What a architecture student should know 2014

which should always be considered, i.e. concept, massing, spatial organization or approach. Others might only need attention in the specific proposal being evaluated, but could be equally important to consider in most other situations, for example: exterior spaces, sun, views, makes sense to build on a spot which would be otherwise uninteresting, …etc.

The account of the review in year 3, once again describing a rather unstructured discussion, reveals the same checklist—however, not explicitly, but as something already well known and unwritten, like a vocabulary: - concept: private, semi-private, public - massing design and facades: new addition toward the square, new organization - site layout: interior/exterior, relationship to surroundings - the architectonic space: entrances, entry, main entry, open/ closed, how you circulate through the building - poetic aspects and expression: the meaning of light - functional aspects: lighting, practical requirements - technical aspects: hole-cutting in floor slabs, framework reused, sustainability aspects, building materials— translucent and concrete - working method: suddenly you start learning when you start drawing references (searching) - presentation: the scope of the material, clarity, sections and models.

You can see this as a clarification of the Vitruvian firmitas, utilitas and venustas; the building or environment should simply be durable, functional and beautiful.

In both the year 2 and year 3 reviews, the comprehensive checklist provided an outline that indicated what should generally be covered for each problem interpretation. This outline was then expanded with criteria that mostly explained how or what could be “right” in particular situations, i.e. that north light is desirable in an atelier but not on a terrace, or that it is sometimes more appropriate 232 t 233