The Faculty’s Mission
The faculty has always been typified by a realistic approach, which can be described as practicality and moderation in architecture. Realism has implied something different in every era. Between the two World Wars, it was modernity and progress; afterwards, mass production and reliability took prominence. Since the 90s, diversity and constant technical refinement have become important.
Diversity suits us, the instructors, because we ourselves are diverse. That way, we can teach what we feel best and what we know best. It is also good for students just beginning university (since they can pick up skills more easily), as well as for upperclassmen (who can find the path to their own architecture more easily). Last but not least, it is good for the department, since we instructors may learn from each other.
We also continually learn from our research, the emphatic focus of which, besides environmental consciousness and sustainable development, remains to this day the analysis and basic planning of residential buildings. This applies just as much to the past and distant cultures as it does to modern housing experiments. Our task it is the accumulation, systematization and conveyance of skills and experience.
The faculty’s long-term goal is to bring practicality and moderation into harmony with diversity and constant technical refinement.
.
The Faculty’s History
When university-level architectural training began in Hungary, in 1871, architectural planning was already being taught at the Royal Franz Joseph Technical University – that is, at the planning practice stage. The subject did not have its own department. While the architectural wing developed remarkably, both in terms of the teaching faculty and the number of subjects; still, an independent department for planning and design did not come into existence until 1926, with Iván Kotsis named Extraordinary University Professor at the head of it. Kotsis earned his diploma in 1911, in which year he also became a teaching assistant at the Technical University, in the Faculty of Modern Architecture. One year later, he became an associate professor. In 1920, he earned his Privatdocent (private instructor) qualification with his work entitled “History of the Development in Italian Renaissance Architecture”. He became a full professor in the planning department on 3 June 1928.
Iván Kotsis held a “Residential Planning” course for second-year students two hours a week, and design practice for third-year students ten hours a week. Fourth-year pupils were free to choose a department for their planning and design practice. Thus, Kotsis ran the planning department besides the architectural history and drawing faculties.
Naturally, the theory and practice of residential houses, as a subject, did not begin with Iván Kotsis. Following 1871, there were public building courses – that is, within the overall sphere of practice, there were lectures and design practice that dealt with dwelling purposes as well. The latter was pursued, under the leadership of Alajos Hauszmann and Imre Steindl, altogether five hours a week. Pupils received a program of planning “smaller structures, residences and chapels”. Later, for eight hours a week, they received assignments related to “home furnishing and residential comfort; division of rooms and living spaces; incorporation of staircases; formation of façades and courtyards; and the planning of tenements, city dwellings and villas.” Nonetheless, training in planning and design was not distinct from construction, art history and architectural morphology. Only the creation of an independent planning and design faculty would make that possible.
Besides his work as an educator, Kotis regularly published on the subject of residential architecture: in 1932, “Problems of Contemporary Residential Architecture”; in 1941, “Recommendation for the Correction of Home Building Design for Middle-Class and Modest Wage-Earning Families”; in 1942, “Approaches to Plans for Small and Medium-Sized Tenement Flats” and “Residential Architecture of the Near Future”, as well as “Approaches to Plans for Row Houses”.
After World War II, the Technical University’s architectural training recommenced under seven departments. Among them was the building design department under the direction of Iván Kotsis. In 1948, political changes affected the university as well. Kotsis dismissed three teaching assistants from the university (including his son, Iván Kotsis, Jr), and he himself was called into retirement in 1949. Together with his retirement, in 1948 and 1950, the architectural faculty underwent its first two periods of reform atter the war. The number of planning and design departments grew to three, and the faculties (up till then, only designated by number and hallmarked by their respective leader’s name) received distinct profiles: the Residential Building Design, the Public Building Design and the Industrial Building Design Departments.
After Kotsis’ departure, Antal Reischl took over the faculty’s leadership. In 1948, Reischl joined the Technical University as a teaching assistant. From 1951, he held the title of associate professor in the Faculty of Residential Building Design. He defended his doctoral dissertation, “Home Furnishing – Planning of Houses for Families”, in 1961, the same year that he was named a university professor. Until his death in 1978, Reischl led the department, and his educational style preserved the faculty’s pragmatic tradition. With his firm and consistent standpoint, he made the faculty a pillar of the university’s architectural education program. His textbook, “Design of Residential Buildings”, published in 1973, has been a defining tool of faculty instruction for multiple decades.
