the space between

the space between The vital contribution of social learning spaces in the campus experience.

Maria-Elissavet Sfakianoudi MArch Architecture & Urbanism University of Portsmouth

the space between The vital contribution of social learning spaces in the campus experience.

Maria-Elissavet Sfakianoudi MArch Architecture & Urbanism University of Portsmouth January 2017

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Author’s Declaration

iv

Abstract

vi

Acknowledgements

vii

List of Illustrations

x

Preface

xvi

Introduction

01

Chapter 1 Chronology of Campus Design

05

1.1 Europe

05

1.2 America

07

1.3 Nineteenth Century

11

1.4 Twentieth Century

13

1.5 Contemporary Typologies

17

1.6 Campuses in Greece

21

Chapter 2 Social Learning Theories

27

2.1 Student Orientated Environment

27

2.2 Social Space Through Learning Theories

29

2.3 Sources of Learning

33

Chapter 3 Space Syntax Theory

37

Chapter 4 Constructing a Methodology

43

4.1 Macro-Analysis: Connection with the surroundings

43

4.2 Micro-Analysis: Connection within the Campus

47

4.3 Nano-Analysis: Analysis of the Central Square

57

Chapter 5 Conclusion

62

References

66

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

Written thesis submitted as part of the award for Masters in Architecture and Urbanism, by the University of Portsmouth.

Title: the space between: The vital contribution of social learning spaces in the campus experience.

Date of Submission: 31 January 2017 I affirm that this assignment, together with any supporting artefact, is offered for assessment as my original and unaided work, except insofar as any advice and/or assistance from any other named person in preparing it, and any quotation used from written sources are duly and appropriately acknowledged.

I declare that this is a true copy of my thesis along with any final revisions, as approved by the University Of Portsmouth School Of Architecture and that it has not been submitted to any University of Institution for a higher degree.

iv

Consents: I give consent to this copy of my written thesis when deposited in the University Library, being made available for loan and photocopying, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.

The author acknowledges that copyright of published works contained within this thesis resides with the copyright holder(s) of those works.

I also give permission for the digital version of my thesis to be made available on the web, via the University’s Ebrary database, the Library Search and also through web search engines, unless permission has been granted by the University to restrict this access.

Print Name :

Maria-Elissavet Sfakianoudi

Signed : Date :

31/01/2017

v

ABSTRACT

The first word coming up in mind associated with a school, university or institution is ‘classroom’. This is because teaching and learning are theoretically restrained within the boundaries of a certain space; a classroom, a lecture room, a laboratory etc.

The aim of this assignment is to research and analyse the spatial characteristics of informal learning spaces, evaluating the latter as a major contributor to the educational process.

The social interaction, the exchange of knowledge among disciplines as well as the sharing of individual experience are roles usually neglected or undermined in the designing of contemporary higher

institutions.

psychologists

and

Educators

and

philosophers,

academics

have

along

developed

with

various

methodological approaches regarding the learning process, more theoretically rather than spatially. But what is the level of contribution of architecture in education, and especially in campus universities, and how much does the location and the planning of a campus affect the educational process?

The development of campus design is investigated through a chronological analysis of the evolution of campus design and

vi

organisation. Starting from the medieval years through to the contemporary age, someone may notice that there has always been a split between those universities which promote a connection with the city and those ones which are characterised as introvert and isolated.

Function (learning methodologies) and planning (architectural attributes) have an interactive relationship. The use predeďŹ nes certain qualities for the space produced, while at the same time, the decisions of an architect are able to alter the way people use the space and how they perceive it. Thus, a methodology may be formed, used to evaluate the conďŹ guration of space in an existing University Campus and to provide key principles for the designing of a new one, always in respect of the enhancement of social learning spaces and interaction.

Finally, the case study of a spatial analysis of the National Technical University of Athens campus in Zografou (Greece), with diagrams created with DepthmapX, raise key considerations and conclusions that support this research.

This assignment has been an opportunity to research on a subject which is crucial to the future of education. Social learning spaces are a vital contributor to the educational experience and in order to be properly embodied in the learning environment, they have to be approached both in a theoretical and spatial level.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would ďŹ rst like to thank my course leader Dr. Elena Douvlou, and my thesis advisors, Mr Nikos Kazeros, Ms Stephanie Leontiadou and Ms Katerina Mastoraki for their invaluable guidance through the writing of this essay, for steering me to the right direction when needed and aiding me organise my frgmented ideas in order to achieve a complete argument.

Finally, I must express my very profound gratitude to my parents and to my friend Ellie for providing me with unfailing support and continuous encouragement throughout my years of study and through the process of researching and writing this thesis. This accomplishment would not have been possible without them. Thank you.

viii

ix

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1 DAGNALL, I. n.d. Palazzo dell’Archiginnasio, the seat of the University of Bologna from 1563 to 1803. [image] In Coulson, J., Roberts, P. and Taylor, I. (2011). University planning and architecture.

1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge Figure 2 BLAEU, J. 17th Century. View of the inner courtyard of the old University in Bologna.

[Engraving] In De Agostini Picture Library Figure 3 Plan of Merton College. In Coulson, J., Roberts, P. and Taylor, I. (2011). University planning and architecture. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge Figure 4 Wren Library, Trinity College, University of Cambridge. [image] In Coulson, J., Roberts, P. and Taylor, I. (2011). University planning and architecture. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge Figure 5 EVANS, M. (1675) Merton College, University of Oxford from David Loggan’s Oxonia Illustrata. [Illustration] In Coulson, J., Roberts, P. and Taylor, I. (2011). University planning and architecture. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge Figure 6 Plan of University of Virginia, based on Jefferson’s 1822 plan. In Coulson, J., Roberts, P. and Taylor, I. (2011). University planning and architecture. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge Figure 7 SERZ, J. (1856) University of Virginia, Charlottesville. From South. Designed by Thomas Jefferson, 1817. [Engraving] Available at: http://faculty.virginia.edu/villagespaces/essay/ Accessed: 25/01/2017 Figure 8 Brohammas (2012) Central courtyard in University of Virginia. [image] Available at: https://brohammas.wordpress.com/tag/university-of-virginia/ Accessed: 25/01/2017 Figure 9 Consoli, J. (n.d.) University of Maryland. [image] In Coulson, J., Roberts, P. and Taylor, I. (2011). University planning and architecture. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge Figure 10 Plan of University of Maryland [image] generated by the UMD Campus Map web application. Available at: http://maps.umd.edu/map/ Accessed: 25/01/2017 Figure 11 UCL Special Collections (n.d.) University College London, Elevation and Plan of Wilkins’ design. [Illustration] Available at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/exhibitions/flaxman/ Accessed: 25/01/2017 Figure 12 MARSLAND, M. (n.d.) Morse and Stiles Colleges, Yale University [Image] In Coulson, J., Roberts, P. and Taylor, I. (2011). University planning and architecture. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge Figure 13 O’KANE, B. (n.d.) Simmons Hall, MIT. [Image] In Coulson, J., Roberts, P. and Taylor, I. (2011).

University planning and architecture. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge

x

Figure 14 Schematic diagrams of typologies [Primary Source] Figure 15 Harvard University / Cambridge, USA (Cluster) [Primary Source] Figure 16 University of Cambridge / Cambridge, UK(Network) [Primary Source] Figure 17 ETH Hรถnggerberg / Zurich (Cluster) [Primary Source] Figure 18 Bilgi Campi / Istanbul (Network) [Primary Source] Figure 19 Humboldt Campus / Berlin Adlershof (Cluster) [Primary Source] Figure 20 Stanford Research Park / Silicon Valley (Network) [Primary Source] Figure 21 Novartis Campus / Basel (Cluster) [Primary Source] Figure 22 Benetton Campi / Veneto Valley (Network) [Primary Source] Figure 23 Campus of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Planning Layout [Illustration] Available at: https://www.auth.gr/student-week-map Accessed: 25/01/2017 Figure 24 Google.gr (2014) Campus of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Library [Image] Available at: https://www.google.gr/maps/@40.6292362,22.9582207,3a,75y,316.72h,86.7t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1 sr-MVE3HO2EymoQ7s58f4QQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 Accessed: 25/01/2017 Figure 25 University Campus of Patra, Planning Layout [Illustration] Available at: http://www.physics.upatras.gr/index.php?page=tmimaThesi Accessed: 25/01/2017 Figure 26 Google.gr (2011) University Campus of Patra, Library Building [Image] Available at: https://www.google.gr/maps/@38.2893648,21.7918159,3a,75y,187.74h,82.44t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!

