��«Ӱҵ

We were interested in the interconnection between how buildings are made and how this could influence the architectural expression and tectonic character of design.

We were interested in an architecture that is inseparably connected to place through its materiality and history.

We aimed to look closely at the relationship between structure, materiality and architectural language. We’re interested in architecture that reacts to the specifics of its context both physical and cultural, and which aims to provide social value by offering beauty and delight.

In 2021-2022 our focus was on ��«Ӱҵ city centre and exploring the idea of ‘the civic’ - we aimed to look at interventional repair of the city centre of ��«Ӱҵ.

● ● ●

We were interested in challenging established ideas of what a civic building is but also the architectural language that expresses its civic nature. At the core of the studio was an exploration of the connection between society held values and architectural expression.

The studio sought to explore broad ideas about ‘city-life’ and begin with ��«Ӱҵ ‘City Centre’ as a study area. We then aimed to shift the extent of our focus so that we can explore ideas at 1:1 and 1:20 thinking through making.

The intention was that students made proposals of a relatively small scale but thoroughly explored and developed. By this we imagine proposals would become focused on one or two city scale buildings; this could be a new build or a re-use project or a combination of the two.

Design work began in small groups where students could propose a focused collective masterplan looking at ‘civic repair’ and later, students developed proposals that establish a renewed civic life.

Studio tutor

Kate Nicklin