Learning communities undergraduate study summer 2011

Learning Communities

Monica Muga AAD 400 Summer 2011

Advisor: Prof. Al-Douri Project: Case Studies Analysis

This page was left blank (part of the book)

1

Sense of Community in Campus Designs Table of Contents Case Study 1: Brochstein Pavilion and Central Quad.............................................4- 9

Case Study 2: Georgia Techology Square.........................................................10 - 15

Case Study 3: Northwest Science Building .......................................................16 - 22

Case Study 4: Gates Center for Computer Science and Hillman Center for Future Generation Technologies.............................................................................. 24 - 30

Conclusions.................................................................................................33 - 34

2

This page was left blank (part of the book)

3

1. Brochstein Pavilion 4

Transforming Campus into Community: Brochstein Pavilion and Central Quad LOCATION: Houston, Texas URBAN DESIGNER: Thomas Phifer and Partners CLIENT: Rice University STUDY AREA AND PROGRAM: The project is in the heart of the campus and is located just three miles from the center of Houston.

The Raymond and Susan Brochstein Pavilion grew out of the necessity to have a destination for students and faculty to informally interact and share ideas in a relax environment. David Leebron, Rice’s president, wanted to open up the university thus creating more connections between Rice and Houston, between Rice and the Texas Medical Center, and even between the campus and the surrounding community.

The designer made use of a holistic approach and appropriate technologies to work within its urban context to achieve his goal to create a very dynamic, pedestrian oriented, accessible and sustainable design.

YEAR OF AWARD: 2009 AIA New York Architecture Honor Awards STATUS: Rice has 300 acres of land and the pavilion is the first of several new capital projects for this university.

5

Figure 1

Critical issues The Rice University was in need of both a central meeting place for the undergrads, who did not live near the campus, and for the visitors that come only for lectures and events and do not spend any time on campus before or afterward.

Both the client and the designer wanted to establish a connection between the city of Houston and the campus surroundings. The idea was to create a relationship between the campus atmosphere and the city environment and unite the two in a harmonious way, without disrupting the existing urban fabric.

Another important point the architect makes is the site’s location because the pavilion sits at an important intersection of pathways and crossroads that are nearby the Central Quadrangle, which is where the buildings that surround the founder’s statue sit, encouraging interaction among students, faculty, and staff

rate the beautiful existing landscape into this new pavilion and also the pathways and different intersections along campus, the idea is to draw people into this area and create more spontaneous social interaction, so the campus community is more unified.

Brochstein Pavilion reached its goal to make the areas around it more alive while still having a relationship to its site context. The landscape, the pavilion, and people is what created this renew campus community. By also promoting pedestrian friendly environment they are improving the public’s health and animating the streets and squares within this neighborhood they are creating an urban image to follow.

Figure 2

without disturbing pedestrian movement through campus. All parties involved hope that this new addition to the university soon will become one of the most important places on campus to come together for conversation and companionship.

Other important critical issues the designers considered were sustainability, walkability, place making, sense of community, and personal health. Sustainability in this building is used in the natural lighting and ventilation inside and outside the building; for instance the trellis offers shading,

reduces direct sunlight and decreases the mechanical cooling load, in benefit of the end user and the building itself. The landscape around the pavilion follows the pathways and is covered by trees acting as shading devices. All these combined create a more energy efficient structure.

Key urban design concepts

Working in relation to the site context, a pavilion was the solution in response to the campus community needs. A coffeehouse, cafĂŠ, and a meeting place were created in a very harmonious way to fit As mentioned before, walkability was a within the landscape and the existing critical issue because the client and the structures of the university. Its main condesigners wanted the space around the cept is based on giving people a place Central Quad to become more animated, to sit, socialize, and enjoy the campus since the buildings around it seemed between or after events. The pavilion isolated and dull. They decided to incorpo- is 6,000 square feet, and is one of the

Case Study 1: Brochstein Pavilion and Central Quad

6

Case Study 1: Brochstein Pavilion and Central Quad

Figure(s) 4 - 5

Figure 3

smallest buildings on campus. Its transparent design gives people the opportunity to enjoy the beauty of the campus; and by integrating the concept of transparency into its spaces, the landscape seems to go through the building; giving the pavilion and surrounding fabric a unique and balance character.

The building is all about symmetry, order and lightness, and celebrates openness. These ideas are reflected on how the spaces and its surround-

7

ing landscape were arranged, even the colors and materials used in the building help to reinforce those characteristics. The design is based on five interrelated principles; some of them are considered primary and others secondary principles by the architect, but all of them are vitally important to create a solid community: • Build a community in an increasingly diverse society is a key aspect in this project because it emphasizes the role of the pavilion as the main element that brings people together to have a greater academic interac-

tion and informal social exchange in a mix used building among students, faculty, and visitors (Fig. 1-2). A trellis provides shade over the patio area that overlooks the landscape including pathways, trees, and water fountains. It also has an exterior wraparound plaza which adds another 10, 700-plus square feet of gathering space. By protecting the natural areas and considering the existing urban fabric, the quality of life improves in that area and the idea of the campus community becomes stronger.