1saLxnm_EmGDriY7eXvR6M6w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i32!6m1!1e1 Accessed: 25/01/2017 Figure 27 University Campus of Ioannina [Illustration] Available at: http://old.uoi.gr/en/campus_map.php Accessed: 25/01/2017 Figure 28 Map of University Campuses and Academic Buildings in Athens [Primary Source] Figure 29 Development of NTUA Campus in Zografou [Primary Source] Figure 30 NTUA Campus in Zografou with surrounding street network [Primary Source] Figure 31 The Learner [Primary Source]

xi

Figure 32 Zoning and Experiencing (Based on diagrams from Per Risom, Byplan 3/2006) [Primary Source] Figure 33 ConďŹ guration of Space by Bill Hillier [Illustration] In Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine.

1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Figure 34 In Alexander, C. et al. (1977) A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press.

Figure 35 Example of axial lines, convex space and isovist ďŹ eld [Illustration] In VAN NES, A. (2011). The one and two dimensional isovists analyses in space syntax. Exploring the Visual Landscape: Advances in physiognomic landscape research in the Netherlands, [online] 2, pp.163-183. Available at: http://rius.tudelft.nl/index.php/rius/article/view/211.

Figure 36 Plan of NTUA Campus in Zografou showing build/unbuild areas, entrances and internal vehicle circulation [Primary Source] Figure 37 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX INTEGRATION of Vehicle Circulation [Primary Source] Figure 38 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX CONNECTIVITY of Vehicle Circulation [Primary Source] Figure 39 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX INTEGRATION of Pedestrian Circulation [Primary Source] Figure 40 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX CONNECTIVITY of Pedestrian Circulation [Primary Source] Figure 41 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis [Primary Source] Figure 42 Alimou-Katechaki Avenue [Primary Source] Figure 43 Drachmis St [Primary Source] Figure 44 Entance in Alimou-Katechaki Avenue [Primary Source] Figure 45 Internal ring road following terrain [Primary Source] Figure 46 Road connecting Alimou-Katechaki entrance to parking space underneath the main square [Primary Source] Figure 47 Trees do not allow direct views [Primary Source]

xii

Figure 48 Shortcuts through green areas [Primary Source] Figure 49 Main pedestrian street [Primary Source] Figure 50 Walkway from Iroon Politechniou to central square [Primary Source] Figure 51 Park blends with the structures [Primary Source] Figure 52 Human traces [Primary Source] Figure 53 Dense vegetation in the perimetre of the campus [Primary Source] Figure 54 Visibility from main pedestrian road to Central Square [Primary Source] Figure 55 View from the top level of the square [Primary Source] Figure 56 Isolated meeting place [Primary Source] Figure 57 Indoor space which could be used as interaction point [Primary Source] Figure 58 Large empty corridor with visual connectivity to outdoor space [Primary Source] Figure 59 Refreshment point [Primary Source] Figure 60 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level 0 [Primary Source] Figure 61 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Integration Level 0 [Primary Source] Figure 62 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level +1 [Primary Source] Figure 63 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level +1 [Primary Source] Figure 64 Park blends with the structures [Primary Source] Figure 65 Dense vegetation in the perimetre of the campus [Primary Source] Figure 66 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level +2 [Primary Source] Figure 67 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level +2 [Primary Source]

xiii

Figure 68 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level +3 [Primary Source] Figure 69 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level +3 [Primary Source] Figure 70 Park blends with the structures [Primary Source] Figure 71 Dense vegetation in the perimetre of the campus [Primary Source] Figure 72 Network of spaces [Primary Source]

xiv

xv

PREFACE

The idea of this research came up after discussions with friends of different backgrounds, regarding the knowledge we have received through our academic life. After short conversations on various subjects taught during those years, we realised that each of us had formed a different perspective on each subject, always based on the nature of the course we had followed. For example, regarding the subject of historical events, the information put on the table was different coming from a doctor, a philosopher, a mathematician or an architect. Combining and discussing the above information someone could form a more holistic approach on the subject; a similar process of connecting jigsaws on a puzzle.

As a consequence, I realised that during my academic life, the opportunities I was offered to discuss various issues with disciplines different than my own (architecture and urban design) have been limited. Searching on the internet, I found many articles and forums sharing similar concerns. The most triggering was a new global research platform called Future Earth, the mission of which

xvi

is to ‘build and connect knowledge to increase the impact of research, to explore new development paths and to ďŹ nd new ways to accelerate transitions to sustainable developmentâ€?. (Future Earth, 2014, p.1) According to them, this attempt will be achieved by linking disciplines, knowledge and societal partners in a global database.

Combined with my initial interest to focus on one of the busiest campuses in Greece (Campus of the National Technical University of Athens, in Zografou) for my design thesis, this assignment has been an opportunity to further research both theoretically and spatially, on ways to encourage the above knowledge sharing during the higher educational process.

xvii

“When enlightened as to the effects of the physical environment upon behavior, he designs by intent; but when ignorant of these effects, he designs by default.”(Werhli, 1968)

xviii

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this paper is to research and examine the importance of the currently overlooked social learning spaces in university campus environments. While relating the evolution of learning theories with the paradigmatic shifts on campus design and planning over the centuries, the goal is to form a set of principles, proposing a methodology of evaluation in order to pursuit possible improvements upon it, as an ultimate aim to enhance the holistic learning experience.

The two main concerns which led to this research were, firstly, the absence of the interdisciplinary education offered in the current higher educational system and secondarily, the emerging need of a student-orientated process, rather than the one based purely on didactic teaching. The latter is applied on the majority of the contemporary universities, in which students’ knowledge fully depends on and is led by teacher’s instructions.

Through the last decades, most of the higher educational systems over the world have provided students with information focused on a specific set of subjects, creating specialised professionals

01

equipped with limited broad knowledge. In order to enhance the creative and effective collaboration among various disciplines, the foundations should be set during the university studies, by encouraging students to approach their special field of study through different perspectives. In order to achieve that, the social learning activity must be encouraged.

Most of the times, learning is conceived as a process restrained in a classroom, lecture hall or amphitheatre. Spreading and exchanging the information outside the boundaries of a classroom, is a way to acquire global education. This research suggests and supports the idea that such activities may take place not only in formal, predefined areas but also within the informal spaces of the campus, where information and knowledge are shared among the receivers – students and academics. However, the term ‘social learning spaces’ needs to and will be analysed further on the next chapters.

A chronological analysis of how the campuses have been planned and designed over the years will be presented, from the medieval years until today. Elements such as their connectivity and proximity to the surrounding environment, their accessibility, as well as the configuration of spaces and network of internal circulation provide substantial information in order to understand the differences between each period. Furthermore, theoretical approaches to teaching methods will be researched in relation to the universities’ spatial development.

Apart from the theoretical background regarding the learning process, theories about the configuration of space will be analysed, including Space Syntax.

02

Consequently, the above research will result in a set of key principles and typologies of diagrams, in order to form a methodology for evaluating the spatial attributes of existing campuses. Moreover, this evaluation will be a guide to locate the most suitable place for Social Learning Spaces within the higher educational environment.

The research will further focus on the National Technical University of Athens, in Zografou, in order to determine the effectiveness of its formal or informal social spaces based on the pre-mentioned methodology.

The focus of this research strives to offer stepping stones into the development of Social Leaning Spaces as one of the most vital contributors in the educational achievements of a student. The experiences offered during university studies affect directly the professional and personal development of every individual, increasing the potentials of enriching today’s society with more valuable members.

“We suggest in our report that the values professionals bring to their work are every bit as crucial as the work itself, and we conclude that general and specialized education must be blended during college just as, inevitably, they must be blended during life.” (Boyer, 1987, p.20)

03

Figure 1 Palazzo dell’Archiginnasio, the seat of the University of Bologna from 1563 to 1803

04

Figure 2 View of the inner courtyard of the old University in Bologna, Joan Blaeu, engraving. Italy, 17th century.

CHAPTER 1 CHRONOLOGY OF CAMPUS DESIGN

In this chapter the development of campus design is investigated through typical examples from the 12th until the 20th century, focusing both on their planning and their connection with the surrounding environment.