In 1978, Lóránt Olasz, an associate professor, led the department for one year. Then followed the period of university professor Pál Pongrácz’ leadership, which lasted ten years.
Also for ten years, Ybl Award-winning architect János Bitó ran the faculty’s work, starting in 1990, after the system change. He did so until 1995 as an associate professor, and afterwards as a university professor. His philosophy was imbued with a strong sense of humanity, following in the Kotsis tradition. After retiring, he wrote the textbook “Design of Residential Houses”, which contains exact information and know-how about the planning of residential buildings. The book is an important element of the faculty’s instruction and has also become a design handbook on account of its precision and universally valid prescriptions. In addition, János Bitó directed the department’s English-language training for years, even as an emeritus professor.
In 2001, Kossuth Pize- and Ybl Award-winning architect József Kerényi was named to the head of the department as a university professor. During his four years as faculty leader, he maintained and strengthened the faculty’s characteristic practical and moderate approach. Highly respected for his professional authority, he provided a sure foundation for work carried out within the department. With Kerényi’s initiative, the department’s Postgraduate School of Architectural Engineering was formed in 1996. He led it until 2010.
Since 2020, Marton Nagy, associate professor of the university, has run the department.
Full-time Instructors
Péter Sugár, DLA department leader and professor
Dr. János Bitó, DLA
At my time of life, everything that occurred in the course of my professional activity is important. That is now the past, but I still hope – if possible – to do useful things.
Zsófia Dankó, DLA
Pedagogical work which paves the road to becoming an architect means the conveyance of thoughts, knowledge and experience. For me, Frank Lloyd Wright described the essence of instruction: “An art cannot be taught. You can only inculcate it, you can be an exemplar, you can create an atmosphere in which it can grow.”
My creed, when it comes to advising students, is a sober and pragmatic outlook, mutual pupil-instructor trust, a personal approach and cooperation. Openness that not only reflects a creative design mindset, but also a sensitivity to human difficulties. Along the way, I encourage pupils to take risks and experiment, so the creative process becomes about the joy of discovery.
Gyula Fülöp
We instructors are not trained pedagogues, but it is my conviction that if we must be so, that is what we shall become! When conveying our very exclusive, specialized knowledge, what I consider important is developing a love of the profession (rather, a calling), a “never be completely satisfied” (i.e., always strive for better) attitude, and the student’s basic sense of ethics and respect for their field. In my view, instilling a sense of responsibility towards society, a social sensitivity, is just as important as conveying architectural know-how. I believe in mutual trust and respect between pupil and instructor, life-giving humour, but chiefly in the work. I also hope that I have enough influence over the students, so they not only wish to become esteemed experts, that they not only wish to serve society and the nation (the authority in power), but that they possess an inner compulsion towards ever better and more liveable precepts.
György Hild, DLA
When I plan residential building in „real life”, the most difficult and most amazing part is the dialogue, where relationships between planner and designer, desire and concept take shape. We exchange roles, adapt to one another and arrive at a plan. This relationship is one of the keys to a successful building. At the university, in the residential design course, the most difficult and most amazing part is the dialogue, where relationships between instructor and pupil, desire and concept take shape. We exchange roles, adjust to one another and arrive at a plan. This relationship is one of the keys to a successful design.
Miklós Jancsó, DLA
I have come to the conclusion that I can only teach what interests me. Luckily, architecture is an intriguing subject, especially good architecture – but bad architecture as well. Only it must be bad enough and consistently bad enough, which is just as rare as good architecture. What also interests me is how a room can be lived in for 500 years with the fumes and smells of waste, 500 years in a common flat sharing the kitchen and toilet with strangers. How do they live on a battleship, a spaceship, a space station, in a workers’ hostel or a flophouse? What do we know about living in tents, desert caves, the Papuans who live in trees, the Japanese who repeatedly restructure squares, the titans of the 40s, and revolutions in residential building design? Plus, of course, what interests me is what interests you, so it is best to determine what that is. Also try – always try – to do things a little differently, and while it is still not good – but good enough – show it to me. I will give my opinion, but – beware! – I do not want to be parroted, because that is not interesting.
József Kolossa, DLA
For me, instruction is nurturing talent. It is seeing the obvious or hidden talents in the young and providing material that will allow them to realize their potential. I believe in hard, sustained work, in the search for truth that does not tolerate compromises. As a university professor, I believe in innovation and that centres of learning should adopt a sense of responsibility towards society. I view the university tasks that we solve together with students as occasions and opportunities for real-life brainstorming, chances to develop and elevate the human intellect and spirit.
