The Digital Design Build Studio

Riether, Gernot

doi:10.52842/conf.ecaade.2017.1.031.2

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The geographic distribution of the reviewed literature skews heavily to North America, with over 55% of publications originating from the USA or Canada. This correlates with several papers that describe a rich and complex history of design-build education in this region (Foote, 2012; Grichting and Sturgeon, 2015; Middlebrook and Maines, 2016; Salama, 2015a; Mohareb and Maassarani, 2018; Nicholas and Oak, 2020; Riether, 2017; Tural, 2017; Gaber, 2014; Corroto, 2014; Harrison, 1998; Theodoropoulos, 2014; Livingston and Nelson, 2014).…”

Section: An Overview Of Live Project Scholarshipsupporting

confidence: 83%

“…A "Digital-design-build" typology is a noteworthy built-output trend found in the literature reviewed (Riether, 2017;Riether and Jolly, 2011;Clayton et al, 2002;Karzel and Matcha, 2009;Dubor et al, 2019;Baerlecken and Duncan, 2012;Baerlecken et al, 2013). It is often discussed in the context of connecting new digital technologies with the fabrication or building process, giving students insight into complex design methods (such as parametric-based design).…”

Section: Type Of Live Project By Outputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the design and fabrication of the digital design-build studios identified in this study were exclusively situated on the university's campus, regardless of the client or type of built output (Riether, 2017;Riether and Jolly, 2011;Clayton et al, 2002;Karzel and Matcha, 2009). As Riether notes, "Architecture schools have over the past 20 years been the primer incubators in the speculation of architecture that is informed by digital design and fabrication tools" (Riether, 2011, p. 198).…”

Section: Type Of Live Project By Outputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A “Digital-design-build” typology is a noteworthy built-output trend found in the literature reviewed (Riether, 2017; Riether and Jolly, 2011; Clayton et al. , 2002; Karzel and Matcha, 2009; Dubor et al.…”

Section: Decoding the Live Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Decoding the Live Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Live projects: a mixed-methods exploration of existing scholarship

Smith

Dupré

Crough

2022

ARCH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThis paper aims to investigate trends and themes within the literature pertaining to live projects, and in so doing, highlight possible areas of future exploration and research.Design/methodology/approachThis paper utilises a Systematic Quantitative Literature Review (SQLR) method, wherein keywords and phrases are entered into selected citation databases generating a reproducible list of literature. This is then refined using a specified list of criteria and read for relevance. The resulting literature forms the basis of qualitative and quantitative analyses and review.FindingsThe reviewed scholarship demonstrates a surge in publications since the early 2000s, with 75% of publications originating from the USA, Canada, or the UK Furthermore, themes related to live project definitions, outputs and rationales were examined, demonstrating that common factors such as “community”, “construction” and “pedagogy” are not mutually exclusive but tend to overlap, making the topic hard to define. These results also demonstrate a proclivity for projects with a built output. Barriers to live projects were also assessed, and it was found that administrative hurdles, such as time and budget constraints, were the biggest concern to live project practitioners. Finally, critical voices were examined and showed that live projects need to reflect on the nature of their engagement with the community.Research limitations/implicationsThis method, while capturing a substantial portion of the published scholarship, does not capture all live project literature due to limitations such as language and a strong focus on peer-reviewed publications. Furthermore, this research only captures literature that has been published. It does not reflect the variety and extent of live project activity occurring globally. For reasons such as unfamiliarity and inconsistencies with the use of live project terminologies, doubtless many unpublished live projects are conducted–yet not represented in these findings. This study may help live project execution by providing valuable examples of existing trends.Originality/valueThis paper captures the metadata from 110 live project publications, allowing for wide-ranging analysis, categorisation and discussion on the topic.

show abstract