Todd Rouhe

Do NOT take this class with Professor Rouhe (or Todd as he usually goes by). This class is one that completely varies depending on professor, and if you're interested in the course description I promise you will be disappointed. I don't have anything against Todd as a person, you can tell he is very passionate about his work and is very understanding/lenient when grading projects. As long as you attend class, do the weekly journal posts, and turn in the projects, you will get an A. He can also be funny sometimes and you can tell he is a cool person who is very knowledgable in the architecture field. HOWEVER, this class is 3 hours and 15 minutes on a Friday, and you feel every minute of it. Most times, Todd actually goes overtime as if the 3+ hours weren't enough. We do go on field trips, which are better than being in class but not as fun/interesting as you'd expect. Also, 2 or 3 of our field trips were canceled (we still had regular class though), which is a lot considering the class meets once a week. Todd is not a good lecturer; the information is very hard to follow and he is the opposite of engaging. Almost everyone in the class just goes on their laptop for most of the class. When not lecturing, we're usually doing pin-up critiques, which take basically the entire class time. What's so bad about the pin-ups is that the critiques take about 5-10 minutes per person, and ev…

Todd is such an amazing professor. He is great at giving feedback on projects and creating a supportive environment. I never felt like he belittled my work even when it is an intro studio with a steep learning curve. The classroom vibes are also very casual yet still professional. I was able to joke around with Todd but still receive critical and constructive feedback.

Todd is great. Workload and expectations for students seem pretty equivalent across all introductory studios, but my section of Systems and Materials seemed to be especially fun and chatty and collaborative, and I think Todd's quirkiness and humor played a role in that.

As you've probably heard, Todd is a very... interesting? strange? person. I'm going to give you some REAL quotes he said during critiques: "the fact that you're using round dowels disturbs me" "in my day, you wouldn't want anyone knowing you were at a club" "this concept really arouses me" Todd: I think [TA's name] and I are really on the same page with this assignment. TA: What He also has a weird obsession with the Helvetica documentary, and he talks about it at any possible opportunity. Even with his Fran Lebowitz hair, he was honestly a pretty good prof, even though the way he holds a pencil is the most chaotic thing ever.

I have mixed feelings about this course. Firstly, there is the whole three professors thing. Ralph taught Monday lectures and then the class was split into three sections for Wednesday seminar. The professors rotated the sections as the semester progressed, so you got each one for several weeks. At first, I hated this chaotic organization but I came to appreciate the fact that, unlike most classes with discussion sections, the seminars weren’t in addition to the M/W periods. The workload is fairly heavy and attendance is required. There are approximately 60-80 pages of reading a week and “reading response questions” due every Sunday night at 7PM. The majority of your grade, however, is determined by two short writing assignments and a term paper. The two writing assignments require off-campus visits on your own time (one to an exhibit at the MoMA; the other to the Seagram Building). The term paper is due progressively over the second half of the semester. The first draft represents the first half of your paper; the final draft represents your entire paper. Finally, you are twice required to co-lead the Wednesday seminar along with another student in your section. Each of you must present one of the readings for that week. Arguably the most annoying thing about this course is the due date for written assignments. Hard copies of all written assignments are due Friday mornings by…

pretty manageable, 2 journal posts per week but the deadlines aren't strict if you need to do them late. long weekly readings but you don't have to do them. 1 midterm project and 1 final project, each with several smaller parts/deadlines within the whole project.

Professor Rouhe (or simply Todd, as his students call him) is hilariously sassy and overwhelming amicable. He effectively taught the basics of model-making and hand drafting, emphasizing a clean and careful technique. In terms of project content, he provides explicit guidelines but is intentionally vague in describing what the final product should be. In this way, he allows the student to wield tremendous artistic license (which is particularly refreshing for SEAS students like myself). He provides helpful and constructive criticism during desk crits and pinups, but is careful to let the student work through his/her own ideas. With the exception of final pinups for a particular project, reviews were meant to help students at any stage in their creative process. The overall emphasis seemed to be on a step-by-step progression of ideas.

Grading and workload are fair. I don't have too much to say here.

Todd's class is great for a first studio experience: arch programs are notorious for weeding out students in early classes, but Todd's certainly won't destroy your optimism. His criticism is fair, and he'll respect it if you can (reasonably) counter him. When the projects are completed, he'll remember (most of) these conversations when conducting review and will stand up for your work and your individual process. But, you have to have a certain trust in Todd's process. A lot of people walk into Abstraction studio having very little clue what they are doing. Todd and his projects might compound this confusion: you'll definitely ask - "why are we even doing this"; "what does this have to do with architecture?" By the end, you'll be able to see how the first projects have shaped the way you thought and created the final project. He's been teaching for a long time, he knows what he's doing (even though it might not seem it sometimes). A downside is that neither he nor the TA will teach you how to use technology (Rhino, Illustrator, Indesign) in any depth. Many hours will be spent trying to figure out the simplest tasks. Todd is very old-school, so drafting, construction and materials, physical models will be much more his forte. He's also not flashy or egotistical about his own work as a practicing architect, even though it is super cool (like amazing). ASK HIM ABOUT IT. Good prof…

I honestly don't know why this class is required for the major. Not a good or fun way to be introduced to the theory/history of architecture. Some of the topics seemed interesting but the lecture and discussion sessions make them extremely boring. To architecture minors and civil engineers: if this class is not required for you, do not take it.