As an architect, I believe in the field of architecture and architects’ importance and responsibility in society. I believe in the humility with which architects must approach their tasks, and I believe in the power of architectural thought, which – though it goes mostly unnoticed in the profane world – decisively creates and maintains order in human society.
Sándor Makrai, DLA
I especially love working with students who have a great desire for freedom in planning. Working with them is a type of give-and-take, which is a pleasure for me. It is never my intention to deprive them of the wish to create something uncommon or surprising. Indeed, I would rather strengthen that endeavour. I am quite cautious to protect their spirit of child-like playfulness and their desire to create something original, because I think, as Herman Melville wrote, “It is better to fail in originality than to succeed in imitation.”
Dóra Máthé assistant research fellow
Márton Nagy, DLA
We are collectors. We procure pictures, words and thoughts again and again. Moments stick in our memories and remain until the next word or picture occupies their place, and so passes every day. In his work entitled “Pants Pocket”, Hannes Böhringer wrote about memory storage. Not everything is always at hand; we cannot keep everything in our minds at once. Our imaginations, just like our hands, must be kept free. It is important to have a place where everything can be found, close at hand. This is the architect’s “pants pocket” collection.
As an architect, I am always preparing and refining collections. Creation, for me, does not begin with invention; it is rather discovery that makes every moment of the process adventurous and exciting. Renewal is not an aim that we toil after. It is much rather the joy of experiencing small recognitions in the process of making discoveries. Innovation does not consist of some spectacular renewal achieved by importing fashionable, promising-looking ideas. Instead, it is the constant formation of personal experiences built upon one another. This is how we produce real treasures from our pants pockets, and how we assemble a planning “toolbox” to use when we undertake tasks.
Tamás Perényi, DLA associate professorT
János Roth, DLA retired associate professor
Tamás Varga, DLA associate professor
László Vincze, DLA associate professor
The language of architecture, its logic and aesthetics, is complicated – like that of music, film or literature. We are not born with this knowledge, we learn it and debate over it, gradually improving our understanding of architectural thought’s subtle and intricate correlations. Instead of a teacher-student relationship, I adhere to the individual nature of a master-apprentice dynamic.
András Weiszkopf assistant professor
Architecture is a unique synthesis of the ability to create, a sense of responsibility to a community, and will. What I consider most important when undertaking an architectural assignment is an open-minded and persistent search for solutions and community-centred thinking. My approach to architecture has been largely influenced by the contemplations I have made with my mentor. In the course of instruction, I hope to inspire thoughts and insights that are as fruitful as those that I received.
Doctoral Candidates
Ágnes Juhász doctoral student
Péter Müllner doctoral student
Gabriella Öcsi doctoral student
Bettina Ónodi doctoral student
Gábor Tóth doctoral student
Anett Virág doctoral student
Administration
Csilla Kirschner chief administrator
A large part of my work is the faculty’s administration. Besides that, I handle student-related and other official matters (certification and financial matters). My main task is to help the students, handling administrative matters in connection with their studies. I may be entrusted with the following: providing and printing student certification, preparing invoices and contracts, settling accounts, dealing with the Neptune system for subjects taught in the department, grade registration and test notices, administrative enrolment for final exams, work related to professional engineering training (enrolment, certification, notices about tests and courses, registering grades, issuing documents), and handling the complete sphere of the faculty’s financial matters.
Éva Énekes managing administrator
Thesis Preparation – authorised by Laszló Vincze, DLA
Credit Value: 30 / Recommended Semester: 10 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA-900 BMEEPLASD01 BMEEPLATD01
For a detailed description of thesis preparation at the faculty level, see http://www.epitesz.bme.hu/dh/szab/. Instructor(s):
Basics of Architecture – authorised by Tamás Varga, DLA
Credit Value: 6 / Recommended Semester: 2 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAA202
Architectural planning is a creative process, typified mainly by an end result that is either one-of-a-kind in its details or uncommon as a whole. Hence, the design path is unique in and of itself. In the case of design activity, instruction does not only impart basic knowledge of the profession (the mastery and practice of which is a requirement of the design process), but also develops creative skills. The Fundamentals of Architecture class consists of weekly practice; before receiving each assignment, however, there is a general lecture held for all that year’s students. Within the subject, architectural pupils encounter tasks that require architectural-based problem solving and creative trouble-shooting. Classes of 25-28 pupils are run by 3-4 main instructors. In the course of the semester, there are several small planning tasks to be solved, modelling, architectural drawing, and technical drawing with equipment. Design tasks are built around a unifying theme or motto. Instructor(s):
Small Complexes (t) – authorised by Sándor Makrai, DLA
Credit Value: 6 / Recommended Semester: 7 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAS711
This is a semester-long course that prepares students for the following two interrelated design classes (Complex 1 and Complex 2). It consists, however, of an independent planning assignment. Students design a detailed, textured construction, situated generally at an uncommon or special location. The goal is planning and practice with creative form and space construction, with an emphasis on the importance of the series of decisions (both architectural and specialised in nature) that arise during the work. The process spans creation of the textured (or structured) concept – in site-planning and construction organisation stages – to the planning of residences at the sketch-plan stage.
