeneration,” Public Art Review Regarding Land Issue, Spring / Summer 1997, 14-18.
"The landscapes that are ultimately created are essentially new to the earth. Cities, for example, are often built of materials that are thermally and hydrologically extreme to the land, and in structural forms that are geomorphically atypical in most landscapes. It is a landscape distinctly different from the landscapes it displaced and, in many respects, decidedly inferior as a human habitat. The modern metropolitan environment that results tends to be less healthy, less safe, and less emotionally secure than most people desire. Moreover, the very existence of such environments poses a serious uncertainty to future generations owing to the high cost of maintaining both the environment and the quality of human life within them. In addition, their relationship with the natural environment of water, air, soil, and ecological systems is a lopsided one that does not adequately fit our notion of a sustainable balance between an organism and its habitat. Herein lies much of the basis for land use planning, landscape design, and urban and regional planning"
William Marsh, Landscape Planning Environmental Applications, page 8
Add to this the fact that fun and happiness are such elusive concepts yet they are something every human desires. How can we design places that perform for society ad its many cultures, the environment, economics, and aesthetically while promoting human health and happiness? Can landscape designs' be memorable and fun for all age groups? This semester we will explore the fun factor in various aspects of design and at various scales.
INSTRUCTOR
Assistant Professor: Isabel Fernández
Office location: 334 Marshall Hall
Office hours: Mondays 1:00 - 2:30 + Wednesday 12:30 - 2:30 or by appointment
Telephone: 303.525.8563
Email: [email protected]
MEETING TIMES
Four (4) credit hours | one hour of lecture and 5 hours of studio meeting time per week
Mondays 2:55 pm - 5:00 pm
Wednesdays 10:30 am - 12:30 pm
Fridays 10:00 am - 1:00 (TBA) proposal = let's meet early on most Fridays?
On review/crit days work shall be ready/pinned up by the beginning of class. Studio work days will be assigned per brief, during these days your instructor is available but not physically present. Some class meetings will occur outside of the ESF campus.
MEETING LOCATION
Marshal Hall 317 unless otherwise specified by your instructor or GA
CATALOG COURSE DESCRIPTION
Five hours of studio and one hour of lecture per week. The second in a sequence of studios applying the concepts, skills and methods of design in a critical analysis of various natural and human systems in community scale environments. Concentration is on the evaluation of options concerning a variety of land use activities, with special emphasis on landscape analysis and the functional and spatial quality of built environments. The requirements for this course include readings, examinations, field trips, design exercises and projects. Spring.
Prerequisites: Graduate status in landscape architecture and LSA 600, LSA 552, or permission of instructor.
Source:http://www.esf.edu/catalog/courses/default.asp?Prefix=LSA
COURSE DESCRIPTION
This course is designed to engage students in the rich, intense and at times chaotic process of design that can lead to solutions improving both the condition of our environment (built and “natural”) at a diversity of scales, and the quality of the human experience. This process requires the engagement of operations and techniques that are both analog and digital, and the gathering of field and archival data that is both of qualitative and quantitative. Students will learn to analyze and synthesize the data via mapping and diagraming exercises that can eventually lead to solutions responding to the site and its unique conditions and context. To enrich the process real world projects and real clients will be engaged. The class will learn to carry out thoughtful community engagement, field investigation and field work as methods for gathering those intangible matters that are usually deeply embedded in a place and its complex histories. Although technology can remotely aid in generating an understanding of place it’s imperative to experience the place in order to truly understand its context, the vibrant matter that comprises it and the latent possibilities awaiting a creative reveal. This will require students to learn how to negotiate issues of the site, the contextual environment, society and client’s needs, regulatory guidance and other factors. When all of this is well balanced and carefully choreographed landscapes that perform optimally and move the soul are the result. Moreover, this semester we will explore designing for happiness/fun, as the topic of play intersects both studio projects.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
Upon the successful completion of this course students should know how to:
[1] articulately utilize an ample design vocabulary to include: development types and their impacts, architectural terms of form and massing, density, programming diversity and function, landscape as framework, technology and the interrelationship of environmental, economic, community and aesthetic functions
[2] demonstrate the ability to gather, analyze and synthesize quantitative and qualitative data via mapping and diagramming to derive a site specific design solution for any given project
[3] generate a well crafted project dilemma, vision, goals and objectives
[4] communicate the expansion of base knowledge with regard to contemporary issues in landscape architecture via the creation of technically competent, aesthetically pleasing, economically sustainable, culturally and environmentally sensitive and innovative design solutions at multiple scales (macro, meso and micro)
[5] demonstrate an understanding of materiality and scale and how they affect space and people
[6] demonstrate effective teamwork strategies and a grasp of the critical process of client/community participation/engagement, and multi-disciplinary collaboration
[7] fluidly move between well crafted hand graphics, computer generated products, and physical models as design solutions are explored and refined
[8] deliver strong verbal and graphic presentations to a diversity of audiences
COLLEGE WIDE OUTCOMES ADDRESSED BY THIS COURSE
Students will be able to:
- effectively describe, interpret, apply, and evaluate quantitative and qualitative information.