Jury Comments “The only non-brick building at Rice University, the Brochstein Pavilion is a deceivingly simple glass, aluminum and steel jewel that solves complex issues on campus and activates the open space of this important circulation area. Its transparency, lightness and immaculate detailing make this structure a refreshing destination on campus.”

“Quiet, elegant and modern amidst traditional buildings, it is an exquisite addition to the campus fabric.”

Figure 6

• Encourage environmental sustainability by bringing natural light and having a natural ventilated central space for people to meet and greet. The steel trellis of the Brochstein Pavilion covers the structure and helps shade the surrounding seating terrace. The shading structure is made of an array of small aluminum tubes; as a result the trellis reduces the direct sun by 70 percent. It also helps decrease the required mechanical cooling load by 30 percent and allows the building to be open and naturally ventilated throughout the year. The pavilion makes uses of those

appropriate technologies in order to create a sustainable structure that follows a holistic approach.

This project was designed to work within the climate needs, which is hot and dry most of the year. The usage of passive measures for heating and cooling help the building more energy efficient, reducing pollution in the environment thus benefiting the students, visitors, and the campus community health. The trellises act as an extension of the new trees’ natural canopy to provide shade and filter natural daylight

into the pavilion. The roof is covered with skylights that look like scoops, bringing direct sunlight into each gathering space (Fig. 3-5).

The usage of light colors in the pavilion

help to reflect the daylight and reduce the temperature indoors. The layout and arrangement of the spaces within the pavilion create cross ventilation. All of these are part of a comprehensive system that uses alternative technologies to help create a better environment for the end user and the surrounding

Case Study 1: Brochstein Pavilion and Central Quad

8

Case Study 1: Brochstein Pavilion and Central Quad

community. • Enhance personal health. During the design process, the comfort levels of the end user were taken into consideration as well as the amount of energy consumed by the building.

The pavilion focuses on walkability by inviting people into the building; the trellises extent into the existing pathways as a way to create social interaction between outdoors and indoors. The surrounding trees help to create a natural canopy, shading the pathways, and the trellis help filter light into the spaces; all of this bring into balance the built and natural environment. The transparency, lightness of the walls, and surrounding landscape produce a very flexible, harmonious, and pedestrian oriented building (Fig. 6). • Expand individual choices. This pavilion was based on having students, faculty, and visitors interact with each other; and also in bringing to life the Quad, as a central hot spot for spontaneous informal exchange. The campus and its community are given a recreation place based on such campus community culture. People have adopted this place and now can

9

enjoy the campus between or after events; so in a way it has helped to make the lives of the students, faculty, and visitors easier because it offers them a very unique place to relax in between classes or events.

By being so close to the Quad, this pavilion serves as a transitional space between departments and colleges within the campus that help to bring and integrate the whole campus-community together. • Place-Making. The Brochstein Pavilion aims to be a place where people can meet and engage in conversation while enjoying the beautiful scenery. It was designed with the community in mind, to offer them a place for recreation within the campus. The idea is to integrate the existing neighborhood with the campus community, through the pathways, various shops, landscaping to promote more pedestrian movement because that is what connects both the communities.

The existing Central Quad has now become a very common place for social meetings because of the incorporation of the new pavilion. The pavilion helped to bring life into the Central Quad and its surrounding buildings.

In a way, this project will continue to shape the campus environment and can enrich its relationship to the larger community.

10

Georgia Tech, Technology Square LOCATION: Atlanta, Georgia URBAN DESIGNER: Thompson, Ventulett, Stainback and Associates CLIENT: Georgia Institute of Technology STUDY AREA AND PROGRAM: It is a three-block business district, which serves as the commercial center for the Georgia Tech campus. It was built over a vacant area of 1.1 million sq.ft, and has contributed to an ongoing revitalization of the entire Midtown area.

Its design emphasizes the experience of a dynamic research and learning community as well as a pedestrian friendly environment that reveals the Institute’s beginnings, with beautiful historical buildings, and its future with high tech research facilities. Tech Square is surrounded by colleges, a tech hotel and conference center,restaurants and other nonfood retail establishments. It reaches into the Atlanta Midtown business district across the downtown connector from the Georgia Tech campus. It is an example of urban redevelopment which goal was to enhance the opportunity for alternative transportation (Fig.7).

YEAR OF AWARD: 2007 Design Citation Educational Facilities STATUS: It integrates the campus’ needs with those of the local community holistically.

