not a requirement elsewhere, and is usually very flexible and
general to accommodate different methods of teaching.
For the schools of architecture in Egypt (Salama and
Amir 2005; Barrada 1986), design studios follow the same
worldwide trend, including variations depending on factors
such as the design year and professors in charge, with a
concentration on the final finished presentation of the project. The old established schools (Cairo, Ain Shams, Fine
Arts and Alexandria) have their own clear “studio culture”,
while some relatively new schools of architecture, whether
in the governmental or private sector, may not yet have a
consistent and clear “studio culture”. Time and continuity
will eventually foster a culture similar to that found in the
older established governmental universities, giving those
architectural schools a clear studio culture of their own.
The aim of this paper is to suggest a systematic method
that should take out the mystery from architectural design
and reduce it to a process that if followed should lead to what
can be a better design output in a shorter time. We must
differentiate between what we mean by Design Methodology
and the Design Process. There are several definitions for
methodology in the literature (e.g. Lidy 2006; Cross 1984);
however, we can define Design Methodology as the general
method that if followed should lead to an acceptable design
solution, while the Design Process is the actual steps taken to
implement that methodology. In some design studios, both
the methodology and process are clear and can be easily
followed; however, we can note that quite often, even if
there is a Design Method and culture, the Design Process
itself may not be there, can start clearly but then becomes
vague, or there is no consensus on how it will continue to
final completion. In my quest for a suitable design process
for students of architecture, numerous design methodologies
were surveyed. It is obvious that there will never be a consensus on one design methodology or process. Consequently, this paper proposes one process that can be used as
one step for further development, especially that with the
different digital design workflows available, having a clear
specific design process is no longer a luxury but a necessity
(Agha Khan 1986).
2 Engineering, Studio Culture and Design
Process of the Study
In Egypt, just as in some other parts of the world, the School
of Architecture is part of the Faculty of Engineering. Usually, first-year students study general subjects of engineering
with no concentration, and then they specialize for four years
in the branch of engineering of their choice, with variations
(von Meiss 2002; Agha Khan 1986). However, for students
in their first year of specialization in Architectural Engineering, Architectural Design in that studio format is
markedly different from other subjects studied. When
Architectural Design as a discipline is taught as part of
engineering, this suggests a “scientific” paradigm; however,
we find that it is not addressed in the same way as other
topics being taught in engineering, or as what was taught in
high school, with mathematics and physics concentrations.
Especially for the first three years of design studios, there
is usually no clear methodology that if followed will lead to
a solution to the design problems offered. The scientific
paradigm and scientific methods that are the hallmark of
engineering education are suddenly missing. Instead, there is
a “studio culture”, implicitly including a methodology. With
variations, most are based on a “site analysis/zoning/
schematic plan” design method. The exact process is usually general and sketchy. For the final and fourth design
studio year, the student usually has gained enough design
and studio experience to be able to handle the design task.
In the traditional Design Studio, architecture is taught and
learnt by doing and learning in a master/apprentice relationship, creating a dialogue from which both learn. Trial
and error is of paramount importance, with numerous iterations till an acceptable solution is reached. The process is
also collaborative, relying also on peer to peer learning,
cooperation, criticism, sharing and competition. Students
learn by trial and error, by criticism, by doing “and
instructors function more as coaches than as teachers. In the
early stages of the practicum, confusion and mystery reign
that is mediated by a distinctive dialogue of student and
coach in which description of practice is interwoven with
performance” (Hill 2007). In the Design Studio, the basic
tool between professor and student is the “critique”, where
the student brings his work and the professor critiques it,
usually in a group, but provides one-on-one interaction
(Smith and Boyer 2015; Goldshmidt et al. 2010). One categorization of design approaches identified two basic
methods for Design Studios: the rationalist approach (systematic and functional) versus the expressionist approach
(intuitive or artistic or creative skill) (Bashier 2014).
New Architectural Engineering students whose focus of
study since high school was based on a concentration of
mathematics and physics, experience frustration and loss due
to lack of understanding of the scientific steps that should be
followed to reach a design “acceptable” by their teachers in
the Design Studio. The problem of lack of a non-specific
“scientific method” or a “design process” that can be applied
to architectural design becomes only too evident when the
student is “stuck” with no solution to his architectural design
problems (Sachs 1999). He can’t find nor is he given a clear
and standard process that if followed would lead him out of
his problems. There are no “theorems” or “formulas” or laws
to help him. The “methodology” taught does not help him.
The number of variables, variations, styles and correct
solutions is overwhelming to the student, with no clear
2
T. G. Abdelhamid
general to accommodate different methods of teaching.