- formulate and present ideas that reflect critical thinking skills and show awareness of audience, context, and purpose, and present a well-developed argument
- use critical thinking skills to determine the information needed to solve a problem, access information using appropriate technologies, and effectively and appropriately use information to accomplish a specific purpose.
- demonstrate awareness of diverse cultures and values, recognize ethical issues in contemporary society, and apply ethical concepts in addressing diverse personal, professional, and societal settings.
- identify, analyze, evaluate, and develop well-reasoned arguments”.
PROGRAM WIDE OUTCOMES ADDRESSED BY THIS COURSE
This course is a required course in the department’s studio sequence meeting the program required outcomes of optimally preparing students to critically and creatively solve projects of increase challenge and complexity at a diversity of scales.
“Students will be able to:
- consider, assess, and incorporate a broad range of social, cultural, and behavioral factors into design and planning of the land.
- consider, assess, and incorporate a broad range of natural factors and processes, including climate, ecology, geology, soils, hydrology, and physiography into design and planning of the land.
- consider, assess, and adapt to a variety of political, legal, and regulatory contexts for design
- draw upon the precedents and typologies developed over the course of the history of art and design.
- consider and assess the design context of a particular site, place, or region, and identify important design forms, patterns, and organizing structures.
- observe, record, and visualize the form and character of 3-dimensional spaces.
- select, apply, and communicate an appropriate and defensible design process to address and solve a wide range of design and planning problems”.
source: suny esf dla program
STUDIO FRAMEWORK
The present condition and trajectory of our built environment, our health and that of our ecosystems affords the study of a myriad of complex problems across a diversity of scales. To learn how these issues are realistically dealt with we will engage real clients with real project sites. A series of traveling activities/workshops are part of the course in an effort to strengthen and deepen your knowledge and understanding of Landscape Architecture, improve the class discourse, instigate critical thinking and promote hands on learning. For eight (8) Mondays (begins Feb. 8 and ends April 18) we will engage in 45 minutes of pure theory discussion led by one student. The readings to be discussed can be found in the Required Readings Tab in this site.
During the first week of studio you will engage in an intense Grading Workshop led by Prof. Robin Hoffman. The final review for this workshop is Monday, January 25. See schedule below.
Students will work in teams, not unlike in a professional office setting, and at times individually, to research and prepare synthesized site analysis, case studies and precedents, branding and identity concepts, architectural and site design at the macro, meso and micro scales. This project will also allow you to attain an understanding of the financial implications of your design proposals. A series of reviews with your faculty and jurors are scheduled to actively provide necessary feedback to improve your products. Both studio projects will culminate in the form of a comprehensive written and design report, and a visual and oral presentation, by which each team will make recommendations to an actual owner/client and a selected jury of professionals.
