UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Computational Design Theory II - Contextualising
CODE1210
Lectures: 2-3pm, Wednesday, Old Main Building (OMB, G32)
Tutorials: 3-6pm, Wednesday, Red Centre West 1004, 1005 (K-H13-1004, 1005)
Scan this QR code to be taken to the
course UNSW Handbook site:
© http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.php?id=119
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Table of Contents
1.
Course Description
3
2.
Course Staff
3
3.
Course Communication
4
4.
Course Websites
4
5.
Lectures
5
6.
Online teaching
11
7.
Assessments
12
8.
Assessment criteria and standards
15
9.
Assessment feedback
23
10.
Resources
23
11.
Case Studies: Online resources
25
12.
Course aims
26
13.
Learning outcomes
26
14.
Course Graduate Attributes
27
15.
Built Environment and UNSW Academic Policies
27
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
CODE1210 | Computational
1. Course Description
CoDe Theory II – Contextualising is a
second semester theory course that builds
on the foundational knowledge of
contemporary
digital
design
and
architectural thinking established in
semester 1. Contextualising expands on
the digital paradigm covered in CoDe
1110, to consider past and contemporary
positions on technologies for and within
the built and urban environment.
Introduced here are a range of influences,
ideas, and theories – both popular and
scholarly that have informed expectations
and attitudes towards the relationships
between technologies, society, and built
and urban space, as well as design
practices, projects, and modes of
computational thinking from the 1950s to
the present.
2. Course Staff
Course Convenor: Nicole Gardner
Room:
2007
Phone:
(02) 9385 6274
Email:
[email protected]
Consultation
times:
By email appointment
Other Teaching Staff: Shaowen Wang
Room:
2001
Email:
[email protected]
Examples of pioneering thinking from
architect Cedric Price’s application of
cybernetic
theory
for
performative
environments, to theories of cyber,
hertzian, and hybrid space, through to
digital and smart city ideologies will be
scrutinised and debated here.
This subject aims to foster critical thinking
capabilities in relation to the student’s own
developing design practice as well as for
the analysis of contemporary design
projects.
Page 3 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
3. Course Communication
4. Course Websites
Most course related announcements are
made in the lectures. It is essential that
you attend the lectures to receive these
announcements. In addition to these
formal communication paths, online
discussion forums will be available that will
allow everyone to post questions and
respond to other people’s questions. All
students will be expected to participate in
the online discussions in Moodle.
Moodle – this is the UNSW wide online
teaching platform
and has many
capabilities. You can access Moodle via:
https://moodle.telt.unsw.edu.au/login/index
.php
Individual student related communication,
including the issue of assessment grades
and feedback, will be via the Moodle.
UNSW Student email will be used to
communicate changes that occur with
short notice. All students are assigned an
e‐mail account on the University's e‐mail
server, so that email address will be used
as the primary means by which important
correspondence is made. You must,
therefore, get into the habit of checking
your UNSW student email regularly.
Details on setting up your UNSW student
email are provided at:
https://www.it.unsw.edu.au/students/index.
html
To manage your UNSW account and
password, use the IDM site:
https://idm.unsw.edu.au/idm/user/login.jsp
Questions that cannot wait until the next
allocated class are best handled by
posting a message on the online forums in
Moodle. If there are important or urgent
matters that require a personal meeting,
you are able make an appointment with
your course staff. See 3. Course Staff and
Contributors for more information on how
and when to communicate with course
coordinator and tutors.
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
Use https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/moodleorientation to familiarise yourself with
Moodle. Please see section 7.1 Online
Teaching for more information.
Note: There is the potential that your
lectures will be automatically recorded
under the echo 360 platform:
https://teaching.unsw.edu.au/unswlecture-recordings-process
All OH&S and workshop training courses
are as well located on Moodle. Please
follow the Moodle instructions to complete
UNSW’s OH&S requirements.
CODE1210 | Computational
5. Lectures
Week 1 Topic
Contextualising computing: Experimental architectures
This lecture introduces key themes that will be addressed during
the course, in addition to course objectives, expectations, tutorial
formats and assessment tasks. Particularly this lecture will address
how the concept of spatial design can be seen in a wider context
through the perspective of events, and interactions, and information
systems. This will look back to earlier architectural thinking and
projects that embraced emerging technologies, including those
associated with avant-garde positions in the 1960s and those that
re-framed design problems as information problems.
Readings:
Explore the Archigram Archive: www.archigram.westminster.ac.uk
Tutorial activities:
Discussion: What does computing have to do with the city and
architecture?
Activity: Working towards Assignment 1 Position: Montages and
Manifestos, diagram your own “day the life of …” highlighting the
roles technologies play in your day-to-day activities, work and
education, construct this as a time line and include images and key
words.
Reflect on what happens – how life is ‘interrupted’ – when such
technologies ‘fail’.
***Students must register online for UTZON lectures in the tutorial
and show proof of confirmation certificates to tutor ***
UNSW UTZON LECTURE SERIES AUGUST 12th, 6.30pm.
www.be.unsw.edu.au/events/utzon-lecture-towards-2026-sitefabrication-innovation-emerging-completing-gaudis-sagrada
UNSW UTZON LECTURE SERIES SEPTEMBER 9th, 6.30pm.
https://www.be.unsw.edu.au/events/utzon-lecture-second-digitalturn-architecture-computation-simulation-optimization-and-style
Week 2 Topic
Agitating Architecture: Ubiquitous computing concepts
This lecture connects earlier architectural and urban projects that
engaged emerging computing and communications technologies to
core concepts of the more recent and so-called ubiquitous
computing (ubicomp) paradigm and compares their underlying
objectives.