11

Figure 7

Critical issues Before the new development for the Georgia Tech campus the site had deserted streets that did not provide public social interaction. As a result, the architects had to concentrate all their efforts into bringing this district back to life, by redesigning it and rejuvenating midtown Atlanta. The new design created jobs for the community and it also made the different facilities work efficiently in benefit of the end user health and safety.

The size and complexity of designing and building five buildings with completely different programs at the same time was one of the biggest challenges of this project. Careful coordination was one key to the success of this massive project. Technology Square includes education, research and hospitality, forming a unique complex made of many units to create a community.

Business and technology are at the center of Tech Square. The different colleges located around the square, teach the students to perform in highly technological and global environments by exposing them to developing business and by having access to the latest learning tools. This institute stresses teamwork, cultural diversity, and relevant solutions to current issues to prepare future leaders to achieve and succeed in today’s changing technological environments.

Key urban design concepts Tech Square was able to incorporate all the important elements in relation to its site and community environment. It is Figure 8 the central part of a multi-use developThis project was designed in considerment that offers a unique blend of busiation of the elements and characteristics The Georgia Institute of Technology has ness, educational, research and retail created within the Tech Square environof the site to help inform its architectural space. Besides being a high-technology ment a mixed-use urban development that design, thus providing an important prineducation and research campus, it succiple within this campus community, which cessfully blends with the community’s offers a unique blend of business, eduis place making. Tech Square embraces cational, research and retail space. The character and site context, adding a design for the Tech Square is based on the historic landmarks of its surroundings sense of place to this district (Fig.8). the concept the combination of high tech- while still providing a community oriented Historic landmarks throughout Georgia nology education and research campus mixed-use environment that creates Tech Institute had been considered in and because of that, the architects had to pedestrian movement and offers different the design process, and are integrated address various issues such as sustainkind of amenities for the public to create with the new design strategies for the interaction between the public and camability, walkability, place making, commumodern buildings. As a result, the camnity building, and safety. pus communities. pus is seen as a big community because it helped bring together two important

Case Study 2: Georgia Tech, Technology Square

12

Case Study 2: Georgia Tech, Technology Square

Figure 9

parts of the community, the college life and Midtown life in Atlanta.

This new mixed-use urban development has helped to rejuvenate midtown Atlanta, creating jobs, connecting the isolated streets with the new transit networks at the campus and also integrating each building in relation to each other and the existing architecture. Georgia Tech has brought life to the whole new neighborhood and it created new places for informal social exchange and public gathering

13

Figure(s) 10-11

around each of the amenities offered. The concepts the architect wanted to focus on more were walkability, place-making, sense of community, and sustainability (Fig.9-11).

Its design is based on three interrelated principles: • Place-Making. For the new mixed-use urban development there is an importance of strengthening the collective sense of belonging within the campus community. The design around the Tech Square uses the site characteristics and is aware of the elements surrounding its context so that it responds to

the character of the place (Fig. 12). At the architectural level the styles and heights of the buildings are very similar, maintaining a consistency to not disrupt the campus and community environment.

There is also a strong emphasis on protecting the historic landmarks in the campus to create a kind of consciousness on the part of the students and public to remember the institution’s beginnings with the beautiful historical buildings around the site. It has been a constant effort of the designers to create an infill design in

Jury Comments “Lined with wide brick sidewalks and clean green benches under perfectly sized and shaped dogwood trees, Tech Square is the best part of campus as it desegregates college life and Midtown life in Atlanta.”

“It offers a relaxing atmosphere where workers can congregate for lunch at one of the six restaurants here, grab coffee at Starbucks, and purchase a bright green cotton shirt from American Apparel or a box of gourmet chocolates from Lexington as a treat.”

Figure 12

the area, and also to build modern efficient structures that would enhance and revitalize the historic urban environment.

• Expand individual choices. This project has definitely offered new choices for the public in relation to housing, transportation, recreation, and culture. Tech Square has many places for social interaction and recreation indoors and outdoors of each of the buildings near the square.

There are auditoria, conference rooms, interactive high tech centers and design centers, banquet rooms, training rooms,

bookstores, and restaurants. All of these combined generate the whole campus community in which residents of adjacent neighborhoods can study, work, and shop much easier and create a social exchange. The various amenities give the residents different options to visit those areas and walk through the campus and enjoy the different views.

spaces in between important nodes of the existing streets and new pathways.

In addition, this project promotes pedestrian movement thus providing a sense of community around the site. There are also shuttle bus routes and trolley services to provide transportation on campus as well as between the campus and specific areas of midtown Atlanta.

Transportation was another big concern for the architects, but they were able to resolve this issue very efficiently by providing connecting networks and recreational

• Enhance personal health. Tech Square was designed with the end user in mind because it offers the community amenities, recreational spaces, educational

Case Study 2: Georgia Tech, Technology Square 14

Case Study 2: Georgia Tech, Technology Square

and technological places indoors and outdoors where a healthier lifestyle is promoted and in auto-related injuries are decreased. Because this project is pedestrian friendly, the environment around the square has a sense of community which is reinforced by the bus and trolley services that go around campus (Fig. 13).

Tech Square focuses on walkability by inviting people into the buildings to enjoy the amenities, views, and allowing them to be part of the campus community. In addition, the landscape and the building environment work in a harmonious and balanced manner because it offers a relaxing atmosphere for the public. The environment around the square then becomes even more pleasant when the recreational areas are being provided with shading devices to protect residents from the climate conditions.

Sustainability is taken into consideration in the architecture around the square by having water and energy saving programs, by using recycled paper and biodegradable products, and by offering new means for transportation on campus. Overall, this campus community is very integrated and compacted with its surround-

15

Figure 13

ings; because people are able to connect to the site and to each other, sharing public spaces and services, and most importantly the campus was able to integrate successfully the existing community with the campus community, making this neighborhood one of the most important points of attraction of the newly developed district.

3. Northwest Science Building

16

Harvard University Science Building

Northwest

LOCATION: Cambridge, Massachusetts URBAN DESIGNER: Skidmore Owings & Merrill CLIENT: Harvard University STUDY AREA AND PROGRAM: The project is the center for the scientific research of the campus and is located between six existing buildings and faces a historic neighborhood of residences. The N.S. building focuses on collaborative learning and cross-disciplinary research, by being a new model for educational facilities that addresses environmental, social, and economic sustainability. Its networks of pathways and multi-height gathering spaces, fosters a strongly connected community, providing an exchange of ideas across the various sciences. More than half of the square footage, 530,000, sits below grade to create a flexible building appropriate in scale to its neighbors and responsive to the architectural language of the campus.

YEAR OF AWARD: 2010 AIA Boston Society of Architects STATUS: Defines the research environment in its campus, creating a strong link between Harvard and the adjacent Cambridge community.

17

Figure 14

Critical issues This design aimed to be the first multi-disciplinary research building and the largest laboratory building to be constructed at Harvard University. It is considered a model for the new generation of research environments emphasizing interdisciplinary collaborative learning. This project addressed several challenges at once such as respecting its urban fabric, integrating proper circulation paths throughout the building and the site, creating flexible lab facilities, and meeting the needs of a wide variety of users (Fig.14-15).

In order to maintain the harmony of the site the architects decided to build more than half of the structure below grade level and incorporate green roofs and use them as part of the upper levels courtyard outdoor spaces. As a result, the height of the new structure did not disturb the existing architectural language of the

Also, a central interior plaza with generous skylights brings natural daylight and enhances the substantial portion of below-grade pedagogical spaces and visually connects the students and staff to the outside public realms.

The University had one plot of underutilized land remaining on its historic campus, thus the integration of the existing site with the campus was essential.

It had to animate that area by bringing more dynamic and informal meeting places that promoted more pedestrian movement. The building has many public meeting places on each floor and also it uses the green roofs as outdoor gathering spaces.

Figure 15

community. This building has three floors of highly flexible and adaptable research space; including teaching labs and public spaces. The structure is near mixed-used businesses and academic buildings, so it encourages interaction among students, faculty, and visitors and promotes pedestrian traffic.

As mentioned above, place-making was many of the critical issues because the structure must relate to its site context since it sits on the campus’s northwest edge, adjacent to the historic Cambridge

Agassiz neighborhood. The solution was to create a comprehensive master plan that accommodated the complex program and benefited the community. The building’s footprint was carefully placed to extend the internal research network, while creating new landscape quads.

An environmental approach that reduces energy consumption benefiting the client and end user was kept on mind. For instance, below-grade programming allows peak demand savings of 10 percent for cooling and 12 percent savings for heat.

Stacking the open and closed communal spaces is one of the building’s architectural strategies, thus spaces with more flexibility, like circulation corridors and stairways, are exploited to create opportunities for encounter and collaboration.

Walkability improves personal health, so the building connects the existing facilities to the south and west and the science buildings to the east with various pathways such as tunnel and bridge connections. The open plan promotes pedestrian flows, which links campus and community.

Case Study 3: Northwest Science Building 18

Case Study 3: Northwest Science Building

Figure 16

Key urban design concepts Harvard University wanted a design that respected its campus historical background and made good use of the site’s location. Not only that was incorporated into the design approach, but also public gathering spaces on each floor with corridors and pathways that connected the facilities engaging people into social exchange and collaboration between the science departments. Landscape

19

Figure(s) 17 - 18

and architecture become one because they complement each other by bringing a sense of community and balance to the site without disrupting the campus pedestrian movement.