1.1 EUROPE

The prototype of the medieval university was inaugurated in Europe and more specifically in the cities of Bologna and Paris. The university became part of the urban landscape, located in buildings in the size of an urban block, (Fig. 1&2) usually with an internal courtyard. Similar typology were the English one. However, in this case, closed ‘privileged’ communities were formed, providing a set of functions in distinct areas. Great examples are the University of Oxford and that of Cambridge.

Although both of the above typologies attempted to blend within their host city fabric, the Italians achieved in integrating in it without altering its already shaped character. By spreading the functions to different buildings and locations

within the city,

distinguishing the accommodation and academic facilities, they achieved in providing uniform infiltration and embodiment.

05

Figure 3 Plan of Merton College

Figure 4 Wren Library, Trinity College, University of Cambridge

06

Figure 5 Merton College, University of Oxford from David Loggan’s Oxonia Illustrata (1675)

The preferred typology of the building was in Renaissance style, consisted of a central yard surrounded by a portico, which had been used as a gathering and social space.

In contrast to the Italian philosophy, English universities give this central courtyard a different meaning. Influenced by the idea of monasteries, this open space is used for self-concentration and isolation. Taking Oxford and Cambridge Universities as iconic expressions, this type has a more introvert character, consisted of a set of functions gathered in one large-scale building, in the form of a ‘quadrangle’, (Fig. 3) encompassing living, social and academic pursuits. Access to the student and staff accommodation, as well as to teaching and administration areas is given through this central yard. (Fig. 4) In this way, the university creates a separating threshold between itself and the ‘outside’ city, while at the same time its central location establishes a critical place in the life of the city. (Fig. 5) By creating this autonomous miniature city within the larger city, the English typology is the milestone for the development of the contemporary campus.

1.2 AMERICA

Although Bologna, Paris, and Oxford form the triumvirate of university prototypes, their educational and spatial patterns flourished and developed distinctively in America from the colonial period to the twentieth century.

The original and primary formation of a campus as it is known today has its roots in the America of the 19th century. In 1819, Thomas Jefferson expressed his ideas about an autonomous academic space, emphasising on the physical environment as a pivotal

07

Figure 6 Plan of University of Virginia, based on Jefferson’s 1822 plan

Figure 7 University of Virginia, Charlottesville. From South Designed by Thomas Jefferson, 1817

Figure 8 Central courtyard in University of Virginia.

08

feature of educational vision. (Coulson, Roberts, and Taylor, 2011, p.10) He applied his ideas by designing himself the layout of the University of Virginia, in the countryside of Charlottesville. (Fig. 6) It was the period when the idea of an independent educational “zone”, outside of the city heart started to spread around the world as an important consideration of urban planning strategies.

Influenced by the medieval English universities, the American typology adhered the ‘collegiate’ idea, where students and teachers shared their place of living and study. Unlike European ideology, English and American universities acquired academic quarters comprising lecture theatres, assembly rooms, libraries, as well as dormitories, dining halls, and recreational facilities.

Organised on axes in a symmetrical order around an open space, (Fig. 7) the buildings housed specific functions on each floor. “The central lawn was envisioned as a space for recreation, campus gossip, and scholarly exchange, while the colonnaded pavilions provided numerous front doors, and thus numerous opportunities for social encounters.” (Ibid. , p.11) The ground level was filled with the necessary teaching spaces, while the Jefferson’s own views were to provide a holistic educational experience within a natural environment, an ‘academical village’, detached from the chaos of the cities. Providing an introvert academic ‘refuge’, the process of learning was unaffected by external elements. Placing colleges in the countryside provided a unique romantic character to American higher education. Their spaciousness and openness became their main trait, moving away from the cloister-like typology of European tradition. (Fig. 8)

09

Figure 9 University of Maryland, Central Courtyard Figure 10 Plan of University of Maryland

10

“This ideal is so strong in America that even those schools located in cities, where land is scarce, have often gone to considerable expense or inconvenience to simulate a rural spaciousness.” (Turner, 1984, p.4) Since this typology was coming to terms with the modernistic theories of zoning, Le Corbusier’s view was in support of it. After visiting a large number of institutions he mentioned that “each college or university is an urban unit in itself, a small or large city. But a green city. […] the American university is a world in itself, a temporary paradise, a gracious stage of life”(Le Corbusier, Hyslop, 1947, p 135)

1.3 NINETEENTH CENTURY

During the nineteenth century, the design of university campuses underwent

a

series

of

phases

which

transformed

the

up-to-that-date concepts of planning. In America, the aesthetic criteria were introduced in the process, while the idea of the withdrawal from the pernicious effects of the city was moving toward a picturesque vision. American colleges preferred locations overlooking seas or lakes, as they considered nature a beneficial attribute in students’ wellbeing and moral character. (Fig. 9&10) On the other hand, the ‘City Beautiful’ movement, an approach based on Beaux-Arts, presented a completely different scope, rejecting nature and supporting the benefits of more urbanistic patterns. As a consequence, some universities started to refer to themselves as cities, using bywords as ‘City of Learning’ and ‘Collegiate City’. (Coulson, Roberts, and Taylor, 2011, p.10,14) Their advantages were the rejuvenation of their home cities both from an economical and a social aspect.

11

Figure 11 University College London, Elevation and Plan of Wilkins’ design

Figure 12 Morse and Stiles Colleges, Yale University Figure 13 Simmons Hall, MIT

12

At the end of that century, structures with grand civic expression and bold plans were imbued with the urbanising society of American cities. During the same time, in Europe, universities began to acquire imposing city-centre buildings, (Fig. 11) changing their relation with the urban surroundings and evolving from educational institutions to social, economic and intellectual forces.

1.4 TWENTIETH CENTURY

In the years followed the Second World War, the constantly increasing volume of new students, flooded the higher education.

Following the patterns of ‘modernism’ the universities transformed into superblocks, occupying large open spaces. Adopting the idea of free planning and arrangement within controlled boundaries, they formed a range of typologies preserved until our days.

Campuses designed either within or out of the urban tissue, apply various methods to distinguish their existence from that of the city, such as large-scale structures, internal circulation disconnected from the movement inside the urban environment etc. (Fig. 12) Some of the most recognisable examples are the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago (1942-1956), the Freie Universitat in Berlin (1963-1979) designed by Mies Van de Rohe and Florida’s Southern College (1938-1959), designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. In general terms, there was an uncompromising evocation of modernism, indicated by conventional plans, in a symmetrical order.

The concept of a ‘collegiate city’ was not only remained, but also advanced,

seeing

the

university

as

a

whole

community.

“Dormitories, classrooms, and dining halls, opened out onto a snakingstreet, cultivating the desired sense of intimacy, while plazas created communal spaces for socializing.” (Ibid. , p.29)

13

Schematic diagrams of typologies Relation with the city

Building arrangment

Italian Despersed

English Coherent

American Solid

Hybrid forms 20th century Figure 14

14

Zoning

Plan

From the 1970s onwards, the focus on campus designing shifted from planning to aesthetically appealing structures. Iconic buildings began to be erected all over the world, influenced by the ‘Bilbao effect’, attempting to address students worldwide. The post-modern era demanded the restoration of open space, a consideration of human scale and order, yet at the same time the creation of new landmarks. This, however, resulted in a large number of higher education facilities to be characterised as ‘commercialised’, vacuous, impractical and perniciously expensive.

(Ibid. , p.35) (Fig. 13)

15

Figure 15 Harvard University / Cambridge, USA (Cluster)

Figure 17 ETH Hรถnggerberg / Zurich (Cluster)

16

Figure 16 University of Cambridge / Cambridge, UK (Network)

Figure 18 Bilgi Campi / Istanbul (Network)

1.5 CONTEMPORARY TYPOLOGIES

The Campus-City relationship shapes contemporary urban realities.

The role of these higher institutions has evolved from a ‘knowledge city’ to a crucial factor in the economic, social and cultural development of their host location.

Currently, there are four campus typologies: inner-city campus; Greenfield campus; high-tech campus; corporate campus. (Hoeger, 2007) Furthermore, these typologies can be divided into two other categories. Some of them are formed in clusters, adopting the already mentioned character of a ‘city within a city’, while others form a network which is blended with their host cities.

