Something new is clicking on campus at UCI, flipping traditional teaching on its ... Multiple campus units have contributed to the Anteater Learning Pavilion (ALP) and this website.
esign Patterns are simple sketches and annotations that get down to the essence of how a space works. These key ideas break down the complexity of school design as part of a system. Through the use of Patterns we can design and connect successful educational environments and experiences.
Project H uses the power of the design process to catalyze communities and public education from within.
We are a team of designers and builders engaging in our own backyards to improve the quality of life for all. Our six-tenet design process (There is no design without (critical) action; We design WITH, not FOR; We document, share and measure; We start locally and scale globally; We design systems, not stuff; We build) results in simple and effective design solutions that empower communities and build collective creative capital.
Our specific focus is the re-thinking of environments, products, experiences, and curricula for K-12 education institutions in the US, including design/build Studio H high school program in the Bertie County School District, North Carolina.
WE BELIEVE DESIGN CAN CHANGE THE WORLD.
A. Mor-Avi, K. Jones, and C. Emmons. Teaching-Learning-Research: Design and Environments amps Conference, The University of Manchester, School of Architecture. UK, (December 2021)
B. Latour, and A. Yaneva. Explorations in architecture: Teaching, design, research, (2008)"It is well known that we live in a very different world than that of Euclidian space: phenomenologists (and psychologists of the Gibsonian school) have never tired of showing that there is an immense distance in the way an embodied mind experiences its surroundings from the “objective” shape that “material” objects are said to possess. They have tried to add to the “Galilean” bodies rolling through Euclidian space, “human” bodies ambling through a “lived” environment. I All this is very well, except it does nothing more than to reproduce, at the level of architecture, the usual split between subjective and objective dimensions that has always paralyzed architectural theory—not to mention the well known split it has introduced between the architectural and engineering professions (and not to mention the catastrophic consequences it has had on philosophy proper). What is so strange in this argument is that it takes for granted that engineering drawings on a piece of paper and, later, projective geometry offer a good description of the so-called “material” world. This is the hidden presupposition in the whole of phenomenology: we have to add human subjective intentional dimensions to a “material” world that is well described by geometric shapes and mathematical calculations. The paradoxical aspect of this division of labor envisioned by those who want to add the “lived” dimensions of human perspective to the “objective” necessities of material existence is that, in order to avoid reducing humans to things, they first had to reduce things to drawings." p 82.
L. Botturi, M. Derntl, E. Boot, and K. Figl. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT2006). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE, (2006)