CCCAP CONFERENCE 2017 in AUSTIN, TEXAS     June 9 - 10, 2017

CCCAP 2017 CONFERENCE Austin, TX    June 9-10, 2017

March 13, 2017

CCCAP 2017 CONFERENCE Austin, TX on June 9 to 11, 2017 to be held in Headquarters of Texas Society of Architects [TSA] on 500 Chicon Street, Austin , TX. 

Conference Overview

This event will be the fifth convening of the CCCAP since inception in 2012 but it will be a first in many ways:

·       First time that we meet separately from the AIA National Convention

·       First time that we meet for two days plus a pre-conference day of local tours and evening gathering

·       First time that we meet with our new Corporate Member, Autodesk, who will conduct a workshop

·       First time that we meet with the support of a state AIA chapter

Divided into two days of workshops and presentations, Day 1 [Friday, June 9th] will focus on collateral groups including the National Architectural Accreditation Board [NAAB], the National Council of Architectural Registration Board [NCARB], the AIA National Diversity and Inclusion Council, and the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture [ACSA.] Day 2 [June 10th] will focus on sessions on community college architectural program or CCAP issues such as Promotion, Social Media Outreach, Critical Thinking within the Design and Technical classroom, and Curriculum Development Emphasis on Sustainable Materials and Design.

Goals and Objectives of the CCCAP conference are to provide:

·       Opportunities for communication, collaboration and fellowship among CCCAP members and guests

·       Continuing Education credits for CCCAP members

·       Sharing of outreach successes, embracing the diverse classroom, developing expertise in creating transfer/articulation agreements

·       A forum of common concerns about future employability and educational strategies

A limited number of hotel accommodations have been reserved at the Hilton Garden Inn Austin Downtown/Convention Center.  Call 512-480-8181 direct to the Hilton. Use the Group Code CCCAP and register before May 17, 2017.

Registration includes two days of the conference with lunches and dinners,  all-you-can drink coffee and afternoon snacks plus at least 8 Learning Units and a lot of good music!  It’s Austin!  

Looking forward to seeing you in Austin!

Contact cccap2013@gmail.com for the Registration Form, Credit Card Authorization Form, and a CCCAP 2017 Conference Flyer

CCCAP 3RD STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION 2017

DESCRIPTION: COMMUNITY MUSEUM

The project is a community museum.  The theme of the collection is up to each student. It might be art, history, environmental, commemorative or another topic meaningful to the community selected. The theme should be articulated in each student’s project description. The students should strive to create a sense of community through the theme and develop a space that will be responsive to the requirements of the exhibit materials through light and scale and include a relationship with nature through the integration of an outdoor space. Designs should demonstrate a responsible relationship with the environment through the use of sustainable and recycled materials and alternative energy sources.

COMPETITION ORGANIZERS:  CCCAP, Inc

The Coalition of Community College Architecture Programs [CCCAP] is a non-profit 501.3(c) membership association founded to advance the recognition of community college architecture programs. Members in CCCAP represent community college architecture programs [i.e. CCAP] across the country.  Since its’ first work session in 2012, the CCCAP has achieved 501.3(c) status, collected data from all 122 programs, applied for a NSF grant to research the impact of courses on sustainable design within architectural educational institutions, held national conferences in Denver, Chicago, and Atlanta and made presentations to the ACSA Administrators’ Conferences 2013 and 2014 as well as the ACSA National Conference 2014, and AIA National Convention 2015.

See www.cccap.org for more information.

The CCCAP is committed:

·         To establish transfer/articulation agreements between Architecture Programs incommunity colleges and schools of architecture,

·         To increase the racial, gender, cultural, and socio-economic diversity within the architectural profession,

·         To support dialogue, share best practices, and collaborate as a network among Architecture Programs in community colleges and architectural academic and accreditation institutions.

Community Museum:

Site:   The problem requires you to design a museum and an outdoor exhibit or gathering space on a site of your choice. The student should identify a specific site of no more than 60,000 square feet, approximately 2 acres. The site must have vehicle access and natural features or urban context that will enhance the users’ experience. 

 

Site considerations include the relationship of the museum to its context, site topography, orientation or any other features.  The building should conform to local zoning requirements regarding setbacks. If there are no published zoning requirements the enclosed building should have a minimum 25-foot setback from all property lines.

 

Function:    The complex is to be used for the exhibit of materials appropriate to the museum theme. Students do not need to define the specific materials but should identify the types of materials. For example, a museum based on the history of a specific locale might include historic documents, artifacts, and reconstructions or an art museum might contain paintings, sculptures, and crafts or only paintings.  The space will also accommodate a variety of activities including:

·         Educational presentations

·         Exhibit administration

·         Exhibit preparation, maintenance and storage

 

The major objective of the design should be the creation of a space through light, scale, form and structure that will display the exhibits while promoting a sense of community.

 

Program Requirements:

 

Dimensions:

Dimensions are determined by the following program requirements. Areas are approximate:

 

  • Galleries:    All galleries should have a clear span and provide space that can be reconfigured to changing exhibit requirements. Design should include a possible exhibit configuration.
    • 1 large main gallery space – 5,000 square feet
      • This space needs to be larger than the other exhibition spaces. The dimensions of the space can vary according to the shape of the space but the smallest dimension should be no less than 60 feet. The shape and dimensions should be based on the exhibit materials requirements and must clearly be the primary space of the museum
    • 3 separate secondary exhibition spaces – 1,000 square feet each
      • These spaces are secondary and less significant in size, placement, and treatment.  They can house temporary or permanent exhibitions.  
  • 5 Outdoor space – 2,000 square feet minimum each
    • These spaces include an exhibition space, a classroom, a dining space and/or an undefined public space.
    • One of these spaces should have a strong relationship with the building with its’ dimensions in proportion to the rest of the building and to its specific use. Students should define a single use for this space, rather than flexible functions. The other four spaces are flexible both in terms of function and relationship with the building but should have a clearly identified role in terms of the building program.
  • 1 Classroom/Assembly – 2,500 square feet
    • This space should be appropriate for formal presentations or interactive activities. It should also have the potential to be used for community or private events. Appropriate screen and projection equipment and proportions to support formal presentations are necessary. Design should show this space with furniture set up for one of the defined activities.
  • Café and Gift Shop – 750 square feet each
    • Café will serve packaged items prepared offsite and does not require food preparation spaces. It should include a service counter and seating for 20 people. Design should show space with furniture.
  • Reception/Lobby – area to be determined by design configuration

o    Vestibule/Airlock to provide a place for transition from exterior and interior. 

o    Lobby Area for access to the museum other spaces should provide space for reception/ information desk and spaces to accommodate the storage of coats, extra seating, tables, and other needs.

