Studio BA3 (Peris et Toral)

AR-201(bc) / 10 credits

Teacher(s): Peris Eugenio Marta, Toral Fernandez Jose Manuel

Language: English

Remark: Inscription faite par la section

Summary

This studio explores collective housing through Kahn's servant and served spaces. Students analyse references in a shared Typology Atlas and apply an assigned strategy to a row-house cluster, connecting inhabitation with spatial, structural and construction systems

Content

 

HOUSING TYPOLOGY: SERVANT SERVED SPACES

SEMESTER I

The concepts of "servant space" and "served space" were explicitly articulated by Louis I. Kahn in "Architecture Is the Thoughtful Making of Spaces," published in Perspecta, no. 4, in 1957. Kahn arrived at this distinction through his search for a spatial order appropriate to modern construction. He argued that architecture was still imitating construction with solid stone and had yet to discover meaningful forms for steel and concrete. The combination of solids and voids inherent in these materials offered the possibility of accommodating ducts, pipes and other services within the spatial order of the building, suggesting new forms based on what he called "hollow stones."

At the same time, Kahn maintained that these services should not obscure the expression of how a space was made. Mechanical systems had to be integrated into its spatial order, while storage rooms, service rooms and other secondary spaces should be recognised as distinct spaces and given structures of their own. This relationship between the principal spaces and the smaller spaces that supported them led Kahn to distinguish between served and servant spaces. Although Kahn developed these concepts within a specific structural and technological context, the course uses them more broadly as a framework for interpreting and designing collective housing through the organisation of the floor plan. Here, the distinction is understood not merely in programmatic terms, but primarily as a design strategy.

In housing, servant spaces often include the functional and utilitarian components of a dwelling, such as circulation, building services, wet cores-including bathrooms and kitchens-and storage for domestic equipment and personal belongings. Served spaces, by contrast, often correspond to the habitable areas intended for interaction, privacy and everyday life. These associations provide an initial point of reference, but do not determine how each space operates within a particular floor plan.

At the level of the floor plan, these two spatial categories can be understood as complementary ways of establishing spatial order. Servant-space strategies organise the plan through the occupation, position and form of cores, bands, volumes or fixed elements. Served-space strategies establish an order within the void itself through the proportions, connections and hierarchies of habitable spaces. Served space should therefore not be understood simply as what remains around servant elements, but as a spatial field with its own formal and relational order. However, as Kahn himself states, "spaces transcend function." A kitchen, for example, may be entirely contained within a servant volume, or it may open up and become part of the served space, extending it and making it more permeable. Whether a space operates as servant or served is therefore determined not only by its use, but also by its position, spatial definition and relationship with the overall layout.

The course proposes a taxonomy of servant and served spaces. Servant-space strategies include the concentric plan, inhabited boxes, central core, alveolar façade, deep wall and plan poché. Served-space strategies include interlocked walls, unfixed walls, porous rooms, middle room, exterior room and equal room.

These categories are neither exhaustive nor fixed. They do not exist naturally within the plans but are constructed as a way of observing and comparing them. The same projects could therefore be classified differently using other criteria. The taxonomy contains a degree of arbitrariness, but this does not mean that it is random or lacks rigour. Its purpose is not to establish a single or definitive order, but to make spatial differences visible.

As the anthropologist Manuel Delgado argues, "we do not differentiate because we are different; we are different because we have differentiated ourselves in the first place." From this perspective, the specific object of classification is ultimately irrelevant: what matters is the act of classifying and its capacity to reveal distinctions that might otherwise remain unnoticed.

Delgado also explains that perception depends on contrast. We do not perceive a colour in isolation, but through its difference from another; without difference, there is no information. In the same way, comparing housing plans through a shared set of categories helps students distinguish spatial relationships and design strategies that might otherwise remain hidden. By learning to recognise these differences, students begin to read the floor plan as a spatial language. The categories are therefore not only analytical tools, but also a vocabulary that students can later use to design, evaluate alternatives and make conscious decisions throughout the design process. The course thus aims to provide students with the tools to distinguish, interpret and compare housing plans, moving beyond functional description towards a conceptual understanding that can inform their own projects.

 

EXERCISE 1 - SERVANT & SERVED ANALYSIS

The semester will begin with a three-day visit to Basel, focusing on recent collective housing projects that explore innovative housing typologies.