Readings:
Weiser, M., Gold, R. and Seely-Brown, J. 1999, “Origins of
ubiquitous computing research at PARC in the late 1980s”, IBM
Systems Journal, vol. 38, no. 4, 693-696.
Bell, G. & Dourish, P. 2007, “Yesterday’s tomorrows: notes on
ubiquitous computing’s’ dominant vision”, Personal and Ubiquitous
Computing, no. 11, pp.133-143.
Picon, A. 2008, “Toward a city of events: digital media and
urbanity”, New Geographies, 0, pp. 32-43.
Tutorial activities:
Discussion: compare and contrast disciplinary perspectives on
computing in and for the built and urban environment.
Activity: Working towards Assignment 1 Position: Montages and
Manifestos and with reference to the montage examples given in
the lecture and tutorial, construct your own montage to express
your contemporary view of ‘technology’ and its relationship to
people and the urban and built environment.
Page 5 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Week 3 Topic
12/08
UTZON LECTURE – PROFESSOR MARK BURRY –
Towards 2026: off-site fabrication innovation emerging
from completing Gaudi's Sagrada Familia Basilica 6.30pm
For further information please refer to the following homepage
www.be.unsw.edu.au/events/utzon-lecture-towards-2026-sitefabrication-innovation-emerging-completing-gaudis-sagrada
Readings:
STUDENTS MUST WRITE A 500word synopsis of Professor Mark
Burry’s lecture and with reference to x2 additional scholarly sources
DUE UPLOAD TO MOODLE - 23/09/2015.
Tutorial activities:
Assignment 01A Position: Montages and Manifestos Interim
Presentation & Feedback
Activity: Assignment 01B - Writing a synoptic essay.
In class read the following article and prepare a written synopsis.
Burry, M.C., 2009, “Supporting the Silos: Transdisciplinary Design
Research as Defender of the Disciplines”, Cumulus Working
Papers: Melbourne 24/09: Publication Series G. Proceedings of the
Cumulus 38° South Conference, Swinburne University of
Technology and RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, 12-14
November. Edited by Salmi, E. (ed. in chief), Edquist, H., Friedman,
K., Langdon, S., Maciak, J., and Oy, K., Melbourne, Australia, pp.
17-22.
http://www.cumulusassociation.org/images/stories/Downloads/WP_
Melbourne_24_09.pdf
Week 4 Topic
Re-theorising space: social space
This lecture explores different ways of understanding the concept
of space. Particularly this will explore the notion of space from a
social (non-physicalist Soja, 1980) perspective. This introduces
prominent social theories of space including those of Henri
Lefebvre (1991), Lyn H. Lofland (1973, 1998), Ray Oldenburg
(1982, 1996), that are finding renewed interest amongst
contemporary scholars researching the nexus between digital
technologies, people, and urban and built space.
Readings:
Forty, A. 2004, “Space”, in Words and Buildings a vocabulary of
modern architecture, Thames & Hudson, London, (19pages).
Whyte, William H., 2001 [1980], “The life of plazas”, in The social
life of small Urban places, Project for Public Spaces, New York, pp.
16-24.
Hampton, K., Goulet Sessions, L., & Albanesius, G. 2015 “Change
in the Social Life of Urban Public Spaces: The Rise of Mobile
Phones and Women, and the Decline of Aloneness Over Thirty
Years” Urban Studies, vol. 52, no. 8, pp. 1489-1504.
REFER ALSO: Hampton, K., Livio, O., Trachtenberg & McEwen, R.
2010, “The social life of wireless urban spaces: A photo essay”,
<www.contexts.org > Accessed December 2014.
Tutorial activities:
Assignment 1A – due in class / presentation / pin-up
Discussion: Discuss the design implications of ‘social space
theorisation’. Discuss the ways theories are and can be applied to
research questions, design thinking, and strategisation.
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
CODE1210 | Computational
Week 5 Topic
Re-theorising space: hybrid, recombinant, relational,
code/space, liminal
Manuel Castell’s argued in the 1980s that social development is
inseparable from technological change, given this he reasoned a
new theory of urbanism was required for the information-age. This
lecture discusses the re-theorisation of ‘space’ in relation to rapid
technological change since the modern period and introduces
various concepts including cyber, hybrid, and relational space and
the space of flows.
Introduction to Assignment 02 Practice: The socio-digital life of
small urban spaces
Readings:
Boyer, M.C. 1992, “The imaginary real world of CyberCities”,
Assemblage, no. 18, August, pp.114-127.
Castells, M. 2004, “Space of flows, space of places: Materials for a
theory of Urbanism in the information age” in The Cybercities
Reader, S. Graham (ed.) Routledge, London, pp.82-93.
McQuire, S. 2005, “Immaterial Architectures: Urban space and
electric light”, Space and Culture, vol. 8, pp.126-140.
Tutorial activities:
Introduction to Assignment 02 Practice: The socio-digital life
of small urban spaces, adopting theory as a lens to ‘see’ urban
public space.
Discussion: Compare and contrast the concepts of ‘space’
discussed and theorised by each author.
What questions does Boyer pose/ask in relation to the shift from
the “machine-city of modernism” to the “informational city of
postmodernism”?
Week 6 Topic
Mobile Technology Practices
This lecture introduces the concept of ‘mobile technology practices’
that brings Lefebvre and de Certeau’s ideas of ‘practice’ together
with the conditions of contemporary mobile smart device
engagement. This explores how our engagement with
contemporary technologies influences our everyday practices and
consequently modes of thinking around the concepts of time and
space and relatedly the concept of public space.
