How can architecture respond to tourism while creating meaningful relationships between wellbeing, place and environment?

During this edition of Design IX at the School of Architecture & Design of PUCMM, the studio explored Tourism & Wellbeing as the central theme for the semester.

Through a combination of theoretical classes, workshops, research and collaborative design exercises, students developed architectural proposals that examined tourism beyond accommodation — considering its relationship with place, culture, landscape, sustainability and human wellbeing.

The studio was structured as a progressive design process, moving from research and contextual understanding to architectural concept, technical development and final presentation.

The objective was not simply to arrive at a finished building.

It was to teach students how to build an architectural argument from research to resolution.

01 — Understanding Before Designing

Previous Knowledge & Research

Before beginning the architectural proposal, students spent the first weeks understanding the broader framework of the studio.

Research focused on the conditions surrounding tourism in the Dominican Republic, the objectives of the design challenge and the opportunities that architecture could address.

Students worked in randomly assigned groups, encouraging collaboration beyond their usual teams and allowing different perspectives to emerge.

During this phase, they explored comparables, case studies and existing conditions to identify possible architectural typologies and locations.

The first question was therefore not:

What should we design?

But:

What problem or opportunity should architecture respond to?

02 — Reading the Context

The Architectural Context

Once each typology had been established, students moved from general research into the specific conditions of place.

Site documentation and contextual analysis became the foundation for architectural decision-making.

Students investigated environmental, urban, cultural and spatial conditions to understand how each project could belong to its location rather than simply occupy it.

At this stage, permanent teams of three students were established and would continue working together throughout the remainder of the semester.

The site was no longer treated as an empty plot.

Context became a design tool.

03 — Defining the Architectural Project

Programme, Scope & Strategy

The next stage focused on defining what the project needed to become.

Students developed the architectural programme, established areas and relationships between uses, analysed users and identified the requirements of the immediate context.

This process created the framework necessary to begin architectural design.

Programme was approached not simply as a list of rooms and square metres, but as a system of relationships.

Which spaces should connect?

Which should remain separate?

How does the user move through them?

How does the programme respond to its surroundings?

These decisions formed the bridge between research and architecture.

04 — From Research to Concept

Architectural Proposal

With the programme and context established, the studio moved into conceptualisation and schematic design.

Rather than immediately developing one collective solution, each student initially explored an individual conceptual proposal.

This generated multiple possibilities within each team and encouraged students to develop their own architectural position before moving into collective decision-making.

The proposals were then evaluated according to their relationship with:

programme · context · user · concept · environment

The strongest ideas were identified, challenged and developed further.

Concept was therefore not treated as a visual gesture added to the project.

It became the logic connecting research with architectural form.

05 — From Concept to Resolution

Design Development & Technical Documentation

The final stage transformed the conceptual proposal into a coordinated architectural project.

Each team reviewed the individual explorations and collectively defined the strategies that would guide the final design.

The project was then developed spatially, volumetrically and technically.

Architectural decisions were translated into a coordinated drawing package including:

Architectural · Structural · Electrical · Sanitary documentation

This final phase introduced another fundamental lesson:

Architecture must move from idea to buildable resolution.

The semester therefore concluded not simply with a conceptual proposal, but with a project developed across different scales of architectural thinking.

Selected Projects

The Tourism & Wellbeing studio resulted in three projects exploring very different relationships between architecture, destination and experience.

RAÍCES

Interactive Centre for Art & Culture

Santa Bárbara de Samaná · Dominican Republic

Students: Laura Guzmán · Franklin Castillo · Emily Burgos

RAÍCES explores tourism through culture and identity, proposing an interactive cultural destination connected to Samaná’s waterfront.

Inspired by the behaviour of mangroves, the project develops as a network of cultural buildings, landscape and public spaces where circulation becomes part of the visitor experience.

Culture · Identity · Waterfront · Landscape

ECO MONT

Inclusive Eco Condo Hotel

Monte Cristi · Dominican Republic

Students: Charatza Ruiz · Ivanny Bautista · Odelis Caamaño

ECO MONT explores hospitality through universal design, sustainability and accessibility.

The proposal considers how an ecological hotel environment could provide an inclusive guest experience while contributing to the development of ecotourism in Monte Cristi.

Hospitality · Universal Design · Sustainability · Ecotourism

HEM GLAM

Eco Glamping Mirador

Jarabacoa · Dominican Republic

Students: Neiby Cáceres · Melaney Ventura · Graciely Guerrero

HEM GLAM explores hospitality through nature immersion and landscape.

Inspired by the growth and adaptation of the orchid, the project distributes accommodation, recreational spaces and viewpoints throughout the site, creating a guest journey connected to Jarabacoa’s natural environment.

Glamping · Nature · Landscape · Wellbeing

From Research to Architecture

Although the three projects respond to the same studio theme, each team arrived at a different architectural interpretation.

RAÍCES approached tourism through culture.

ECO MONT approached it through inclusion.

HEM GLAM approached it through nature.

What connects them is the process.

Research established the problem.

Context informed the response.

Programme organised the experience.

Concept gave the project identity.

And technical development transformed the idea into architecture.

The Tourism & Wellbeing studio ultimately explored design education as a process of learning not only how to design a building, but how to construct the reasoning behind it.

Studio
Design IX — Tourism & Wellbeing

Institution
EAD–PUCMM · School of Architecture & Design

Professor
Sarah Tió

Selected Projects
RAÍCES · ECO MONT · HEM GLAM

Topics
Architectural Education · Design Methodology · Tourism · Wellbeing · Hospitality · Culture · Sustainability · Landscape

Type
Academic Studio · Teaching Archive