For the initial exercise, each student will analyse a reference project selected from a list of exemplary cases provided by the teaching staff. Half of the students will examine servant-space strategies, in which the plan is organised through the occupation, position and form of servant elements. The other half will focus on served-space strategies, in which the project establishes an order within the void by defining the relationships, connections and hierarchies between habitable spaces. This division establishes the focus of the analysis rather than an exclusive classification, since every project must ultimately be understood through the relationship between both kinds of space.

Students will examine the proportions, spatial definition and arrangement of servant and served spaces within the floor plan. Rather than simply identifying and categorising rooms according to their functions, they will investigate the underlying design operations and consider how these strategies organise the dwelling and shape the way it is inhabited. The exercise places particular emphasis on understanding design strategies conceptually and communicating the relationship between spatial organisation and everyday life through drawing. In doing so, students will develop their conceptual, analytical and representational skills.

The exercise will conclude at the midterm review with the submission of a single vertical A1 sheet produced in black and white. The sheet must include plans of both the dwelling typology and the complete building, together with any relevant elevations or sections. Its principal drawing will be a military axonometric projection. In this form of projection, the horizontal plane remains undeformed and can therefore be represented to scale, making it possible to explain the three-dimensional organisation of the project without sacrificing the precision and rigour of the floor plan.

The axonometric drawing must reveal not only the role of either servant or served space in the organisation of the building and the dwelling typology, but also how this spatial strategy relates to a particular way of inhabiting. The drawing must therefore incorporate signs of inhabitation-through furniture, domestic objects, bodies and everyday activities-that are specifically related to the category being analysed. These elements should not appear as generic or decorative additions but should demonstrate how the selected servant- or served-space strategy supports, conditions or transforms everyday life. Although the information may be drawn from several source documents, it must be synthesised into a single, coherent composition. The objective is not simply to reproduce the available documentation, but to construct a drawing capable of explaining the relationship between the project's spatial strategy and the forms of domestic life that it enables.

The material produced by the entire class will be brought together in a collective dossier entitled Typology Atlas. By redrawing different reference projects through a shared set of categories and a common graphic language, the atlas will make otherwise diverse cases comparable. It is conceived not as a catalogue of finished solutions, but as a collective research and design tool: each individual analysis becomes part of a shared body of knowledge that allows students to compare strategies, recognise recurring spatial relationships and apply what they have learned to subsequent design exercises. In this way, the atlas supports the transmission of knowledge between students and establishes a direct link between analysis and design.

 

EXERCISE 2 - CLUSTER ROW HOUSE

While completing Exercise 1, students will begin Exercise 2, working in pairs. Each group will design a row-house cluster that explores the relationship between private domestic spaces and spaces shared by the residents. Although no specific geographical site will be assigned, each group will work on a plot defined by party walls of different dimensions on either side, allowing its proposal to connect with those developed by neighbouring groups.

Each group will be assigned a specific servant- or served-space strategy from the taxonomy, different from those previously analysed by either of its members during Exercise 1. This will broaden the range of strategies with which each student becomes familiar. The Typology Atlas will serve as both a reference manual and a shared research tool, allowing students to draw on the analyses developed by their classmates and apply the assigned strategy to their plot. The strategy will act as the organising principle of the proposal, defining the relationships between private and shared spaces and informing how the cluster may be inhabited. Particular attention will be paid to different degrees of privacy and to the transitions between individual, collective and shared forms of inhabitation.

During this phase, a series of lectures will address materials and construction, the relationship between architecture and the human scale, thermodynamics and shared inhabitation. The exercise will introduce students to the relationship between spatial organisation, structural systems-walls, frames and slabs-and construction systems. Different construction approaches will be analysed through a range of material families, including timber, earth, stone, steel and concrete

Students will work from the premise that architectural expression is not applied independently, but emerges from the coherence between spatial, structural and construction systems. They will therefore be expected to understand every layer and component of their chosen construction system and to represent its complete material build-up accurately at 1:50. Through this process, they will consider how structural and construction choices influence spatial order, human scale, environmental performance and ways of inhabiting.

By responding to the party walls of neighbouring proposals, students will understand that a house is not an isolated object, but part of a larger structure that contributes to shaping the city. Each proposal must therefore resolve its own spatial organisation while establishing relationships with the houses around it.