Readings:
Campbell, S.W. & Ling, R.S. 2009, “Mobile communication in space
and time: furthering the theoretical dialogue” in S Campbell & R.
Ling (eds). The reconstruction of space and time: mobile
communication practices, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick,
N.J. pp. 251 – 260.
Willis, K. 2012, “Being in two places at once: The experience of
proximity with locative media” in in P Abend et al, (eds) Medialität
der Nähe: Situationen - Praktiken – Diskurse, Germany, Transcript,
pp.178-193.
Tutorial activities:
Assignment 02 interim Presentation & Feedback: selection of
public space, research to date, details of the applied
theoretical lens.
Page 7 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Week 7 Topic
UTZON LECTURE – PROFESSOR MARIO CARPO
The second digital turn - 6.30pm
For further information please refer to the following homepage:
www.be.unsw.edu.au/events/second-digital-turn-architecturecomputation-simulation-optimization-and-style-big-data
STUDENTS MUST WRITE A 500 word synopsis of Professor
Mario Carpo’s lecture and and with reference to x2 additional
scholarly sources DUE UPLOAD TO MOODLE - 23/09/2015.
Readings:
Watch BBC 3-part series “All watched over by machines of
loving grace” – prepare notes and discussion points for tutorial.
Tutorial activities:
Discussion: What were the key ideas/positions advanced through
the BBC 3 part series “All watched over by machines of loving
grace”?
Assignment 02 Interim Presentation & Feedback: The sociodigital life of small urban spaces
Week 8 Topic
Mobile Technology Practices: experience & interaction
This lecture addresses how phenomenological concepts have been
adopted to explain and theorise the relationships between people,
technologies, communication, interaction, information and space.
Readings:
Farman, J. 2012, “Embodiment and the mobile interface” in Mobile
Interface Theory, Routledge, New York, NY, pp 16-34.
Turkle, S. 2008, “Always-on/Always-on-you: The tethered self”, in
Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies, J. E. Katz p.121 -137.
Virilio, P. 2003 [1997], “The third Interval: A critical transition”, in P.
Braham & J. Hale (eds) Rethinking technologies, University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 358-367.
Tutorial activities:
Discussion: How is the engagement with contemporary
technologies different from previous? What are the implications
socially, organisationally, and politically? Compare and contrast the
views in the two readings, what is each author arguing?
Assignment 02 Interim Presentation & Feedback: The sociodigital life of small urban spaces
Week 9
Mid Semester Break
Assignment 1B – MOODLE UPLOAD BY 12pm (midnight)
BE Non teaching Week
Week 10 Topic
Critical positions and ideologies: the too-smart city (1)
This lecture looks at the various contemporary perspectives around
the concept of so-called smart things, smart places and smart
cities. This asks who are the current producers of the smarteverything polemic? What are there claims? And what are their
underlying assumptions and objectives? What role are, and can,
designers/architects play in this realm?
Introduction to Assignment 03 Publicities – debates and exhibition
catalogue
Readings:
Doody, L. 2014, “In defence of the Smart City”, Japan Architecture
+ Urbanism, vol. 11, pp. 115-116.
Greenfield, A. 2013, Against the Smart city: the city is here for you
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
CODE1210 | Computational
to use Book 1, Do Projects, New York. Kindle Edition.
Koolhaas, R. 2015, “The smart landscape: Rem Koolhaas on
intelligent architecture”, Artforum April 2015, pp.1-4.
<https://artforum.com/inprint/issue=201504&id=50735>
Tutorial activities:
Assignment 02 Presentation / pinup: The socio-digital life of
small urban spaces.
Week 11 Topic
Critical positions and ideologies: the too-smart city (2)
This lecture continues to examine various contemporary
perspectives around the concept of so-called smart things, smart
places and smart cities. This asks who are the current producers of
the smart-everything polemic? What are there claims? And what
are their underlying assumptions and objectives? What role are,
and can, designers/architects play in this realm?
Readings:
Goodspeed, R. 2015, “Smart cities: Moving beyond urban
cybernetics to tackle wicked problems”, Cambridge Journal Of
Regions Economy And Society, vol.1, 79-92.
Townsend, A. 2013, “A new civics for a smart century”, in Smart
Cities: big Data, Civic Hackers, and the quest for a new utopia,
W.W. Norton & Company, New York, pp. 282-320.
“Clever cities: The multiplexed metropolis”, The Economist,
September 7, 2013.www.economist.com/news/briefing/21585002enthusiasts-think-data-services-can-change-cities-century-muchelectricity
Recommended Texts:
Townsend, A. 2013, Smart Cities: big Data, Civic Hackers, and the
quest for a new utopia, W.W. Norton & Company, New York.
Kitchin, R. 2014, The Data Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data
Infrastructures & Their Consequences, Sage.
Tutorial activities:
Tutors to organise debate teams.
Discussion: Compare and contrast the various perspectives
presented by each of the readings. Develop arguments supporting
your debate teams allocated position for or against
Week 12 Topic
Guest Lecture Critical spatial practices: Evelyn Kwok Agency in Appropriation: the Informal Territory of
Foreign Domestic Helpers in Hong Kong
Ms Kwok will outline aspects of her PhD research that explores the
material culture of ‘public spaces’ in Hong Kong and critically
engages with and responds to local contemporary social
and cultural issues.
Readings:
Refer Evelyn Kwok.
Tutorial activities:
PREPARATION: Assignment 03 Publicities: CLASS DEBATES –
The too-smart city
Please complete the CATEI feedback evaluations in your tutorial
class. Upload images of your Learning Stage 3 project on to
Moodle. Deadline for the upload is Week 12 day of normal class
5pm.
Page 9 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Week 13 Topic
Guest Lecture Critical spatial practices: Shaowen Wang Where the action is? Post-disciplinary futures
This lecture will summarise the course content and speculate on
the ways digital culture has challenged critical assumptions about
everyday practices, as well as architecture and design practice.
This lecture further introduces the concept of critical spatial practice
as theorised by Professor Jane Rendell, and considers this in
relation to digital technology practices.
Readings:
Rendell, J. 2013, Working Between and Across: Some psychic
dimensions of architecture’s inter- and transdisciplinarity”,
Architecture and Culture, vol. 1, issue 1 & 2, November 2013, pp.
128-141.
Recommended: Rendell, J. 2006, Art and Architecture: A Place
Between, I. B. Tauris London.
Tutorial:
Assignment 03 Publicities: CLASS DEBATES – The too-smart
city
Week 15
PARITY SESSION of all courses in the semester
Presentation of all work of all courses. THIS IS ONLY
COMPULSORY FOR CODE PROGRAM STUDENTS via a selection
of the five best images with descriptions presented one poster for
each course. Hand in on Wednesday in Week 15 before 1 pm at the
DD unit on Level 4. See Parity Session for detailed information.
Online Learning:
N/A
Tutorial activities:
Parity session hand in at Wednesday week 1 prior to 1pm at DD unit.
Parity session set up for Year 1 students from 9 – 10pm;
Parity session for tutors with compulsory students attendance
between 10 – 1pm;
Take down of work Year 1 from 1 pm onwards.
Parity session set up for Year 2 students from 1 – 3pm;
Parity session for tutors with compulsory students attendance
between 3 – 5pm;
Take down of work Year 2 from 5 pm onwards, followed by drinks.
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
CODE1210 | Computational
6. Online teaching
Students will be provided with additional
links to online material during the
semester such as:
BBC 3 part Series:
All Watched Over By Machines Of Loving
Grace
•
•
•
Episode 1) - Love And Power
http://primoa.library.unsw.edu.au/U
NSWS:TN_informit_edutv175065
Episode 2) - The Use And Abuse
Of Vegetational Concepts
http://primoa.library.unsw.edu.au/U
NSWS:TN_informit_edutv176404
Episode 3) - The Monkey In The
Machine And The Machine In The
Monkey
http://primoa.library.unsw.edu.au/U
NSWS:TN_informit_edutv177661
Picon, A. 2014 “Smart Cities A New
Challenge for design”
Computer
History
available
on:
www.computerhistory.org/revolution/earlycomputercompanies/5/103/442?position=1
Page 11 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
7. Assessments
Assessment task
Weight Learning
outcomes
assessed
1. Position: Montages and Manifestos
25
A)
Montage
(PAIRS 10%)
as
1., 3.
Graduate
attributes
assessed
Due date
1., 2., 3.
Manifesto
Week 4 (A)
B) Utzon lecture series synoptic essays
(INDIVIDUAL 15%)
23/09/15
(B)
2. Practice: The socio-digital life of small 30
urban spaces
2., 3., 4.
2., 3., 4.
Week 10
(GROUP)
3. Publicity: Technology debates
40
1., 2., 3., 4. 2., 3.
Week 13
5
1., 2.
Week 14
(GROUP)
4. Online Quiz
1.
Assignment 1
Name:
Position: Montages and Manifestos
Description:
A) Montage as Manifesto
Emulating the techniques and aesthetic of the 1960s avant-garde in
architecture, and in student pairs, design a montage using a range of
media, a combination of text, images, diagrams (and/or 3D elements)
that communicates your own manifesto regarding current relationships to
technology and the future of technology and the urban and built
environment. Presentation size and format to be discussed and agreed in
tutorial with tutor.
Group grade.
Due Week 4 in tutorial pin-up & 3 minute verbal presentation.
B) Utzon Lecture Series Synoptic Essays
STUDENTS MUST WRITE A 500word synopsis of Professor Mark
Burry’s lecture and with reference to x2 additional scholarly sources
MOODLE UPLOAD 23/09/2015 by midnight
STUDENTS MUST WRITE A 500 word synopsis of Professor Mario
Carpo’s lecture and include reference to x2 additional scholarly sources
MOODLE UPLOAD 23/09/2015 by midnight
Individual grade.
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
CODE1210 | Computational
Assignment 2
Name:
Practice: The socio-digital life of small urban spaces
Description:
“I will pull together, piece by piece, the perfect city, made of fragments
mixed with the rest, of instants separated by intervals discontinuous in
space and time, now scattered, now more condensed, you must not
believe the search for it can stop” (Italo Calvino Invisible Cities 1972, p.
164).
In groups of no more than x3 students, using the City of Sydney, State
Library, Powerhouse Museum FlickR archives, or another approved
source, find an historic photo of a public space in Sydney (location to be
agreed with your tutor). Visit the site and re-take a series of photographs
and or video from a similar vantage point. Develop a code system to
analyse and describe what is observable in the photographs/films –
analyse the differences and reflect on your observations. Use a
theoretical concept to interpret and explain your observations.
Additionally locate any references of this place/and/or same views on
popular social networking sites such as Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter /
Facebook and represent this information and your observations in your
presentation.
Using a series of your contemporary images (or time-lapse film
technique) spatially map the movements and intensities (densities) of
people/objects/animals/technology engagement through the site and
represent in a 3 dimensional model to a conventional scale.
Reflect on, and compare, what is learned about the space through each
observational technique, archival, in-situ/on-site, and on-line. Describe
any perceived limitations. Reflect on ways to you could use this analysis
in a future design.
