So Why Do a Live Project?

Abstract

How far is a risk managed education a preparation for managing risk?

Understanding Beer's concept of 'variety' reveals how risk is attenuated, and helps determine where in the experience of architectural education risk needs to happen. Strategically the classic 'studio taught' self-selection project invents both brief and risk through tutorial and discussion, and the proposition establishes a number of key themes that are self fulfilled. This simplification – an aggregation of variety and risk to allow the studio tutorial model to operate within the School undermines the very complexity that the subject of architecture contains – resulting in naivety. Conversely, no risk attenuation allows for unacceptable levels of chance, lack of safety or determined decision-making. Result – also naivety.

We have to look at the interactions between dynamic conditions, not merely isolate conditions and events in order to maintain control. As such, a degree of interaction between aspects of architecture (materials, space, use, legibility, ownership) needs to occur in order to develop the skills to manage interaction.

Case Studies from the University of East London 'Construction' archive illustrate controlled risk exposure in operation through the 'live project', establishing a team context within which the variety of requirements from site, timescale, budget constraint, user requirements and an economy of means can deliver a synthesis, and showing how risk management is another name for social responsibility.

Keywords:

• live project
• social capital
• architecture