Complex Design 1 (p, MSc) – authorised by Miklós Jancsó DLA, Sándor Makrai DLA
Credit Value: 10 / Recommended Semester: 8 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAM1TX
Complex design practice is a two-semester-long course during which a single planning task must be completed. Students are free to choose the location and theme – generally an apartment or public building in an existing residential area. The faculty supports participation in national and international public tenders. Work completed during the semester comprises the preparation of students’ plans including the conceptual planning (with design programs and research); the plan sketches; and finally, compliance with standards regarding the building’s structure, stability, facilities, and the technology of its working parts. Presentation of the conceptual plans and plan sketches is open. The instructors involved (department head, course leaders, and architect consultant) participate in the evaluation, in addition to interested students and teachers. Over the semester’s worth of work in Complex Design 1, and during its evaluation, greatest emphasis is placed upon the architectural aspect. Also included are two examinations and two make-up examinations. The assignments of a public tender nature serve to foster independent work, as well as develop originality and creative abilities. Of the four exam opportunities, completion of two is required, the results of which will influence class marks for the semester term.
Instructor(s):
Complex Design 1 (tr) – authorised by Miklós Jancsó DLA, Sándor Makrai DLA
KXT
Credit Value: 7 / Recommended Semester: 8 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA8818
http://lakokomp.blogspot.com
Complex design practice is a two-semester-long course during which a single planning task must be completed. Students are free to choose the location and theme – generally an apartment or public building in an existing residential area. The faculty supports participation in national and international public tenders. Work completed during the semester comprises the preparation of students’ plans including the conceptual planning (with design programs and research); the plan sketches; and finally, compliance with standards regarding the building’s structure, stability, facilities, and the technology of its working parts. Presentation of the conceptual plans and plan sketches is open. The instructors involved (department head, course leaders, and architect consultant) participate in the evaluation, in addition to interested students and teachers. Over the semester’s worth of work in Complex Design 1, and during its evaluation, greatest emphasis is placed upon the architectural aspect. Also included are two examinations and two make-up examinations. The assignments of a public tender nature serve to foster independent work, as well as develop originality and creative abilities. Of the four exam opportunities, completion of two is required, the results of which will influence class marks for the semester term.
Instructor(s):
Complex Design 1 (m) authorised by Gyula Fülöp
Credit Value: 6 / Recommended Semester: 8 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAS811
Complex design practice is a two-semester-long course during which a single planning task must be completed. Students are free to choose the location and theme – generally an apartment or public building in an existing residential area. The faculty supports participation in national and international public tenders. Work completed during the semester comprises the preparation of students’ plans including the conceptual planning (with design programs and research); the plan sketches; and finally, compliance with standards regarding the building’s structure, stability, facilities, and the technology of its working parts. During the design process, appropriate features and materials must be selected with particular attention paid to sustainability and ecological standpoints. Due to the nature of this technical approach, more emphasis is placed upon participation with partner faculties. Presentation of the conceptual plans and plan sketches is open. The instructors involved (department head, course leaders, and architect consultant) participate in the evaluation, in addition to interested students and teachers. Over the semester’s worth of work in Complex Design 1, and during its evaluation, greatest emphasis is placed upon the architectural aspect. Also included are two examinations and two make-up examinations. The assignments of a public tender nature serve to foster independent work, as well as develop originality and creative abilities. Of the four exam opportunities, completion of two is required, the results of which will influence class marks for the semester term.