Produce a mixed-media style presentation including 500words, images,
movement analysis model, mounted exhibition-style, with 3 minute verbal
presentation.
Group Assessment
Due Week 10 in-tutorial pin-up & verbal presentation.
Assignment 3
Name:
Publicity: Technology Debates
Description:
This assignment focuses on developing critical thinking in the form of a
group debate conducted in class around the broader theme of thinking
technologies for the built and urban environment and tied to current
discussions and/or events. This activity intends to foster critical thinking
skills by investigating arguments, engaging in research, gathering
information, performing analysis, assessing arguments, questioning
assumptions and demonstrating interpersonal skills.
The purpose of critical thinking is to use questioning techniques to
achieve understanding, evaluate view-points, and solve problems.
Teams for the debate and resource material will be organised in Week
Page 13 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
10. Team sizes of no more than 4 people, no less than 3. Teams will be
allocated a declarative statement and a side to support or oppose, see
examples below.
The affirmative team will argue to support the resolution/declarative
statement, while the negative team will be tasked with opposing it.
Students will need to build a case for their allocated resolution and in
doing so, try to prove or disprove the opposing side’s resolution through
evidence, scholarly references, and argument.
A debate is characterised by the method of persuasion. Compelling,
engaging and persuasive communication is the key to success in a
debate.
EXAMPLE STATEMENTS:
Declarative statement: The ‘smart’ city concept is leading us
towards dumber cities.
Declarative statement: The digital world gives us license to behave
differently, to hold different values than we have and did in the
analog world.
Declarative statement: Mobile digital technologies have transformed
urban public space
Declarative statement: Technology is a means for advancing
freedom and democracy
Group assessment.
Due Week 13 in-tutorial
Assignment 4
Name:
On line quiz
Description:
Multiple choice questions based on material presented in
lectures and tutorial readings. Last date to attempt the quiz to
be advised. The assignment will be marked based on the
accuracy of selected answers.
Parity / Moodle submission
Name:
Parity / Moodle submission
Description:
See 7. Parity Session.
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
CODE1210 | Computational
8. Assessment criteria and standards
Assignment 1 / Learning Stage 1: Submission Assessment Marking Sheet
CODE1210 Computational Design Theory II - Contextualising
Learning stage 1: Position: Montages and Manifestos
STUDENT
NAME:
STUDENT #:
#
Assessment Criteria:
%
1
Quality of presentation content:
strength and depth of contemporary
technological issues addressed and
communicated through the montage
2
Quality and strength of graphic
presentation, including attention to
composition,
structure,
scale,
imagery, text narrative
3
Clarity and convincingness of verbal
presentation
US
S
G
VG
O
/ 100
OVERALL MARK out of 100
FEEDBACK:
Page 15 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Assessment 1 / Learning Stage 1: Assessment Criteria
•
Criteria 1: Minimal depth and breadth of knowledge communicated
•
Lack of relevant ideas
Fail
0-49
•
Criteria 2: Poor quality graphics and unreasoned composition
•
Criteria 3: Vague, unintelligible, inarticulate, and unconvincing verbal
presentation
Satisfactory
•
Criteria 1: Basic depth and breadth of knowledge communicated
•
Simple use of relevant ideas
•
Criteria 2: Basic quality and structure of graphics
•
Criteria 3: Basic level of verbal communication
Unsatisfactory
Pass
50-64
Good
•
Criteria 1: Some relevant ideas communicated
•
Credit
65-74
Criteria 2: Graphic quality and composition contributes to effective
communication of ideas
•
Criteria 3: Verbal presentation is clear and outlines understanding of
graphic presentation
•
Criteria 1: Relevant ideas are effectively communicated
Very Good
•
Distinction
75-84
Criteria 2: Graphic presentation communicates depth and breadth of
comprehension of ideas
•
Graphic quality effectively communicates ideas
•
Criteria 3: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate and
reinforces understanding of graphic presentation
•
Criteria 1: Relevant ideas are synthesised to form new ideas and are
innovatively communicated
High Distinction
•
Criteria 2: Graphic presentation communicates a rich and compelling
depth and breadth of ideas
85-100
•
Criteria 3: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate persuasive
and expands on and extends understanding of graphic content.
Outstanding
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
CODE1210 | Computational
Assignment 1 / Learning Stage 2: Submission Assessment Marking Sheet
CODE1210 Computational Design Theory II - Contextualising
Learning stage 2: Position: Montages and Manifestos – Synoptic essays
STUDENT
NAME:
STUDENT #:
#
Assessment Criteria:
%
1
Quality of written expression (clear,
concise, accurate, original)
2
Quality of thinking (analysis and
position) in evidence
3
Relevance of x2 additional scholarly
sources and effectiveness in the way
they are brought to bear on the
construction of the synoptic essay
4
Adherence to
conventions
academic
US
S
G
VG
O
/ 100
writing
OVERALL MARK out of 100
FEEDBACK:
Page 17 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Assessment 1 / Learning Stage 1: Assessment Criteria
•
Criteria 1: Unclear writing and inaccurate spelling
•
Criteria 2: Minimal depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated
•
Criteria 3: Lack of x2 additional scholarly sources
•
Criteria 4: Lack of UNSW standard academic referencing.
