Purpose -This paper aims to examine how US architectural programs are addressing environmental imperatives through curricular-based initiatives. It offers a brief overview of how environmentally conscious design education has evolved and compares curricular approaches to social, aesthetic, and technical sustainability education from six architecture programs considered to be national leaders in sustainability education. Design/methodology/approach -Views from leading architectural programs on sustainable education were compiled and assessed leading to a curricular study of course and degree offerings. Findings -It was found that four consistent approaches to undergraduate sustainable design education are being promoted: core value: all course content addresses sustainable design; systems-focused: support courses fulfill needs for sustainable education; choice: sustainable education is through student selection of courses offerings; and specialization: sustainable education is a specialty endeavor mainly at the graduate level and in concert with centers or institutes. A new "composite" approach to sustainable design education is outlined. Research limitations/implications -Conclusions about architectural curricula were drawn from the assessment of a limited number of representative programs. The findings demonstrate that a technical-course based approach from the specialist perspective still dominates most architecture programs. Practical implications -The paper contributes to discourse on sustainability by examining how leading US architectural programs are currently addressing environmental imperatives through curricular-based initiatives. Social implications -This paper concludes that a culturally based approach from a generalist perspective which encompasses systems knowledge and interactions among many disciplines is needed in design education. Originality/value -Beyond architecture, the findings will be useful to many disciplinary domains considering the transition to a stronger, more fully integrated, environmentally focused curriculum.
What is material as such in architecture? To contribute an answer to this question, the article examines sources from the eighteenth century to today. Discussing Vitruvius' remarks on materiality, Francesco Algarotti cites his Venetian teacher Carlo Lodoli in a 1756 pamphlet on architecture: “For which reason does stone not represent stone, wood [not represent] wood, each material itself and not another?” The paper illuminates the background of this citation, and its adoption and interpretation by successive architectural theorists, such as Gottfried Semper(“Brick should appear as brick, wood as wood, iron as iron”), Eugene Viollet-le-Duc, and Frank Lloyd Wright, the latter emphasizing the importance “to see concrete or glass or metal each for itself and all as themselves.” The thread continues with Adolf Loos' statement that no material “may lay claim for itself to the forms of another material” and the Bauhaus model as taught by Laszlo Moholy-Nagy. Further investigations will concern Louis Kahn's question “What do you want, brick?” and end with Peter Zumthor's discussion of the “reality of building materials.” Discussing rationalist and sensualist approaches to material characteristics such as inner structure and outer surface, the article compares divers positions concerning the question of what can be understood as concrete materiality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.