Instructor(s):
Complex Design 2 (p, MSc) – authorised by Miklós Jancsó DLA, Sándor Makrai DLA
Credit Value: 10 / Recommended Semester: 9 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAM2TX
Within the framework of the Complex Design 2 course, students must make a detailed plan of a smaller section (a designated part 1000 m³ in volume) of the building designed during the previous semester. At the end of the semester, after the working plan (which includes research as well), they must submit a plan modelled after a contractor’s plan (made up of portions that address the building’s structure, stability, facilities, and occasionally infrastructure or landscaping plans). An important part of Complex Design 2 is the detailed planning of one selected architectural element. Presentation of the working plan is open. The instructors involved (department head, course leaders, and architect consultant) take part in the evaluation, as well as other interested students and teachers. Greater emphasis is placed upon all the technical facets of the semester’s worth of Complex Design 2 work and its evaluation. The semester includes two exams and two make-up exams. The assignments of a public tender nature serve to foster independent work, as well as develop originality and creative abilities. Of the four exam opportunities, completion of two is required. The average of the two best marks for the assignment will influence the calculation of semester marks for the course.
Instructor(s):
Complex Design 2 (tr) – authorised by Miklós Jancsó DLA, Sándor Makrai DLA
Credit Value: 10 / Recommended Semester: 9 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAM2TX
Within the framework of the Complex Design 2 course, students must make a detailed plan of a smaller section (a designated part 1000 m³ in volume) of the building designed during the previous semester. At the end of the semester, after the working plan (which includes research as well), they must submit a plan modelled after a contractor’s plan (made up of portions that address the building’s structure, stability, facilities, and occasionally infrastructure or landscaping plans). An important part of Complex Design 2 is the detailed planning of one selected architectural element. Presentation of the working plan is open. The instructors involved (department head, course leaders, and architect consultant) take part in the evaluation, as well as other interested students and teachers. Greater emphasis is placed upon all the technical facets of the semester’s worth of Complex Design 2 work and its evaluation. The semester includes two exams and two make-up exams. The assignments of a public tender nature serve to foster independent work, as well as develop originality and creative abilities. Of the four exam opportunities, completion of two is required. The average of the two best marks for the assignment will influence the calculation of semester marks for the course.
Instructor(s):
Complex Design 2 (m) – authorised by Gyüla Fülöp DLA
Credit Value: 6 / Recommended Semester: 9 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAS911
Within the framework of the Complex Design 2 course, students must make a detailed plan of a smaller section (a designated part 1000 m³ in volume) of the building designed during the previous semester. At the end of the semester, after the working plan (which includes research as well), they must submit a plan modelled after a contractor’s plan (made up of portions that address the building’s structure, stability, facilities, and occasionally infrastructure or landscaping plans). An important part of Complex Design 2 is the detailed planning of one selected architectural element. Presentation of the working plan is open. The instructors involved (department head, course leaders, and architect consultant) take part in the evaluation, as well as other interested students and teachers. Greater emphasis is placed upon all the technical facets of the semester’s worth of Complex Design 2 work and its evaluation. The semester includes two exams and two make-up exams. The assignments of a public tender nature serve to foster independent work, as well as develop originality and creative abilities. Of the four exam opportunities, completion of two is required. The average of the two best marks for the assignment will influence the calculation of semester marks for the course.
Instructor(s):
Residential Building Design 1 – authorised by Tamás Perényi DLA
Credit value: 2 / Recommended Semester: 2 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAA201
This class covers the theory and fundamentals of residence building design, which is the same as the fifth-year and BSc training. The time for enrolment is the second semester, and the prerequisite for admission is successful completion of the Introduction to Architecture course. The goal of the class is the mastery of basic knowledge concerning the formation of a dwelling environment, residential building design, and housing topics in general. The lecture series presents the historical and intellectual evolution in housing design – providing information on the historical precedents and intellectual roots for the formation of residential areas and apartment buildings, as well as a special perspective on last century’s trends, which determine design practice to this day. Also presented are expectations (operative or otherwise) for the formation of dwelling areas, apartment arrangement methods, types of residential buildings in use and the specific requirements that apply, lessons of techniques used in professional practice, problems of apartment buildings’ architectural formation and aesthetic appearance, as well as fundamental relationships in housing architecture. Planned lectures will only deal with the exact know-how as necessary, and this knowledge must be acquired through the class textbook (Residential Building Design by Dr. János Bitó). The class concludes with an oral exam, questions being derived in part from the lectures and in part from textbook material.
