|
The Spring Quarter of 1972 saw me back teaching design studio and looking to engage once again with an integrated design programme under the banner of Arch 191A - a twelve credit programme. Where previously (with the exception of the playground projects completed during the student strike) all of the projects we had engaged with were design projects only - not including any actual construction. This project turned out to be quite different. and involved the design and construction of a small house in Santa Cruz for a nurse, Shelley Meltzer, soon to retire. It was to be a precursor for the most major shift in my professional life.
The Santa Cruz House
Following my return from Houston, in the Spring Quarter I was approached by a group of seven students who wanted to take the Arch 191A (12 Credit) integrated programme that we had developed a year earlier during the strike. They told me bluntly that they wanted me to run the course, and that they had decided that they would design and build a house over three months and for their twelve credits. I told them I thought it wasn’t possible, that they had no idea how to build anything so complex and that neither did I. I told them that it was a great responsibility and would take a great deal of money and a piece of land – neither of which they possessed. I told them that I didn’t want to be personally responsible for anything as foolhardy as they were proposing and suggested that they either forget about it or find some other mug.
They persisted. Eric Ehlers, Dale Sartor, Sam Rotter, Paul Stickney, Dave Heaton, Red Nold and Meron Van Horn all persisted, assuring me that it would be OK. They proposed to place an ad. In the local newspapers, “Architecture Students will design and build your home for free if you provide the land and materials.” Beyond my better judgement I agreed to give it a go. It was to change my life. For the first time in my teaching career I was stepping outside of the known, into a part of my experience that for me had always been traumatic. As a child growing up with a returned serviceman father, I had been plagued by him never letting me do anything manual for myself. If I was struggling to knock in a nail or saw a piece of wood, he would always do it for me to “show me how”. He was a well-meaning, but poor teacher. The result was that I grew to believe that I was manually incompetent, compared to my father – a man who could always fix anything. Consequently, my failures became self-fulfilling. I expected to fail and I always did. Approaching any building task, no matter how small, I would hold my breath and shake. The irony was that I could draw without difficulty – largely, I suspect, because it was the one area of dexterity and visualisation that dad didn’t excel at. Yet for all my drawing ability, and the fact that I had detailed innumerable buildings and supervised their construction – all of this experience was, to a large extent theoretical. I had never actually built anything.
On top of all of this I remember distinctly one occasion when he held up his calloused and cracked worker’s hands in front of my young eyes and fiercely admonished me to “Look at them! You’ll never ‘ave ‘ands like that if I can ‘elp it!” And I didn’t. My hands stayed white and soft throughout my life, until now, and here I was, embarking upon the job of supervising and participating in a project to build a whole house! God forbid!
The ad. was placed, and resulted in seven replies. The students reviewed each of the applicants and decided in the end that they would build a cottage in Santa Cruz for a vocational nurse called Shelley Meltzer. Shelley had arthritis, no pension scheme, a very small amount of savings and lived in a small house on a full section in a good part of town. Her plan was to build a cottage on the rear of the section and rent out the house as a retirement income. Her arthritis occasionally prevented her from working, and one of the key design determinants was that she have wheelchair access as she got older. The process of design was arduous. Each of the students produced a separate design from which the final one would be chosen.  Student Report Site Plan The Site
The site was located at the rear of 509 Buena Vista Avenue in Santa Cruz. The lot burdered a ravine containing a small stream and a grove of eucalyptus trees to the North and West. A small cabin was located at the Northern end of the lot and was approached by a path that divided the eastern segment of the lot, on the north, creating a garden, containinng a small peach tree and a large pineapple guava tree.To the south of the path is a large level grassy area running north-south and received sun most of the day. The front third of the lot was relatively flat and contained the modest two-bedroom house and garage. Shelley's requirements for the lot were quite specific. She wished to prevent any building from encroaching onto the grassy area, which she rightly saw as the sunniest and most pleasant of the spaces available. For this reason she pictured her new house in the area of the existing garden, but was conflicted about the need to build there and the need to preserve the pineapple guava tree which was very special to her. Although the view of the ravine from the garden was especially nice, a large scale housing development had already been planned there, and Shelley preferred that the house be oriented towards the ocean in the west. Zoning regulations required a 3 metre setback from any existinng structures, and it became clear from early in the process that the dolmolition of the existing shed would provide more design opportunities and at the same tome provide a concrete slab in good condition as a design element. Shelley
The Client Shelley Meltzer was a middle-aged vocational nurse approaching retirement. She also had arthritis which on occasion had prevented her from working for a week at a time. She had no reason to believe that her arthritis might retire when she did and so it became a major design determinant. In particular she was concerned that the house provide easy access for a wheelchair. This required larger bathroom and shower and wheelchair access to all living, dining, kitchen and sleeping areas that she might use.
