Final DRAFT- Dorms Analysis

The American University in Cairo

Analysis of the AUC Dorms in light of the Modern Movement By: AmiraBadran LaylaSabry LobnaHouta Presented to: Dr. KhaledAsfour

Due: 31st of March 2011

Table of Contents Introduction

Architect’s Profile

Building Profile

Analysis of the Complex

Drawbacks

Design Proposal 3D – Model showing design Proposal Conclusion

2

The 20th century witnessed a profound change in the Architectural field; Modern architecture style was initiated at the time, a style that proved its dominance in the modern era and that goes back to the prominent, influential architects and designers associated with the trend of the age.

The modern movement was initiated at the time of the post World War II; when Europe had undergone severe damage in diverse areas, economically, culturally, socially and psychologically. The condition of the European countries at that time explains their deep concern of rebuilding their countries in the fastest and most economical means.The context of the war left behind many psychological defects to the people of the countries affected, one of which is the sense of enclosure, everything was identical and the concept of “follow the crowd” was predominant. The movement actually was brought about to transform the limited vision of architecture at this era to one of a boundless, unified style shifting the vision to a wider scope Walter Gropius, one of the masters of the modern movement, wrote in 1919 what embraces his thoughts of the “despair at an internal collapse” as becoming nullified and requires the swinging to a new form and order in a hopeful spirit of innovation.Changes occurred in emerging new cultures, ones that conform to treatment of the disturbed psychology of the people, by setting up norms that sought individuality, uniqueness, innovation, all representing a novel character to the design of structures. Those alterations were manifested in both

Figure 1 - A number of profound urban and interior modern designs following the Bauhaus philosophy and led by Gropius

attitudes and values of people as well as in design of buildings and houses 3

Figure 2- The Bauhaus Head Building, serving as the foundation of a modern culture.

Bauhaus School, one of the most influential currents in the Modern era, was established by Walter Gropius in Germany and followed the approach to design that it originated. The formation of the Bauhaus was the first step towards Gropius‟ eventual target of “regeneration of German Visual Culture through Arts”. Gropius believed that to reach the optimum design for the future building that combines architecture, painting and sculpture; Craftsmenwere the major elementsneeded. By putting needs of the modern era as the fuel igniting the handcrafting, he succeeded in turning around the beliefs and reuniting the aesthetic awareness and effective design.

Characteristics of the architectural buildings were coherent, simple and reflecting technology; sharp forms, romantic silhouettes and transparent surfaces were the main keywords.As a matter of fact those keywords were just the result of the predominating conditions of the society back then, the age‟s spirit. Hegel‟s second modern philosophy, therefore, was based on the word „zeitgeist‟, which stated that the historical product was always determined and defined by the events and conditions of the society itself. The

4

simple and minimalistic features were of an essential essence, aiming to cut down the expensive craftsmanship used in the previous styles.

The „spirit of the age‟ was a factor that led Gropius to launch the Bauhaus with hopes of establishing a new school that incorporated all the theories of modernism.

Beside the creation of forms and composite entities, the Bauhaus‟ modern medium of design was machinery, the aim was to represent technology and its increasing power that cannot be ignored, in other words, the design forms focused on values of mechanized epoch 1. The target of the design was no longer looking after aesthetic meanings of decorations and details, but rather on a clear, organic architecture that adapts to technology, includes standardization of parts and is characterized by the use of new materials such as steel, concrete and glass, which later have become used to show modernist attitude in projects.

Although the modern movement had uniform motives and equal targets, there happened shifts in moods and forms throughout the unleashing of the modern style. An example is the Concrete Office Building Project,

by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe; emphasis in this building changed to cover the horizontal layering of space and expression of planes, as noticed in figure 3.

Figure 3 - The Concrete Office Building Project

\

1

As stated by the architects of the modern era, “Modern Architecture since 1900”, by Curtis, William J.

5

The Architect Legorreta+ Legorreta was founded in 1963 by Ricardo Legorreta, Noe Castro, and Carlos Vargas senior, and its main objective is to create architecture inspired by human values.

Ricardo Legorreta graduated from the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, and was awarded the UIA Gold Medal in 1991. Some of the firmâ€&#x;s famous works are: Camino Real Hotel, IBM Factory, and the Cathedral of Managua.

Figure 4- Ricardo Legorreta

Figure 5- Their famous cathedral de Managua built in 2003 after the earthquake that damaged the old one in 1972

6

Their works are influenced by Mexican vernacular architecture and Luis Baragan.

Their architecture recognizes the importance of the role played by human values in architecture. Moreover, today, with the constant innovations and discoveries in the domain of information and technology, the firm takes advantage of both to make buildings that encourage us to “be better human beings�.

The idea that architecture is at the service of the society is greatly emphasized in the designs as they carefully respond to every need and aspiration of their future users. Thus, the main aspects that they aim to achieve in their designs are functionality, efficiency, and cost that are reached through a friendly environment, an atmosphere of intimacy,

7

peace, and optimism. The use of color, water, light, and mystery are a signature of their style in reaching this environment. In fact, this blending of water, light and color is greatly influenced and inspired by Luis Baragan‟s style in architecture, one of Mexico‟s most influential 20th century architects. He brought the international style to a whole new level, and transformed it into a more vibrant and cheerful Mexican style. His favorite themes were light and water, and it is greatly noticeable how much he has affected Legorreta‟s style in buildings. However, Legorreta firm differs from the Baragan‟s theories in the idea that Luis Baragan believed that functionality was never as important as emotions in designing homes, as opposed to Legorreta, who always managed to reach both functionality and emotionality through his innovative designs.

Building Profile: The dorms complex is composed of 13 individual units, dispersed in an area marking the end of the built area of the campus land. Each unit is composed of an L- shaped building, with a square one connected to it. When Ricardo Legorreta, the senior member of the father-son Figure 6- Google map view of the AUC Campus

Mexico City firm and the Designer of the

University Residence and Campus Center, was asked to give his opinion on the teamwork style and how it affected the architecture of the campus he said; “Without your team

8

members, you can do nothing. Fortunately, we have this collaborative spirit and humble perspective among the architects on this project�.2

Figure 7- A general layout of the Campus defining facilities surrounding the main spine.

Moving to the University Residence, one could see that Legorreta aimed on reflecting the Egyptian culture while leaving his design trademarks on the building. As perceived from the general layout of the new campus, the residential building (no. 8) is located at the far right, relatively far from the buildings where classes are taking place. Around the

2

A 2002 interview conducted with the seven architectural firms discussed the integration of their individual schools and conforming it to the main theme of the AUC campus. AUC Official Website. Web. Mar, 2011.

9

residence units, one can see different types of facilities, the nearest is building (no. 9), the ARTOC Sports Center, located right across the central spine from the dormitories.

Figure 8- View of the outside area between the sports center (right) and the Dormitories (left)

Figure 9- Layout of the Dorms

Each of the L- shaped units houses 10 bedrooms on one floor where a number of bedrooms share a bathroom as well as a living area. The layout is divided into two where the menâ€&#x;s dormitory is located at the left of the entrance and the womenâ€&#x;s on the right.

Both are connected to each other and the entrance through a main spine and both share one main courtyard.

10

Moreover, the modern movement turned against the concept of enclosure in architecture.

To establish universal spacing as element of the modern movement alongside other major keywords and reasons mentioned below, the architect chose to organize the building blocks and units of the dorms around courtyards. Thereby he chose to use a repeated element of the campus and of the old Cairo architecture as one of the driving forces of the campus architecture to establish this universal spacing. As a consequence, he related the dorms to its surrounding and created harmony within the campus complex, therefore achieving one of his goals and philosophies in design, stating that a good building must always take into consideration the environment and the surrounding context.

Figure 10 - Layout of the residence with its surroundings

11

Analysis: Looking at the dorms there are several main keywords associated with a dormitory and residential building. Foremost, the dormitory houses international students or students living away from home. Therefore, it is important to give those students a feeling of home in the dorms to try and reduce the longing for their other home and their family.

The feeling of home is established through several sub-keywords.

For some to get the feeling of home, one needs to have privacy. The feeling of having a private area or a personal space away from the public atmosphere is crucial. The house gives such privacy where a person has his own personal space and room away from the eyes of the public, therefore for some having that same feeling of privacy in the dorms could give a feeling of home.

Another way to trigger feeling at home is giving comfort. Having a comfortable space to relax in such as is the case in a house and with family reminds a person of the home he has. The home is a comfortable space, where a person can be relaxed and at ease.

Therefore, giving comfort in a house is a key element to deliver the feeling of home.

In addition, when a person can organize his own space to show his identity and character it feels more like a private space of your own. So organizing the space according oneâ€&#x;s identity and as a person pleases, makes him/her feel that this is his own home. This can be established through giving the users the freedom to change the organization of furniture and to add personal stuff.

The house is also a hiding space, a safe space where a person can feel secure and protected and therefore it is important to give the users safety and take architectural and 12

technological safety measures to give security. Through turning the dorms into a safe space where the students feel protected, the users will feel it to be more like home.

The feeling of home is not the only keyword associated with a dormitory but also a sense of communication. The home has a main component very important to the residents, which is the family and the neighborhood. The house and its surroundings holds for the person a community close to him/her and one he sees on a daily basis. When they move into a dormitory, they loose the community and surrounding they have been living in.

Therefore, it is of great importance to revive this sense of community for the users in the dormitory as well.

This sense of community can be established through facilitating socialization in the dormitory. Facilitating socialization gathers the users of the dormitory and makes them interact and get to know each other so that by time they grow to become one community.

Thereby, they promote sense of community within the dormitory.

Another way to promote such community is through universality, a main concept of modernity. Through universality the architects creates spaces that gathers the users and attracts them into one main place. The universal spaces are always preferred by the users for its openness it provides, so the implementation of universal spaced areas attracts the users into that place creating a community within the building.

13

Main Keywords

Sense of Home & Belonging

Comfort

Privacy & Security

Sense of community

Contact with Nature

Socialization/ Interaction

Universality

After determining these main keywords in our opinion related to dorms, it is essential to examine how these keywords were implemented into the design of the AUC dorms.

The placement of the dorms within the surrounding facilities acquired a certain atmosphere that conforms to its program. By emerging the impression of a village to anyone passing by or through the dorms, Legorreta succeeded in treating the residence space as a „neighborhoodâ€&#x;, in other words, the position of the residence quite away from where the classes are conducted, gave this place a reflection of a home; residence have to walk out of the dorms, pass by the main facilities then reach the central plaza of the campus, where the classes are located. Same like a housing in a neighborhood; students are required to walk out of their village into the streets until they reach their university.

14

Figure 10- A repeated design template in many mosques as well as public and private spaces built during the Islamic age.

In a clear attempt to denote a strong feeling of home, the open spaces as one enters the dormitories will be directly noticed due to the clear divisions of the public and private spaces, one could see the main open courtyard at a lower level than the entrance, as an example. As one steps down a couple of levels to the passageway around the courtyard, again it‟ll be separated from the central open space by the colonnade structure, the portico. The Mediterranean architecture influence reflected in the usage of courtyards cannot be neglected in this framework; the open courtyard surrounded by a portico has been a character defining the domestic architecture of buildings through different ages, including the Islamic and Mexican cultures. Legorreta deliberately implemented the design of an open courtyard at many areas inside the dormitories, each with a different orientation, and aesthetically considered very similar to the common, central spaces found in the Islamic or Mediterranean modules of an open space as he explained in his statement that our main aim was to “design architecture that belongs to Egypt and Cairo”3. Although the architect succeeded in his aim of blending the culture of Old Cairo in his design, he still, in terms of the modern movement‟s criteria, contravened one of the main attitudes by using a traditional aspect in his design, since one of the Bauhaus‟ modern philosophies was to unlearn all the clichés of architectural history and have a stronger sense of individuality and uniqueness.

