Select Academic Year:     2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 2019/2020 2020/2021 2021/2022
Teaching style
Lingua Insegnamento

Informazioni aggiuntive

Course Curriculum CFU Length(h)
[80/72]  ARCHITECTURE [72/00 - Ord. 2017]  PERCORSO COMUNE 12 120


Educationals goals
1_To hone the interpretative tools of the space,
its relationships and of its internal code at
the different levels;
2_To consolidate knowledge and best practices in building construction and quality urban spaces;
3_To develop the management capacity of the
design issues and processes;
4_The awareness of the importance of being part of the reconstruction process of the Italian cultural tradition into the design practice, since both the consciousness rising of Italian own specificity into the global framework and the essential centrality of the ideas of ‘site’, ‘history’ and ‘context’;

In particular:

Knowledge and understanding. The ability to set up and explore the project the consistent, complex and spatial connections among the design components and these latter and history, architecture and the site.

Ability (know-how). The activity of the laboratory prompts the student to fulfill the stages and steps of the design process, to summarize complex issues, to develop the ability to self-relate to others to instruct, conduct and communicate the design concept in a rational, compelling, brief and exhaustive way.

Conduct (to be). The workshop stimulates the student’s natural skill to create logical connections among issues. It encourages the increase in awareness level of observable physical space syntax and trains the taste elevating the critical sense and ability in distinguishing the beauty.

At the end, it is expected that the student will be able to: autonomously instruct the design concept since the reading of the relationship system of the urban/landscape context in which the architecture has been located; identify a formal-spatial-building-aesthetic and relational target; identify congruous and useful materials of architecture (topics, examples, archetypes, models and type) to develop the design concept, achieving his/her goal; assess the project’s internal coherence; depict the design efficiently through the conventional tools of the subject; be able to argue and defend his/her own point of view on the studied topic, on the project and, generally, on the architecture


During the three-year degree course, the student should have achieved a minimum capacity of analysis on the context , observation of the direct/indirect relationships (spatial, historical, building, topographic, economic, social and functional) and of structuring the logical path of the project at least at the minimum, or intermediate, level of complexity. The student should be able to autonomously provide himself some references within the architecture’s history coherently to the design issues, interpreting those appropriately and not purely figurative. As a minimum prerequisite, the student has to be sufficiently able in the architectural depiction of the project, mastering the drawing rules (thickness, dotted lines, and heights), the orthogonal projections, the perspective and the axonometry. The student has to be able to depict the project three-dimensionally using models of study. Also, it is considered useful to be able to use the 2d/3d software. There is no preliminary test of propaedeutic knowledge; nevertheless, if the professor recognizes the lack of some requirements during the workshop, he will bring it to the student’s attention, identifying together the modality to fill the gap.



The “Laboratorio di Teoria e progettazione architettonica e urbana” is subdivided into two modules of CFU 6 each. The two modules are integrated to each other and subsequent.
The first aims: to demonstrate and extend knowledge and ability to understand architecture and improve individual capability in applying knowledge autonomously and originally. This goal is perceived by following a precise sequence of drills alternated with some theoretic lectures and support seminars. The second module aims to improve individual capability in applying knowledge to problem-solving in some new and unfamiliar context; extend the attitude to discuss and communicate with others.
This goal is perceived by developing a building design in a real (or plausible at least) context in a small workgroup of two-three students

1st semester –A Module- 8 Credits (100 h)

• Exercises
40 hours
• Presentation and intermediate critics
10 hours
• Lectures and seminars
10 hours

2nd semester –B Module- 6 Credits (75 h)

• Workshop activities
50 hours
• Presentation and intermediate critics
10 hours 

Teaching Methods

Educational methods

The educational project aims at consolidating the relationship between the design and the sites and setting an approach based on a logical, yet non-linear reasoning, open and continuous in all its different stages: observation and description, the definition of hypotheses and application of techniques, comparison, and verification, communication.
Within the Master course of study, didactics should be grounded in the elementary learning acquired, developed and consolidated during the previous academic studies. Therefore, both lectures and seminars of this class shall provide only very expert theoretical knowledge and specific information which are strictly related to the topics involved the planning process.
Didactics of the project should be implemented using workshop activities and through the direct and continuous discussion between students and teacher. Concerning this point, two different methods for mid-term check have been established: the face-to-face review and the critical debate. In the first case, the teacher, together with the tutors, specifically corrects every single project, suggesting modifications and changes to improve the quality of the proposal, evaluates the technical and economic feasibility of the solution and recommends appropriate examples and references to consult and study. The second consists of a public presentation in which every group illustrates and explains its planning proposal to the others, to trigger a general discussion and to stimulate the collective participation (professors, tutors, and students). Throughout the entire course, the teacher will set and provide a list of compulsory verifications aimed at validating the student attendance at the scheduled activities. Due to the high number of participants in the workshop activities, to the complexity of the subjects and the considerable didactic and workload, students are required to work in groups of about 2-3 persons.

Verification of learning

Methods to verify and evaluate and criteria for the attribution of the final vote.