The Design Process
The Process The first two weeks of the project were spent getting to know the site, the client and her dreams and expectation - building a design brief. The design process took place rapidly, over a period of ten days at the end of April, through a series of iterations and produced nine separate but related design solutions. On day 1 three designs were developed. Two of these looked promising and were developed further on day 2. Critical evaluation of these design solutions led to the production of a sixth design on day five. Further discussions led to annother alternative design on day seven which was then developed further on day nine and presented at the same time as a revision of the day-five design  Design A-1
The focal point of this design was the large ‘country kitchen’ around which the rest of the rooms were arranged. Shelley’s original idea was to have a large kitchen-dining room and a relatively small living area to be used as a bedroom for guests. This proposal features a separate ‘room’ for study and is one of the few to have a front and a back door. The bedroom and the bathroom are located on the eastern side of the house to catch the morning sun. The living room is located on the western side of the house to take advantage of the view. The bathroom is larger than normally needed in order to accommodate a wheelchair.
The students felt that the relationship between the bedroom and the bathroom could be improved, so as not to have to traverse the dining area. Shelley liked the internal arrangement and scale of the kitchen-dining area, she was uncomfortable with its relationship to the outside. The front door gave immediate access to the interior of the space causing potential privacy problems. She was also concerned that the dining area lacked any appreciable view. She was also anxious to retain the existing concrete slab for an outdoor area. Finally, the design demonstrates apparent conflict between having an open plan living area and the need for separate private zones when gusts are present.
 Design B-1
This design evolved from an idea to use the existing slab as a wheelchair access to the bedroom – therefore eliminating the need for a separate ramp. The bedroom, bathroom, and kitchen face east. The kitchen is larger than that in Design A-1, because it includes a laundry space, and the counter faces the dining area. The relationship between the bathroom and bedroom is improved, while still maintaining some privacy from the public areas. The major innovation is the inclusion of a loft, serving as a guest sleeping area and eliminating the need to close off the living room from the rest of the public areas.
Shelley6 preferred a more usable and prominent dining area. The innovation of using the slab prompted Shelley to explore its use as an outdoor entertainment area, which in turn suggested linking the slab to the living and dining areas. She also realised that she would prefer to have her bedroom oriented toward the trees, since this would open upo the view and allow for greater privacy – being more elevated. While the inclusion of a loft seemed initially to obviate the need for a living room, it soon became apparent that both would be actually necessary. The design brief was thus continually evolving as new ideas and proposals emerged.
 Design C-1
This design represents a totally different approach to siting the house – to place it as far as possible down the slope and to thus reduce its dominance over the rest of the yard. The design preserves the shed, the garden and the grassy area in the centre of the property. The plan is compacted by locating the bedroom in a second storey, and there is a sleeping nook for guests next to the bathroom.
The proposal was rejected for several reasons. First, the distance and gradient from the road would be an impediment to a wheelchair user or an elderly person. Shelly also felt that the house was too close to the cabin. Finally, its location meant that being close to the tall eucalyptus grove, it would lose too much sun too early in the day. The design was not developed further.
 Design A-2
This proposal attempts to address the discrepancies in design A-1. A sunken living area with built-in seating was introduced to create a more spacious feeling. The house was also moved away from the slab and connected to it, while the kitchen dining area, while still intact, is moved to the south-east where it enjoys morning sun, takes more advantage of the view and is connected to the slab by french doors. Despite these improvements several factors led to its ultimate rejection. First, the entrance space bisects the living and dining areas, creating two separate spaces. Shelley was clear abbout wanting them to feel “like one space”. The entrance is also not clear and a visitor would be more likely to approach the French doors into the dining space. Finally, the design required the elimination of the pineapple guava tree which was one of Shelleys prized possessions.
 Design B-2.
This was the largest of all the design proposals. While the ambiguity of the entrance is resolved, the relationship to the outdoor entertainment area is more problematic and the continues existence of the pineapple guava tree is questionable. The house is all on one level and location of the bedroom at the far end elevates it high off the ground- offering a feeling of “tree house” which Shelley enjoyed. She also decided that she liked being able to look directly out through a window rather than across the space above the living area from the loft in design B-1. There were several notable merits to this design but it still lacked a number of essential ingredients.
