Assessing the Optimum Proportion of Outdoor Spaces of Educational Sites, College of Engineering in Erbil City as a Case Study
Mohammed M. Saeed Almumar, Faris Ali Mustafa Mzoori [Architectural Department- Salahaddin University-Erbil]
Received : 01/07/2015, Accepted : 20/12/2015
DOI Link: https://doi.org/10.17656/sjes.10035
Many of Outdoor spaces (OS)s in the local existing educational institutional sites are narrow or wide, of inefficient degree of enclosure (DOE) and of reduced performance. Optimum proportion of OS in this paper is one that can ensure efficient performance of both the surrounding buildings and the OS itself, and also ensure minimum consumption of land, energy and material. DOE of OS in previous literature is associated only to the proportion of OS itself, whereas (DOE) in this paper is associated to other parameters in addition to proportion. They are; pattern of object configuration, permeability of vision of enclosing surfaces, and ambient environment. This paper attempts to establish a relationship between the DOE with the mentioned parameters, and to determine the optimum proportions of campus OSs for various uses. The site of the college of engineering in Salahiddin University is chosen as a case study to measure and record paper parameters with the help of a checklist. DOE evaluation of OS as a perceived performance is measured by the users for these OSs within a questionnaire. Results of this paper deduced the design criteria of the pattern and proportion of the physical objects forming the OS, that are capable to ensure anthropomorphic, healthy, sparing land consumption, and expedient outdoor environment for future campus developments.
KEYWORDS: degree of enclosure, performance, configuration, permeability, consumption of land, environment.
1. Beazley, E., (1968), “Design and detail of the space between buildings”, London: Architectural Press Ltd.
2. Buildings, n. d. (No date), Chapter 3, pp. 157-173, Available from: http://www.most.gov.mm/techuni/media/Ar-05014-10 (accessed 15.4.2015).
3. Ching, F.D.K., (2007), “Architecture: Form, Space, and Order”, 3rd Ed., John Wiley & Sons, pp.135-151.
4. Cooper, R., (2000), “Yale University: A framework for campus planning”, Yale University: Cooper, Robertson, and Partners, p.65. Available from: http://www.yale.edu/about/YALEFRMW.pdf (accessed 22.3.2015).
5. Dadson, P., (1999), “The space between buildings, site guidelines, context – 61”, Available from: http://www.ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/61/joined/joinedup.html (accessed 20.4.2015).
6. Fägerstam, E., (2012), “Space and place: Perspectives on outdoor teaching and learning”, Published Doctoral Thesis, Linköping University, Department of Behavioral Sciences and Learning, Linköping, Sweden. ISBN: 978- 91-7519-813-2.
7. Ferwati, M.S., & Mandour, M.A., (2008), “Proportions and human scale in damascene courtyard houses”, International Journal of Architectural Research, 2(1), p. 247.
8. Hillier, D.T.A., (2002), “Planning principles, spatial structure and composition; section two, final report”, October 30, 2002. University of Guelph, Campus Master Plan, p. 60. Available from: http://www.pr.uoguelph.ca/pr/2_SpatialStruct.pdf (accessed 22.3.2015).
9. Lau, S.S.Y., Zhonghua G., Yajing L., (2014), “Healthy campus by open space design: Approaches and guidelines”, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3(4), 452–467.
10. Lynch, K., & Hack, G., (1984), “Site Planning”, 3rd ed. MIT Press, p.155.
11. Miami-Dade Manual, (1999), “Urban Design Manual: Volume I - Private Development, Sustainability Planning and Economic Enhancement”, Miami, Florida, February 1999, p.14. Available from: http://www.miamidade.gov/planning/library/studies/UDMfinal-vol-1.pdf (accessed 22.3.2015).
12. Moughtin, C., (2003), “Urban Design: Street and Square”, 3rd ed. Architectural Press.
13. Queen’s University Campus Plan, (2002), “Queen’s University Campus: Strategy 15: Buildings as space makers”, p. 64. Available from: http://www.queensu.ca/camplan/reports/section2-3.pdf. (accessed 24.3.2015).
14. Saxena, A., & Sharma, A., (2013), “Importance of relationship between built forms amidst open spaces in historical areas”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 2(2),
15. UBC., (2009), “Public Realm Plan for the Vancouver Campus”, The University of British Columbia, Campus and Community Planning, May 2009, p.6. Available from: http://bog2.sites.olt.ubc.ca/files/2010/10/SUB-BG-09.06.03_3.2-UBC-V-Public-Realm-Plan.pdf (accessed 22.3.2015).
16. Ünlü, A., Edgü, E., Cimsit, F., Salgamcioglu, M. E., Garip, E., Mansouri, A., (2009), “Interface of indoor and outdoor spaces in buildings: A syntactic comparison of architectural schools in Istanbul”, In Proceedings of the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium Edited by Daniel Koch et al, Stockholm: KTH. pp.132:1-132:12.
17. Wang, Z., (2014), “Nearby outdoor environments and seniors physical activities”, Frontiers of Architectural Research, 3(3), 265–270.
18. Yang, H., (2007), “Campus landscape space planning and design using QFD”, Master’s Thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic, College of Architecture and Urban Studies, Blacksburg: Virginia, pp. 6, 35. Available from: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06262007-211426/unrestricted/cover.pdf (accessed 30.3.2015).