Nelly Marda, Kostas Moraitis National Technical University of Athens, School of Architecture, Athens, Greece 375
It is not surprising that the last two theoretical references flourish, in a period
where electronic intelligence offers the means of surpassing the bias of linear think-
ing. In the case of parametric design, technology offers a multi scale, multi level
possibility of research
The cross scale multi associational studio teaching
The new digital era offers easy communication, flow of information, easy explora-
tion of new technologies and materials. In parallel it offers plenty of opportunities
of uncritical copying, that may lead to a sterile development of the design, from its
initial conception to its final detailed stage.
To be able to overcome the problems that a practice oriented studio teaching
program poses, especially when it concerns the design of a big scale complicated
building, one has to understand how the different faces of the design i.e. initial
conception stage, interim stage and detailed stage interrelate to produce the final
result, the building.
We are going to argue that:
a) Each of the above stages encompasses a very similar structure.
What sometimes one doesn’t realize and mainly the students, is that conceptual
ideas already embody constructional aspects, while detailing in creative thinking
posses conceptual value. This structural analogy has to be revealed to the students
not only as a way of thinking, but as a way of doing.
b) Final building structure results as the dynamic, overall synthesis of many sub-
structures, concerning partial architectural aspects.
General formal decisions, constructional decisions, detail thinking, decisions con-
cerning the materiality of the project, urban or landscape site, even non architec-
tural aspects participate in different ways, in the formation of the architectural
product.
c) This structural synthesis is not developing in a systematic linear way, but in a multi
directional way, where all stages are relating simultaneously and are independent
at the same time.
A linear way of teaching would accept that the architectural projects have to
progress by shifting scales - from minor abstract scales to bigger more detailed
elaboration. Creative thinking however is much more complicated. Any type of
architectural information or not, may be introduced in any moment of the process
to the project, condition that seems to reinforce the originality of thinking.
The above assumptions lead us to develop a teaching method that constantly questions
the relation between the different aspects of structure - space, technology and form,
as well as the relation between different scales of elaboration.
That also means that students are challenged to work simultaneously in different
scales and different levels of abstraction. They can start by being obsessed by material-
ity or by architectural details, producing big scale architectural models and drawings,
or they may introduce extra architectural ideas in their projects. While going through