 Design B-3
This design attempted to improve the deficiencies still inherent in Design B2, while drawing on ideas that had been developed in design A-2 also. The major innovation was to locate the circulation space external to the living-kitchen-dining area, thus allowing the their continued integrity. The loft sits above the living area and is open to them on the south and east, it also looks directly out to the trees and views to the west. Despite all of these improvements, the ambiguity of the entrance has been reinstated, with the French doors now acting as the de facto front door and allowing for public intrusion into the private realm of the house. Shelley also decided that she preferred the laundry to be in the bathroom than the kitchen.
Design C-2 As the students themselves noted later: “The process which determined the general form of the house took about two weeks. It was ten days from the time we presented our first plans and models to Shelley to the time we all agreed on a design. They were not an easy ten days. It seemed like two months. Originally the class was to be mostly a construction experience. We planned to build something simple, a cabin, a little larger than the one already existing on the property. Shelley originally thought that anything else would be too expensive and thus impractical. She wanted more but didn’t think she could have it. We immediately recognized this fact and thus arose our first conflict. We all agreed that Shelley’s retirement house should be liberating and not oppressive, that it should give her energy and not take it away. The problem was that we were limited in time and money. We had about $8,000 with which to work. Some members argued that we should do a simple structure which we could finish quickly. Shelley would still be getting a lot for her money because our labour was free. Others argued that the more complex plan would suit the site and Shelley far better. They felt that it was wrong to give Shelley less than we could simply because school would be out. Also it was argued that we would learn more by building a more complicated structure. The others replied that there was enough to learn with just a simple structure. Furthermore, some people had top work during the summer and would definitely not be available to continue after the end of the quarter.
This disagreement was not settled until near the end of the design process. With some misgivings, it was finally agreed that the simple design proposals didn’t work well. A complex design was finally chosen.” The fact was that I had tried to exercise a power of veto over the complex designs that were emerging. I did not believe that we had the time, money or materials to complete the proposals that were on the table. I therefore (under some pressure) offered to design an alternative and much more simple proposal to put to the group and the client, which I did. I produced a two-storey plan with a sleeping nook under the loft for guests which could also be used by Shelley in later years if arthritis prevented her from climbing the stairs. While the students were kind enough to acknowledge my logistical concerns, they (and Shelley) found the design unacceptable for a number of reasons. First, they felt that the house did not relate well to the existing slab, dwarfing the small space with its two-storey wall. The partial separation of the kitchen from the living-dining area was also unacceptable, lacking the sense of openness that Shelley was seeking. Finally, the two-storey plan with an upstairs bedroom conflicted with the need to have future wheelchair access throughout the living-sleeping areas. Despite its drawbacks, the students saw enough promise to agree to develop it further in an attempt to iron out some of these difficulties.  Design C-3 The students took this design and attempted to resolve its inadequacies. They relocated the kitchen-dining areas next to the slab, allowing for good indoor-outdoor entertainment. They enlarged the bath to accommodate the laundry and wheelchair access and provided a half-bath for the upstairs bedroom. They moved the bedroom to the North, allowing for the feeling of “tree house” that Shelley was looking for, and in so doing moved the bedroom’s deck to the South, adjacent to the slab below, thereby reducing its scale relative to the outdoor entertainment space. Even with all of these improvements the modified design was still not acceptable to Shelley. While clearly more compact and affordable the guest sleeping space was meagre, while the relationship of the bathroom to the main living space was too direct. Despite my own misgivings, the students and Shelley decided to return to Design B-3 and make the necessary improvements to bring it to an acceptable state.
Design B-4 Now in the ninth week of the project it was imperative that an acceptable design be realised quickly. The students took Design B-3 and modified it. They improved the visibility of the main entrance while creating a greater degree of privacy for the entertainment area. The reduced the size of the loft and roofed over the kitchen-dining – reducing the scale of the south wall relative to the outdoor space. They increased the size of the “conversation space” – living room by moving the fireplace outside the building envelope. They increased the size of the bathroom to accommodate the laundry. The one seeming problem with the design solution was that the loft now appeared too small – no more than apathy to the small outdoor deck. The matter was resolved when Shelley expressed her preference for this arrangement, noting that all she wanted was a small meditation space, not a “room that might become just another activity area.