COURSE SCHEDULE + IMPORTANT DATES
Project briefs will be delivered as the course develops containing more details. Schedule is subject to minor changes that will be announced during class and the course website.
o Wednesday, January 20 - January 25
TOPO Workshop with Prof. Robyn Hoffman
o Monday, January 25
Workshop REVIEW
o Wednesday, January 27
Studio Intro + Project 1 Intro
o Friday, January 29
SITE VISIT
o Wednesday, February 10
REVIEW @ Residence
o Friday, February 26
Final Review @ Residence
o Monday, February 29
Project II Introduction + Study of selected projects + research topic distribution
o Wednesday, March 2
studio work day
o Friday, March 4
Caroline SITE VISIT
o March 7 and 9
Research Presentations
o Spring Break
March 12-20
o March 21 - 25 (CELA in Utah)
studio work days (Development of concept designs)
Prof. Fernández in Utah TBD
o March 28
Internal Review of Concepts
o Friday, April 8 - Sunday, April 10
BOSTON FIELD TRIP
o Friday, April 8
REVIEW Brief 5
o Friday, April 15
INTERNAL FACULTY REVIEW
o Friday, April 22
GRAPHICS REVIEW
o Friday, April 29
Internal FINAL REVIEW
o Monday, May 2
LAST DAY OF STUDIO
o May 11
CE FINAL REVIEW @ Caroline
from: 10 am - noon
o May 13
CLASS PORTFOLIOS DUE to: FTP site and weebly site revisions: revise the class projects 1 and 2 websites and your individual portfolio site
o May 18
grades due
*It is a course requirement to complete a final review therefore you must be available and in town. Failure to participate of this final review will result in course failure.
o May 16-22
Optional 1 credit volunteer design build event at CE
ATTENDANCE POLICY
In order to complete the course work and be able to participate you shall be present at every class. Although attendance will not be used as a grading criterion and attendance records will not be kept, participation and course work will be graded as indicated within the grading section below.
If you encounter a situation beyond your control in which you will be missing 3 or more days of classes, you can contact the Office of Student Life (110 Bray, 315-470-6658) and they will contact all your instructors for you. Supportive documentation may be required.
GRADING
Grades are assigned in all credit bearing courses to reflect how well students have met the student learning outcomes of the course. Details about the grading components:
- TOPO WORKSHOP (5 points)
- PROJECT 1 (25 pts.)
- PROJECT 2 (40 pts)
- PARTICIPATION (10 pts.) | Timely presence and participation in studio and field trips, the students attitude, work ethic and contribution to the course, self and classmates improvement and respect towards the faculty, jurors, others, studio space.
- STUDENT PORTFOLIO + PROJECTS' WEEBLY SITES (20 pts.) | A comprehensive student portfolio in the form of all final products for all studio projects and assignments is required (see examples from previous semesters on course website). Each student shall provide safe storage and multiple back up methods for all data/work produced throughout the semester. On occasion, samples of your work are retained for accreditation purposes, if this happens to you time will be provided to document (photograph or digitize) the work. Project's weebly sites: Each project for this class will have a website associated with it and your contribution in the completion of the site is a requirement of this course. To receive full credit for the project websites these shall be completed with each project and the student portfolio shall be finalized and delivered by May 13, 2016 as an operable pdf. file to:
+ individual student website linked to the course’s website
+ on a collective class cd with all of the semester's work
***Projects include homework that is to be completed in and outside of studio on your own time. You will be evaluated on your work ethic, contribution and attitude, accuracy and completion of work as per the brief and jury suggestions. They also include reviews: A review evaluates your work holistically taking into consideration your work ethic up to that point, the delivery of your team/individual presentation, the quality/craftsmanship and depth of your work and deliverables.
GRADING RUBRIC
There will be multiple informal and formal reviews during which you will present your interim and final products to your faculty and/or a jury. These presentations are equivalent to quizzes/exams and will be evaluated as per the following rubric:
From 1-5 on each of the categories below (1=fails to meet expectations, 2=partly meets expectations, 3=meets expectations, 4= exceeds expectations, 5=exceptional)
student has completed all of the required work on time as per the project requirements
the proposed solutions are creative and innovative
functional and viable
student shows up on time and is professionally dressed
student delivers a clear, comprehensive and effective verbal presentation
student delivers a clear, comprehensive and effective graphic presentation
student is open and receptive to feedback
STUDIO GRADE DESCRIPTIONS
Excellent Work: A, A- | 100-90
As a faculty we are enthusiastic about giving A’s for excellent student work; however, we intend these grades to be meaningful. Therefore, with the bar set high there may be few A’s in the class. Students who receive A’s in studio will have earned their grade by:
1. Producing design work that utilizes a strong conceptual foundation, clearly articulates forms derived from that concept, and articulates a cohesive spatial design.