Greenery is seen on the terraces and courtyards throughout the project, providing a place for outdoor activities and events for the campus and the local community.

urban context and a campus that establishes a relationship with the end users of the larger community. The design is based on five interrelated principles; some of them are considered primary and others secondary principles by the architect, but all of them are vitally important to create a solid community:

The programming for this new facility grew out of a desire to have a flexible, communal, and collaborative learning environment within the campus grounds. The designers provided a layout that is responsive to its

• Bringing a diverse community. The Northwest Science building developed a comprehensive master plan to animate the streets and the adjacent areas around the site to promote more collaboration

Jury Comments “The building accomplished the client’s goals and has been a success with users” “The principal investigators and their research groups are happy and productive in their new laboratories, and the collaborative spaces in the building have begun to enable crossdisciplinary dialogue among the researchers” “Harvard fits large, versatile lab into sensitive campus site” Figure 19

among people and also have shared public spaces for them to interact freely; thus bringing a sense of the urban life and vibrancy to the campus and the larger community. This project is located nearby goods and services and as a result it indirectly creates indoor and outdoor spaces for students, faculty, and visitors to enjoy and share in common. So in a way all of this helps to create a diverse community because it uses the concept of unit to whole which is emphasized on the various facilities and services offered representing unique elements that helped make the

whole community.

• Encourage environmental sustainability by bringing natural light into the indoor central plaza, in the form of skylights; which also serve as seating places for the green roof on top. The outdoor courtyard serves as another meeting place that can be used by the campus community as well as the larger community. Most of the structure is placed below grade to help reduce massing, construction cost, and especially to be more sensitive to the surroundings. By placing much of the struc-

ture underground also allowed creation of ultra-low vibration space for sensitive imaging equipment, and produced sustainability benefits by reducing material use and energy consumption.

Airy, daylight stairwells make it easy to get around the building. Multiple building entries and circulation pathways encourage students to pass through the building in route to other facilities; thus creating informal interaction. A structure that can be useful for diverse user groups because of its flexibility is very efficient

Case Study 3: Northwest Science Building

20

Case Study 3: Northwest Science Building

and sustainable because the rooms can be multipurpose, rearranged, and most importantly the materials cost during constructing is greatly reduce helping to reduce the building’s footprint and pollution in the environment.

• Enhance personal health. Working with the climate and the site constraints in mind to come up with an energy efficient building that benefited the occupants was a key factor in promoting a healthier lifestyle in the campus community. A flexible design was the solution to fit the complex program in which The materials used in the project the building’s layout is carefully arranged to have a light color scheme to help extend the internal research network, while reduce the direct sunlight into the creating new landscape quads. Its design research classrooms and labs. Wood, approach has a lab loft that allows scientists brick, concrete, and steel give a to reassign easily their spaces and teams unique style and character to its form throughout the building providing flexibility for when combined together in this proj- a range of uses. ect. The facades of the building form a dialogue with surrounding facilities Large staircases, a ground-level café, and an while also setting the town for prounderground event space also encourage an posed future construction. environment of openness and collaboration.

This idea is carried to the exterior planning Transparency is used in the form of as well. Coming from the central campus, glass that wraps around the building, one approaches a generous courtyard, with to help to create a kind of infill design, twelve large square bench boxes, such lawn bringing balance between the existing doubles as a green roof over the event space structures and the new project. Glaz- and its boxes act as skylights for the room ing is high-performance glass, and below (Fig.18). This outdoor central space a high-reflectivity roof was chosen helps to create more informal exchange to mitigate heat loads. All of these among the public and students. In addition, are part of a comprehensive plan the academic performance is improved when that uses technology to help create a having natural daylight and ventilation in better environment for the end user each room. Overall, this structure has manand the surrounding community (Fig. aged to bring together science, community, 16-17). and nature in one unique educational environment.

21

• Place-Making. This project emphasizes collaborative learning and cross disciplinary research in diverse fields. The site had an oddly shaped parcel with a semi-industrial character and Cold War era buildings. The new facility was designed to be a link among existing facilities, adjacent neighborhoods, and an existing underground garage. It was designed with the community in mind, to offer them a place that combined educational research with recreational public spaces. The idea was to integrate the new design with the rest of the campus community, and the surrounding Cambridge neighborhood which consisted of low-rise single family homes.

By reducing the scale of the structure to minimize the amount of massing and through the use of pathways, corridors in between the existing and new facilities the architects were able to achieve this goal (Fig.19).

By placing more than half of the science building underground, Harvard maintained a compact profile for this facility, which will eventually define a new sciences district.