•
Criteria 1: Clear, yet basic writing style
Satisfactory
•
Criteria 2: Basic depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated
Pass
50-64
•
Criteria 3: x2 additional scholarly sources, yet minimal relevance and
relationship to overall analysis and argument
•
Criteria 4: Basic, sometimes inaccurate application of academic
referencing
•
Criteria 1: Clear and communicative writing style
Good
•
Credit
65-74
Criteria 2: Depth and breadth of knowledge demonstrated and sound
level of analytical reflection
•
Criteria 3: x2 additional scholarly sources are relevant and establish
relationship to overall analysis and argument
•
Criteria 4: Adherence to UNSW academic referencing system
•
Criteria 1: Clear, communicative, and sophisticated writing style
Very Good
•
Distinction
75-84
Criteria 2: Sophisticated depth and breadth of
demonstrated and substantiated analysis and argument
•
Criteria 3: x2 additional scholarly sources are relevant and enhance
analysis and argument
•
Criteria 4: Adherence to UNSW academic referencing system
•
Criteria 1: Highly sophisticated writing style
•
Criteria 2: Sophisticated depth
demonstrated,
substantiated
arguments/reflections presented
•
Criteria 3: x2 additional scholarly sources are innovative, relevant, and
enhance analysis and argument
•
Criteria 4: Adherence to UNSW academic referencing system
Unsatisfactory
Fail
0-49
Outstanding
High Distinction
85-100
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
knowledge
and breadth of knowledge
analysis
and
unique
CODE1210 | Computational
Assignment 2: Submission Assessment Marking Sheet
CODE1210 Computational Design Theory II - Contextualising
The socio-digital life of small urban spaces
STUDENT
NAME:
STUDENT #:
#
Assessment Criteria:
%
1
Quality of written expression (clear,
concise, accurate, original)
2
Demonstrated rigour of research,
and quality, and strength of analysis
reflected in the mixed media
presentation
3
Quality and convincingness
observations and findings
4
Quality and effectiveness of overall
graphic communication, including
drawings, images, text and model
5
Clarity and convincingness of verbal
presentation
US
S
G
VG
O
/ 100
of
OVERALL MARK out of 100
FEEDBACK:
Page 19 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Assessment 1 / Learning Stage 1: Assessment Criteria
•
Criteria 1: Unclear writing and inaccurate spelling
Unsatisfactory
•
Criteria 2: Minimal depth and breadth of research demonstrated
Fail
0-49
•
Criteria 3: Lack of analysis and observations
•
Criteria 4: Crude graphic quality, poor composition.
•
Criteria 5: Vague, unintelligible, inarticulate, and unconvincing verbal
presentation
•
Criteria 1: Clear, yet basic writing style
•
Criteria 2: Basic depth and breadth of research demonstrated
•
Criteria 3: Basic analysis and observations, minimal attempt to apply
theory
•
Criteria 4: Basic, clear graphic composition
•
Criteria 5: Basic level of verbal communication
•
Criteria 1: Clear and communicative writing style
•
Criteria 2: Depth and breadth of research and sound level of analytical
reflection
•
Criteria 3: Demonstrates an application of theory to analysis
•
Criteria 4: Graphic presentation effectively communicates research
and analysis
•
Criteria 5: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate and
reinforces overall presentation
•
Criteria 1: Clear, communicative, and sophisticated writing style
•
Criteria 2: Sophisticated depth and breadth of research and analysis
demonstrated
•
Criteria 3: Sophisticated application of theory to interpret observations
•
Criteria 4: Graphic presentation communicates the research and
analysis in a visually compelling way
•
Criteria 5: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate and extends
overall presentation
•
Criteria 1: HIghly sophisticated writing style
•
Criteria 2: Sophisticated depth and breadth of knowledge
demonstrated, substantiated analysis and unique observations
presented
High Distinction
•
Criteria 3: Highly sophisticated application of theory to interpret
observations.
85-100
•
Criteria 4: Graphic presentation compellingly and engagingly enhances
the understanding of research and observations
•
Criteria 5: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate persuasive
and expands on and extends understanding of overall presentation
Satisfactory
Pass
50-64
Good
Credit
65-74
Very Good
Distinction
75-84
Outstanding
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
CODE1210 | Computational
Assignment 2: Submission Assessment Marking Sheet
CODE1210 Computational Design Theory II - Contextualising
The socio-digital life of small urban spaces
STUDENT
NAME:
STUDENT #:
#
Assessment Criteria:
1
Quality,
originality,
and
persuasiveness
of
argument
(Composition, order, construction,
innovation)
2
Quality of verbal delivery (clarity,
projection, attitude, professionalism)
3
Quality, relevance, and depth of
research referenced to substantiate
claims and establish argument
4
Quality
rebuttal
5
Cohesiveness of team presentation
and
%
convincingness
US
S
G
VG
O
/ 100
of
OVERALL MARK out of 100
FEEDBACK:
Page 21 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Assessment 1 / Learning Stage 1: Assessment Criteria
•
Criteria 1: Lack of, or weak argument presented
•
Criteria 2: Vague, unintelligible, inarticulate, and unconvincing verbal
presentation
•
Criteria 3: Minimal depth and breadth of research demonstrated
•
Criteria 4: Lack of rebuttal during debate.
•
Criteria 5: Team members presented individually and not as a unified
debate group
•
Criteria 1: Evidence of argument reflected, yet unconvincing.