2. Fully and exhaustively researching and developing design proposals, utilizing ideas not touched on directly in class. (For example, researching built or proposed works similar to the assigned problem for inspiration or technical approach; or pursuing readings outside of what has been assigned to broaden your understanding of the problem.)
3. Demonstrating the ability to achieve and excel in the development of studio work by positively responding to faculty criticism, as well as showing the ability to work independently (this means you do not require constant input, supervision and approval before progressing).
4. Fully utilizing the design process, creating iterative trace studies, overlays and alternatives, creating study models, and other means of fully exploring ideas prior to producing final drawings and models.
5. Demonstrating superior craft—beautifully made drawings and models with precise attention to details.
6. Actively participating/ proposing in a critical dialogue in both group and individual discussions about assignments. A leader who helps faculty foster an atmosphere of inquiry about studio problems.
7. Enthusiastic about the assignments and discussions, working to exceed the minimal expectations.
8. Making the most of each and every studio session (i.e. working the entire period, discussing relevant project-related issues with classmates, effectively using desk crits, participating in discussion, etc.)
9. Using both oral and written communication (on boards) to completely articulate the full range of ideas. Spelling and grammar are excellent.
Notable Work: B+, B | 89-80
A grade of B or higher is reserved for students who go beyond minimal competency and begin to demonstrate a willingness to work hard and consistently with some notable success. Working hard is both a time and effort commitment and success is measured by
1. Producing design work that utilizes a reasonable conceptual foundation, clearly articulates forms derived from that concept, and articulates a cohesive spatial design.
2. Demonstrating not only understanding but also achievement in directing the investigations and development of studio work.
3. Researching and developing design proposals, utilizing ideas not touched on directly in class. (For example, researching built or proposed works similar to the assigned problem for inspiration or technical approach; or pursuing readings outside of what has been assigned to broaden your understanding of the problem.)
4. Utilizing the design process to explore design ideas, as demonstrated by trace studies, overlays and alternatives, study models, etc., prior to producing final drawings and models.
5. Demonstrating strong competence in craft.
6. Often participating in group discussions
7. Demonstrating enthusiasm about the assignments and discussions.
8. Attending and working during each studio session.
9. Using both oral and written communication (on boards) to articulate ideas. Spelling and grammar are good.
Competent Work: B-, C+ | 83-78
A student who consistently meets all deadlines and project requirements as well as:
1. Producing design responses that are derived from an effective conceptual foundation, and are based on forms derived from that concept.
2. Showing a basic understanding of issues introduced in studio.
3. Demonstrating a willingness to think critically about studio design problems by asking good questions of faculty and peers. Student may have some difficulties but actively work to address gaps in their understanding.
4. Demonstrating only a core competence in craft.
5. Occasionally contributing to group discussions.
6. Occasionally enthusiastic about the assignments and discussions.
7. Attending and working during each studio session.
8. Meeting required work for each studio session.
9. Using both oral and written communication (on boards) to articulate ideas. Spelling and grammar are acceptable.
Satisfactory (Marginal) Work: C | 77-74
Student work that meets only a minimal level of competence. This is borderline work and should be considered a warning of the potential for problems in upper level studios. It is important to note that satisfactory work must surpass mere completion by exhibiting an acceptable level of competence.
1. All work is complete and turned in on time.
2. Work shows minimal understanding of issues introduced in the assignments.
3. Student has shown some minimal willingness to think critically about studio design problems, although often creating superficial or reflexive responses not related to a concept.
4. Conceptual foundation for work is weakly defined and articulated, with design responses utilizing forms, patterns, and objects that are applied in loosely arranged space(s).