For the final submission, each group will present a series of vertical A1 sheets produced in black and white and organised into two complementary groups. The first, Inhabit, will include floor plans, elevations and sections at 1:50 and will explain the relationship between the spatial strategy, different degrees of privacy and forms of inhabitation. The second, Construction, will include a construction axonometric drawing at 1:50 explaining the material and structural logic of the proposal. An optional thermodynamic analysis may also be incorporated through a sectional perspective. As in the previous exercise, the different drawings must be synthesised into coherent graphic compositions rather than presented as separate pieces of information.

A model at 1:33 scale will also be required. All the studio models will be presented together as a single aggregation. By fitting their party walls together, the models will reveal how the sum of individual design decisions can collectively generate a fragment of the city.

Keywords

KEYWORDS

Collective Housing; Housing Typology; Servant and Served Spaces; Spatial Taxonomy; Typology Atlas; Cluster Housing; Shared Inhabitation; Private and Shared Spaces; Human Scale; Structural Systems; Construction Systems; Materiality; Thermodynamics; Concentric Plan; Inhabited Boxes; Central Core; Alveolar Façade; Deep Wall; Plan Poché; Interlocked Walls; Unfixed Walls; Porous Rooms; Middle Room; Exterior Room; Equal Room.

Learning Outcomes

By the end of the course, the student must be able to:

  • Analyze architectural references by identifying and comparing the spatial relationships and design strategies that organise their floor plans.
  • Systematize a diverse collection of housing references through a shared taxonomy and the Typology Atlas, transforming individual research into collective design knowledge.
  • Interpret servant- and served-space strategies beyond functional definitions, relating their position, form and organisation to ways of inhabiting.
  • Synthesize conceptual analyses and design decisions into coherent sets of plans, sections, elevations, axonometric drawings and models.
  • Apply an assigned servant- or served-space strategy to the specific conditions of a plot as the organising principle of a housing proposal.
  • Design a row-house cluster that addresses private and shared spaces, degrees of privacy, collective inhabitation, human scale and thermodynamic performance.
  • Coordinate spatial, structural and construction systems so that architectural expression emerges from their coherence.
  • Develop a material and construction system through its complete build-up, accurately representing its layers and components at 1:50.

Transversal skills

  • Assess progress against the plan, and adapt the plan as appropriate.
  • Evaluate one's own performance in the team, receive and respond appropriately to feedback.
  • Give feedback (critique) in an appropriate fashion.
  • Negotiate effectively within the group.
  • Demonstrate a capacity for creativity.
  • Access and evaluate appropriate sources of information.
  • Make an oral presentation.
  • Demonstrate the capacity for critical thinking

Teaching methods

TEACHING METHODS

Learning in the studio is organised as an open and iterative process of observing, classifying, comparing, drawing, applying, testing and revising. The aim is not to transmit a single design method or guide students towards a predetermined formal solution, but to teach them how to make linked, conscious and responsible decisions. The project is therefore understood as a narrative constructed over time, in which spatial, structural, material, environmental and social decisions must remain coherent with one another.

The semester begins with the study trip to Basel, understood not only as an academic activity but also as the first shared experience of the studio. During the trip, students have the opportunity to meet, interact and organise themselves in a real situation, helping to establish an initial sense of collective identity. The first exercise is developed individually, while the pairs for the second exercise are formed only after the trip and this initial period of interaction.

The first exercise follows a divergent pedagogical model: rather than asking every student to complete the same task, each student analyses a different reference project. Even when two references belong to the same category, they present distinct spatial organisations and forms of inhabitation. This diversity shifts attention away from the direct comparison of results and towards the internal coherence of each analysis. Difference becomes a source of curiosity and learning rather than competition.

Each project is redrawn through a common set of categories and graphic conventions. Redrawing is understood as a form of research: students must select, interpret and synthesise information rather than simply reproduce existing documentation. Classification makes an extensive and heterogeneous collection of references legible and comparable without reducing their complexity.

The individual analyses are assembled into the collective Typology Atlas. Although each contribution is produced individually, its value depends on its relationship with all the others. The need to agree on graphic, conceptual and classification criteria creates a shared problem that can only be resolved collectively. The atlas establishes a common vocabulary, makes the criteria developed by the studio explicit and transforms individual research into knowledge available to everyone. It later functions as an open reference manual for the design exercise, allowing students to understand strategies they have not previously analysed and to inform their own decisions through the work of their classmates. Knowledge therefore circulates horizontally across the studio rather than moving only from teachers to students.