Instructor(s):
Residential Building Design 1 – authorised by József Kolossa DLA
Credit Value: 6 / Recommended Semester: 3 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAA301
This class covers the practice of residential house planning in studio, both for general students and BSc training. Prerequisites are the successful completion of Residence Building Design 1, Fundamentals of Architecture, and Descriptive Geometry 1 courses. Practice takes place once a week in the form of studio classes and consultations. The central elements of the course include the apartment, the main goal being the mastery of a basic knowledge of flats and their practical use, as well as an understanding of relationships between flat and building, building and environment. The flat, as a function of architectural engineering praxis, appears in countless forms. Obviously, we have no means to cover even all the basic cases in one semester – if the concept “teaching” even applies in the case of a creative activity. This is why the class focuses on developing the students’ approach to design work – to develop in students a complex, yet practical standpoint towards spatial arrangement and formation, after they have acquired a thorough knowledge of function. We intend for students, upon completing this class, to be capable of recognizing in all its depths a function – in this case, a flat. Later, in the course of planning, they can make independent, professional decisions on the basis of information they know to be true. That means they can plan good flats with little outside assistance.
Instructor(s):
Space Composition – authorised by Balázs Kemes
Credit Value: 5 / Recommended Semester: 1 / Neptune Code: BMEEPKOA101
The first semester of space composition is a creative practice course where students come to know the basics of space composition. In the process of completing abstract space formation assignments which develop creativity and evaluating thoroughly the solutions posed, pupils learn about the peculiarities and opportunities inherent in space creation, as well as the effect of architectural spaces on people and environments. This acquired knowledge serves as a background and aid when preparing concrete architectural plans. Classes are conducted in groups of 18-25. Besides the leading instructor, there are at least two, but preferably three consultants. Small planning assignments are introduced at a general meeting, and 1-2 consultation hours are provided towards preparation. Discussion of the work under preparation or finished work provides the backbone of the course. Every pupil presents his or her creation followed by group evaluation. The goal is to develop studio work in a creative spirit, where students comment on each other’s designs.
Instructor(s):
Faculty-Led Planning 1 – authorised by László
Vincze DLA
Credit Value: 3 / Recommended Semester: 6 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAT601
The most exciting and quintessential part of architectural design is developing and presenting the architectural conception. Bjarke Ingels, leader of the Danish building firm BIG, is one of today’s most marked proponents of the plan presentation as a complete genre – with the possible use of drawing, theatre, storyboard, video, and film. The plan has long since ceased to be a drawn document. It is much rather a comprehensive, spectacular, and often stunning performance of unveiling, in which the architect’s reasoning and powerful, convincing, thrilling rhetoric play a key role. In Faculty-Led Planning 1, tasks and plans are completed by groups of 3-4, with internal division of labour. The aim of classes is to master architectural conceptual practice founded on cooperation and to learn about the opportunities offered by constant advances in technology and visualisation programming. The task is the viable development of an existing site with detailed elaboration and active discussions to involve the owners and the widest possible sphere of interested parties (e.g., mayor, representatives) in the work, in the interest of protecting built-in values.
Instructor(s):
Faculty-Led Planning 2 – authorised by György Hild DLA
Credit Value: 3 / Recommended Semester: 7 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAT701
Architecture is not a master weapon – sometimes there is no need for it – at least, in the sense of its commonly known arsenal and artillery. We have a minimum of two examples of modern, rather successful, non-architectural designs: 1) the CH2 – 2006 Melbourne Council House 2, and 2) Bjarke Ingels or the BIG Office. If we must give a home-grown example, we are justified in thinking of Elemér Zalotay; only in his case, we lack the breakthrough success. Perhaps, on the national front, the intellectual accomplishment which is most worthy of mention is Péter Janesch’s European Hochtief-honoured Nyugati Negyed [Western Quarter] proposal, a pre-eminent part of which is the rehabilitation of Nyugati pályaudvar [Western Railroad Station]. In these cases, perhaps the motto is “the democratisation of architecture”, even if BIG’s example (and Janesch’s) indicates the success of a strong individual. We are not urging you to abandon the dream of famed architecture and ‘beautiful’ buildings, but alongside them a star has risen – a non-traditional and non-self-directed environment artist who uses essentially non-engineering and non-architectural skills to change our world for the better. In our experience, these are qualities that can be used primarily in the process of contemporary rehabilitations, typically located in the urban fabric, the key terms being contextualism, public participation, knowledge of environment, and information democracy. The course’s instructive goal is to prepare students to make planning decisions, to adapt to and work with exterior factors, and to maintain professional, success-oriented relationships with commissioners and the public at large. A means to this end is a design philosophy that strives to be competitive, contemporary, and accessible; that embarks from the needs and demands of the widest possible community; that abides by function rather than architectural form; and that seeks to adapt to the environment.