The new development has brought another dynamic into the area, towards a more pedestrian friendly neighborhood that incorporates landscaping and architecture to enforce social interaction among the campus community.

• Expand individual choices. Its design is able to integrate the campus with the adjacent Cambridge community by following the architectural typology of the place, but with a modern look and being an energy efficient building. The scale of the neighborhood was respected and as a result the new facility does not disrupt the existing urban fabric.

The campus and its community are given an educational and recreational building that can be used by both parties; so it made the lives of the students, faculty, and visitors easier because it offers them a very unique place to study and relax during and in between classes or events.This new development also becomes a transitional space between departments and colleges within the campus because such places are within a walkable distance, thus helping to reinforce even more the whole campus-community idea (Fig. 20).

Figure 20

Case Study 3: Northwest Science Building 22

This page was left blank (part of the book)

23

4. Gates Center for Computer Science and Hillman Center for Future Generation Technologies 24

Gates Center for Computer Science and Hillman Center for Future Generation Technologies LOCATION: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania URBAN DESIGNER: Mack Scogin Merrill Elam Architects CLIENT: Carnegie Mellon University STUDY AREA AND PROGRAM: This design holds the three departments of the School of Computer Science. Their goal is to provide interdisciplinary and collaborative work between both its campus and their community.

Its 209,000 square feet is designed around a series of atriums.The design aimed to have spacious outdoor and indoor gathering places, and a building form that took advantage of the site’s views to provide the best learning environments, to keep the identity of the place, and to encourage social involvement.

The pathways and bridges, benches, and landscaping around the natural topography helped to design a new quadrangle and make connections to other buildings, to create a sense of community (Fig.21).

YEAR OF AWARD: 2010 Georgia AIA Honor Design Award STATUS: These buildings aim to achieve a LEED Silver rating.

25

Figure 21

Critical issues The architects had to consider many critical issues to provide an educational program that is sustainable and serves as a learning tool for the students. This project establishes connections that the Pittsburgh residents share, such as having recreational spaces for indoor and outdoor activities and events for the campus community and offering a unique science complex to the university.

The Computer Science building encourages ideas such as place-making, walkability, sustainability, and public health. It serves as a major community focal point, a precedent for future buildings, and a tool to promote student health, productivity and enhanced learning. The academic institution itself serves as an active teaching tool and helps to transform the West Campus area into a visually and physically integrated campus community.

By inviting people into the buildings, and sharing amenities with surrounding communities in a way that creates a strong bond in which resources are shared uniting neighborhoods with the campus promoting a healthier environment for the public. This design was able to animate the streets and brought life into this area, so this creates a new campus dynamic in which social interaction can take place.

Figure 22

The four story building responds to a comprehensive master plan that is in relation to its community fabric. The structure sits in a very narrow and tight location along Forbes Avenue between Cyert and Hamburg halls. As a result, the architects developed a science complex that is divided into two trapezoid shaped buildings that are connected by the various pathways and pedestrian bridges to help establish connections between facilities encouraging collaboration, while respecting the campus environment (Fig.22).

These two new buildings have worked with and around the natural topography, offering unique views from and to the site.

The landscape becomes integrated with the architecture, the building complex follows the natural form of the scenery and this idea is emphasized in the winter garden around the atriums. This project encourages density and walkability within the campus community which carries into the adjacent neighborhood, creating more social interaction along the main streets.

A sustainable environment is emphasized on this project, such as the importance of daylighting for increasing academic performance and focus, thus the atriums and the overall design are oriented in such way to optimize natural daylighting and cross ventilation in all classrooms and offices. Other design features include a curved three-story ramp that connects the five main entrances to the Centers, dramatic overhangs and cantilevered floors for shading as well as multiple green roofs to decrease storm water runoff, the usage of local materials, and the construction of a waste management plan.

Before there was not an established connection within the science complex area and the campus community; but with this new development, the com-

Case 4: Gates Center for Computer Science and Hillman Center for Future Generation Technologies 26

Case Study 4: Gates Center for Computer Science and Hillman Center for Future Generation Technologies

Figure(s) 23-24

munity became very diverse because of all the local community sharing a place in common for gathering and for informal social exchange followed by more pedestrian traffic. Placemaking is seen on the integrated approach of the university to its site context to create a sustainable, innovative, and dynamic project that contributes significantly to the overall vitality of the community.

27

Figure 25

Key urban design concepts An innovative computer science complex was needed for the Carnegie Mellon University; a design that can work efficiently with the campus, its site, and adjacent structures to create a dynamic sustainable environment that can bring vitality to the streets by having more gathering places to invite people into the new buildings. Therefore two trapezoid shaped buildings connected by a pedestrian bridge were created in response to its characteristics of the area; a building that can become a learning tool for the students

and the local community because of the encouragement of sustainable strategies and also by working along with the natural topography of the site.

The idea of having a science complex divided into two with a strong direct connection between them by the use of outdoor meeting places, landscape, and a pedestrian bridge and pathways embodies the ideals of the institution to have a more integrated campus community and also because it is an exceptional work of its time, bringing a balance between architec-

Jury Comments “The first three levels of the gates Center welcome users of the building and members of the campus community. This is a very public space, the most public part of the building” “We are delighted with the design thus far. All offices will have natural light and there are many open collaborative neighborhood spaces. We’re extremely impressed with how well the architects have responded to the university’s needs” Figure 26

ture with the landscape that serves as a benchmark for future projects. An integrated educational approach was one of the key concepts for this design. This projects promotes pedestrian movement, provides sustainable strategies to reduce operating cost, and it also has flexible spaces for the community‘s activities. The new science complex incorporates current technology throughout.

Overall, the science complex offers an inclusive process that reinforces reciprocity and collaboration within the university,

strengthens relations with its neighboring communities and extends its commitment to having an environmental agenda. Faculty, students, and public view the campus as part of the larger community by incorporating elements such as walkability, vitality, landscaping, amenities, and sustainability to benefit people and enhance the personal well-being. The combination of those aspects is what helped create a sense of community.

In order to create an efficient structure for the benefit of the community, four design

principles were considered: • Creating a diverse community between the campus and the local community by having a place for all of them to share and enjoy. The building is organized around courtyards and a winter garden serving as gathering spaces for both communities to encourage social interaction. By establishing a strong bond and a direct relationship within the campus, there is room for reciprocal collaboration between the facilities, thus accomplishing the university’s main

Case Study 4: Gates Center for Computer Science and Hillman Center for Future Generation Technologies 28

Case Study 4: Gates Center for Computer Science and Hillman Center for Future Generation Technologies

objective to have an integrated academic campus.

overhangs and the cantilevered floors, so it contributes to the occupants’ comfort levels between transitional spaces within walkable The school has flexible spaces for distances. All landscaping used in the site the students to do their research as are wetland plantings and shade-providing well as outdoors spaces for activities trees that can tolerate local climate extremes and events for the public to use. As a and are adaptable to the soil. The site and result this fosters a greater academic building design reduce the urban heat island interaction and social exchange effect on the neighborhood and the campus among students, faculty, and the local by the reduction of pavement, distribution of community. The pathways, crossopen areas, and diverse landscaping. roads and pedestrian bridges help to reinforce the idea of walkability The building envelope, orientation, lighting, around the site. and sun-control systems for the buildings minimize heating and cooling loads. Environ• Environmental sustainability is mentally friendly features include five green embraced in every aspect of the roofs, use of rotary heat exchangers to limit school’s design. For instance, the energy loss in the ventilation system, and a architects have developed programs system for collecting rainwater and snowof conservation for the energy, water, melt. In addition, regional materials were and landscape to reduce costs and used throughout the building, an indoor air have an environmental and efficient quality plan, an indoor chemical and pollutstructure. The orientation is key for ant source control, and a waste management bringing natural daylight into the program was enforced. classrooms, offices, research labs, and atriums, the usage of green roof A site master planning process was used to prevent water runoffs, and also the to determine the best location for proper usage of local materials and native building orientation for passive solar and landscaping throughout the building’s wind systems, to minimize site impact by site (Fig.23-24). implementing an energy and water collection system, emphasize the connection to the Shading is provided by the proper community, and provide a unique location placement of landscape, dramatic to support the shared use of the academic

29

facilities.

• Place-making. This project made an effort to establish a relationship to its context. The building layout of the spaces was oriented according to the climate and topography to maximize each facility’s functions and also to provide direct sunlight and natural ventilation and most importantly to offer a variety of informal gathering places designed to encourage spontaneous meetings among students, faculty, staff, and visitors which have become a hallmark of the university’s highly collaborative culture. The site’s design for the new science complex combines educational facilities with sustainability to form an integrated approach to architecture and the campus community (Fig.25-26).

In addition to housing one of the world’s leading centers for computer science education and research, the Gates and Hillman Centers serve as crossroads for the entire university community, with five main entrances and two major pedestrian bridges providing new connections to key parts of the 140-acre Carnegie Mellon campus. It brings vitality into the site and local community by animating the streets, courtyard, and other public spaces around the campus rather than isolating this institution from the neighborhood.

The wetlands plantings and walking trails re-create natural areas on the site. This environment reconnects students, staff, and visitors with vital ecosystems while protecting the land from erosion and creating a habitat for native plants. This project was designed to work with the natural topography of the place, so that the architecture is worked around the existing site itself, so it creates an intimate space based on the concept of building a sense of community and to also create the best learning environment according to the campus needs.