In the second exercise, students work in pairs. Each pair is assigned a servant- or served-space strategy different from those previously analysed by either member, thereby increasing the number of strategies with which every student becomes familiar. The strategy is applied to the specific conditions of a plot and tested through successive design iterations. Each group works from a different strategy and set of conditions, producing a diverse field of investigations rather than a collection of competing answers to an identical problem.

This divergent organisation is intended to foster cooperation instead of competition. Since students are not pursuing the same solution, direct comparison becomes less relevant and exchange becomes more valuable. Students are encouraged to see one another as research partners, sharing references, difficulties, discoveries and criteria. Diversity of outcomes is supported by a common framework of requirements, drawing conventions, scales and deliverables, ensuring shared academic rigour without imposing formal uniformity.

The collective model extends this principle to the urban scale. Each row-house proposal must respond to the party walls of neighbouring projects, and the models can only form a coherent urban fragment when they are assembled together. The final result therefore depends on coordination and negotiation between groups, making cooperation a structural condition of the project rather than an additional activity.

The weekly schedule establishes a continuous cycle between design development, critical review and theoretical input. Mondays are devoted to intensive studio reviews. Every student or group, depending on the stage of the semester, presents their work to the professors. The starting order rotates weekly so that the different time slots are distributed equally throughout the semester. Students must arrive fully prepared, with all current drawings and relevant material printed and ready for discussion.

Reviews take place around a large table positioned at the centre of the studio, where students, assistants and professors can gather around the drawings. This horizontal arrangement avoids the frontality and hierarchy associated with presenting work on a blackboard or wall, transforming the review into a shared working session rather than an individual defence. Students are expected to listen to, compare and learn from the discussions of other projects.

The same principle applies to interim and final reviews. The sheets are laid out together on a large horizontal table instead of being displayed frontally. This makes it possible to place projects side by side, establish relationships between them and move freely around the work. The physical organisation of the review thus supports a more open and collaborative discussion, in which students, teachers and invited critics participate around a common field of work.

Tuesday sessions combine lectures by the professors with follow-up discussions led by the teaching assistants. Lectures provide conceptual and technical input on housing typology, shared inhabitation, human scale, thermodynamics, structural systems, materials and construction. The subsequent discussions allow students to revisit the previous day's reviews, clarify questions and translate the feedback received into specific decisions. This additional layer of discussion allows feedback to be questioned, interpreted and reformulated, reinforcing shared authority and peer learning.

Teaching also includes site visits, collective discussions, interim reviews and final presentations. Teachers act as critical mediators: they formulate questions, activate conversations and challenge arguments without replacing the students' decisions. Uncertainty, error and revision are understood as productive parts of learning.

Drawing and model-making accompany the entire process. Plans, sections, axonometric projections and physical models are treated as instruments of thought through which students can test spatial relationships, construction systems, forms of inhabitation and connections with neighbouring proposals. Learning is consolidated when students draw, compare, discuss and publicly explain the reasoning behind their decisions.

Assessment methods

 

ASSESSMENT METHODS

Semester I extends over 14 weeks and includes a midterm review for Exercise 1 and a final review for Exercise 2. Assessment is conceived as an active part of the learning process rather than solely as a final grading mechanism. It combines continuous evaluation, feedback, self-assessment and the evaluation of the final submissions.

The diversity of references, strategies and design outcomes does not imply an absence of common standards. All students must produce a set of mandatory documents using shared formats, scales and graphic conventions. These common requirements provide a framework of academic rigour while allowing each student or group to follow a different design trajectory. Assessment therefore focuses on the coherence of the decisions and arguments developed throughout the process rather than on conformity to a preferred formal solution.

Assessment is distributed as follows:

  • Exercise 1 - Servant & Served Analysis: 20%
  • Exercise 2 - Cluster Row House: 70%
  • General Involvement: 10%

EXERCISE 1 - SERVANT & SERVED ANALYSIS - 20%

Individual work

Each student will submit one vertical A1 sheet produced in black and white. It must include a plan of the dwelling typology, a plan of the complete building, relevant elevations or sections and a military axonometric projection. These documents must be synthesised into a single coherent composition that clearly explains the servant- or served-space strategy being analysed and its relationship with a particular way of inhabiting.

The individual contribution will also become part of the collective Typology Atlas. Its assessment will therefore consider not only its quality as an independent analysis, but also its clarity, rigour and usefulness within the shared body of knowledge produced by the studio.

 

EXERCISE 2 - CLUSTER ROW HOUSE - 70%

Work in pairs

Each pair will develop a row-house cluster on an assigned plot, applying a servant- or served-space strategy different from those previously analysed by either group member. The proposal must explore the relationships between private and shared spaces, different degrees of privacy and individual, collective and shared forms of inhabitation.

The final submission will consist of a series of vertical A1 sheets produced in black and white and organised into two complementary groups. Inhabit will include floor plans, elevations and sections at 1:50. Construction will include a construction axonometric drawing at 1:50 explaining the structural, material and construction logic of the proposal. An optional thermodynamic analysis may also be incorporated through a sectional perspective.

A physical model at 1:33 will also be required. The models will be assessed both as individual proposals and as parts of the collective urban aggregation created by connecting the party walls of neighbouring projects.

Although Exercise 2 is developed in pairs, assessment will consider both the quality of the collective proposal and each student's individual understanding, participation and contribution to the design process.

 

GENERAL INVOLVEMENT - 10%

General involvement is assessed continuously throughout the semester. It considers students' curiosity, commitment and progress, as well as their participation in studio discussions, collective reviews and shared activities.

This component also considers independent research and complementary reading, preparedness for weekly reviews, the ability to respond critically to feedback and each student's contribution to a cooperative studio culture. Students are expected to engage with the work of their classmates, share references and knowledge and contribute constructively to the Typology Atlas, the collective model and the development of shared criteria.

 


ASSESSMENT PROCESS

At the beginning of the semester, students will identify the aspects they want to develop and the learning objectives they aim to pursue. These objectives will provide an initial framework for reflecting on their decisions and progress.

The midterm review combines the assessment of Exercise 1 with an opportunity for structured feedback and self-assessment. Students will be asked to identify what they have learned, recognise unresolved questions and establish priorities for the second half of the semester.

At the end of the semester, students will reflect on the development of their work, the coherence of their decisions and the contribution of collective discussions to their learning. Self-assessment is understood not as a justification of the final result, but as a tool for critically evaluating the process and recognising the knowledge acquired.

Supervision

Office hours Yes
Assistant.e.s Yes
Forum No
Others

Resources

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

THEORY AND HOUSING

Abalos, Inaki. The Good Life: A Guided Visit to the Houses of Modernity. Translated by Paul Hammond. Zurich: Park Books, 2017.

Candilis, Georges. Planning and Design for Leisure / Recherches sur l'architecture des loisirs / Planen und Bauen fuer die Freizeit. English translation by James C. Palmes. Documents of Modern Architecture, vol. 9. Stuttgart: Karl Kraemer Verlag, 1972.

Druot, Frederic, Anne Lacaton, and Jean-Philippe Vassal. Plus: Large-Scale Housing Developments - An Exceptional Case. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2007.

Eleb, Monique, and Sabri Bendimerad. "Cohabit: Reasons, Places and Forms of Cohabitation." T18 Magazine, nos. 33-34, "New Ways of Living" (2020): 15-42.

Evans, Robin. "Figures, Doors and Passages." Architectural Design 48, no. 4 (April 1978): 267-278.

Hayden, Dolores. The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1981.

Hertzberger, Herman. Lessons for Students in Architecture. Rotterdam: nai010 Publishers, 2016. First published 1991.

Hertzberger, Herman. Space and the Architect: Lessons in Architecture 2. 2nd rev. ed. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers, 2010.

Kahn, Louis I. "Architecture Is the Thoughtful Making of Spaces." Perspecta, no. 4 (1957): 2-3.

Peris, Marta. "Servant Space, Served Space." In Des dels edificis / Desde los edificios / From Buildings, edited by Pere Joan Ravetllat, 164-185. Barcelona: Iniciativa Digital Politecnica, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, 2014.

Piniara, Ioanna. We Have Never Been Private: The Housing Project in Neoliberal Europe. New York: Actar, 2025.

Poch, Marta, ed. Housing in the Metropolitan Area of Barcelona: Metropolitan Institute of Land Development and Property Management (IMPSOL), 2015-2024. Barcelona: Actar, 2025.

Rybczynski, Witold. Home: A Short History of an Idea. New York: Viking, 1986.

Sabater, Txatxo, and Ricardo Guasch. "Albergue-Sharing-Cohabitacion-Cohousing-Coliving: Nuevos descriptores, nuevos operadores proyectuales. Ampliacion operadores, su extension." T18 Magazine, nos. 33-34, "Nuevas maneras de habitar" (2020).

