This article is © Copyright 1999 Pilgrims Ltd.  The copyright owners reserve all rights to its reproduction

Community Architecture School - A proposal.

By Martin Rinvolucri  ( written in 1989 )

( Editorial note:  humanistic thinking extends well beyond our language teaching field.
This article brings you the thoughts of  a third year architecture student determined to 
humanise the training architects receive with the aim of turning out professionals
who have “ dwellers” as their central concern, not simply aesthetic and technical matters. This parallels humanistic language teaching concerns about dealing with
the learner as a whole person, and not just as a figment of the teacher’s linguistic imagination.)

My key Proposals-

-An emphasis on process, not final product, eg. don’t condemn a finished design or presentation, but question the process by which it came about.

-Encouragement of creativity, free thought and analysis/research.

-Encouragement of discussion, group work, co-operation, not competition.

-Removal of  barriers between students and ‘lecturers’, and also barriers between the School and the outside world.

-An emphasis on projects which are necessary, which directly address social needs,
current problems of the built environment, and possible future problems.

-An emphasis on a multi-disciplinary syllabus, with ‘lecturers’ from a range of fields.

Practical Measures

Lectures to be renamed seminars or workshops, a format which provokes thought, discussion and involvement, not merely absorbing facts.

Projects to be varied.  Short projects highlighting needs of groups who are ignored by current design, e.g. the disabled, children, the elderly, women, ethnic minority groups, the poor, etc.
Longer projects on a ‘role-play’ basis.  Each student or group of students design a project at the same time as being a pretend user/client for another student or group.  This forces analysis and awareness of the design process through the eyes of both
‘sides’, encourages cross-fertilisation of ideas and creates a situation where student-to-student appraisal takes place in a positive, constructive manner.

‘Crits’ to be renamed feedback sessions or something equally positive and non-judgemental.  Students and lecturers to have equal say, e.g. a discussion not a lecture!
Students encouraged to discuss each others schemes, especially each student or group’s process of design, their way of thinking. Lecturers to not advocate particular styles, no ‘style trial’.  As little marking as possible;  marking turns lecturers into judges and emphasises competition.

Most or all lecturers to be part-time, so they can cross-fertilise their work and School experiences.  Lecturers to be from a wide range of fields, e.g. planners, geographers, economists, sociologists, environmentalists, psychologists, landscape architects, etc, and also ‘lay’ people who have played a leading role in user-led community projects.

Many of the projects could be real projects, allowing students to experience the excitement, energy and the problems that design participation produces.  Students and lecturers could work on these projects together, mimicking the situation in private/public practice.

Some projects could also include practical building experience.  Using students on self-build projects is an active way of promoting and subsidising self-build schemes because the student labour is free.  The two groups, students and self-builders, could greatly benefit from each others varying knowledge and experience.

Therefore, an arm of the School could act as a kind of Community Technical Aid Centre, bring students into contact with the local communities and providing a free/cheap service for those communities.  This idea could be expanded to include much needed research, in fields such as energy-efficient design, healthy buildings, new
ways/patterns of living, human beings’ reactions to different environments,etc

The School could act as a breeding ground for new and innovative skills, knowledge and ideas in socially relevant fields - areas of need.  Students and lecturers could be involved in research, using other students and lecturers as guinea pigs where applicable.

The School could be sited in central or northern England, in a prominent position within the central area of the particular city chosen.  In such a location the School building can be designed to be quite public, with a ‘shop-front’ to welcome people in.  Thereby, built form of the School could reflect the nature of the training it provides.  Also, such a form would attract people of varying backgrounds, expertise and experience to contribute to the learning process, people who can often be inhibited by the built form of traditional educational establishments.

Architects to be trained to be human beings.

I hope the ideas I have outlined have found sympathy with you and provoked further thought.  If you think that the concept of a ‘Community Architecture School’ is a valid one in the current climate, I would like to know how you would envisage it developing?

In particular, I would like to hear your ideas on how to  turn the concept into a realistic set of realistic proposals.  Some questions that need asking are:

•	The different ways the School could be funded?
•	 Where should the School be located and how should the built form of the School be designed, and by whom?
•	What form should the management of the School take?  To what extent, if any, 
•	should there exist a hierarchy?
•	What relationship could the School develop with local communities, local businesses and other Schools of Architecture and architecture practices?
•	How could such a School promote and publicise itself.

I look forward to any feedback you can offer.  Thank you for listening.