Inner- City (Fig. 15&16) Located in the heart of the city, these campuses encourage the interaction between academic and urban life. “The threshold between the campus and the city is barely perceptible: academic buildings mingle with urban facilities and intellectual exchange and academic life are strengthened through the informal exchange resulting from the close proximity of classrooms, services and living quarters.” (Hoeger, Christiaanse, 2007, p.18)

Greenfield (Fig. 17&18) Located in natural open landscapes, they are isolated from the city and function as islands of learning. However, this introvert character can be beneficial in order to develop innovative scientific districts and a new urbanity in the suburban landscape.

17

Figure 19 Humboldt Campus / Berlin Adlershof (Cluster)

Figure 21 Novartis Campus / Basel (Cluster)

18

Figure 20 Stanford Research Park / Silicon Valley (Network)

Figure 22 Benetton Campi / Veneto Valley (Network)

High Tech (Fig. 19&20) A technological park which is located in close proximity or inside of a university campus, in order to be benefited by its own research and resources of it. This provides a close relationship between academic staff, professionals, and students, resulting in innovative ideas and researches.

Corporate Campus (Fig. 21&22) Usually belongs to global corporations aiming to develop a creative potential, including their management and research departments.

The level of openness can vary; completely closed to the public; semi-access, allowing interaction between employers, clients, and visitors in a limited part of the campus; and accessed at a level where public can use a part of the campus and attend activities and events on its facilities.

As someone can observe in the above typologies, two contradictory trends have emerged, each one having their own advantages. On one hand, there is an effort to transform the already built mega-structures to open, communicative spaces, reintegrating them in the surrounding cities. “This trend is mirrored in architectural themes such as transparency, a human scale and open spaces for informal exchange.“(Hoeger, Christiaanse, 2007, p.22) On the other hand, the concept of a gated, self-sufficient community is still widely supported, offering a stability in terms of economy, efficiency and security.

19

Figure 23 & 24 Campus of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Planning layout & Library Building

Figure 25 & 26 University Campus of Patra Planning layout & Library Building

Figure 27 University Campus of Ioannina

20

1.6 CAMPUSES IN GREECE

The international changes in the ideas of campus design and planning in an attempt to achieve a perfect role model, have significantly influenced the Greek approach to this subject. Initially, universities were housed in monumental buildings in the City Centre (NTUA, University of Athens) while gradually campuses appeared either on city edges or in the countryside (Campuses in Patra and Ioannina). Another model created later, was the one with departments of the university dispersed around different small neighbouring cities. (Democritus University of Thrace) The constant alternation of approaches has resulted in cities with universities of different typologies.

The first campus in Greece was that of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The plan, created by E. Hebrand in 1917, placed the university next to the historical centre and was influenced by the modernism movement; a delineation of the functions separating them from the peripheral arteries; free provision of buildings; freely defined internal circulation system. (Fig. 23&24) During the ‘60s, two new campuses were formed, in Patra (Fig. 25&26) and Ioannina. (Fig. 27) The latter was designed as an autonomous city, 5km away for the city centre. The plan was based on a cross-shaped system, with two main axes. The vertical axis on which the buildings were developed and the horizontal axis which connected the main squares of the departments. The auditoriums and the library were placed centrally in the plan.

Although the initial intention was to create these campuses in surrounding cities in order to achieve financial, social and cultural

21

Figure 28 Map of University Campuses and Academic Buildings in Athens

Figure 29 Development of NTUA Campus in Zografou

22

development, this method was not successful. They did not manage to get integrated into the cities, in the contrary, they function as separate units, neglected form the urban landscape up to this day.

Athens As previously mentioned the first universities in Athens were located in monumental buildings. Namely, the National Technical University of Athens was initially located in Vlachoutsis’ Mansion, moved to the iconic neoclassical structure in Patission St, while since the 60’s, most of the departments have gradually moved to the Campus in Zografou. Similar evolution had the University of Athens, starting from the city centre and moving to its own Campus in Zografou, in close proximity to the Technical University. (Fig. 28) Since 1953, a large portion of the land in Zografou, where the current NTUA is located, was owned by the Ministry of National Security and was gradually sold to the NTUA. The construction launched in May 1950, while the initial planning arrangement was presented in 1968 by a group of architects, teaching in the Department of Architecture. The main concept was the arrangement of functions, which were interlocked by a system of central squares, while the buildings were internally organised in two cross-shaped axes. A central avenue was provided, which was later removed from the design. (Fig. 29&30) Later in the chapters, further information will be presented regarding the Campus in Zografou, along with a series of diagrams evaluating the effectiveness of planning.

23

Figure 30 NTUA Campus in Zografou with surrounding street network

24

Apart from the spatial qualities and arrangements of a campus, learning theories have altered and evolved throughout the centuries, aecting directly the latter. It is important to understand in further depth the values of the theoretical approach to the subject, in order to be able to create an educational environment which will beneďŹ t, not only the student community but also the academics working in it, as well as the entire society.

25

“Among the many methods employed to foster student development, the use of the physical environment is perhaps the least understood and the most neglected."

(Banning and Canard, 1986:1)

26

CHAPTER 2 SOCIAL LEARNING THEORIES

2.1 STUDENT ORIENTATED ENVIRONMENT

Encouraging learning within an educational environment is a key factor to a successful teaching process. The design of the physical space has been a major contributor and catalyst in order to enhance the motivation and guidance provided to students during their academic life. In contrast with the teaching methods which have been evolved and altered over the last decades, the definition of what is considered as learning space has remained almost the same.

A set of particular spaces is directly associated with specific uses.

Classrooms, lecture theatres, libraries and refectories; each one is designed for specific purposes. (Rust, 2006) However, in reality, the learning experience is not restrained in the closed boundaries of the above spaces, but also expanded and spread through the informal places of a university’s facilities.

According to Ernest Boyer’s report (1987), students spend 12-16 hours in classes, though the hours spent for studying outside the class schedule is five times more.

Throughout his report, Astin A. (1999, p.518)supports that the successful achievement of educational developmental goals of a

27

student is directly proportional to the involvement of the latter in the process. In his theory of involvement, where the students grow from passive receivers to active participators, Astin defines an involved and an uninvolved student.

“Quite simply, student involvement refers to the amount of physical and psychological energy that the student devotes to the academic experience. Thus, a highly involved student is one who, for example, devotes considerable energy to studying, spends much time on campus, participates actively in student organizations, and interacts frequently with faculty members and other students. Conversely, a typical uninvolved student neglects studies, spends little time on campus, abstains from extracurricular activities, and has infrequent contact with faculty members or other students.” (Astin, 1999, p.518) In order to motivate students to devote time and energy, administrators and faculty members should reconsider not only the institutional policies regarding the class schedules, regulations etc, but rather focus on non-academic issues. The position of important facilities, such as accommodation and student unions, the design of recreational activities, the participation in extracurricular and cultural activities, on-campus employment, eating and parking spaces are just an indicative issues that affect the everyday life of a student.

According to Kenney (2005, p.7), the time spent weekly on non-academic activities exceeds 70 hours, without including sleeping hours. Participating in athletics or other co-curricular activities, as well as socialising over meals are examples of the above.

28

“More learning is taking place outside of class time than ever before.

With an increased emphasis on collaboration and group projects, students are learning in small groups outside of the classroom as they accomplish work related to their courses.”(Brown, Lippincott, 2003, p.14) Taking Brown and Lippincott’s quote as another option of how students use their time and energy during off-class hours, designing a campus should equally, if not more, focus on forming quality and effective spaces to host these activities in order to increase academic achievement rating.

2.2 SOCIAL SPACE THROUGH LEARNING THEORIES

During the last decades, many higher education institutions have started to adopt the idea of a more careful design and planning of their informal, in-between spaces, introducing social interaction as a core element in the learning method.

There is a variety of opinions and educational systems amongst societies and cultures around the world, concerning the methods which will successfully develop students on an intellectual, physical and emotional level. A legacy of theories and methodologies, inherited

by

significant

sociologists,

philosophers,

and

psychologists, which can lead to an efficient or even innovative pedagogical system, have a common key factor: the social learning experience and how this can be influenced by the surrounding environment.

Four significant figures in the field of education were John Dewey (1859), Maria Montessori (1870), Jean Piaget (1896) and finally Lev Vygotsky (1896) whose works have just recently been translated

29

into English and have started to influence the learning theories.

