Co-design in the architectural process

Abstract

PURPOSE : Despite the proven importance of co-design as a way of improving the social relevance of architecture, there is a lack of opportunity for meaningful co-design processes in the current professional Master of Architecture programme in South Africa as it is largely modelled on the professional work stages of the South African Council for the Architecture Profession (SACAP), which are based on the assumption of primary authorship and authority of the architect. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH : This problem has been investigated by way of ten workshops with high school learners in the Mamelodi East township in South Africa, as part of a professional master’s degree in architecture. FINDINGS : The findings of the workshops indicate that the initial stages of design could benefit directly from the participation processes and could be critiqued constructively. However, increased resistance to the process by crit panels was experienced once the sketch design phase was completed and the expectation of primary authorship increased. Engagement of the learners in the latter part of the design decision-making process also diminished as levels of experience in spatial design became evidently further removed from the expected outcomes. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS : In terms of co-design discourse and the evident value of participatory skills in practice, it is evident that the initial work stages of concept, brief and ideation are fairly easily assimilated into the pedagogical requirements of the degree programme and as such could enable a more socially relevant and responsive approach to professional practice. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS : The South African standard of practising architecture leaves little space for the process of co-design, even within the educational environment. The value of co-design within this context lies predominantly in the values and conversations generated rather than the aesthetics of the end product. The process of co-design opens up the opportunity for new dialogues to emerge and for relationships to form. SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS : Co-design illustrates how architectural intelligence can be exercised in a much broader spatial field that acknowledges more than just the building itself but social, global, ecological and virtual networks, thereby changing how the authors design, what the authors design and who designs it. ORIGINALITY/VALUE : It is in the realm of co-design that the beauty of architecture oscillates between strangeness and the ordinary. If the authors embrace the power of the collective and collaborative thinking, the authors are able to conceive new ways in the making of architecture. In order to arrive at this, however, the straightjacketed approach of modelling the master’s programme on professional work stages and outcomes needs to be challenged so that true transformation of the profession can be enabled through its pedagogical instruments.