For the schools of architecture in Egypt (Salama and
Amir 2005; Barrada 1986), design studios follow the same
worldwide trend, including variations depending on factors
such as the design year and professors in charge, with a
concentration on the final finished presentation of the project. The old established schools (Cairo, Ain Shams, Fine
Arts and Alexandria) have their own clear “studio culture”,
while some relatively new schools of architecture, whether
in the governmental or private sector, may not yet have a
consistent and clear “studio culture”. Time and continuity
will eventually foster a culture similar to that found in the
older established governmental universities, giving those
architectural schools a clear studio culture of their own.
The aim of this paper is to suggest a systematic method
that should take out the mystery from architectural design
and reduce it to a process that if followed should lead to what
can be a better design output in a shorter time. We must
differentiate between what we mean by Design Methodology
and the Design Process. There are several definitions for
methodology in the literature (e.g. Lidy 2006; Cross 1984);
however, we can define Design Methodology as the general
method that if followed should lead to an acceptable design
solution, while the Design Process is the actual steps taken to
implement that methodology. In some design studios, both
the methodology and process are clear and can be easily
followed; however, we can note that quite often, even if
there is a Design Method and culture, the Design Process
itself may not be there, can start clearly but then becomes
vague, or there is no consensus on how it will continue to
final completion. In my quest for a suitable design process
for students of architecture, numerous design methodologies
were surveyed. It is obvious that there will never be a consensus on one design methodology or process. Consequently, this paper proposes one process that can be used as
one step for further development, especially that with the
different digital design workflows available, having a clear
specific design process is no longer a luxury but a necessity
(Agha Khan 1986).
2 Engineering, Studio Culture and Design
Process of the Study
In Egypt, just as in some other parts of the world, the School
of Architecture is part of the Faculty of Engineering. Usually, first-year students study general subjects of engineering
with no concentration, and then they specialize for four years
in the branch of engineering of their choice, with variations
(von Meiss 2002; Agha Khan 1986). However, for students
in their first year of specialization in Architectural Engineering, Architectural Design in that studio format is
markedly different from other subjects studied. When
Architectural Design as a discipline is taught as part of
engineering, this suggests a “scientific” paradigm; however,
we find that it is not addressed in the same way as other
topics being taught in engineering, or as what was taught in
high school, with mathematics and physics concentrations.
Especially for the first three years of design studios, there
is usually no clear methodology that if followed will lead to
a solution to the design problems offered. The scientific
paradigm and scientific methods that are the hallmark of
engineering education are suddenly missing. Instead, there is
a “studio culture”, implicitly including a methodology. With
variations, most are based on a “site analysis/zoning/
schematic plan” design method. The exact process is usually general and sketchy. For the final and fourth design
studio year, the student usually has gained enough design
and studio experience to be able to handle the design task.
In the traditional Design Studio, architecture is taught and
learnt by doing and learning in a master/apprentice relationship, creating a dialogue from which both learn. Trial
and error is of paramount importance, with numerous iterations till an acceptable solution is reached. The process is
also collaborative, relying also on peer to peer learning,
cooperation, criticism, sharing and competition. Students
learn by trial and error, by criticism, by doing “and
instructors function more as coaches than as teachers. In the
early stages of the practicum, confusion and mystery reign
that is mediated by a distinctive dialogue of student and
coach in which description of practice is interwoven with
performance” (Hill 2007). In the Design Studio, the basic
tool between professor and student is the “critique”, where
the student brings his work and the professor critiques it,
usually in a group, but provides one-on-one interaction
(Smith and Boyer 2015; Goldshmidt et al. 2010). One categorization of design approaches identified two basic
methods for Design Studios: the rationalist approach (systematic and functional) versus the expressionist approach
(intuitive or artistic or creative skill) (Bashier 2014).
New Architectural Engineering students whose focus of
study since high school was based on a concentration of
mathematics and physics, experience frustration and loss due
to lack of understanding of the scientific steps that should be
followed to reach a design “acceptable” by their teachers in
the Design Studio. The problem of lack of a non-specific
“scientific method” or a “design process” that can be applied
to architectural design becomes only too evident when the
student is “stuck” with no solution to his architectural design
problems (Sachs 1999). He can’t find nor is he given a clear
and standard process that if followed would lead him out of
his problems. There are no “theorems” or “formulas” or laws
to help him. The “methodology” taught does not help him.
The number of variables, variations, styles and correct
solutions is overwhelming to the student, with no clear
2
T. G. Abdelhamid