 

  • Administration Suite
    • These spaces should be grouped together in a suite that is separated from the public spaces and adjacent to the exhibition support spaces.
    • Gallery Director - 225 square feet
    • Curator - 150 square feet
    • Clerical Staff – 200 square feet
      • This space will act as administration office reception and waiting space.  The space needs to include a waiting area to accommodate seating for 4 people.
    • Office supply storage to serve the administrative area 100 SF
  • Exhibit Preparation and Storage
    • Separate exhibition support spaces for exhibition storage and staging and loading and unloading.  There should be a separate exhibition storage space and a separate exhibition prep space.  These spaces should be large and adjacent to each other and the loading dock area.  They should also be accessible to the gallery spaces they serve.
    • Exhibition Prep Area-750 SF
    • Exhibition Storage-400 SF
    • Loading Dock-Large enough for panel truck access
  • Facility support spaces
    • 1 janitorial closet with a mop sink- 75 SF
    • 1 mechanical room 150 SF
    • 1 electrical room 100 SF
    • Separate Mens’ and Womens’ public restroom facilities with 3 water closets (flush valve toilets) and 2 lavatories (sinks).  These restrooms must be ADA compliant.
      • See ADA diagrams for space requirements and configurations.  Sizes may vary by configuration.
      • Include a public water fountain

Students may not add spaces and must strictly adhere to this program.

          Successful designs must meet project's goals and objectives. Total design must not exceed 20,000 total interior square footage.

Objectives:

 

The objectives of this exercise:

·         To demonstrate the “Symbolic”

·         To explore the relationship between building and exhibit

·         To choreograph the circulation through the exhibits

·         To modulate the quantity and quality of light to support and protect the exhibits while enriching the visitors experience.

·         To employ sustainable strategies in all aspects of building and site design

 

Presentation Requirements:

(Submissions that do not conform to these requirements will not be accepted.)

 

·         A Project Description Document [maximum 500 words] which explains the museum theme and design concept. Provide an adequate description of the exhibit materials for the judges to be able to evaluate the effectiveness of the design. It may include actual images of proposed exhibit items.

·         A single digital file of a single design panel 24”x36” size, portrait direction only

·         File format & size:  Both files must be *.pdfs with the design panel less than 20MB.

·         Official language is English.

·         Personal information that includes applicant's identification should not be included in either document. Only the title and the registration number should be specified on the project description and the design panel page.

·         Registration number – to be provided after the completed registration is received.

 

Required Drawings: (include graphic scale on all scale images)

1.   Floor plan (floor plan and site plan may be combined into one image)

2.   Site plan

3.   Building section(s)

4.   Exterior Rendering

5.   Interior Rendering

6.   Any additional drawings that help the jury understand your design

 

Schedule:

·         Registration: February 1 through March 1, 2017

·         Submission Deadline: May 1, 2017 5:00 PM Central Daylight Savings Time

·         Announcement of winners: May 16, 2017

·         Exhibition at CCCAP National Conference 2017 in Austin, Texas, June 8 - 10, 2017

 

Application GuidelineEligibility:

·         Community College Architecture Program students and all other Domestic or International undergraduate architecture students who are NOT beyond sophomore level in their architectural studies

·         Students on leave of absence if they are NOT beyond sophomore level in their architectural studies

·         Single Individuals or Teams [limited to a maximum of 4 students]

 

Judging Criteria:

·         Projects will be judged holistically on their overall creativity, efficiency, flexibility, and beauty. Remember that the judges are looking for innovative solutions.

 

Prizes and Awards [each valued up to $500]:          One Individual or Team per Prize

·         Grand Prize: Best overall design

·         Green Prize:  Best design in terms of energy consumption /environmental strategies

 

Inquiries:

·         Jane Ostergaard AIA CCCAP

          Architecture and Construction Management Coordinator

          College of DuPage

          osterg@cod.edu

          63-942-2331

 

Registration Procedure:

·         Registration should be submitted by the instructor sponsoring the entry

-       One application should be used for multiple entries with the same instructor

-       All official communications will be sent to the instructor

·         Submit the attached excel registration form to: osterg@cod.edu

-       Subject line should be “CCCAP Design Competition 2017 Registration”

·         Changes in application not permitted after application deadline

Submission guidelines:  

Each entry will submit two files:   

·         Digital file of your design

·         Project Description Document

 

STUDENT’S NAME, SCHOOL, OR ANY OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN EITHER DOCUMENT

 

Digital Design files including your design must be described as below:

·         File must be titled with your registration number, which you will receive via email to the instructor after you have registered.

·         24”x36” size, portrait direction only

·         pdf, must be under 20MB

·         Include a 2”x3” rectangle in the lower right hand corner of your presentation with your registration number. There should not be any other identification information on your project.

 

Project Description Document should be no more than 500 words as a separate PDF document.

·         File must be titled with your registration number.

·         Include the same file title as noted above and your project title at the top of the page.

 

Submission Process

Projects will be submitted through Submittal.com, a digital exchange system. You will receive an email after your registration has been received with instructions for using the system.

Other

1.    Works submitted to other competitions or plagiarized are eliminated from judging. Even if such works win a prize, the prize will be revoked later.

2.    Submissions that do not comply with competition rules or formats might be placed at a disadvantage during judging.

 

The organizer retains the right to publish, reproduce, distribute, and hold exhibitions regarding winning entries to the competition.

Announcing CCCAP Student Design Competition 2016: Interfaith Chapel of Peace

CCCAP Student Design Competition 2016

DESCRIPTION:  Interfaith Chapel of Peace

The project is a non-denominational worship and meditation space set in a natural environment of the students’ choice. The goal is to develop a space that is universal and encourages connections between individuals and the between individuals and the environment. The students should strive to create a sense of spirituality, peace and contemplation through light, scale, form and nature. Designs should demonstrate a responsible relationship with the environment through the use of sustainable and recycled materials and alternative energy sources.

COMPETITION ORGANIZERS: CCCAP, Inc

The Coalition of Community College Architecture Programs [CCCAP] is a non-profit 501.3(c) membership association founded to advance the recognition of community college architecture programs. Members in CCCAP represent community college architecture programs [i.e. CCAP] 122 CCAPs across the country.  Since its’ first work session in 2012, the CCCAP has achieved 501.3(c) status, collected data from all 122 programs, applied for a NSF grant to research the impact of courses on sustainable design within architectural educational institutions, held national conferences in Denver, Chicago, and Atlanta and made presentations to the ACSA Administrators’ Conferences 2013 and 2014 as well as the ACSA National Conference 2014, and AIA National Convention 2015.

See www.cccap.org for more information.

The CCCAP is committed:

·       To establish transfer/articulation agreements between Architecture Programs incommunity colleges and schools of architecture,

·       To increase the racial, gender, cultural, and socio-economic diversity within the architectural profession,

·       To support dialogue, share best practices, and collaborate as a network among Architecture Programs in community colleges and architectural academic and accreditation institutions.

Interfaith Chapel of Peace:    

The problem requires you to design a Chapel and an outdoor meditation space on a site of your choice. The student should identify a specific site of no more than 90,000 square feet, approximately 2 acres. The site must have vehicle access and natural features which will enhance the users’ experience. 

The complex is to be used by all for worship and a variety of structured activities including:

·       Religious services, weddings, funerals, memorial services and rites of passage

·       Non-structured meditation and contemplation by individuals.

·       The structure should be non-denominational; it cannot incorporate any specific religious symbols or be limited to any religious liturgy.

Access to the chapel from the public parking area is limited to pedestrian traffic, wheelchairs and light service vehicles. 

Site considerations include the relationship of the chapel to its natural surroundings, site topography, orientation relative to environmental and landscape features, and the nature of the procession from the outside to the chapel.  Enclosed building must have a minimum 25 foot setback from all property lines.

The major objective of the design should be the creation through light, scale, form and structure of a sense of spirituality, peace and contemplative serenity.

Program Requirements:

Dimensions:

Dimensions are determined by the following program requirements:

1)   Chapel to accommodate a maximum of 100 occupants 20SF net/occupant.

2)   Chapel to be an enclosed space for year round use.

3)   Two (2) Egress doors

4)   Outdoor gathering place to accommodate a maximum of 50 occupants

5)   To provide sanitary facilities as required for above occupants.

          Men: Two (2) urinals, two (2) toilet stalls, two (2) lavatories. One stall and lavatory must be ADA compliant. 

          Women: Four (4) toilet stalls, two (2) lavatories. One stall and lavatory must be ADA compliant. 

          One drinking fountain must be located in a public space.

6)   Vestibule/Airlock to provide a place for transition from exterior and interior. 

7)   Lobby Area for access to the Chapel and the other spaces to accommodate the storage of coats, extra seating, tables, and other needs.

8)   Mechanical Room, Storage and Custodial closet with mop sink to be minimum 150SF.

9)   Parking lot to accommodate 50 cars with appropriate drives and connection to road

a.     All exterior paving must be pervious.

Construction: Type IV

The principle material of construction will be wood with post and beam heavy timber construction as the preferred method of assembly.  Both engineered and dimensional lumber may be used.  The expressive potential of wood framing and connection details should be explored in developing a solution that is both elegant and tectonically expressive.

Objectives:

The objectives of this exercise:

·       To demonstrate the “Symbolic”

·   To explore the relationship between site, building and path.

·       To choreograph the procession through the site to the Chapel

·       To modulate the quantity and quality of light to create variety and richness

·       To explore the expressive potential of wood as a material finish and as a structural component

·       To employ sustainable strategies in all aspects of building and site design

Presentation Requirements: (submissions that don’t conform to these requirements will not be accepted)

·       A single project description document [max. 250 words] explaining the design concept.

·       Image of proposed site

·       A single digital file of a single design panel

Panel 24”x36” size, portrait direction only

·       File format & size:  Both files must be *.pdfs, the design panel must be under 20MB

·       Official language is English.

·       Personal information that includes applicant's identification should not be included in either document. Only the title and the registration number should be specified on the project description and the design panel page.

·       Registration number – to be provided after the completed registration is is received

Required Drawings: (include graphic scale on all scale images)

1.   Floor plan (floor plan and site plan may be combined into one image)

2.   Site plan

3.   Building section(s)

4.   Exterior Rendering

5.   Interior Rendering

6.   Any additional drawings that help the jury understand your design

Some useful planning information:

2015 IBC Section 303.4 Assembly A-3

Un-sprinkled Type IV Construction

Maximum 3 Stories Above Grade

Exit Access Travel Distance max. 200 Ft

Schedule:

·        Registration: February 1 through March 1, 2016

·        Submission Deadline: May 1, 2016 5:00 PM Central Daylight Savings Time

·        Announcement of winners: May 16, 2016

·        Exhibition at CCCAP National Conference May 21, 2016

Application GuidelineEligibility:

·        Community College Architecture students and all other Domestic or International undergraduate architecture students who are NOT beyond sophomore level in their architectural studies.

·        Students on leave of absence if they are NOT beyond sophomore level in their architectural studies

·        Single Individuals or Teams [limited to a maximum of 4 students]

Judging Criteria:

·        Projects will be judged holistically on their overall creativity, efficiency, flexibility, and beauty. Remember, however, the judges are looking for innovative solutions.

Prizes and Awards [each valued up to $200]:          One Individual or Team per Prize

·        Grand Prize: Best overall design

·        Green Prize:  Best design in terms of energy consumption /environmental strategies

Inquiries:

·        Jane Ostergaard AIA CCCAP

          Architecture and Construction Management Coordinator

          College of DuPage

          osterg@cod.edu

          63-942-2331

Registration Procedure:

·        Registration should be submitted by the instructor sponsoring the entry

-      One application should be used for multiple entries with the same instructor

-      All official communications will be sent to the instructor

·        Submit the attached excel registration form to: osterg@cod.edu

-      Subject line should be “CCCAP Design Competition 2016 Registration”

·        Changes in application not permitted after application deadline

Submission guidelines:  

Each entry will submit two files:   

·        Digital file of your design

·        Project description

STUDENT’S NAME, SCHOOL, OR ANY OTHER IDENTIFYING INFORMATION MAY NOT BE INCLUDED IN EITHER DOCUMENT

Digital Design files which includes your design must be described as below:

·        File must be titled with your registration number, which you will receive via email to the instructor after you have registered.

·        24”x36” size, portrait direction only

·        pdf, must be under 20MB

·        Include a 2”x3” rectangle in the lower right hand corner of your presentation with your registration number. There should not be any other identification information on your project.

Project description paper should be no more than 250 words as a separate PDF document.

·        File must be titled with your registration number.

·        Include the same file title as noted directly above as well as and your project title at the top of the page.

Submission Process

Projects will be submitted through Submittal.com, a digital exchange system. You will receive an email after your registration has been received with instructions for using the system.

Other

1.    Works submitted to other competitions or plagiarized are eliminated from judging. Even if such works win a prize, the prize will be revoked later.

2.    Submissions that do not comply with competition rules or formats might be placed at a disadvantage during judging.

The organizer retains the right to publish, reproduce, distribute, and hold exhibitions regarding winning entries to the competition

Winners of CCCAP Student Design Competition 2015

Winners of CCCAP Student Design Competition 2015 

Over 85 students submitted requests to compete.  By submittal date, thirty-five teams did in fact submit designs.  Fifteen community college architecture programs were included among these 35 submittals. Thank you to all who participated and submitted their entries to the first CCCAP Student Design Competition. The projects show an exciting range of ideas and approaches to the problem of designing a small, movable residence.

Our judges have drawn on their varied backgrounds as they evaluated the projects and have made their final selections. The winning projects are examples of the strong skills that students are developing in community college architecture programs. After reviewing the final results it was clear that in addition to the three winning designs, there were three other designs that excelled so the competition committee has decided to award these three designs an Honorable Mention.

We hope to have all of the entries displayed on our web site in the next few weeks.

Grand Prize: Best Overall

Ivan Hanson and Nicole Liu, Onondaga Community College, Syracuse, NY

Fascinating concept! The theme is carried through the design very well. Space is used very well, and the material choice for the roof makes the design pop. Good use of graphics to explain the concept

Size Prize: Best Design in Terms of Minimum Cubic Footage

Juan Manjarres, Montgomery College, Rockville MD

Very well laid out board and concept. The frame-and-infill design is strong and will probably market well. The graphics are great and especially the renderings show off the design to a good advantage.

Green Prize: Best Design in Terms of Energy Consumption/Environmental Strategies

Jonathan McCafferty, Community College of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA

The focus on environmental strategies is nice, particularly the dual use of PV panels that become a sunshade for the house. Interior views are good but the exterior views need more context – background, pavement/grass/other landscape, and people for scale.

Honorable Mention 

Alessandro Pupillo, Broward College, Davie, FL

The idea of sliding out the long wall is very intriguing; however there may be challenges with the logistics of the weight and realistic ability to actually accomplish it. The aesthetics are nice, with the whiteness of the modern palette broken up with the warmer wood slats. Fantastic interior elevation/cutaway visual! 

Sara Elfallah and Amalie Elfallah, Montgomery College, Rockville MD

Very well laid out board and concept. The frame-and-infill design is strong and will probably market well. The graphics are great and especially the renderings show off the design to a good advantage. 

Eduardo Rodriguez, Oakland Community College, Royal Oak, Michigan

Beautiful drawings and board, with a strong concept. Great job!

CCCAP'S FIRST STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION: THE M-S-XS PROJECT

 

 

The CCCAP is celebrating its’ first year of official status with the CCCAP’s FIRST STUDENT DESIGN COMPETITION: THE M-S-XS PROJECT.  By the registration deadline of March 1, 2015, there were 81 student registrations from 15 different CCAPs.

The design project was created by College of DuPage faculty members and CCCAP members, Jane Ostergaard and Mark Pearson.  The project can be done a team or an individual and can easily be designed as an independent or as part of a classroom assignment.  Competitors are responsible for selecting the site.  Energy conservation, ease of construction, and size are important factors.

Here is a summary of the competition:

M-S-XS Project:   The project name identifies the goal based on our sizing standards, Medium, Small, and X-Small.

Students are asked to design a comfortable living space in which two adults will meet their permanent living needs in a unit which can be moved from place to place. The mechanism for moving may be incorporated into the structure itself or it may be sized to fit on a flatbed truck.

The home must include all the spaces needed for a permanent living space within no more than 800 square feet and no more than 13’-0” tall when positioned for moving. If the designer chooses to use a flatbed truck for moving the structure, the design shall meet the dimensions shown below with the combined height of truck and structure to not exceed 13’-0”.

Continuing the basic premise to reduce the environmental impact of the structure, students are encouraged to incorporate alternative energy options, rain collection systems, grey water use and any other elements which will reduce the carbon footprint.

The goal of this competition is to provide CCAP students with a design/presentation project focused on a current issue. It also acts as an open forum for design creativity and offers an opportunity for students to demonstrate their technical skills and problem solving creativity.

 There will be prizes for Best Overall Design, Best Design in terms of Energy Consumption/Strategies, and Best Design in terms of Minimum Cubic Footage.

 The jury has been selected and includes the following:

·        Jeff Broadhurst AIA, Broadhurst Architects, whose “The Crib at Strathmore” was featured in Country Living’s “44 of the Most Impressive Tiny Houses You’ve Ever Seen,"

·        Mariane Cusato, author of The Just Right Home: Buying Renting, Moving…or Just Dreaming—Find Your Perfect Match and Get Your House Right, Architectural Elements to Use and Avoid, and winner of the Cooper-Hewitt Design Museum’s 2006 “People’s Design Award” for her Katrina Cottage,

·        Derek Diedrickson, author of Humble Homes, Simple Shacks, Cozy Cottages, Ramshackle Retreats, Funky Forts: and Whatever The Heck Else We Could, and host of HGTV’s “Tiny House Builders,”

·        Lloyd Kahn, founding editor-in-chief of Shelter Publications and author of numerous books including Tiny Houses Simple Shelter and Tiny Homes on the Move: Wheels and Water, and

·        Meg Stephens, designer and educator [Tumbleweed Tiny House Company] and responsible for the “Linden” model design.

 All entries will be exhibited at the CCCAP Conference 2015 Atlanta.

 For more information, please contact cccap2013@gmail.com.

CCCAP CONFERENCE Atlanta 2015

We will be hosting our third annual conference on Wednesday, May 13, 2015 in Atlanta, GA.  

[This is one day prior to the AIA National Convention Atlanta 2015 which will allow CCCAP members to participate also in professional development opportunities.]

The CCCAP CONFERENCE Atlanta 2015 will be held from 9 am to 5 pm at the Georgia World Congress Center, 285 Andrew Young International Blvd, NW Atlanta, GA 30303. 

Conference agenda will focus on a guest speaker, workshops on transfer/articulation/MOU efforts as well as academic topics and public outreach, and lunch and dinner.  

All who are interested in the CCCAP are welcome. There will be a fee to cover equipment as well as lunch and dinner.  

CCCAP Members: Fee of $75 if you sign up by April 13th. Fee of $95 after April 13th. 

Non-CCCAP Members: Fee of $100 if you sign up by April 13th. Fee of $120 after April 13th. 

For more information and registration, please contact cccap2013@gmail.com. 

Notes on CCCAP 2nd Work Session Chicago - 6.25.2014

What do you get when 35 representatives from community college architecture programs from 15 states in a huge, dark, over-air-conditioned basement room at the McCormick Convention Center?  There were a lot of conversations and opinions and smiling faces.

Morning Sessions:            

History and Status of CCCAP:             Seated at tables of eight, the attendees spent the morning session becoming more acquainted with the history of the CCCAP. An update on the current events of the CCCAP and the NAAB [National Architectural Accreditation Board] and the ACSA [Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture] was presented.  Lastly, the new revised regulations of the NCARB [National Council of Architectural Registration Boards] were reviewed.

Quotes from the attendees:

  • “We need to put CCAP’s on the map with the profession, ACSA and accredited architectural schools”
  • “We need to look at our courses and how they articulate with NAAB Student Performance Criteria [SPC] which have been slightly modified as a result of the NAB Accreditation Review of 2014”
  • “Where can we get the newly revised NAAB SPC 2014 online?”

 

Update on NCARB Revisions:              The NCARB announced changes in late May 2014 regarding beginning IDP time after high school graduation, reduction of amount of hours at one time that will be counted as IDP time [from 8 hours to 6 hours at one time], and encouragement of taking registration exams immediately after completion of a B.Arch or M. Arch degree. An important announcement also included the efforts that the NCARB will be making to work with schools of architecture to include registration success.

Randy will set up a meeting with Michael Armstrong, Executive Director NCARB, in Washington DC and get back to us.

Introductions + Acknowledgements:           Jill Palmer, Hudson Valley Community College and CCCAP Board Member, announced the Founding Members of the CCCAP [those people who made contributions to the CCCAP while it was trying to become a non-profit 501.3c.]

Three people who have significantly supported the beginning of the CCCAP were acknowledged from the ACSA, NAAB, and AIA National.  Each had a chance to share their vision of the future challenges for the CCCAP.

Norman Millar, President ACSA and Dean, Woodbury University School of Architecture

#1 Invited Steiner to participate in ACSA Administrators’ Conference in Philadelphia November 2014

#2 Recognized CCAP for their “pathways into the profession:

#3 Best practices is to establish an articulation agreement such as the transfer policies in California

#4 Suggested working with SPC’s as assigned to programs’ 1st and 2nd year courses .. “Work to that”

#5 ACSA encourages CCAP to become ACSA Associate members

 

Ted Landsmark Esq President NAAB 2013-2014 pending 2015 and President, BAC

#1 Personal story of discrimination and determination

#2 Availability of data sets on ACSA website of consolidated NAAB data that shows staffing and enrollment in NAAB schools

#3 See NCARB website for licensure data

#4 “A school’s success today is predicated on student success in moving on and getting registered.”

#5 There has been a 20% decline in enrollment over the past few years according to Landsmark.

#6 “Less than 50% of all students in architecture schools are people of color.”

#7 “If schools are not listening to you, they should be!”

#8 “We have an 0obligation to reach to them [students in CCAP.]

#9 Future is online courses.  Lawrence Tech and BAC are currently the only schools offering online design courses.

 

Jud Kline FAIA

#1 “Future of developing relationships with CCAP where new ideas are being birthed.”  AIA is like an obstetrician.

#2 The AIA Is trying to build a more diverse profession.

#3 The progress needs to be available to go from HS to CC to 4 year to Masters to profession.  “Connect the dots.”

#4 “The CCAP are also creating the technical people of the future … not all will become registered architects but they have an important role in the profession.”

 

Afternoon Sessions:

Theme of the Day: Transfer + Admission

The following people from Texas made a presentation about the current status and relationship of the CCAP in Texas and the Texas public schools of architecture: Laura Bennett, Dwayne Bohuslav, Ken Gorski, Erlene Clark, and Arnie Radman.

The BPAE [Building Partnership in Architecture Education] is an association of colleges of architecture in Texas with the goal to facilitate transfer through articulation agreements and common foundational curriculum.

 

Jane Ostergaard AIA, College of DuPage and CCCAP Secretary, then discussed the various methods of transfer and articulation within her program.  Jane prepared an informative power point presentation regarding her experience at COD.

 

The tables broke into separate discussions about their experiences with transfer agreements and articulation efforts.  At the end of 45 minutes, a few announcements were shared.

 

Theme of the Day: Course Curriculum

Jill Palmer made a highly detailed power point presentation on the development of the course curriculum at her program.

  • While dealing with a dean whose expertise is engineering, HVCC Architecture had a low enrollment with a cap set up by the dean anyway.  All architecture courses are labeled with a civil engineering code!
  •  Using creative panning and course development, Jill’s program has reached a maximum enrollment.

 

Again, the tables broke into separate discussions to examine various curriculum issues.

 

Theme of the Day: Governance and Grants

Charlie Setterfield, AIA, Sinclair Community College and CCCAP Treasurer, shared his experiences with obtaining grants for his CCAP from the National Science Foundation [NSF.]  The emphasis is “to get more people work-force ready.” There are a series of certificates which can be covered by grants: LEED, REVIT, IPD, BIM.

  • Grants could pay for curriculum development by CCAP.  The deadlines are short and need to be strictly followed.
  • If one gets a grant, the CC offers release time to faculty and pays for part-time faculty to cover courses.

 

CCCAP Governance + Membership                      The CCCAP will become a membership based organization with the following categories: Full Member, Institutional Member, Corporate Member, and Basic Member [Adjunct, Student, Individual.]  The benefits and responsibilities of members were discussed.  A document which clarifies the categories and benefits was distributed and is available online.

 

Possible committees of the CCCAP were proposed.  The CCCAP By Laws note that the Board shall establish committees and the board shall consider all suggestions made at the Work Session. Suggestions were Marketing and Promotion, Website, Student Design Competitions, Grants, Publicity, Data Collection, Curriculum, Articulation + Transfer, and Best Practices.

 

The Work Session concluded with dinner at a local restaurant and plans to work together on the CCCAP Third Work Session 2015 in Atlanta, GA on Wednesday, May 13, 2015!

CCCAP debuts at ACSA Conference 2014 with presentation to ACSA Board !

Yes … You read it correctly.  The magic words are “building trust and alignment.”

At the invitation of the Board of Directors of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, our president, Randy Steiner, attended the ACSA Annual Conference 2014 in Miami Beach, Florida over the weekend of April 10-13, 2014.  Andrew Chandler, board member of the CCCAP and chair of Architecture at City College San Francisco, joined Randy at the conference where both Randy and Andrew also hosted a panel discussion on “Widening the Pipeline to the Profession: The Beginning Design Studio.”   

There was sunshine outside the Eden Roc Hotel designed by legendary Morris Lapidus in the 1930’s over the weekend but the opportunity to meet with Jose Lozano, AIA, chair of Architecture at Miami Dade College and many other faculty members at ACSA accredited schools were just as enlightening.  The relationship between the community college architecture programs and the public accredited schools of architecture in Florida is a role model for the CCCAP to carefully examine. 

The actual presentation to the Board allowed an open dialogue between the 15 members who represented such schools as Auburn, Sci Arc, Woodbury, University of Kansas, Ohio State, Wentworth Institute, University of Utah, IIT, AIAS, and University of Wisconsin and Randy and Andrew.  After a short enthusiastic presentation by Randy where she actually began with the line, “Last night I had a dream where all successful graduates from community college architecture programs could go on to become architects …”, Andrew shared the mission, objectives, and values of the CCCAP that were written at the first meeting of the CCCAP in September 2012 in Washington, DC.  

Each ASCA board member spoke for about 5 minutes about their experience with community colleges.  At least half of the members expressed great satisfaction with the transfers at their schools.  Lastly, ACSA President Norman Millar asked Randy, “what does the CCCAP want to do?”  “Building trust and alignment … and to reinforce an alternative pathway into the wonderful profession of architecture” were the replies from the CCCAP. 

“Building trust” is creating relationships between individual community college architecture programs and their local ACSA schools.  “Building alignment” would include applying the NAAB Student Performance Criteria to the curricula of the courses offered at the community college programs and was a suggestion by the ACSA Board.  The CCCAP has much to do but the debut was a success.

ACSA asks CCCAP to partner to create "Working Group - Community Colleges"

In anticipation of the upcoming ACSA Conference 2014 to be held in Miami Beach, Florida, the Executive Director, Michael Monti, and Corey Saft, ACSA Gulf Region Director and faculty at LSU SOA, wished to begin a “conference call” conversation to discuss community colleges.  Here is the email message that the ACSA sent out to their membership: 

Community Colleges. This working group, a partnership with the Coalition of Community College Architecture Programs, is intended to stimulate dialogue between professional-degree programs, community colleges, and four-year architecture programs about ways to align curricula and facilitate transfer and admission of students into professional degree programs. The purpose of this group is to identify needs of community colleges and 4- and 5-year programs on curriculum development, faculty development in teaching, and research and scholarship opportunities. The group will collect and discuss samples of articulation agreements, curriculum models, and course materials.

 

The working group will have two conference calls before the Annual Meeting (March 14, April 3). In Miami, there will be a meeting of working group participants as well as a Saturday afternoon Spcial Focus Session titled "Widening the Pipeline." Watch the video from the "Widening the Pipeline" session at last November's ACSA Administrators Conference here

 

There were two calls with about 16 callers.  Two community colleges who were ACSA members participated [College of San Mateo and Tidewater College] as well as Montgomery College [Steiner’s school] and City College of San Francisco [Andrew Chandler’s school.]  Each call was one hour long and included the following topics: Transfer of courses between schools, lack of knowledge about the value, curriculum and range of curriculums in CCAP, importance of critical thinking in teaching, and measurable means of identifying student success. 

Final note:  How outstanding that the ACSA reached out to our newly formed organization to begin this much needed conversation!  They even used our acronym in a newly formed email address which they created.  Paul Alpuche, our pro bono lawyer, commented that that was maybe a step too far.

CCCAP President invited to host panel discussions

Our president Randy Steiner hosted a panel discussion on widening the pipeline to the profession at the ACSA Administrator's Conference in Providence, RI.

            I was invited by Michael Monti, Executive Director ASCA, to be on a panel at the ASCA Administrators’ Conference along with Andrew Chandler, CCSF.  The topic of the panel was “Widening the Pipelines to the Profession."  See Michael's email description below:

Widening the Pipeline to the Profession:              

With growing pressures to minimize student debt and to keep enrollments up, and to expand the demographic and economic diversity of students joining the profession, community colleges have emerged as a key partner for architecture schools. After the Administrators Conference join us for a discussion of ways that architecture programs work with community colleges. Panelists from a number of schools will summarize their formal and informal relationships, and community college representatives will discuss experiences in attracting, educating, and graduating students.

 

          Monti asked me for suggestions for the panel to join Norman Millar, Dean [Woodbury University] and both Jill Palmer-Wood [HVCC] and Dr. Mary Ann Akers, Dean [Morgan University and big supporter of cCCAP] were invited and joined the panel.  [Corey Saft, RA, LEED AP, ACSA Gulf Regional Director and faculty at School of Architecture and Design
University of Louisiana at Lafayette introduced the panelists.]

          Millar and Akers spoke of the successful transition of graduates from community college architecture programs with statistics and anecdotes.  Palmer-Wood described how her College was redeveloping their curriculum to align with NY state restrictions.

          I introduced the current formulation of the cCCAP in addition to showing statistics and data about diversity in our students and faculty, number of graduates, professional status of our faculty and student/faculty ratio, and sorry lack of transfer agreements!  Meanwhile, a handsome slide show of 100 student projects was looping on screen as I spoke.  These slides were images from the many images that have been sent to me from CCAPs.

         After the presentation, five deans came up to me to ask about “joining the CCCAP’ and each wanted to know more about the CCAPs in their area!

        As a result of the panel’s success, here is the email message that I received from Monti:

            Dear Randy:  I want to thank you on behalf of the ACSA board for coming up to the Administrators             Conference for a session. We thought the presentations were great and the dialog informative.
            The ACSA board met following the conference and would like to start a more extended dialogue with         you and the CCCAP. We would also like to plan a session at the Annual Meeting in Miami, April 10-12.
            So please accept our appreciation and I will be drafting up some more concrete ideas for the dialog    that we can discuss.

Notes on our 2013 conference in Denver

NAAB Accreditation Review Conference [ARC] UT 7/17 – 19/2013  ... notes from Randy Steiner, 8.6.2013

It was good.

We were recognized as a relevant and flourishing force that cannot be ignored.

To summarize Ted Landmark’s introduction, participants at the ARC were not only to review the process and the paths used to arrive at the framework, but also to examine how the Conditions for Accreditation may have to be revised or expanded. The conferees were asked to reflect on required procedural changes related to new conditions and the issues that should be considered well beyond this conference and into the next five-year review cycle. “This was a meeting for discussion, not decision making. Likewise, all those in attendance were considered participants and not observers” said Landsmark Phd, current NAAB President.

[I have attached herewith a list of the attendees with their affiliations, current positions, and email addresses.  Yes, I googled everyone as a crib sheet for myself.]

Brief History of the NAAB

As described on the NAAB website, the NAAB was established in 1940 with the “intention to create an integrated system of architecture education that would allow schools with varying resources and circumstances to develop according to their particular needs.” NAAB is supported by the AIA, NCARB, ACSA, and AIAS.  In order to become an NAAB accredited school, the school must offer either a B.Arch or a M. Arch. In order to sit for architectural registration exams in most states, one must have completed either of the named degrees at a NAAB school.  Schools are accredited on a 6 year, 3 year or 2 year basis.

Accreditation requires many procedures and data collection reports as well as a Visiting Team Report which consists of representatives from the NAAB Board, academics, students, and practicing architects.  Important in the process is the applicant school’s preparation of a report on how their curriculum satisfies a list of Student Performance Criteria [SPC] which I included below.

Every five years, the NAAB conducts research and requests recommendations as to how the standards by which schools of architecture are accredited.  This Conference was to examine the process and necessary changes since 2008.  Following the receipt of reports and recommendations [including those submitted by the CCCAP] to the NAAB, they identified items for review at the ARC.  A list of revisions based on the ARC 2013 will be presented in late August 2013 and will be subject to public opinion.  The final approval of the NAAB 2014 Standards will be published in March 2013.

What happened at the NAAB ARC 2013 Utah?

The following issues were identified by the NAAB prior to the ARC as “NEW/EMERGING ISSUES that must be addressed in the 2014 Conditions:”

·        Increasing rigor in the accreditation process without increasing expense

·        Changing demographic

·        Acknowledging the role of community colleges in preparing students for paraprofessional and professional education, particularly those less-well-prepared for traditional college and university settings

·        Aligning online and distance learning delivery models

·        Increasing and acknowledging the civic engagement of students

·        Balancing conventional and emerging visualization skills in studio

·        Using drawings as one method of learning and communication

·        Increasing the quality of building science education

·        Establishing student learning outcomes that expand on general education and are relevant to professional competencies

·        Refining expectations for student achievement in comprehensive design

·        Including information on student debt as part of public information.

The forty-four participants broke into several different groups over the two days of 9-hour discussions and exercises.  I distributed copies of the CCCAP “information postcard” to everyone on the morning of the first day.  I introduced myself as the newly elected president of the CCCAP who had 118 CCAP leaders right behind me.

The following two exercises were most relevant to CCAP efforts.

Exercise 1 CRITICAL ISSUES

The participants broke into groups to identify hot buttons.  These “buttons” were discussed:

·        Draw academia closer to practice

·        Changing definition of architecture

·        Quick pace of global change, technology innovation, and communication systems

·        Alternate pathways into the profession … and student debt

·        Unhealthy studio culture … and presentation costs

·        Practice as more collaborative … education should be more collaborative

·        Leadership beyond the studio is important

Exercise 2   HOW TO RECLUSTER STUDENT PERFORMANCE CRITERIA [SPC]

The participants broke into different groups to examine and critique the existing SPC.  Each group included representatives from the ACSA, AIA, NAAB, NCARB, and AIAS.  Only one lucky group had a representative from the CCCAP!

I have included herewith the current SPC as described in the NAAB document available online at www.naab.org.

The SPC encompass two levels of accomplishment according to NAAB documents. Some SPC satisfy one level and some the other.  The SPC are divided into three “Realms.” All of this was up for re-interpretation and revision!

UnderstandingCapacity to classify, compare, summarize, explain and/or interpret information.

 

Ability—Proficiency in using specific information to accomplish a task, correctly selecting the appropriate information, and accurately applying it to the solution of a specific problem, while also distinguishing the effects of its implementation.

 

Realm A: Critical Thinking and Representation:

 

A.1.    Communication Skills: Ability to read, write, speak and listen effectively.

A. 2.   Design Thinking Skills: Ability to raise clear and precise questions, use

abstract ideas to interpret information, consider diverse points of view, reach well-reasoned conclusions, and test alternative outcomes against relevant criteria and standards.

 

A. 3.   Visual Communication Skills: Ability to use appropriate representational media, such as traditional graphic and digital technology skills, to convey essential formal elements at each stage of the programming and design process.

 

A.4.   Technical Documentation: Ability to make technically clear drawings, write outline specifications, and prepare models illustrating and identifying the assembly of materials, systems, and components appropriate for a building design.

 

A.5.   Investigative Skills: Ability to gather, assess, record, apply, and comparatively evaluate relevant information within architectural coursework and design processes.

 

A. 6.   Fundamental Design Skills: Ability to effectively use basic architectural and environmental principles in design.

 

A. 7.   Use of Precedents: Ability to examine and comprehend the fundamental principles present in relevant precedents and to make choices regarding the incorporation of such principles into architecture and urban design projects.

 

A. 8.   Ordering Systems Skills: Understanding of the fundamentals of both natural and formal ordering systems and the capacity of each to inform two- and three-dimensional design.

 

A. 9.   Historical Traditions and Global Culture: Understanding of parallel and divergent canons and traditions of architecture, landscape and urban design including examples of indigenous, vernacular, local, regional, national settings from the Eastern, Western, Northern, and Southern hemispheres in terms of their climatic, ecological, technological, socioeconomic, public health, and cultural factors. 

A. 10.  Cultural Diversity: Understanding of the diverse needs, values, behavioral norms, physical abilities, and social and spatial patterns that characterize different cultures and individuals and the implication of this diversity on the societal roles and responsibilities of architects.

A.11.   Applied Research: Understanding role of applied research in determining function, form, + systems + their impact on human conditions/behavior.