The American philosopher, psychologist, sociologist and educator, John Dewey, managed to establish a democratic community model, breaking the old authoritarian teaching methods, promoting learning through a student-orientated curriculum within a socially interactive atmosphere. (Hildebrand, 2008, p.125) Maria Montessori was a significant educator and her work is a milestone in the field of pedagogy. The main focus in her innovative, for the time, methods was on the environment provided to the students. She believed that learning is a sensory process and once it takes place in a stimulating and inspiring space can trigger significant physical, mental, emotional and spiritual benefits to the academic development. (Mooney, 2000, p.24) Jean Piaget was a philosopher, biologist, and psychologist born in 1896. After a series of research, he concluded that children’s knowledge is self-constructed and mainly relied upon the interactions with their environment, including human behaviour.

Piaget is considered a pioneer in his field and his work forms the basis of today’s educational procedure for the early childhood. “The principle goal of education is to create men who are capable of doing new things, not simply repeating what other generations have donemen who are creative, inventive, and discoverers. The second goal of education is to form minds, which can be critical, can verify, and not accept everything they are offered.” (Piaget, 1964, cited Persky B., 1991, p.97)

30

Vygotsky was a Soviet psychologist whose work has been a great influence on modern educators and the scientific community. He created a shift in the theory of education introducing the term ‘social constructivism’, exploring the significant role of social and cultural elements in the learning process. Although he shared common opinions with Montessori and Piaget about observing individuals through intelligence tests and leisure time behaviour, he strongly believed that learning is mainly a social process, constructed in collaboration with others. Culture and personal experience are central in this interactive process, as sharing opinions and knowledge within formal working groups or in casual occasions as a discussion in a café are the key factor. During social interactions, people constantly build on their knowledge. This method has been described by Vygotsky as ‘scaffolding’.

The above approaches share a lot in common with contemporary theorists, such as Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger, who developed the notion of ‘communities of practice’. These communities are formed by the process of exchanging knowledge within the periphery of a certain community. The most valuable factor is that students become part of an academic community, a neglected sense in the recent years. Large classroom sizes, increasing number of part-time students and decrease between student-staff collaboration have resulted in a lack of interactivity and a loss of a sense of place. (Bickford, Wright, 2006) Researches about the effectiveness of teaching methods agree that collaboration among students, faculty, and staff is fundamental and should play a more active role during the educational process.

31

“Society should care about learning in community for two primary reasons. First, learning is a social process that works best in a community setting, thus yielding the best use of societal resources […] second, learning in community will have an important role in preparing students for their work-life to come.” (Bickford, Wright, 2006, Ch. 4.3) Another major factor which influences this shift is the exponential technological advancement. The role of the instructors alters from the key knowledge resource to a person who guides students towards the right direction of resource finding. Hence, the boundaries of a learning space constantly expand and evolve, adopting information technology.

Nowadays universities and campuses are required to offer up-to-date equipment and network connectivity throughout their extent. As students tend to spend more time studying out of class, they seek for flexible, social learning spaces, such as libraries offering ‘collaboratory’ spaces which promote peer to peer learning.

Technology provides a more democratised knowledge, without limitation on a specific set of time, place, and way. (University of Lincoln, 2010, p.6) In line with the above, a welcoming educational environment should offer this opportunity not only in spaces where pre-defined actions are allocated (such as lecture theatres, libraries, and computer laboratories) but also in its currently neglected, in-between spaces, such as a staircase or a corridor. The way each one perceives their environment is crucial to their psychology. Hence, allowing students to choose their preferred

32

social space among a large variety, comes to terms with the democratic system of the social learning method.

Based on the above theories, social learning spaces are vital in the educational environment in order to facilitate opportunities for formal and informal collaborations and interactions. Shifting from a didactic, lecture-based method, to the one which fosters the production of knowledge through social learning approaches, the institutions of tertiary education are slowly starting to consider the design and planning of their geographical and pedagogical boundaries as a crucial part of their system in order to provide a holistic educational environment for the students.

2.3 SOURCES OF LEARNING

During their academic life, students have the chance, not only to receive academic knowledge or “academic capital� but also to develop and expand their social network. These new connections are of great value to help build a strong learning experience.

However, this is not the only source of knowledge. Robert Putnam (2000) introduces the notion of social capital, through his book Bowling Alone, which is articulated to Bonding social capital and to Binding social capital. Based on this, Woolcock (2001) have added the Linking Social Capital. More precisely; Bonding social capital refers to the strong ties between people within similar situations, such as family and friends; Bridging denotes the ties between more distant friendships and workmates; while, Linking Social capital is formed through interaction with dissimilar people from various communities. The latter is the main source for receiving broader knowledge.

33

From an academic perspective, the above notions could be interpreted as such; Bonding regards network of people within a specific community of practice related to a single department or discipline; Bridging social capital is encouraged though interaction between different departments; Linking Social Capital takes place among the educational community and the neighbouring society.

Due to the climate change and the issue of sustainability which is radically introduced in every discipline and aspect of the everyday life, another important source is the environmental capital. It is considered a significant part of social learning since it regards knowledge of the natural environment and the human impact on it.

The following diagram, according to social constructivist theory, depicts how the information received from the ‘networks’ we create with each other through our academic life, are important and interconnected in order to acquire broader knowledge and hence, form a healthy and sustainable civic society.

Based on the social constructivism theory, knowledge is built through interactive relationships, followed by a process of internalising the received information. Learning is mainly based on the three types of social capital, the communities of practice created within the educational environment and finally on the level of personal involvement of the student. Moreover, the didactic approach of learning cannot be totally neglected, since it is an important process which navigates students towards the right direction to seeking resources.

34

PEDAGOLOGICAL APPROACHES Social Constructivist Learning

Didactic Learning

LEARNING PROCESS

THE LEARNER

Interpersonal Learning

Intrapersonal Learning

Communities of Practice

Bonding Social Capital

Active Learner

Linking Social Capital

Reflection/ Internalisation

Teacher Impacts Knowledge

Bridging Social Capital

Academic Capital

Environmental Capital

LEARNER OUTCOMES

SOCIETAL OUTCOMES Figure 31

Healthy Civic Society Sustainable Planet

35

36

Figure 32 Modernism Zoning plan and Experience City of interaction and Overlap (Based on diagrams from Per Risom, Byplan 3/2006)

CHAPTER 3 SPACE SYNTAX THEORY

The principle aim of Space Syntax is to evaluate how the performance of a spatial layout is affected in terms of social, economic and environmental factors. It is based on a theoretical model, which presents the city as a spatial system, reflecting many aspects of society and comprised of possible visible connections, flow of movement and human perception.

Through a highly

creative use of software technology, one can identify the essential design features of an entire city or even of an individual building.

The results show the impact of the layout on the movement of people, their interactions and transactions in the level of a street or a building. (Space Syntax Limited, 2016, p.7) In the current study, a Space Syntax analysis will be used as a methodology in order to evaluate the efficiency and functionality of spaces in the University Campus of Zografou.

The foundations of Space Syntax theory lies on the belief that the relation between space and human activity is generic. Any activity or behaviour can take place in a space. As a result, the configuration of a city or that of a building reflect and embody social patterns and time, the latter may be shaped by the configuration of the spatial layout.

37

The above theory can be partly related to that of Kevin Lynch, who supports that city is a multi-purpose, shifting organisation, plastic to the purposes and perceptions of the citizens. The only aspects which must be considered are circulation, major land-uses and key focal points. “[…] if the environment is visibly organised and sharply identified, then the citizen can inform it with his own meanings and connections. Then it will become a true place, remarkable and unmistakable”(Lynch, p.92) In his book, Space is the machine, Bill Hillier refers to the configuration of space, noticing that we create spaces usually related not to individual attributes, but on patterns formed by a group of people. Therefore, the relation between space and social activity lies in the relation between configurations of people and configurations of space. (Hillier, 1996, p.21-22) Bill Hillier uses the indicated diagram as an explanatory example, to show the importance of the pattern of permeability. (Fig. 33) By using the same size and arrangement of spaces, he repositions the entrances and connections between the rooms, changing the movement patterns. In that way, he supports that the morphological bounds, determine the functionality of a building and directly affect the human activity patterns.