The architectural design workshop I LM4 consists of two modules.
At the end of the first semester (January - February), the student has to take a partial exam, like an interview.
During the exam, based on a public discussion about the exercises, the student has to demonstrate to have acquired critical capability, autonomous judgment, theoretical and practical disciplinary skills.
The teacher could ask to draw something to support the discussion.
Moreover, there will be some questions about three books, chosen by the student, among those listed in the bibliography.
At the end of the oral exam, it will be assigned a vote to the candidates, from 18/30 (when the acquired skills appear basic) to 30/30 cum laude (when they appear excellent).
The evaluation will be express by the public list.

At the end of the second semester (June - July), during the final exam, the student has to discuss about the architectural choices express in the design documents with reference to the principles of composition, to the relations with the context, to the typological and distributive choices, to the constructive features, to the building sustainability, to the linguistic and formal choices, to the sizing of spaces, to the architectonical references used.
Moreover, the examinee will argue about the structural system chosen concerning the researched spatial values.

At the end of the oral exam, the student will have a vote based on the evaluation of the same and the overall value of the submitted project (completeness, consistency, maturity, representation).

The evaluation will be express by public graded list, defined by a Selection Board, constituted by five architects, two of which, external (teachers of the faculty, visiting professors or famous architects).
The formulation of the final mark is reserved to the teacher and shall be established by the following factors:
The mark of the first-semester exam
The mark of the team project
The frequency and the active involvement in all activities of the laboratory
The overall maturity of the student compared to the following indicators: the knowledge and learning of the basic concepts; the learning of theoretical notions of background;the envelopment of a critical sense and capacity of observation; the envelopment of the ability of description and representation of space; the degree of awareness of their design process; the autonomy of the design process management;the ability to achieve a high architectural quality;
The ability to discuss the design process;
To achieve a vote of 30/30 cum laude, the student has to reach the condition of excellence compared to these learning objectives.


Ábalos I., Il buon abitare. Pensare le case della modernità, Milano, C. Marinotti Edizioni, 2009
_Campo Baeza A., L’idea Costruita,Siracusa, Letteraventidue, 2012
_Chiappi C. Villa G., Tipo/Progetto e composizione architettonica, Firenze, Uniedit, 1979
_Chiri G.M., Complessità senza contraddizioni, Barcellona, Actar D, 2012
_Coccia L., L’architettura del suolo, Firenze, Alinea Editrice, 2005
_Espuelas F., Il vuoto. Riflessioni sullo spazio in architettura, Milano, Marinotti, 2004
_Espuelas F., Madre Materia, Milano, Marinotti, 2012
_Frampton K., Tettonica e architettura. Poetica della forma architettonica nel XIX e XX secolo, Milano, Skira, 1999
_Grassi G., La costruzione logica dell’architettura, Padova, Marsilio, 1967
_Gregotti V., Sulle orme di Palladio, Bari, Editori Laterza, 2000
_Gregotti V., Il territorio dell’Architettura, Milano, Feltrinelli, 2008
_Gregotti V., Contro la fine dell’architettura, Torino, Giulio Einaudi Editore, 2008
_Gregotti V., Tre forme di architettura mancata, Torino, Giulio Einaudi Editore, 2010
_Holl S. Pallasmaa J. Pérez-Gómez A., Questions of perception. Phenomenology of architecture, San Francisco, William Stout Publishers, 2008
_Loos A., Parole nel vuoto, Milano, Adelphi, 1972
_Martí Arís C., Le variazioni dell’identità. Il tipo in Architettura, Torino, CittàStudi, 1994
_Martí Arís C., Silenzi eloquenti. Borges, Mies van der Rohe, Ozu, Rothko, Oteiza, Milano, Marinotti, 2002
_Martí Arís C., La cèntina e l'arco. Pensiero, teoria, progetto in architettura, Milano, Marinotti, 2007
_Moneo R., Inquietudine teorica e strategia progettuale nell'opera di otto architetti contemporanei, Milano, Electa, 2005
_Monestiroli A., La metopa e il triglifo. Nove lezioni di architettura, Bari, Editori Laterza, 2002
_Nicolin P., Elementi di Architettura, Milano, Skira, 1999
_Purini F., La misura italiana dell’architettura, Bari, Editori Laterza, 2008
_Rossi A., Autobiografia Scientifica, Milano, Il Saggiatore, 2009
_Rossi A., L’architettura della città, Macerata, Quodlibet, 2011
_Salvadori M., Perché gli edifici stanno in piedi, Milano, Bompiani, 2003
_Tessenow H., Osservazioni elementari sul costruire, Milano, Franco Angeli, 1993
_Venezia F., Scritti brevi, Napoli, CLEAN, 1990
_Venezia F., Che cos’è l’architettura, Milano, Mondadori Electa, 2011
_Venturi R., Complessità e contraddizioni nell’architettura, Bari, Dedalo, 1984
_Zumthor P., Pensare architettura, Milano, Electa, 2004


_Neufert E., Enciclopedia pratica per progettare e costruire, Milano, Hoepli, 2013
_Sannino C., Fotografia e Render con V-Ray, Assemini, GC Edizioni, 2012
_Werner M., Model Making, New York, Princeton Architectural Pr, 2011

More Information

All in\out communication out from istitutional framework will be noticed by the following sites:


Questionnaire and social

Share on: