Reflective Practice

Skills

How I demonstrated collaboration during my Project 2 design project

Learn more about the project itself on my design page.

Decisions influencing the final design solution

Rather than voting, we aimed for consensus and group discussion by ensuring each group member agreed on changes. We did so by discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each design option. We evaluated how well they aligned with our objective of creating a more people focused and community based Village 1. This collaborative approach allowed us to combine ideas, iterate on our design, and ensure that the final solution reflected input from the entire group.

For example, when deciding whether to keep the three terrace spaces in front of the building, we discussed how often they would realistically be used. As a group, we agreed that the terraces might be underutilized and clutter the entrance, especially in winter. We reached a decision to remove them and create a cleaner, more functional layout.

Similarly, we debated keeping a rectangular entrance. After reviewing prior art examples and considering our turtle concept, we reached a consensus to adopt a trapezoidal entrance. This was because it strengthened the overall identity of the design and allowed it to stand out compared to its original form.

Critical design thinking through observation, collaboration, and iteration.

Earlier in the term, I did sketchbook work where I utilized Norman Design Principles to analyze things I interacted with daily in order to foster critical design thinking skills.

Our sketchbook work had trained me to slow down and look more carefully at what was in front of me rather than moving past first impressions. The regular observation exercises, particularly those focused on Norman Principles and placemaking, had reinforced that meaning often lives in details you initially overlook. I drew on that habit when our group sat down to ideate on the Village 1 redesign. Rather than jumping straight into a single agreed-upon layout, I suggested we each take ten minutes to brainstorm individually first, mirroring the structured brainstorming process we had practiced earlier in the term during the PSA project. After everyone presented their ideas, the group went quiet, so I took the initiative to transfer all of our designs onto a chalkboard so we could more easily collaborate, compare, and build on each other's work. From there I ran a short exercise where I encouraged the group to identify the features we liked most across all the sketches and layer them onto a single evolving design which was a process that reflected the critique and iteration techniques we had been taught in class.

It was during this exercise that someone offhandedly noted the aerial layout looked like a turtle. Rather than letting that comment pass, I paused to ask whether it was actually significant. I connected it to the Indigenous creation story of the Earth resting on a turtle's back, a narrative centred on belonging and home, and argued to the group that this resonance was substantively meaningful for a first-year residence, not merely aesthetic. This required me to reflect on an assumption our group had been implicitly operating under: that functional layout decisions and conceptual identity were separate concerns. Questioning that assumption, consistent with the WatCV behaviour of "reflecting on the justifications of your own assumptions", opened up a different approach entirely. I then applied the connection systematically across decisions we had already made. The rectangular entrance became a trapezoid to suggest the turtle's head, the gym and cafeteria were relocated to the sides to read as arms, and I proposed incorporating Indigenous medicine plants into the greenhouse to ground the concept in something purposeful rather than decorative. This also reflected what our group had learned from prior art observations: that successful environments like St. Jerome's University derived their sense of community from coherent, connected design rather than a collection of unrelated functional choices.