•
Criteria 2: Basic level of verbal presentation
•
Criteria 3: Basic research utilised - minimal reference to additional
sources to substantiate argument
•
Criteria 4: Basic rebuttal presented
•
Criteria 5: The team presented in a somewhat unified manner
•
Criteria 1: Somewhat persuasive argument presented
Good
•
Criteria 2: Clear, cogent, and articulate verbal presentations
Credit
65-74
•
Criteria 3: Depth, breadth, variety and relevance of research reflected
•
Criteria 4: Convincing rebuttal presented
•
Criteria 5: The team presented in unified manner
•
Criteria 1: Engaging, original and persuasive argument presented
•
Criteria 2: Clear,
presentations
•
Criteria 3: Relevant and constructive research utilised to substantiate
and support arguments presented
•
Criteria 4: Strong, astute, and convincing rebuttal presented
•
Criteria 5: The team presented in a strong and unified manner
•
Criteria 1: Verbal presentation is clear, cogent, articulate persuasive
and expands on and extends understanding of
•
Criteria 2: Clear, cogent, articulate, compelling and memorable verbal
presentations
•
Criteria 3: Highly sophisticated utilisation of research and sources to
substantiate claims and arguments presented
•
Criteria 4: Creative, astute, and convincing rebuttal presented
•
Criteria 5: The team presented in a strong and unified manner
Unsatisfactory
Fail
0-49
Satisfactory
Pass
50-64
Very Good
Distinction
75-84
Outstanding
High Distinction
85-100
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
cogent,
articulate
and
compelling
verbal
CODE1210 | Computational
9. Assessment feedback
Formal Assessment feedback will be
provided following verbal assessment
presentations (where applicable) and a
feedback sheet with indicative grading and
brief comments will be provided within 2
weeks of the assessment deadline.
10. Resources
10.1 Essential readings
Bell, G, & Dourish, P, 2007,
”Yesterday’s
tomorrows:
Notes
on
ubiquitous computing’s dominant vision”,
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing,
11(2), pp. 133–143.
Boyer, M.C, 1992, “The imaginary
real world of CyberCities”, Assemblage,
no. 18, August, pp.114-127.
Campbell, S.W. & Ling, R.S. 2009,
“Mobile communication in space and time:
furthering the theoretical dialogue” in S
Campbell & R. Ling (eds). The
reconstruction of space and time: mobile
communication practices, Transaction
Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J. pp. 251 –
260.
Castells, M. 2004, “Space of flows,
space of places: Materials for a theory of
Urbanism in the information age” in The
Cybercities Reader, S. Graham (ed.)
Routledge, London, pp.82-93.
Doody, L, 2014, “In defence of the
Smart City”, Japan Architecture +
Urbanism, vol. 11, pp.115-116.
F
arman, J. 2012, “Embodiment and
the mobile interface” in Mobile Interface
Theory, Routledge, New York, NY, pp 1634.
Greenfield, A, 2013, Against the
Smart city: the city is here for you to use
Book 1, Do Projects, New York. Kindle
Edition.
Hampton, K., Goulet Sessions, L.,
& Albanesius, G. 2014 “Change in the
Social Life of Urban Public Spaces: The
Rise of Mobile Phones and Women, and
the Decline of Aloneness Over Thirty
Years” Urban Studies, vol. pp. 1-31.
McQuire, S. 2005, “Immaterial
Architectures: Urban space and electric
light”, Space and Culture, vol. 8, pp.126140.
Picon, A. 2008, “Toward a city of
events: digital media and urbanity”, New
Geographies, 0, pp. 32-43.
Rendell, J. 2013, Working Between
and Across: Some psychic dimensions of
architecture’s
interand
transdisciplinarity”,
Architecture
and
Culture, vol. 1, issue 1 & 2, November
2013, pp. 128-141.
Turkle,
S.
2008,
“Alwayson/Always-on-you: The tethered self”, in
Handbook of Mobile Communication
Studies, J. E. Katz p.121 -137.
Virilio, P. 2003 [1997], “The third
Interval: A critical transition”, in P. Braham
& J. Hale (eds) Rethinking technologies,
University
of
Minnesota
Press,
Minneapolis, pp. 358-367.
Willis, K. 2012, “Being in two
places at once: The experience of
proximity with locative media” in in P
Abend et al, (eds) Medialität der Nähe:
Situationen - Praktiken – Diskurse,
Germany, Transcript.
10.2 Recommended Reading
Cook, P, 1970, Experimental
Architecture, Universe Books, London.
de Souza e Silva, A, & Frith, J,
2012, Mobile Interfaces in Public Spaces:
Locational Privacy, Control, and Urban
Sociability, Routledge, New York.
Dourish, P. & Bell, G. 2011,
Divining a digital future, MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass.
Ekman, U (ed.) Throughout: art
and culture emerging with ubiquitous
computing, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Farman, J, 2012, Mobile interface
theory: Embodied space and locative
media, Routledge, New York.
Foth, M. & IGI Global 2009,
Handbook
of
research
on
urban
informatics, IGI Global 701 E. Chocolate
Avenue, Hershey, Pennsylvania, 17033,
USA, Hershey, Pa.
Page 23 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
Foth, M, Forlano, L, Satchell, C, &
Gibbs, M, 2011, From social butterfly to
engaged citizen: Urban informatics, social
media, ubiquitous computing and mobile
technology to support citizen engagement,
MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Kitchin, R. 2014, The Data
Revolution: Big Data, Open Data, Data
Infrastructures & Their Consequences,
Sage
Kitchin, R. & Dodge, M. 2011,
“Introducing Code/Space” in R. Kitchin &
M. Dodge (eds.), Code/Space: software
and everyday life, MIT Press, London
England, pp.20 – 60.
Rendell, J. 2006, Art and
Architecture: A Place Between, I. B. Tauris
London.
Thrift, N. 2010, Lifeword Inc—and
what to do about it, Environment and
Planning D: society and Space 2011,
vol.29, pp, 5-26.
Townsend, A. 2013, Smart Cities: big
Data, Civic Hackers, and the quest for a
new utopia, W.W. Norton & Company,
New York.