Instructor(s):
Faculty-Led Planning 3 – authorised by Tamás
Varga DLA
Credit value: 8 / Recommended Semester: 7 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLAT711
This course is available in the 7th semester of the design track for the “United Fifth-Year Architectural Engineers” Corps. Through a task suited to the chosen design faculty’s profile, participants can immerse themselves again – though far more thoroughly – in architectural studies of a given area and can create innovative, modern architectural plans. For the planning course, pupils begin working in smaller groups. The first part of the assignment is a fine-tooth survey of the location – including tours, photography, research, drawing, and the preparation of street diagrams. When the locale is known in its entirety, students must make recommendations for the utilisation and innovative urban architectural development of the design site. Then, of the plots specified in the jointly developed urban architectural concepts, each student chooses one and (while complying with the regulatory parameters) begins the individual work: the planning of a residential building. In the interests of a uniform appearance, each member of the group must continue to work with the others throughout the process, which a joint advisor will assist. The semester’s work concludes with an exhibition of the plan and the models.
Instructor(s):
Architecture and Visual Creations (
ÉVA = Építészet, Vizuális Alkotások) – authorised by Sándor
Makrai DLA
Credit Value: 4 / Recommended Semester: xx /Neptune Code: BMEEPLA0898
The goal of this course is to practice the creative process and to develop originality and the ability to plan in the sphere of visual arts. With the help of invited artists, each student creates a small work of art. At the beginning of the semester we announce the content and formal requirements of the actual assignments and the creations to be submitted. The classes consist of lectures (presentation of basic knowledge), studio work (corrections), and evaluation (analysis of artwork), held by known masters active in their fields. The course requires serious work at home in addition to attending classes. As a minimum requirement for enrolment in this 4-credit course, students must have a basic knowledge in the use of computers and photography equipment (camera) and an affinity for the fine arts (photography and video art, sculpture, painting, etc.).
Instructor(s):
Interior Design of Residential Buildings – authorised by Tamás
Varga DLA
Credit Value: 2 / Recommended Semester: 9 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA0881
The goal of this class is to acquire a knowledge of the interior design problems that occur in the design of flats and architectural planning in general and to complete interior design tasks. Architectural traditions and modern initiatives are made known through general lectures and personal consultations on exercises. Further instruction occurs with the analysis of architectural spaces. (This includes the dwelling environment, interaction between the residence and spaces that connect it to the environment, furnishings, the interior design’s character, and psychological relationships among colours, materials, and forms.) Through exercises, students plan one selected portion of a complex design – one flat, portion of a residence, or perhaps the interior of a public space, its furnishing and design. Those enrolling must have completed the Complex Design 1 course. Preference will be given to students in the residential design faculty’s complex department. In the case of over-enrolment, better results in the Complex Design 1 course will be decisive. A condition of the semester’s completion is the graphic development, presentation, and electronic submission of the specified assignment portion. Instructor(s):
Residential Building Design and Current Public Commisions – authorised by József
Kolossa DLA
Credit Value: 2 / Recommended Semester: 6 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA0897
Through the study of actual, current public commissions, this class provides a perspective on contemporary Hungarian residential building design praxis. Also, through past projects, it presents the main changes over recent years. The aim is to complement lectures in the Residential Building Design 1 course by acquainting students with as many concrete examples as possible – of contemporary Hungarian architectural creations and, primarily, of the bubbling, fertile, and often controversial world of public commissions. The highlighted standpoint and aim is for students to observe architectural praxis in today’s Hungary, even if that is through more or less successful answers to questions that are posed. Another goal is for students to develop a routine of following public commissions, as well as an understanding of the procurement system, where to find such opportunities, and the rules and methodology regarding tenders. The hidden aim, by engaging with the given public tenders within the course, is to develop an active discourse among pupils on the basis of the evaluation and ‘judgment’ that follows.
