ARC3015YF (L0102) 
Instructor: Steven Verderber

The natural environment—as defined since the Age of Enlightenment–no longer makes sense as a backdrop, or stage to be viewed apart from our daily existence. From this point on, our existence is precariously interdependent with our ecological surroundings. The age of cheap, abundant, infinitely “consumable” commodified nature and landscape is over. Theorists and researchers across a broad swath of disciplines, including sociology, geography, anthropology, psychiatry, public health, gerontology, literary theory, art, architecture and planning are critically re-examining the possibilities of a post-humanities. This reappraisal represents a paradigmatic shift beyond traditional definitions of humanism and the humanities. As the earth’s non-renewable reserves are unraveling, drained, burned, depleted, poisoned, exterminated or otherwise nearly exhausted, the Anthropocene marks the end of the refugia—the last semblance of an untouched utopia where humanity could be entirely free from the consequences of the debacle we created. We now face the consequences, everywhere.

Post-humanist perspectives, in opposition to classical definitions of the humanities, are closely tied to the view we can no longer think of ourselves as an exceptionalist species, free to carelessly think and act as we wish with respect to all other life forms, inanimate entities, and “things.” The status quo must change. Humans’ long dominance of non-human life forms, earth, and “things” has led to where we are. As an alternative, posthumanism is inclusive rather than exclusive, paradigmatically, as it explicitly refers to our species’ capability to view ourselves as no greater in any way than our non-human surroundings. Post-humanist thinking and actions, framed as more-than-human arguments with respect to the planning, design, and stewardship of the built environment, is critical in the Anthropocene—a perspective capable of theoretically and pragmatically transcending anachronistic classical perspectives that had dominated intellectual life for centuries.

The Project: This option studio will provide the opportunity this term to work on one of two projects:

Option 1: Behavioural Health Centre

Option 2: Physical Rehabilitation Centre

The first few weeks of the term will consist of a small team-based assignment, followed by each student working independently for the remainder of the term. The sites for both Option 1 and Option 2 are in close proximity to one another, facing a beautiful ravine in Toronto. The overarching pedagogical objective is for each student to work independently over the vast majority of the term, with this strategy providing much-needed “practice” for independent work during the Winter 2026 thesis term. This opportunity to work independently during the fall of 2025 will greatly help in developing the necessary self-confidence to work solo throughout the following term, given that as much as 80% of the Daniels M.Arch. Year 1 and 2 design studio curriculum consists of team-based projects.

Main reference resources for the term will consist of two of the four books I authored in my Innovations series for Routledge (London UK). These books (illustrated below) and specifically Innovations in Hospital Architecture (2010) and Innovations in Behavioral Health Architecture (2018) will serve as key references. In addition, a substantial bibliography of supplemental reference sources will be provided at the start of the term. The two design project options will both include an inpatient as well as outpatient diagnostic and treatment component. Site visits and field trips will be scheduled accordingly throughput the term. However, there will not be a “studio trip” this term.