Realm B: Integrated Building Practices, Technical Skills and Knowledge:

B. 1.    Pre-Design: Ability to prepare a comprehensive program for an architectural project, such as preparing an assessment of client and user needs, an inventory of space and equipment requirements, an analysis of site conditions (including existing buildings), a review of the relevant laws and standards and assessment of their implications for the project, and a definition of site selection and design assessment criteria.

B. 2.   Accessibility: Ability to design sites, facilities, and systems to provide independent and integrated use by individuals with physical (including mobility), sensory, and cognitive disabilities.

B. 3.   Sustainability: Ability to design projects that optimize, conserve, or reuse natural and built resources, provide healthful environments for occupants/users, and reduce the environmental impacts of building construction and operations on future generations through means such as carbon-neutral design, bioclimatic design, and energy efficiency.

B. 4.   Site Design: Ability to respond to site characteristics such as soil, topography, vegetation, and watershed in the development of a project design.

B. 5.   Life Safety: Ability to apply the basic principles of life-safety systems with an emphasis on egress.

B. 6.   Comprehensive Design: Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project that demonstrates each students capacity to make design decisions across scales while integrating the following SPC

B. 7.   Financial Considerations: Understanding of the fundamentals of building costs, such as acquisition costs, project financing and funding, financial feasibility, operational costs, and construction estimating with an emphasis on life-cycle cost accounting.

B. 8    Environmental Systems: Understanding the principles of environmental systems’ design such as embodied energy, active and passive heating and cooling, indoor air quality, solar orientation, daylighting and artificial illumination, and acoustics; including the use of appropriate performance assessment tools.

B. 9.   Structural Systems: Understanding of the basic principles of structural behavior in withstanding gravity and lateral forces and the evolution, range, and appropriate application of contemporary structural systems.

B. 10.  Building Envelope Systems: Understanding of the basic principles involved in the appropriate application of building envelope systems and associated assemblies relative to fundamental performance, aesthetics, moisture transfer, durability, and energy and material resources.

B. 11.   Building Service Systems: Understanding of the basic principles and appropriate application and performance of building service systems such as plumbing, electrical, vertical transportation, security, and fire protection systems.

 B. 12.   Building Materials and Assemblies: Understanding of the basic principles utilized in the appropriate selection of construction materials, products, components, and assemblies, based on their inherent characteristics and performance, including their environmental impact and reuse.

Realm C: Leadership and Practice:

C. 1.   Collaboration: Ability to work in collaboration with others and in multi- disciplinary teams to successfully complete design projects.

C. 2.   Human Behavior: Understanding of the relationship between human behavior, the natural environment and the design of the built environment. 

C. 3   Client Role in Architecture: Understanding of the responsibility of the architect to elicit, understand, and reconcile the needs of the client, owner, user groups, and the public and community domains.

C. 4.  Project Management: Understanding of the methods for competing for commissions, selecting consultants and assembling teams, and recommending project delivery methods.

C. 5.   Practice Management: Understanding of the basic principles of architectural practice management such as financial management and business planning, time management, risk management, mediation and arbitration, and recognizing trends that affect practice.

C. 6.  Leadership: Understanding of the techniques and skills architects use to work collaboratively in the building design and construction process and on environmental, social, and aesthetic issues in their communities.

C. 7.   Legal Responsibilities: Understanding of the architect’s responsibility to the public and the client as determined by registration law, building codes and regulations, professional service contracts, zoning and subdivision ordinances, environmental regulation, and historic preservation and accessibility laws.

C. 8.   Ethics and Professional Judgment: Understanding of the ethical issues involved in the formation of professional judgment regarding social, political and cultural issues in architectural design and practice.

C.9.   Community and Social Responsibility: Understanding of the architect’s responsibility to work in the public interest, to respect historic resources, and to improve the quality of life for local and global neighbors

There was lengthy debate on these criteria among the academics. 

·        One issue of contention was when students graduate from an unaccredited school which offers a BS [Architecture] and then, attempt to transfer courses to pursue a M.ARCH from an accredited school such as Penn State. Could the unaccredited schools which offer “Architecture” as a major but offer no B.Arch or M.ARCH such as Dartmouth, Ferris State University or a community college apply to the NAAB for accreditation of their programs according to the SPC?

·        A second issue of contention was how to group these criteria and discard the “realms.”  Could the criteria be divided into topics like “design”, “communication”, “building science”, “professional practice”, “understanding of human behavior and history”, and “externship/internship?”  I emphasized that many community college courses focus on these same topics.

·        I broached the topic of piloting projects in which CCAP which chose to participate could examine their courses in terms of the SPC for a form of accreditation.  The issue of costs to cover the time required to review such projects was discussed.  There was no final conclusion.

Personal Sense of the NAAB ARC 2013 Utah

I met a lot of people and listened to their ideas of “What are the problems with a CCAP in terms of a ‘real’ architectural education?”  Then, I informed them what a CCAP is like today. 

I mingled with several people who late in their conversations shared with me that they had started at a CCAP.  They were very supportive of our students.

I mentioned our vision and mission in many dialogues with people from industry, the AIA, and the NCARB who wanted to reach out and discover how the CCAP could be more involved with the profession. 

I made a lot of friends who understand better what the CCCAP can offer.

When I returned home, I mailed thank you messages to all forty-four participants.  I included access to our CCCAP Dropbox account and informed them that a PDF of CCAP Student Work was available on the site.

Here are some of the responses that I received:

1.      “Thanks for the email. We will be starting discussions at the upcoming ACSA board meeting next week. Engaging Community Colleges and other feeder programs is definitely on the ACSA Planning Committee agenda for the coming year.”  From a member of the ACSA

2.      “I'm going to begin introducing the emergence of community college programs, putting in context with the changes happening across the profession as they are much intertwined.  With your permission, I'd love to show some examples from the document you shared via DropBox.  The work is very impressive!”  From a member of the NCARB

3.      “I really enjoyed meeting you and learning more about the exciting work that is being done at a community college level.”  From a member of the NCARB

4.      “It was great to hear from you, and even better to become acquainted with you when we were in Snowbird together for the NAAB ARC.  I am so pleased by - and impressed with - the work you are doing at the Community Colleges and am thrilled that this important aspect of education is now officially and formally at the able.  Thank you for your important participation in the conference!”   From the incoming AIA President

5.     “I downloaded the community college student work and I was really impressed.  I always like looking back to see what other students are doing, especially when it is more advanced at a younger age.  It makes me jealous at times that I couldn’t produce such high caliber work myself, but it also makes me happy seeing those others do so well and knowing what all lies before them.”  From a member of the NAAB