Session K.
Territory as a Focus for Project Work.
Pedagogical Issues in Schools of Architecture and Landscape
Co-chairs: Luna D’EMILIO & Ludovic GHIRARDI (EVS / ENSA Lyon), Florence SARANO (Ressources / ENSA Marseille) & David ROBIN (Ressources / ENSA Clermont-Ferrand)
From the point of view of architecture schools, the concept of territory, understood as a portion of geographical space resulting from a co-evolution involving humans and the environment (Geddes, 1915), requires a number of different pedagogical approaches when it comes to training students in project processes. This can be understood as a trans-scale phenomenon, involving a wide variety of knowledge, aimed at developing an approach to spatial transformation that is based on “using a combination of material and symbolic resources to create real and tangible structures” (Lévy & Lussault, 2013). As such, architectural projects play a part in the transformation of territories, and can be understood as both fictional and grounded, reflecting the forward-looking dimension of any project process. Schools of architecture and landscape thus respond to the societal need to have some perspective on the future (Koselleck, 1990) when faced with the prospect of broader, overall change.
In the academic setting, territorial complexity is incorporated into the design process by means of various teaching techniques (on-site residencies, scenario production, multi-actor processes, etc.). This session is thus intended to contribute to the critical analysis of the notion of territory, on the one hand, and to debate these processes, on the other hand, by focusing on their reflective and prospective aspects, from three perspectives: an epistemological perspective, in order to explore the characteristics of the knowledge generated by these processes (Viganò, 2010); a pedagogical perspective, in order to explore the ways in which learners and institutions get to grips with and tackle these issues; and a societal perspective, aimed at exploring relations between various actors in general, and the role of boundary-objects in particular.
- Epistemological perspective: Due to its multi-scale nature, and despite being spatially and formally defined, the architecture and landscape project is open to a variety of possible futures, contrary to the so-called problem-solving approach; in this respect, the project is more of an “epistemology of construction” (Fabre, 2005), and can be considered as a generator of knowledge (Viganò, 2010) What is the nature of the knowledge produced? The project process involves a constant selection of analytical data. How is this selection carried out? What assumptions does this selection bring to light? What are the conditions necessary for this knowledge to be incorporated into the project and appropriated by civil society?
- Pedagogical perspective: Through their strategic, pedagogical and partnership choices, several schools of architecture and landscape have established a strong relationship with their territories, by addressing the challenges specific to them. What does this positioning mean in pedagogical terms? At the most basic level, that of the courses taught, this close relationship with the territory gives rise to a pedagogical inventiveness designed to foster student involvement and commitment. What kinds of outcomes have been achieved as a result of these approaches? What sort of feedback has there been from civil society and all the parties involved?
- Societal perspective: Project workshops often engage civil society through processes of consultation or participation. In this context, boundary-objects (Star & Griesemer, 1989) play a key role as a means of gathering knowledge and formalising possible scenarios. Tools such as territorial modelling, games, and drawings can thus be used to reduce the territory to a set of intelligible phenomena, while at the same time allowing for debate regarding how it is to be transformed. What kind of tools do schools use, and to what end? How effective are they?
Selected Bibliographical References
Boudon P., 1999, “ ‘Échelle’ en architecture et au-delà. Mesurer l’espace ; dépasser le modèle géométrique”, Les Annales de la recherche urbaine, no. 82, p. 5-13.
Fabre M., 2005 “Deux sources de l’épistémologie des problèmes : Dewey et Bachelard”, Les Sciences de l’éducation - Pour l’Ère nouvelle, 38(3), p. 53-67.
Geddes P., 1994, L’évolution des villes : une introduction au mouvement de l’urbanisme et à l’étude de l’instruction civique, Paris, éd. Temenos [Cities in evolution, 1915].
Gregotti V., 1982, Le territoire de l’architecture, Paris, éd. L’Équerre [Il territorio dell’architettura, 1966].
Koselleck R., 1990, Le futur passé. Contribution à la sémantique des temps historiques, Paris, éd. de l’EHESS [nouvelle éd. 2016 : fr.calameo.com/read/0009116258b322a482386].
Lévy J., Lussault M. (eds.), 2013, Dictionnaire de la géographie et de l’espace des sociétés, Paris, Belin.
McHarg I. L., Falque M., 1980, Composer avec la nature, Cahiers de l’IAURIF, vol. 58-59 [Design with Nature, 1969].
Secchi B., 2009, “Les échelles de la recherche et du projet”, Les Cahiers de la recherche architecturale et urbaine, no. 24/25, p. 175-201.
Star S. L., Griesemer J. R., 1989, “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39”, Social Studies of Science, 19(3), p. 387-420.
Viganò P., 2014, Les territoires de l’urbanisme. Le projet comme producteur de connaissance, MētisPresses, Genève [I territori dell’urbanistica. Il progetto come produttore di conoscenza, 2010].
Loading... 