Figure 33 Configuration of Space

by Bill Hillier

Compared to the idea of Lynch’s mental mapping, one can find a lot of similarities, since both theories refer to the importance of human perception. The way each individual forms their own images of a complex spatial network help them navigate in it.

Christopher Alexander examines the strategic position of common areas within the configuration of a space. He supports that no

38

social group can survive without constant informal contact among its members. (Alexander, C. et al., 1977, p.618) Through a series of diagrams, he locates the most efficient location for these spaces.

(Fig.34) At the end Common place located at one end of a corridor, requires more effort to reach the space and reduces the chances of informal or spontaneous interaction.

Through the middle Placing the common area in the middle of a path will create an over-exposed space, uncomfortable for lingering activity.

Tangent A tangent location is the most balanced option. There is a constant movement in front of the space, without forcing people to stop. It offers the option of passing by, stand and observe or settle down.

Figure 34

Therefore, he concludes that the best option is to locate a common area “at the centre of gravity of all the spaces the occupies, and in such a way that the paths which go in and out of the building lie tangent to it.” (Ibid., p.621) One of the most efficient software provided by the Space Syntax Network is DepthmapX, a platform designed to analyse social process within the built environment on different scales. Using this tool it is possible to predict the social and economic activity, following three basic elements: axial line, convex space and isovist field.

39

B

Figure 35 (1)Example of axial lines, convex space and isovist ďŹ eld

(2)The axial sightline for movement for person A and B

A

B

AC D (3)The convex space for interaction

B

A The isovist ďŹ eld for orientation

40

An axial line represents the longest sight line on a street or space, showing the in-line movement of people in an urban street or a road network. This constitutes a basic element in the methodology and theory of space syntax. (Fig. 35.1) A convex map is used to analyse the configuration of a group of buildings or spaces, helping to optimise or predict potential movement according to space linking. (Fig. 35.2) An isovist field represents the view of a space from a defined point.

This plays a catalyst role in human perception in a space and its wayfinding. (Fig. 35.3) The results of the above methodology, provide information about the connectivity and integration of a street, space or building. The level of integration depends on the direct or indirect connections of a street in relation to the street network, in terms of its accessibility. In the diagrams, the level is depicted by a palette of colours.

Along with the social learning theories which promote the social interaction as a vital way of learning and expanding an individual’s boundaries of knowledge, the methodology of Space Syntax can assist in designing spaces which enhance informal ‘encounters’ and random meetings. Providing social spaces in strategic positions can lead people to unexpected places which subsequently will be transformed into vivid satellites of learning, where learning exchange will take place.

41

Figure 36 Plan of NTUA Campus in Zografou showing build/unbuild areas, entrances and internal vehicle circulation

42

CHAPTER 4 CONSTRUCTING A METHODOLOGY NTUA CAMPUS PILOT STUDY

As previously mentioned the aim of this research is to form a methodology in order to evaluate and examine the efficiency of a campus and furthermore, of specific locations, spaces and buildings in it to allocate social learning activities. Based on the theoretical analysis, a set of key points and considerations will be derived, while at the same time they will be compared to diagrams of NTUA campus, (Fig. 36) produced with Space syntax software. In this chapter, the diagram of learning process will be translated in spatial terms, defining the necessary qualities for a campus or space to provide holistic learning experiences.

4.1 MACRO-ANALYSIS : CONNECTION WITH THE SURROUNDINGS

Andrew Harrison (2006) supports that “we need to widen our expectations of learning. We need to think not just of disciplines, isolated pockets of learning, but at linkages between different departments and different areas of the world because there are no finite boundaries between areas of knowledge”. Thus, the permeability of the campus needs to be considered, since it needs to offer easy accessed social spaces, directly linked with public areas of the neighbourhood for ad hoc or serendipitous social encounters. In social constructivism theory, this will build on the

43

Figure 37 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX INTEGRATION of Vehicle Circulation

MAX

MIN

Figure 38 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX CONNECTIVITY of Vehicle Circulation

44

Interpersonal Learning and more specifically on the Linking Social Capital. Hence, the first key principle is: -The connection of the campus with the surrounding area.

Pilot Study Municipality of Zografou is located 2.5 km far from Athens City centre and the foot of Hymettus Mountain. The urban development of the area shares a lot of characteristics with that of the city, e.g. the continuous facades of buildings, erected on the edges of the block. The area expands on 8.5 km2 of land, 4.2 km2 of which are forest land, 2 km2 built and 1 km2 is the size of the NTUA Campus.

The latter works as a barrier between the city and Hymettus Mountain which offers the advantage of preventing the urban expansion in the natural setting. On the other hand, it disables the connection and easy access to the forest.

In general terms, the major land use in the municipality is residences. The local market, the cafeterias, and restaurants, as well as other support services, are insufficiently connected to a network of streets which encourages traffic jams and confusion in users. A low percentage of public areas and facilities are provided, causing discomfort due to the high density of occupation in the area. Large pockets of isolated special uses have been implanted into the area over the years, resulting in its fragmentation.

Examples of such uses are the two university campuses, hospitals, military areas and enclosed parks.

45

A

B

C

Figure 39 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX INTEGRATION of Pedestrian Circulation

A

B

MAX

C MIN

Figure 40 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX CONNECTIVITY of Pedestrian Circulation

46

4.2 MICRO-ANALYSIS : CONNECTION WITHIN THE CAMPUS

An important factor in campus planning is way-finding, e.g. the legibility of the space. According to Kevin Lynch theory about mental

mapping

and

Christopher

Alexander

observations

regarding the positioning of uses, it is crucial to provide a feasible solution, in order to navigate users. At the same time, a spatial system, based on possible movements inside the area create links from one space to another, as well as possible nodes and landmarks, increasing the feeling of familiarity. Informal social interactions and student involvement with communities or faculty members are core elements in order to increase both the Bridging Social Capital and the learning through communities of practice.

Another key factor is the Intrapersonal Learning. Provision for quiet spaces creates a balance in the educational experience, as according to Social Constructivism, there is a need for solitude and internalisation of information in the learning process.

The above spatial considerations are also supported by the Space Syntax theory, which focuses on the configuration of space and the links between focal or secondary points.

Key principles which arise are: -Visual connection from neighbourhood towards the campus -Variation in uses and functions across campus for increased learning experience -Define the heart of the campus -Define possible landmarks -Locate spaces which are preferred by students to interact with friends and/or meet new people.

47

MAX

MIN

Figure 41 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis

48

-Locate spaces where students usually interact with faculty members outside schedule hours, both formally (meetings) and impromptu.

-ConďŹ guration of space, including living arrangements of students, for direct and safe transportation.

-Locate spaces for students to work alone.

As previously observed, the University campus in Zografou is designed as an introvert space. Through diagrams produced by DepthmapX (the software provided by Space Syntax) (Fig.37-41), an analysis will follow in the next chapters, regarding the eďŹƒciency of the campus as a space for exchanging knowledge and ideas.

Focusing mainly on the vehicle and pedestrian circulation, as well as on the optical connections among the spaces, the desirable result is to evaluate the current social spaces and suggest the most suitable location of a new social learning space, if needed. In order to determine

the

relation

between

users

and

the

campus

environment, axial maps are necessary, to locate the integration and connectivity of particular areas. Furthermore, nodes can be identiďŹ ed and evaluated.

49

Boundaries The site is separated from the urban landscape by a fence. In the north, there is the Cemetery of the area and the campus of the University of Athens, while the boundaries between the municipality of Zografou and the campus are defined by Alimou-Katechaki Avenue (Fig. 42) and the streets Kokkinopoulou, Drachmis (Fig. 43) and Iroon Politechniou. The first two roads are of high traffic, hence they create a border, separating the campus from the surrounding area, restricting the easy access to and from Figure 42 Alimou-Katechaki Avenue

the latter, since the pedestrian paths are unorganized and dangerous. This intensifies the fragmentation of the area.

Entrances There are three main entrances both for vehicles and pedestrians.

The first one in Alimou-Katechaki Av. (Fig.44) is open on a 24h basis, while the other two are open in specific hours to avoid drivers using the campus as a secondary way in pick traffic hours. Although the

Figure 43 Drachmis St

most immediate connection from the campus towards the city is the pedestrian access in Iroon Politechniou Street, the opening schedule of the gate is extremely limited.