Engaging the community, students and faculty in the full design process through large-scale workshops was very helpful for the project outcome because it produced a building that meets the community needs and at the same time it is a source of pride representing the local and campus community.

• Enhance personal well-being is reinforced in this project by controlling the temperature and lighting to improve the comfort levels of the interior environment, promoting productivity and well-being.

These ideas became a central focus of the design since they can have a great impact on student academic performance and the health comfort of the building occupants.

Another aspect that influenced the design was pedestrian movement, in other words, the ability to safely walk and bicycle within the campus, the availability of basic services within walking distance of the school, and the integration of the meeting and recreational spaces to meet the Figure 27 needs of the larger community(Fig.27).

Case Study 4: Gates Center for Computer Science and Hillman Center for Future Generation Technologies 30

This page was left blank (part of the book)

31

Conclusions

32

All of the case studies embraced the integration of the campus to its surrounding neighborhood. The key role of the designs was to promote social interaction between the students, faculty, and visitors thus creating a very diverse community within the campus grounds. A sense of community has been built in the universities grounds because each enforces a comprehensive program based on connecting the existing site context with the campus by using sustainable strategies, promoting pedestrian movement, creating new intersections and pathways, and establishing dynamic and flexible places with amenities that are going to benefit the occupants and the larger community as well.

meeting places, such as plazas, squares, and courtyards to unite the campus community and local neighborhood. Each of the central common spaces serves as recreational places for indoor and outdoor activities that can be used by the whole community; and they are strategically placed in between pathways and main intersections to motivate more bicycle traffic, walkability, and bus rides as an alternative transportation.

Overall, the idea behind the whole concept of transforming universities into communities was to create a relationship between the campus atmosphere and the city environment and unite the two in a harmonious way, without disrupting the existing urban fabric. Each of the projects has concentrated their efforts into building a structure that it is placed around

The concept of walkability and a design that follows the natural topography of its place are two of the main aspects that this design focused on. The two buildings followed the form of its site because they worked around it and made good use of the existing landscape by integrating the different crossroads within the campus, thus constructing a solid community.

The four case studies aimed to provide a

33

The Gates Center for Computer Science and Hillman Center for Future Generation Technologies enforces pedestrian movement, making connection between the different colleges either by the use of pathways and pedestrian bridges that lead to the outdoor areas such as the courtyards and winter gardens around the atriums, thus encouraging collaboration within the campus.

new approach to campus planning by following master comprehensive programs that integrate the universities with its community and also to provide new connections and networks that can be used by the local as well as the campus community. All of the projects had taken a significant step towards promoting a culture of healthier lifestyles by reinforcing pedestrian movement and providing recreational spaces and alternatives modes of transportation witin a walkable distance which help to enhance the public’s health.

In short, all of these projects have brought more life to the streets nearby and as a result they created a strong bond that helped to revitalize the area around the campus and the local neighborhood.

Tech Square is a good example of this, it represents how a new development brings more income and growth into the local neighborhood, thus benefiting the whole community and establishing a direct relationship between the campus and the existing neighborhoods. As a result, the local businesses and campus facilities were able to create an informal social exchange and by animating their streets they brought life back into the isolated areas. Then those shared spaces served

as points of attraction by creating an inviting atmosphere for the public to come into buildings while enjoying the scenery.

cient buildings that serve the community’s needs.

Both projects make use of natural daylight Having an educational and sustainable and cross ventilation by having scooped approach to their architecture that can skylights, trellises, and an open plan in the serve as a precedent was another goal case of the Pavilion; and by building part for each of the projects. They wanted to of the building below grade level in the establish an environmental agenda that case of the Northwest Science Building in can serve as a learning tool for their stuwhich the ceiling served as a green space dents, so the architects decided to enforce with squared skylights as seating places sustainable strategies on the structure and as an outdoor flexible space. itself and its surrounding context, such as landscaping by its conservation and Each used a different concept in order to usage as alternative shading devices. be part of the urban fabric of their sites; For instance, the usage of solar power, the Pavilion used glass as a material to recycled materials, enforcement of waste express its transparency and harmony and water conservation programs, and with framed views into the landscape protection and conservation of the existas well as into the central quad, and the ing landscaping were part of what each Northwest Science building used wood, project was based on, in order to have an glass, concrete, and steel to create a very energy efficient building. dynamic educational facility that worked with its topography in order to commuTwo of the best examples that relied on nicate its sustainability concept to the a strong environmental agenda to help campus community. design the layouts of the structures are the Brochstein Pavilion at Rice University and also the Northwest Science Building at Harvard. Each one had a different approach to sustainability, but the goal remained the same to have energy effi-

34