5. Minimal utilization of the design process, showing little design exploration.
6. Craft is problematic, but ideas are readable.
7. Student is an active member of studio culture.
8. Student attends all studios, arriving on time and departing only at the end of the period.
9. Both oral and written communications (on boards) are minimally effective. Spelling and grammar are problematic.
Unsatisfactory Work: C-, D | 73-70 and 69-60
A student who does not demonstrate the minimal competence to advance in the program. Students receiving a C- or lower must petition to advance to the next studio. Student work that receives this grade has the following characteristics:
1. All deadlines are met, however projects are not complete (see policy on late work).
2. Exhibiting difficulty in demonstrating recognition and understanding of the issues presented in the studio problems.
3. Conceptual foundation for work is poorly defined and articulated, with design responses utilizing unrelated forms and patterns as well as randomly applied objects.
4. Poor utilization of the design process, showing no design exploration and solutions that “appear” on the due date.
5. Little or no willingness to think critically about the studio assignments.
6. Little or no evidence of student work maturing over course of semester.
7. Unacceptable level of craft where accuracy and precision are problematic.
8. Missing or leaving studio sessions early without notice.
9. Repeatedly coming to class late.
10. Being a distraction rather than an asset to the working environment of the studio.
11. Oral and written communications are unclear and poorly articulated. Spelling and grammar are abysmal.
Course Failure: F | 59 and less
1. Student work does not meet minimal academic standards for passing the course.
2. Completion and deadlines are not met.
3. No recognition or understanding of the issues and concepts presented in the studio problems.
4. No willingness to think critically about the studio assignments.
5. No evidence of student work maturing over course of semester.
6. Unacceptable level of craft where accuracy and precision are absent.
7. Missing or leaving studio sessions early without notice.
8. Repeatedly coming to class late.
9. Disciplinary problems.
STUDENTS WITH LEARNING AND PHYSICAL DISABILITIES
SUNY-ESF works with the Office of Disability Services (ODS) at Syracuse University, who is responsible for coordinating disability-related accommodations. Students can contact ODS at 804 University Avenue- Room 309, 315-443-4498 to schedule an appointment and discuss their needs and the process for requesting accommodations. Students may also contact the ESF Office of Student Affairs, 110 Bray Hall, 315-470-6660 for assistance with the process. To learn more about ODS, visit http://disabilityservices.syr.edu. Authorized accommodation forms must be in the instructor’s possession one week prior to any anticipated accommodation. Since accommodations may require early planning and generally are not provided retroactively, please contact ODS as soon as possible.
ACADEMIC DISHONESTY
Academic dishonesty is a breach of trust between a student, one’s fellow students, or the instructor(s). By registering for courses at ESF you acknowledge your awareness of the ESF Code of Student Conduct (http://www.esf.edu/students/handbook/StudentHB.05.pdf ), in particular academic dishonesty includes but is not limited to plagiarism and cheating, and other forms of academic misconduct. The Academic Integrity Handbook contains further information and guidance (http://www.esf.edu/students/integrity/). Infractions of the academic integrity code may lead to academic penalties as per the ESF Grading Policy (http://www.esf.edu/provost/policies/documents/GradingPolicy.11.12.2013.pdf).
STUDIO ETIQUETTE
Punctual attendance and the timely delivery and presentation of all assignment and projects is required and non-negotiable to realize the learning benefits of this course. If dire circumstances prevent you from attending studio, please notify your Graduate Assistant and/or professors immediately. To pass the course, students must complete all parts of the projects, and submit them at the date and time specified on their project statements—regardless of the degree of completion. Work submitted late will not be given full credit. Extensions without penalty may be given to students with written medical excuses, or to students who can document circumstances beyond their control that prevented them from completing the work. In any event, students must advise studio faculty of their problem at the earliest possible moment—definitely prior to the due date.
Refrain from any activity that distracts surrounding people are inconsiderate and disrespectful, including texting, emailing, browsing the web or using cellular phones while in class for non-class related purposes.
We encourage: student contribution to the overall progress of the group, interactive participation, solid teamwork and constructive criticism.
It is necessary that students have a professional and ethic behavior through the entire course. Lectures are a group activity, and so it requires social consideration and respect among members of the group, teachers and professors.
Interest, effort, diligence and a positive attitude towards the quality of your work
By this time you have all been here long enough to know how to treat each other, how to treat the facilities and to maintain a civil code. Be aware of others feelings, do nothing to offend. If you are unsure of what this civil code is, please ask.