Reflections on the ProcessReflectinng later on the design process the students attempted to gloss over the confict between themselves and their teacher over the decision-making process but they were being charitable. What really happened was that as the "teacher" I disapproved of the complex design, and tried to persuade the students to give it up, thinking that it would be too difficult for them to execute in the time available. They insisted that if I didn’t like it, I should design one of my own, which I did. It was unceremoniously and unanimously rejected by all of the students and by Shelley herself. They graciously attempted to improve it to allay my fears, but were unable to do so. Swallowing my pride but not mny anxieties, I bowed to their wishes, but felt first-hand the sense of disappointment, chagrin and loss that comes when design proposals are soundly rejected. But although my design did not pass muster completely, there were element that pointed to deficiencies in earlier proposals also. In the final part of the process, the students combined their efforts to amalgamate the best characteristics of all of the proposals with none of the problems. Looking back now, thirty-five years later, it is obvious to me that the final chosen design is qualitatively far superior to the one I produced as well as to its improved version. It is indeed more complex and interesting. But at the time I could only watch with a deep sense of foreboding as they now attempted to turn it innto reality. It was my first real test of democracy in the classroom, and one in which I came out losing. This was to be an important lesson in future projects in which I tried to develop a methodology that would instead systematically produce a win-win result every time, and would nopt pit student against student (or against instructior) in a competitive struggle to find the best possible design.. I am grateful to my students in the Santa Cruz project for holding fast to their principles and beliefs in the face of my opposition. It was here, in the heat of a real project with thousands of dollars of someone else's money on the line, that they first taught me also the importance of student-centred decision-making. There is no doubt in my mind that the success of the project would not have been as demonstrably possible if the energy, enthusiasm and spirit that animated their work had been applied to mine, rather than their own designs. They taught me that trust and acceptance are fundamental requirements in any transformative learning environment. With the design agreed, the working drawings were rushed together with only sketchy details above the foundation level: We spent a lot of time during the construction process deciding how we were going to build. Since we had never scheduled a construction process before we weren’t sure about the order in which thins occur. We had the house almost entirely framed before we received the windows that we were going to use.. Because they were used windows, we didn’t have prior knowledge of their dimensions. The plumbing and electrical plans were drawn a couple of days before starting to install these services. The details of the roof construction weren’t worked out until the last beam was bolted into place. The design evolved over a couple of months with each person contributing to the whole. Shelley was consulted throughout the process.”
  Contractor Help Foundations Miraculously, the house began to emerge. Since neither the students nor I had ever boxed, built or poured foundations, we advertised in the local newspaper for retired builders to volunteer their time and experience. They appeared from nowhere to share their knowledge. The foundations were completed and the framing started.   Student evaluations were conducted by the students themselves with the involvement of Shelley in the partly framed house.  
Framing Evaluations Over a total period of 26 weeks (including the three summer months), the house was finally finished and Shelley moved in. It was a remarkable achievement, outlined in more detail here: House Front House Rear
The Feedback
The client and student reflections on the process after completion were humbling. Shelley: “The house gives me a freedom of spirit. You will never have a happier client. Building a house is in a sense a fragile thing. You have taken the subtleties and nuances of my spoken and unspoken dreams and built a house which is wholly and joyfully mine. I didn’t know a house could lift the spirit so. Your capturing and translating my feelings is attribute to your sensitivities as architects. I admire your integrity. You have renewed my faith that people can come together, and, giving only their word, accomplish their mutual goals. I am still in awe that you would take on such a complicated project.”
The students: “I believe that this project was the greatest educational experience that I have ever had. Rarely do you get an opportunity, in formal schooling to be taught what you want, the way you want. This class offered students control over their own education through intensive study.”
“This class gave me a sense of confidence that taught me things that I could see as useful knowledge. It took architecture out of the realm of theory and into reality…”
“This class gave me a sense of confidence that was lacking before. For example, I would never have attempted to repair a faucet, but now, with a general feeling for plumbing I would not be afraid to build an entire house.”
“Besides knowledge and confidence, the project gave me a good feeling. Instead of school playing a small role in my life, it practically became my life.”
“What I found to be fantastic about the course was the fact that a group of us started from nowhere. We had to organise the structure of the course, and be responsible for whatever direction it went in.”
“Surprising to me still, is just how much we fought and argued, and yet we worked together and proceeded quite well. No one ever really became the authority figure since we were all novices. Tony Ward was a real help in that he didn’t play the part of the authority figure. He gave us free rein, offered his mental or physical assistance without any obligation that we concede to his wishes.”
“I learned more than I ever thought I might.”
“What higher praise can I have than to say that I found Arch191A the most worthwhile course at the school.”
“The class was a complete success for me. I learned more from this one class than any other experience in my life. I now know more about human nature, my own weaknesses and strengths, building, physical realities, resource allocation, hard work, design processes, and finally, working with others". It was a remarkable lesson for me of the value in trusting my students to control their own learning. It was a lesson that I would never forget and which I would carry through to all of my subsequent teaching. Please note that a broader, more contextual accounting ot this project is available in a downloadable PDF, Critical pedagogy Practice: Part 1, here |
What I Offer 
