Yixuan Liu

advisor

University of California, Berkeley

United States of America

Yixuan Liu has led multiple high-profile architectural projects from concept through construction,… more

This proposal holds considerable thought and social touchstones, with strong technical reasons, environmental awareness, and inclusive community engagement. It offers a solid foundation for pedagogical development, quite literally "from the ground up" and through its metaphorical potential.
What sets this project apart is its systemic approach, which unpicks a deliberate masterplan, while also adopting scalable, modular processes that allow for iterative construction over periods of time. The practical clarity, coupled with an architectural humility, allows this project to be both replicable and adaptable. In terms of climate consideration, the design has been consciously planned to prioritize adaptation with passive systems for daylight, ventilation, thermal comfort, and water harvesting, seamlessly integrated into the architectural language.
The project has room for improvement in terms of spatial and environmental articulation for the education programmes; nonetheless, this proposal has promise for creating a model of rural educational infrastructure that is functional, sustainable, spatially meaningful, and experiential.

Although the project is conceptually sound and its technical aspects are well thought out, the architectural response would benefit from more differentiation among the different programmatic functions. As it stands, the project adopts a very similar structural and environmental response across the entire campus, proposing ICEB walls, bamboo trusses, butterfly roofs, and modular plans, addressing each of the buildings. While this is successful in terms of replicability and ease of construction, it does not address functionally-specific spatial, environmental, and experiential needs of the different building types.
For illustrations, laboratory space will require controlled lighting conditions, safety considerations, and durable materials to meet, while dormitory space will want considerations for privacy, acoustics, and a sense of comfort. In distinguishing not only the varying spatial requirements of each building type, but also their respective emotional and functional needs, active strategies such as daylight control, safety, and security (as it pertains to acoustics, light control) can begin to advance to passive concerns. For workshops and labs relating to courses such as agriculture and metalwork, more suitable, flexible, and open, amenable to spatial organization and design enough to support enhanced ventilation and durable, low-maintenance finishes. As it stands, what the design lacks is a human, responsive architecture active in design to provide passive strategies for the functional and emotional needs of users.
While the project allows for expansive outdoor opportunities and courtyards, there is still a possibility to more explicitly articulate how landscape design and pathway networks contribute to informal learning, social gathering and ecological literacy. These open spaces could also be programmed to align more deliberately with the indoor programming and use, provide shaded spaces for instruction, and provide examples of local planting strategies that relate to the educational aspect of the campus.
The phasing framework is a major asset. However, its social and spatial implications could be examined in further detail. How does the campus (buildings, green spaces, etc.) function at each stage? Are early-phase buildings designed such that they could have flexible configurations, to serve multiple purposes until the full build-out? Addressing these questions can ensure the continued resiliency and adaptability of the design.