TEXTBOOKS & MATERIALS:
Although there are no formal textbooks required, there will be required and recommended readings assigned that will either be provided digitally or will need to be downloaded or found (via library resources or internet) by the students. Students are required to purchase or have access to a variety of traditional graphic communication media and tools such as:
Trace paper
Pens and pencils in a variety of sizes and colors
Access to a computer with Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Auto Cad, SketchUP or any other 3d program you know how to use or plan to quickly learn. If you do not own you may use the computer lab in Marshall Hall
Software programs: Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop and InDesign CS5 or higher | Auto CAD 2014 or higher | SketchUp, Rhino or similar 3D software
Any type of camera (cell phone camera ok).
Sketchbook/journal
An incredibly positive attitude and a solid work ethic
***Students will participate in a 3-4 day field trip to Boston, MA; costs associated with such a trip (outside of vehicular transportation and gas)are the students responsibility and may total up to $400 per student.
RECOMMENDED READINGS/RESOURCES:
MOVIES
Human Scale - netflix
The Powers of ten
BOOKS
The Image of the City by Kevin Lynch
The Smart Growth Manual by Andres Duany
Urban design health and the therapeutic environment by Moughtin
Health & Community Design by Frank Engelke Schmid
Toward Sustainable Communities by Mark Roseland
Sustainable Communities by Hugh Barton
Sustainable Urbanism Urban Design with Nature by Doug Farr
Design with Nature by Ian McHarg
Walkable City by Jeff Speck
The Hidden Dimension by Edward T. Hall
The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs
Resilience in Urban Ecology and Design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities Julie Bargmann, “Just Ground: a social infrastructure for urban landscape regeneration,” in Resilience in Urban Ecology and Design: Linking Theory and Practice for Sustainable Cities, ed. Steward Pickett, (New York: Springer, 2013)
Groundwork: Between Landscape and Architecture
Diana Balmori and Joel Saunders, “Urban Outfitters Headquarters,” Groundwork: Between Landscape and Architecture. (New York: Monacelli, 2011), 148-151.
Growing Urban Habitats
William Morrish, Susanne Schindler and Katie Swenson, “GreeNOLA.” Growing Urban Habitats, (Richmond:Stout) 2009, 190-193.
Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture Liat Margolis and Alexander Robinson, “Ground Reconstitution Strategy,” Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture, (Basel:Birkhäuser, 2007), 114-117.
Women in Green: Voices of Sustainable Design
Kira Gould & Lance Hosey, Women in Green: Voices of Sustainable Design, (Bainbridge Island: Ecotone), 2007.
Weathering and Durability in Landscape Architecture: Fundamentals, Practices, and Case Studies
Niall Kirkwood, Weathering and Durability in Landscape Architecture: Fundamentals, Practices, and Case Studies, (New York: Wiley), 2004.
JOURNALS
PAISEA | Jose Manuel Vidal, “Semi-Private Urban Spaces/Brooklyn Navy Yard Visitors Center,” Paisea, September, 2014.
GARDEN DESIGN | Virginia Small, “Julie Bargmann: Regenerating Down and Out Landscapes,” Garden Design, July/August 2009, 74-75.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | Elizabeth K. Meyer, “Sustaining Beauty: The Performance of Appearance,” Landscape Architecture October 2008, 92-131.
CONSTRUCTION + DEMOLITION RECYCLING MAGAZINE | Curt Harler, “Urban Outfitters Brownfields Case Study,” February 2008, 48-54.
GREEN SOURCE MAGAZINE | Jenna McKnight, “The Landscape Healer,” Green Source Magazine, October 2007, 35-36.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE | Susan Hines, “Julie Bargmann Unexpurgated,” Landscape Architecture, October 2007, 132-139.
GARDEN DESIGN | “ASLA/Garden Design Residential Awards of Honor,” Garden Design, September 2007, 81.
METROPOLIS | Inga Saffron, “A Stitch in Time,” Metropolis, May 2007, 121-135.
PUBLIC ART REVIEW | T. Allan Comp, “A Place of Regeneration,” Public Art Review Regarding Land Issue, Spring / Summer 1997, 14-18.