Instructor(s):
Dwelling Analysis – authorised by Miklós
Jancsó DLA
Credit Value: 2 / Recommended Semester: xx / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA0410
The Dwelling Analysis class supplements the fundamental courses and surveys, in the widest possible range, fulfilment of residential functions. That is why the course title does not specify flats or residences, but dwellings, which we define in the following manner: dwellings are where at least one person can spend at least one night in shelter. As this definition indicates, students analyse dwellings with the instructor’s assistance. The course’s direct aim is to immerse students in a knowledge of dwellings in terms of the variety of living spaces and extreme values placed on residential functions.
Instructor(s):
Residential Environment and Design – authorised by Zsófia Dankó DLA
Credit Value: 2 / Recommended Semester: xx / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA0882
Within the framework of this class, besides learning theoretical matters – the system of relationships between building and environment – the student prepares a complementary design as part of a complex plan, through the partial planning of a building’s micro-environment with the aid of colleagues in garden and landscape design, as well as public utility design. A prerequisite for enrolment is successful completion of the Complex 1 course.
Instructor(s):
Faculty Research – authorised by Tamás
Perényi DLA
Credit Value: 2 / Recommended Semester: 6-9 / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA0990
High-level university instruction is unthinkable without research in the chosen discipline. The course’s aim is to draw students into the residential building design faculty’s annually updated research themes and acquaint them with the method and processes of professional research process. Another aim is to channel the ideas of student body, equipped with significant innovative potential, into the intellectual life of the faculty. Research topics are announced yearly, besides the innovation projects that last years. Students primarily join the themes that are announced, although it is conceivable for the faculty to accept one topic proposed by students. During strenuous periods, two-hour consultations on a weekly basis are included in the course workload, although lectures will be held on five occasions during the semester to cover practical research matters. Upon successfully completing the course, students come to know their capacity for innovation. We teach methods for protecting and implementing their intellectual property. They also master the basics of knowledge transfer and initiating independent start-ups.
Instructor(s):
Architectural Perspectives on Obstacle-Free, Universal Design authorised by György
Hild DLA,
Sándor
Makrai DLA
Credit Value: 2 / Recommended Semester: xx / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA0920
Over the semester, we plan a public building with simple functions on a topographically interesting site. The obstacle-free facility will provide an example for ensuring equal accessibility. As a result of more complex thinking and the fulfilment of architectural means, formation of the building’s structures (ramps, stairs, lifts, etc.) and functional units (entrance, windbreak, operation, cleaning, etc.) will serve to create new forms and compositions. Therefore, the task is how to practice architecture while satisfying an apparently special set of requirements in order to develop creative and constructive skills. Two sheets (size A-3) are to be submitted with any number of drawings.
Instructor(s):
Organic Architecture 1 authorised by Tamás Perényi DLA
Credit Value: 2 / Recommended Semester: xx / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA0920
Organic Architecture is not a stylistic course of instruction, but an introduction to a method of analysis and thinking. Its aim is the mastery of a certain approach whereby architectural design can be treated consistently as a facet of life. This broadens students’ basic education, creativity, and knowledge of history and architectural history, as well as preparing them for the problems of everyday architectural practice. Lecture topics are based upon the inspirations that define Imre Makovecz’ philosophy: thinking from an anthro-philosophical standpoint, construction vocabulary and concepts (e.g., metamorphosis, imaginative approach, genius loci, living house), and the Master’s masters (Wright’s philosophy). Invited speakers present the wide-ranging oeuvre and its legacy from several perspectives. The semester includes three practical considerations, and an independent assignment must be completed in the framework of each one. Free-hand drawing and modelling are of great importance here.
Instructor(s):
Organic Architecture 2
authorised by: Tamás
Perényi DLA
Credit Value: 2 / Recommended Semester: xx / Neptune Code: BMEEPLA0896
Organic Architecture 2 builds on the spirit of lectures in the first semester that introduced approaches to architecture and knowledge of the world. During the semester, lectures are based on an understanding of Béla Hamvas’ work entitled Az öt géniusz (Five Geniuses) about the five regions of Hungary and their architecture, as interpreted by architects working in the areas (J. Jánosi, G. Erhardt, G. Helyes, A. Turi). The goal is to introduce these concepts which contain architectural thought and are derived regionally from the local communities. The semester’s second thread is preparation for the summer’s building and construction camp. To this end, there are presentations on building camps in Hungary and abroad, voluntary construction, and societal actions. As a continuation of the practice so far, there is a semester’s design task that forms the objective of the summer camp’s construction, prepared in two rounds and selected by the students as a whole.
Instructor(s):
Departmental Project 3