Internal vehicle circulation The circulation for vehicles inside the campus follows the natural terrain, (Fig. 45) with a main ring road and secondary major axes as well as circular routes, to serve the movement among the buildings.

Figure 44 Entance in Alimou-Katechaki Avenue

The positioning of the buildings is based on modern movement, on a linear axis along a street or a square.

50

Although most of the parking spaces have been allocated between the buildings and on the ring road with the intension to reduce circulation near the central uses, the most used parking is placed underneath the main square. (Fig. 46) The latter is the central core of the campus, however, it is hard to conceive due to the fragmentation of circulation. Navigation through the campus is difficult without the use of signs, hence someone cannot perceive the exact route they follow and create a mental map. (Fig. 47) Figure 45 Internal ring road following terrain

Due to changes in the planning and development of the campus, some roads have been left unfinished. This has resulted in large parts being transformed to dead ends without academic facilities, but still accessible to vehicles.

The diagrams (Fig. 37&38) show a continuous flow only on the ring road, while the secondary routes create hard turns or dead ends,

Figure 46 Road connecting Alimou-Katechaki entrance to parking space underneath the main square

creating confusion to the visitor. These interruptions affect the social behaviour of the academic community and the formation of a unified, organized and holistic educational experience.

Internal pedestrian circulation There are three main pedestrian axis, a large number of secondary paths and unofficial paths created by human use. The same issues arose on the vehicle circulation apply here as well, as the network

Figure 47 Trees do not allow direct views

on routes is unorganized and with a fusion of characteristics, as far as the materials, shape, and width are concerned.

51

The network of pedestrian and cycling routes provide great opportunities for recreational activities and exercise, however, they do not serve properly their main purpose which is to smoothly guidie visitors through campus. As a consequence, there are many human traces forming paths through green areas, (Fig.48) which usually indicate the optimum optical connections, the shorter distances, the earth relief and the soil formation. Most of them are found between the student accommodation towards the central square or the entrances of the campus.

Figure 48 Shortcuts through green areas

Observing the diagrams (Fig. 39&40) creating through the Space Syntax, it is clear that the two most efficiently integrated routes are the one connecting the entrance from Alimou-Katechaki and the central square (A) (Fig. 49) and the one along the long axis of the latter (B). This is correct as in reality these routes are indeed most frequently used by students and academics to reach the facilities.

Although they could offer large opportunities for socialising and

Figure 49 Main pedestrian street (A)

exchange of knowledge, they achieve the opposite, as there are no areas offered for people to stop and interact. Thus, they form busy, narrow, long streets for fast movement and transportation from one place to another. The third and longest pedestrian axis (C) (Fig. 50) is the one starting from the gate of Iroon Politechniou heading to a green area with no visible connection to the central core of the campus. This type of route represents the majority in the planning, as most of them do not show any obvious connection, interrupting

Figure 50 Walkway from Iroon Politechniou to central square (C)

the continuous flow throughout the expansion of the site.

Finally, a high amount of integration is shown in the central square, however the network of routes leading to this does not show any

52

visible connection to the buildings and areas not immediately attached to it, e.g. the student accommodation and the unused natural park.

Green Park To build a healthy civic society it is important to acquire environmental capital through life experiences. A natural environment embodied in the academic life provide a great basis in order to trigger researches and observations on sustainability Figure 51 Park blends with the structures

issues.

The green area is a large part of the campus in Zografou. A miniature artiďŹ cial forest surrounds the buildings and provides immediate contact with the natural environment. (Fig. 51) However, it is not developed as an area which encourages the interaction of users.

A lot of human-made traces can be found between the trees (Fig.

Figure 52 Human traces

52) and the greenery, though most of them are paths for transportation. The park should play an active role in the academic procedure, not only a decorative one as it currently does. The insuďŹƒcient lighting during night creates isolated and dangerous places, discouraging people to get familiarised with the space.

The above factors convert the natural environment as a barrier between the campus and the city as it prevents the visibility beyond

Figure 53 Dense vegetation in the perimetre of the campus

the boundaries of the campus and in most parts, between the buildings of the campus themselves. (Fig. 53)

53

Optical connections According to the diagram (Fig. 41) showing the connectivity of space based on the visibility, it is clear that the highest amount is located on the central square, (Fig. 54&55) although there is no direct visibility from the outer ring road, only from places of higher terrain elevation.

High connectivity is also shown on a part of the ring roads near Alimou-Katechaki Avenue, which provides access to the back Figure 54 Visibility from main pedestrian road to central Square

entrance of a number of buildings, to parking lots and to an area of the green park, partly organised.

Meeting places University cultural places contribute to students’ cognitive abilities.

However, in NTUA campus, natural open spaces have not been thoroughly considered “for the potential in replenishing cognitive functioning for attentional fatigued students. One way to

Figure 55 View from the top level of the square

examine this potential is to consider the entire campus with its buildings, roads and natural open spaces as a well-networked landscape system that supports student learning experiences.�(Scholl, Gulwadi, 2015) Throughout the campus, there are a lot of areas, both outdoor and indoor, that already are, or could be transformed into meeting places. Places with their own microclimate conditions and

Figure 56 Isolated meeting place

54

characteristics are ideal to encourage social interaction and extracurricular activities.

Currently, the open, public spaces oer a narrow limit of opportunities and they are usually either large empty spaces, without any provision of use or focused on athletic activities. The large central square is used almost exclusively for moving between the buildings and only a small number of the academic community use it for resting or socialising. The lack of suďŹƒcient seating and sheltering, as well as the alienating dead ends (Fig. 56) and dark areas (Fig. 57&58) that surround it, do not create a welcoming and familiar environment for the user.

Figure 57 Indoor space which could be used as interaction point

Other small squares formed between the buildings seem to be misplaced as they are not attached to a continuous system of pedestrian network nor to the entrances of a building. This has resulted in a large concentration of students and sta at the three refreshment points of the campus, creating confusion and rising noise levels during pick hours. (Fig. 59)

Figure 58 Large empty corridor with visual connectivity to outdoor space

Figure 59 Refreshment point

55

56

Figure 60 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level 0

Figure 61 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Integration Level 0

Figure 62 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level +1

Figure 63 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Integration Level +1

4.3 NANO-ANALYSIS : ANALYSIS OF THE CENTRAL SQUARE

On the Social Constructivist Learning, the activity of each individual and its involvement in the educational process highly affects its potentials. Active learning mostly depends on the participation of the student outside the classroom. Increased time spent on campus and more frequent contact with the academic staff can be encouraged by providing the appropriate spaces.

Flexible spaces which are easily reconfigured are able to support various types of activities. However, high levels of flexibility can

Figure 64 Park blends with the structures

cause the opposite results.

“It is equally clear that neither neutrality, which is the inevitable result of flexibility (tolerable for all, just right for no one), nor specificness, which is the consequence of too much expression Oust right-but for whom?), can yield adequate solutions. Both are suffused with temporariness; both are caused by a surfeit of incertitude” (Hertzberger, Nakamura et al., 1991, p.20) Kevin Lynch also refers to ambiguous border zones (Lynch, Carr, 1968, p.1285), where people have the opportunity to watch an activity and decide whether they want to become involved in it. In spatial terms, these zones could be corridors with windows providing the opportunity for the outsider to observe without interrupting the process.

Through a walk in a campus, a student must be provided with

Figure 65 Dense vegetation in the perimetre of the campus

stimulating experiences relevant or not to their subject. A glimpse in a laboratory or an art studio, a short talk with a professor on the corridor, or even crossing into a conversation among students of a different faculty in a staircase, are small but crucial jigsaws

57

58

Figure 66 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level +2

Figure 67 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Integration Level +2

Figure 68 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Visual Connectivity Analysis Level +3

Figure 69 Space Syntax Diagram produced by DepthmapX Integration Level +3

which form a holistic educational experience. Due to that, campus design should also consider in-between spaces as a vital part of the planning process.

However, concentrating on the spatial qualities of a space or building and the way it can promote social learning process, the following key factors need to be considered: -The use(s) of the space Figure 70 Park blends with the structures

-Popularity of the space in the academic community. (In which percentage there are aware of the space) (How often and why it is used, satisfaction of users using the space, visual satisfaction) -Visual connectivity of the space and the rest of the campus -Accessibility and connectivity of the space in relation to the surrounding buildings and the high movement paths and corridors.