Teige, Karel. The Minimum Dwelling. Translated and introduced by Eric Dluhosch. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002. Originally published in Czech in 1932.

 

CONSTRUCTION

Ching, Francis D. K., and Mark Mulville. European Building Construction Illustrated. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2014.

Deplazes, Andrea, ed. Constructing Architecture: Materials, Processes, Structures - A Handbook. 5th English ed. Basel: Birkhaeuser, 2022.

Muttoni, Aurelio. The Art of Structures: Introduction to the Functioning of Structures in Architecture. Lausanne: EPFL Press, 2011.

Neufert, Ernst. Architects' Data. 6th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2023. First published in German as Bauentwurfslehre in 1936.

Semper, Gottfried. The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings. Translated and edited by Harry Francis Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. "The Four Elements of Architecture" was first published in 1851.

Torroja, Eduardo. Philosophy of Structures. English version by J. J. Polivka and Milos Polivka. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1958. Originally published in Spanish as Razon y ser de los tipos estructurales in 1957.

Engel, Heino. Tragsysteme / Structure Systems. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz, 2009. Bilingual German-English edition.

Frampton, Kenneth. Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture. Edited by John Cava. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995.

Otto, Frei, and Bodo Rasch. Finding Form: Towards an Architecture of the Minimal. Edited by Sabine Schanz. Stuttgart: Edition Axel Menges, 1995.

Rudofsky, Bernard. Architecture Without Architects: A Short Introduction to Non-Pedigreed Architecture. New York: The Museum of Modern Art; distributed by Doubleday, 1964.

Kaufmann, Hermann, Stefan Kroetsch, and Stefan Winter. Manual of Multi-Storey Timber Construction: Principles, Constructions, Examples. Munich: DETAIL, 2022.

Minke, Gernot. Building with Earth: Design and Technology of a Sustainable Architecture. 5th rev. ed. Basel: Birkhaeuser, 2025.

Schmitt, Heinrich, and Andreas Heene. Hochbaukonstruktion: Die Bauteile und das Baugefuege - Grundlagen des heutigen Bauens. 15th ed. Wiesbaden: Vieweg, 2001.

 

THERMODYNAMICS

Grohar, Jure, Eva Gusel, Masa Mertelj, Anja Vidic, and Matic Vrabic, eds. +/- 1 deg C: In Search of Well-Tempered Architecture. Ljubljana: Museum of Architecture and Design (MAO), 2024.

Heschong, Lisa. Thermal Delight in Architecture. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1979.

Heywood, Huw. 101 reglas basicas para una arquitectura de bajo consumo energetico. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2015.

Heywood, Huw. 101 reglas basicas para edificios y ciudades sostenibles. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2017.

Olgyay, Victor. Design with Climate: Bioclimatic Approach to Architectural Regionalism. New and expanded ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015. First published 1963.

Prieto, Eduardo. Historia medioambiental de la arquitectura. Madrid: Catedra, 2019.

Rahm, Philippe. Climatic Architecture. New York: Actar Publishers, 2023.

Rahm, Philippe. Historia natural de la arquitectura: Como el clima, las epidemias y la energia dieron forma a la ciudad y los edificios. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2024.

Rahm, Philippe, and Sana Frini. 4 deg C entre toi et moi. New York: Actar Publishers, 2025.

Ressources en bibliothèque

Notes/Handbook

Proposed Study Trip: Basel beginning of the SEMESTER I FS26

  • Train: CHF 80 (round trip with half-fare card)
  • Accommodation: 2 nights, estimated at CHF 60 per night (Total: CHF 120).
  • Meals: Estimated at CHF 10-20 per meal
  • Total Estimated Cost: The total expense is projected to be between CHf 250, depending on final accommodation choices and personal spending habits.

Estimated Personal Budget

Overall cost estimation for model making, drawing and production: approx. CHF 250 (depending on student)

Moodle Link

In the programs

  • Semester: Fall
  • Exam form: During the semester (winter session)
  • Subject examined: Studio BA3 (Peris et Toral)
  • Courses: 2 Hour(s) per week x 14 weeks
  • Project: 4 Hour(s) per week x 14 weeks
  • Type: mandatory

Reference week

Monday, 8h - 12h: Project, labs, other

Monday, 14h - 16h: Project, labs, other

Monday, 16h - 18h: Lecture CE12

Tuesday, 8h - 12h: Project, labs, other

Related courses

Results from graphsearch.epfl.ch.