I'm almost lost for words.
Would his Masters year not have been better spent learning to design buildings?
Did Strathclyde Uni really sanction this jolly road trip to create a "public fueled work of art"?
Architecture schools really need to get more relevant with their direction to students.

Looks like a good, solid work of agit-prop to me. Good on you, Paul.

God forbid, an 'architect' engaging with the world? Whateffer next? Talking to non--architect people?

Dear Cadmonkey, just like the rest of us, I would have thought he would have the rest of his working life to learn to design buildings.

And in any case, its streets ahead of a parklet, any day of the week.

3m wheeled trailer = large scale public intervention.

does not compute.

#2
Don't you mean agri-prop?

Looks like a horse box with....er.....well no horse.

Looks pretty slick, though it's a shame that there isn't something to cover the wheels

#2
My point is that he is still a "non-architect" person at present as he is still studying.
He has all his working life to talk to "non-architect people" once he is qualified.
To me this looks like wasting valuable architectural education time.

Ah, but then again, it all depends on what you would think 'education' is then, don't it?

By the way, my experience is that the business of architecture (working for the yankee dollah) in the main tends not to involve the inclusion of 'non-architects'. And please don't mention the C-word. Consultation.

You have a nice day now, y'hear?

:-)

If this is a small part of his thesis project / testing ground for a larger intention, then I think it is fine.
Similar to the mirror box project built few years ago, if that's the final product of the thesis project the university probably need to push the students harder.

most likely it is not 'governments money', probably paid for out of his own pocket - it costs for an architectural thesis.

Why would a client or architect want to "consult" when it is not a legal requirement?
99 times out of 100 it generates problems for the project and I am yet to see a project become more lucrative as a result of consultation.
I have attended several "consultation" events and am yet to see the process have any influence at all on the application the client wants and ends up submitting.
It is simply silly box ticking.
If you don't need to do it, why do it?

- a folio piece?
- something unique?
- box ticking would be the opposite?

i wonder if this is just a 'cool shed' built on a trailer base, or if any effort was taken regarding its design as a road going vehicle.
In short - how well does it fair on a speed bump?

I was a strong supporter (and purveyor) of this kind of project as a student but the deeper I get into practice the more I think it's a waste of limited time. It certainly has some value but the lack of ability of graduates (and far too many architects) to design an actual, appropriate building makes me begin to wonder whether this is a misplaced priority. Certainly at thesis level.
Questioning everything is absolutely essential, but so too is actually designing a building appropriately, in accordance with boring things like the requirements of regulations and client brief. There's so much that needs to be taught about these things, which will be 99% of any practicing architect's job, but not very much time devoted to it. I'd support the ETH system; go mad in first and second year, and get real for the rest.

All an architecture student actually needs as education is a knowledge of detailing. Everything else is synthetic trash.

He ought not to get a high grade, he is merely replicating the kind of experience that we get on the internet.

It's nothing on a good parklet.

"design an actual, appropriate building"
" learning to design buildings"

What a strange world you live in? Must be odd working in a world where you can chuck out identical, measurable, repetitive things that you can confidently define as "actual buildings"...and then teach young'uns this prescribed theoretical "method" that they can apply once graduated.

I suspect what the article's project has likely taught Mr Pointon is; to think of a concept, to propose a design solution to carry the concept, to develop it to detail, to overcome the regulatory and budgetary hurdles and to deliver a real, physical end product under your own supervision and within your own capabilities of scale and complexity that fulfils the brief set and satisfies the original concept and thinking....the preceding description also happens to sound exactly like what he should be learning to become a decent architect and at a scale of complexity that gives him the chance of producing something great.

But maybe you'd all have him CAD up a retail shed while quoting verbatim the Building Regs.

"But maybe you'd all have him CAD up a retail shed while quoting verbatim the Building Regs." - Yes, that would be realistic.

My point still stands, he has failed at the very first hurdle of design. If he had thought the actual problem out fully then he would end up at web design. Websites deliver information in the most effective and efficient way - he wouldn't even need to be there in person to deliver the information.

It maybe that he is attempting to address the critical question of what is the boundary between vehicle and building - in this case there are much more refined ways of thinking about that critique.

You're missing the point - this wasn't necessarily a learning experience or about 'bringing architecture to the people' (lol) but an enjoyable thing to do that would look good on a CV, be a talking point and get him noticed and hopefully a job.

Ill-conceived as a vehicle/building amalgam - yes; poorly detailed - yes; wanky - most certainly but a waste of time? Probably not if it helps him get a job. And he'll have plenty of time working out enclosing rectangles for retail shed openings then.

@ fq112
I didn't suggest that the alternative to this kind of project is to churn out a retail shed in accordance with building regulations, only that having worked in practice for a number of years I’ve come to understand that buildings are a lot more complicated to design than I learnt at University (when I enjoyed doing this kind of project). I suspect that the Märklis, Zumthors, Frettons, Carusos, Chipperfields and 6as of this world aren’t really that drawn to people who’ve spent the final year of their studies doing caravan consultations and side-stepping the complex issues of building design. If you think that amounts to sheds, rectangles and regs, then perhaps you didn’t learn much either. What about an exploration of plan-making and section, what about articulation of facade, what about historical precedent, appropriate scale, typology, urbanism, tectonics, proportional systems, materials etc ad infinitum?

@ nairns bairn
We don’t invest in education as a society (much at all as it happens - but that’s a different story) so that students get something that looks good on their CV. We need architects to be able to design us a decent built environment.

This project is great and has no doubt raised confidence and done all the successful things mention in fq112’s point 17 above. I just think it isn’t final year material.

@Stephen "We don’t invest in education as a society .. so that students get something that looks good on their CV. We need architects to be able to design us a decent built environment."

Indeed we don't, and yes we do. Agreed.
(Looks at shed on wheels again). I'm not sure if the wonderful world of architecture is going to live up to this chappie's expectations though.