-Hierarchy of frequency of movement in the space and in adjacent spaces/buildings which might intersect with it.

-Define the areas of the space mostly used.

-The level at which users have involved in the current image/arrangement of the space. Is it personalised by users/communities?

-Configuration of space in support of student-staff interaction.

Figure 71 Dense vegetation in the perimetre of the campus

Evaluation of staff offices nearby and the frequency, as well as the efficiency of student-staff interaction in the particular space.

59

Some more speciďŹ c considerations regarding the interior arrangement of particular areas of the space:

-The level of versatility of the space.

-DeďŹ ne existing ambiguous border zones or possible future locations.

In the diagrams produced through DepthmapX, (Fig. 60-63&66-69) the central square of the NTUA campus has been analysed. It is developed in 4 levels, connected with ramps and stairs. Although there is a clear visual connection for someone watching from the top level, (Fig. 65&70) the experience of moving inside the square is confusing for the user. (Fig. 64) There are multiple entrances and connections from all the levels to the surrounding buildings, which could result in a vivid central node or network of pedestrian movement. Located in the heart of the campus, this could be a highly eďŹƒcient social learning district, however, it is currently used only as a passage between the buildings and as a parking space on the lower levels.

After running a graph analysis where multiple paths are generated, the most integrated zones and visually connected areas are shown.

60

Seminar Breakout building

Workspace

Eating Meeting Rooms

Lecture Theatre

Classroom Socialising

the space between

Lab

Networking

Group Study

Designing Lecture Theatre

Co-creating

Meeting Rooms

Workspace Seminar

Inventing

Individual study

Figure 72 Network of spaces

61

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION

The contemporary campuses have their roots in the medieval era, when two typologies had emerged; In Italy the idea of a university embodied in the city with buildings incorporating a central courtyard used a social gathering space; In England, inspired by monasteries, an isolated and introvert large-scale building, where all the functions were gathered. The English typology was later adopted and developed by American planners, who formed ‘academic villages’. They gradually moved these educational zones to the countryside, achieving spacious open plans under a picturesque vision. However, at the same time the ‘City Beautiful’, a Beaux-Art movement, supported the benefits of a university blended in the urban fabric, the ‘city learning’, occupying imposing city-centre buildings with university facilities. The rapidly increased number of students after the WWII, resulted on autonomous campuses, allocated in super-blocks, forming miniature ‘city within a city’, although totally disconnected from their surroundings.

Aesthetic criteria were introduced after 1970 in the planning and design of these new communities.

62

Consequently, this led to commercialised, vacuous and impractical spaces. Nowadays, the two dominant typologies are an advanced mode of the medieval types; mega-structures redesigned to get embodied in the cityscapes; self-supported, closed communities, which include all sets of functions.

Although the ideology of the pre-mentioned typologies seems to be contradictory, they both have a common point; the importance of socialization through the educational process. The interaction with the city on one hand and the large communal spaces on the other are able to encourage social relations between the users. This is due to the learning methods and theories developed in parallel with the campus design history. A student-orientated environment is widely supported by theorists, who report that learning takes place mainly during extracurricular activities, on informal spaces. A pioneer in modern educational methods, Vygotsky, created a shift introducing the ‘Social Constructivist Theory’, according to which knowledge is built through our social network. It is articulated and depended on five sources of learning or capitals; Communities of Practice, Bonding Capital, Bridging Capital, Linking Social capital and Learner’s involvement in the process. Different knowledge is received based on the type of relation we form with other people and along with the benefits of Didactic educational methods, they constructing a holistic learning experience.

Since the Social Learning Spaces are vital to the educational process, their location in a campus needs to be carefully considered. In order to decide the most effective place in a campus environment, an analysis of the existing or possible circulation

63

network needs to be conducted, both in theoretical and practical level. Space Syntax and other pioneers in urban planning, such as Kevin Lynch, present theories regarding the importance of the configuration of space and they all agree to the following; a well-designed circulation network and a hierarchy of spaces are necessary to naturally navigate users. Social spaces should be present in tangent locations of the street network, in order to provide ‘think stops’ or opportunities for socialisation, without either interrupt the flow of movement or be hidden in isolated areas.

The methodology which results from this research is derived from the translation of the above theories in spatial principles and considerations regarding the qualities of the entire campus. Using the NTUA campus as a case study, it is shown how the connection of the university with the city, as well as the internal circulation and configuration of spaces, play a critical role in the use of space.

Starting from a macro analysis and concluding to a nano-analysis concerning the central space of the campus, the square, we conclude to the fact that, although planners and architects provided open spaces, the general arrangement, and configuration of buildings does not support the maximum capabilities of their use. As a result, this central node is used as a traffic junction, without any particular use, or opportunities for socialisation and hence, for a social learning space.

Social Learning Space is not a restricted or predefined area.

Interaction and knowledge sharing can take place during a walk in the green park of the campus, on a large open space, in a

64

cafeteria-hub on-campus, on a corridor or even on a staircase.

“In fact, the entire campus, including its open spaces, must be perceived as a holistic learning space that provides a holistic learning experience. Learning is a lifelong and year-round pursuit, which takes place throughout the campus, not just fragmented indoors in designated instructional spaces.� (Scholl, Gulwadi, 2015)

65

REFERENCES ARTICLES _Astin, A. W. (July 1999) Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education, In. Journal of College Student Development Volume 40, London: Routledge. p.518-529 _Bickford, D. and Wright, D. (2006) Community: The Hidden Context for Learning. In. D. Obligner (ed.).

Learning Spaces (USA: Educause), Ch. 4.0 - 4.22. _Brown, M. & Lippincott, J., (2003) Learning spaces: more than meets the eye. Educause Quarterly, 26, p.14-16 _Scholl, K., Gulwadi, G. (2015) Recognizing Campus Landscapes as Learning Spaces. Journal of Learning Spaces. Vol. 4. No 1 _Woolcock, M. (2001) The place of social capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes.

ISUMA Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2 (1) 11-17.

BROCHURES _Future Earth (2014) Future Earth 2025 Vision [Brochure]. France. _Space Syntax Limited (2016) General Practice Brochure. [Brochure] [online]. Available at: http://www.spacesyntax.com/media/books-brochures/. Accessed 3/01/2016 _University of Lincoln (2010) Learning Landscapes in Higher Education [Brochure] (Lincoln: Centre for Educational Research and Development) DISSERTATION/THESIS _Wehrli, R. (1968). Open ended problem solving in design. Ph. D. Thesis. Salt Lake City: University of Utah ONLINE _Rust, Chris (2006). Re-designing Universities: Social Learning Space: Introduction to Symposium. [online] Available at: https://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/cross_fac/iatl/cetl/spaces/symposia/ďŹ rst/.

Accessed 6/01/2017.

66

BOOKS _Alexander, C. et al. (1977) A Pattern Language. New York: Oxford University Press. _Boyer, E. (1987) College: The Undergraduate Experience in America. London: Harper and Row _Coulson, J., Roberts, P. and Taylor, I. (2011). University planning and architecture. 1st ed. Abingdon, Oxon [England]: Routledge _Harrison, A. (2006) OEGW Fourth Annual Founders' Lecture. London: Royal College of Physicians _Hertzberger, H. and Nakamura, T. (1991) Herman Hertzberger, 1959-1990. 1st ed. Tokyo: E ando Yu _Hildebrand, D. (2008) Dewey. England: Oneworld Publications _Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press _Hoeger, K., Christiaanse, K. (2007) Campus and the city. 1st ed. ZĂźrich: GTA Verlag _Kenney, D., Dumont, R. and Kenney, G. (2005). Mission and place. 1st ed. Westport, Conn.: Praeger Publishers _Le Corbusier, and Hyslop, F. (1947) When the cathedrals were white. 1st ed. New York: Reynal & Hitchcock _Lynch, K. (1960) The image of the city. 1st ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press _Lynch, K and Carr, S (1968) Where Learning Happens, Daedalus, Winter. p.1277-1291 _Mooney, C. (2000) Theories of Childhood. St Paul: Redleaf Press _Persky, B., Golubchick, L. (1991). Early childhood education. 1st ed. Lanham: University Press of America. _Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. _Turner, P. (1984). Campus, an American planning tradition. 1st ed. New York: Architectural History Foundation.

67