10.2
Online resources
Social network resources
UNSW CoDe has a Twitter, Instagram,
Facebook and Youtube account and all
lecturerare using these accounts to share
information with their students. Thus
please
join
and
follow
us
on
@UNSWCoDe (for all above listed
networks) we will use “UNSW” + “CODE”
+ the course number as a hash tag to help
finding the relevant info (for this course
#UNSWCODE1210). Feel also free to post
images of your design on social media
using the hash tag.
Video resources
Most lectures given in this course have
videos embedded as part to illustrate what
projects are and look like as well as give
background knowledge to fabrication
methods. In general I found these videos
on the internet by searching either in
Google or Youtube via the use of a search
term. Naturally the lecture shows only one
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
video out of potentially dozen of video
clips. Thus search the internet for good
clips and share them using social
networks and use “UNSW” + “CODE” +
the course number as a hash tag to help
finding the relevant info (for this course
#UNSWCODE1210).
Presentation resources
Final presentation poster template to be
used for the Graduand Exhibition will be
posted to students in mid semester. It is a
requirement to use this template with the
fonts and logos embedded in the template.
Any alterations of the format will exclude
you from the Graduand Exhibition.
Studio class requirements
It is expected that you will bring your
laptop with the below mentioned software
packages to each class. Not bringing a
laptop means we cannot look, comment
and help you with your work, as we do not
run this class in a computer classroom.
Using your friend’s laptop means that he
or she cannot work in the time given in
class and thus is not an option either.
CODE1210 | Computational
11. Case Studies: Online resources
The Plug-In City Project, Archigram, 1964.
Fun Palace, Cedric Price 1961
http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.
php?id=56, (accessed February 2015).
Fernando Montès and Bernard Tschumi
‘Do-It-Yourself-City’, 1970
Cedric Price, The Fun Palace 1961, see:
http://www.cca.qc.ca/en/collection/540cedric-price-archive; (Accessed: June
2015).
Archigram, various 1960ties
Fernando Montès and Bernard Tschumi
‘Do-It-Yourself-City’, 1970, L’Architecture
d’aujourd’hui, 178 (February-March 1970):
98-105.
Gardner, Haeusler, Mahar, Interchanging
2015
The Archigram Archival Project, see:
http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk,
(Accessed: June, 2015).
City Interchange Project, Archigram, Ron
Herron
1964
http://archigram.westminster.ac.uk/project.
php?revID=271,
(accessed
February
2015).
Gardner, N, Haeusler M.H, & Mahar, B
2014, Interchanging: Future designs for
responsive
transport
environments,
Spurbuch,
Germany.
See
also:
http://responsivetransport.org/wp/
Page 25 of 27
UNSW | Built Environment | Computational Design Program
The MIT Media Lab
http://www.media.mit.edu/research/groups
-projects
Centre for Information Technology and
Architecture (CITA)
http://cita.karch.dk/Menu/Research+Projec
ts/Interface+Ecologies
12. Course aims
Course Aim 1: To develop knowledge,
and understanding of, the various
trajectories
of
design
thinking
in
relationship to ‘technologies’ for the built
and urban environment, in an historical
sense, but also in connection to
contemporary conditions and issues.
Course Aim 2: To develop informed
design decision making procedures and
be able to locate these relative to
theoretical concepts
Course Aim 3: To develop, advance, and
express critical thinking skills.
Course Aim 4: To develop and advance a
range of communication skills through
various platforms and mediums including
reading, writing, and project presentations.
13. Learning outcomes
At the successful conclusion of this course
the student will be able to:
1: Comprehend concepts, positions, and
theories related to digital design, be they
contemporaneous or separated by vast
amounts of time, and clearly articulate the
ideas of others as well as their own, in
written, verbal, and other mediums such
as model making.
2: Explore, integrate, utilise, and test new
and extant concepts, theories and
research approaches in their own projects
to better understand their project’s wider
implications.
3: Critically reflect on and evaluate the
work of the profession as well as their
peers and more critically engage with the
content of studio courses
YEAR 1 | SEMESTER 2 | 2015
4: Effectively seek out concepts, positions,
and theories to strengthen studio (& future
professional) projects
CODE1210 | Computational
14. Course Graduate Attributes
CODE1210 course Graduate attributes
Learning
outcome
Activity/Assessment
Scholars who are understanding of their 1., 2., 3.
discipline in its interdisciplinary context
1., 2., 3., 4.
Scholars who are rigorous in their analysis, 1., 2., 3.
critique and reflection
1., 3.
Scholars who
communication
are
capable
of
effective 1.
Global citizens who are culturally aware and 2., 3., 4.
capable of respecting diversity and acting in
socially just/responsible ways
1., 2., 3.
1., 2.
15. Built Environment and UNSW
Academic Policies
The Built Environment Protocols and
UNSW Policies & Procedures document
supplements this course outline providing
detail on academic policies and other
administrative matters. It is your duty as a
student to familiarise yourself with the
expectations as not adhering to them will
be considered as academic misconduct.
Ignorance of the rules is not an acceptable
defence. The document can be found in
your Moodle course as well as:
http://www.be.unsw.edu.au/studentintranet/academic-policies
It covers:
•
Built
Environment
Student
Attendance Requirements
•
Units of Credit (UOC) and Student
Workload
•
Course and Teaching Evaluation
and Improvement (CATEI)
•
Academic Honesty and Plagiarism
•
Late Submissions Penalties
•
Special Consideration - Illness &
Misadventure
•
Extension of Deadlines
•
Learning Support Services
•
Occupational Health & Safety
Page 27 of 27