Restructuring Jury Critique in Architecture and Des ign Reviews

1. Restructuring Jury Critique in Architecture and DesignReviews Benedict D. Ilozor, Ph.D. Architecture Professor, Hampton University 03-05, USA Michael I. Okoroh, Ph.D. Reader in Facilities Management, University of Derby, UK

2. Introduction • Essence of studio critique • Reasons for underperformance • Varying jurors emphasis • Jurors reinforcing inadequacies of design • Jurors’ distance from the projects reviewed • Less accolades for accomplishments • The need for restructuring and balance

3. Aim • To provide avenues to a more representative jury selection and assignment for fruitful application to comprehensive design reviews • Case study • Review and format • Final review compilation and discussion • Recommendation • Conclusion

4. Case Study – Gethsemane Baptist Church • A student-community-collaboration project • In fulfilment of Advanced Comprehensive Architecture Design Studio for Fall 2004 • Comprised of three main parts • Sanctuary • Educational facility • Sports facility • Comprehensive design opportunities presented • Students’ learning tied to: • Department objectives • National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB) Student Performance Criteria (SPC) • Required activities and students’ evaluative measurements shown in Tables 1, 2, and 3

5. Sample Site-plan Capturing the Three Parts Student: Moti, Marziano

6. Reviews and format • Two major reviews • Mid term review • Final reviews • Five supplemental milestone reviews • Time management • Acquainting of potential jurors to the projects/students • One hall, two review groups; two juror groups • Roaming jurors • Making up for less than 100% students participation • Jurors requested to set down their comments (see Table 3) • Comprehensive feedback of jurors comments • Publication such as this one • Compare jurors’ remarks with their ratings

7. Final review compilation and discussion Jurors’ Initials and Professions • SK – Senior Planner, Newport News City, Virginia • AH –Senior Planner, Newport News City, Virginia • AJ – Adjunct Professor of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture • DH – Client Representative, Gethsemane Baptist Church, Newport News, Virginia • DR – Client Representative, Gethsemane Baptist Church, Newport News, Virginia • DeH – Assistant Professor of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture • CS – Associate Professor of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture • SC – Assistant Professor of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture • BM – Project Manager, Livas Group Architects, Norfolk, Virginia • An alumnus of Hampton University’s Department of Architecture, whose firm had designed another Church auditorium for Gethsemane Baptist Church, Newport News, Virginia

8. Sample Jurors’ Comments & Ratings of Student 13’s Project

9. Final review compilation and discussion contd. • Observed jurors’ rating practice • Comments inconsistent with ratings • Deficiencies criticized • Accomplishments less commended • Negative comments more than double the positive ones • Most students still rated above average • Jurors’ comments rather than their ratings reflected their interests, biases, and backgrounds • Jurors who are practising planners dwelt more on planning deficiencies*** • Jurors rated as they liked, and not as they were requested • No significant disparity in remark and rating styles between faculty and guest jurors • Jurors’ remarks varied in length, content, and emphasis

10. Recommendation • Good evaluation tool inappropriately/inadequately utilised • Call for a modified approach to jury selection & assignment • Architects work with urban designers, landscape architects, contractors, engineers, building consultants, public officials, etc. • Students should be exposed to these disciplines through jurors’ selection and reviews • Jurors assigned review responsibilities corresponding with their backgrounds and areas of interest • Jurors from planning background concentrate on the planning aspects of students’ projects • Jurors from civil engineering discipline focus on site and civil engineering issues

11. Ideal jury Constitution for Comprehensive Design Studio Reviews Regulatory Compliance

12. Recommendation contd. • Some form of rating for students’ work necessary • Collaboration encouraged • Harmful individualism and competition discouraged • Negative critics to balance with positive ones • Democratization of the jury review process • Opportunities for respectful, two-way exchanges between students and jurors • Students guided on ways to present their projects • Inability to communicate in the most basic terms is a challenge facing architectural education and profession • Assessment to focus on process, not end-product

13. Recommendation contd. • Early education preparations for better juror-student presentation interaction & dialogue • Students educated on the art of presentation and verbal communication • Instructors to help recognize ideas and theories embedded in students’ work • Explicitly explaining learning, unencumbered by self-styled jargons, is a responsibility about which instructors ought to be more forthcoming • Students should not be led too far away to the extent that their communication and touch with practice and reality become limited, if not impossible • The gap between theory and practice must be bridged, especially at advanced comprehensive design studio level • Studio to connect students with the community • Students exposed to collaboration, real clients and sites, hands-on learning, community interaction, socio-economic and cultural issues, and realities of designing within constraints • Studio designs ignoring the needs of society leads to advanced and future difficulties in communicating with and designing for clients

14. Conclusion • The problem of jury critique is not very much associated with the instruments of evaluation, but with the organisation or structuring of the jurors • Jurors’ varied concentrations on students’ work do not always guarantee that all vital critic areas will be adequately covered • This has direct impact on overall value students derive from jury process • A representative jury constitution or composition and assignment can address this problem • This will ensure that all vital critic issues are considered • Offers a greater value, and enriches students’ learning experience and exposition • Best applicable to the upper design studio levels