In contrast, Legorreta fulfilled a crucial element of design that conforms to his philosophy which is „contact with nature’; by all means the architect affirmed the sense of natural dominance in the complex by his choice of the specific allocation of units and the connections between them. In more details, one can notice in the overall layout of the residence, the clusters consisting of a number of units are in an l-shaped orientation with 3

AUC Official Website. Article on the Planning and Design of the New Campus, July 2002. Web. Mar,2011.

15

an added cube next to it, separated by an open passage. Assumptions within the group members varied around the purpose of this 'consistently' repeated module throughout the complex bringing about one of the main criteria of modern movement which is standardization of parts, but what we highly predict is that the architects focused on environmental factors.

Given the campus location in the hot desert, they focused specifically on the circulation of wind; through the shifting of each cluster and avoiding „symmetrical‟ orientation,

the

architect

managed

to

provide each cluster with an amount of prevailing wind coming through that was

Figure 11 - Prevailing wind direction in the campus matching the intended specific distribution of the units.

also stressed on by positioning the clusters in such format, he allowed the upper wing of the „L‟ facing the wind direction to catch a breeze of air through the opening and pass it all through the main open corridor in the cluster directed to the opening on the second wing of the „L‟ leading to what we call wind tunneling effect in architecture, and therefore giving all the residents of the cluster the privilege of having a continuous fresh breeze of air all day long. In addition, this orientation actually brought about with it several positive factors, the formation of shading facades due to the bounding of each cluster in such format overlooking the open court from all sides, which we assume to conform to the modern movement's theory of adjusting several planes and not only moving in one direction, also adding to the

16

aesthetics of the place by emphasizing the shades and shadows along the open spaces. In addition, the L-shaped units organized in an unsymmetrical fashion emphasize the main difference of the Bauhaus to the Beaux Art where the Bauhaus schools was known to transform the symmetrical relationships of parts and their central orientation to an equilibrated asymmetrical but rhythmical balance of parts4.

Figure 12- Layout

In a home, we believe that ‘comfort’ is essential and obligatory to give the true feeling of attachment to the place. In the AUC dormitories, we found several elements used that gave the users comfort and calmness, as stated by Renate Amin, a resident in the dorms, stated that the organization of units gave her this feeling of comfort. The well balanced and consistent modules of the complex, which as mentioned earlier, is believed to be inspired by the village design, is actually propelling a variety of vibes one of which is visual comfort. When looking at the overall layout (Fig 12), one can conclude the strong feeling of containment that this complex reflects through the curved boundaries all

4

“Beaux art and the Bauhaus philosophy differences”. Modern Architecture since 1900, by Curtis, William

J.

17

overlooking the open spaces. The use of water features adds to the list of comforting elements as well, besides its environmental purpose of cooling down the air in the area ( as repeated in the whole campus), they give a sense of comfort in many ways, aesthetically, environmentally and even physiologically, as Renate added in the interview. However, the water features' extensive use is not an element inspired by the modern era, again the Islamic influence of extensive use of water fountains is done intentionally in the complex.

Figure 13 - Elevation showing the different levels of the complex

The architects when locating the dormitories, definitely thought of 'privacy' in many ways, not only by isolating them from the other buildings in the campus, but also by achieving a sense of privacy from within the whole campus, within spaces between different units and also those within each unit, up till the personal

division

of

rooms

and

personal facilities. In fact, he has

Figure 14 - Section showing the leveling within the buildings

probably focused on the privacy levels

18

to bring about the sense of belonging to the students in the campus since security and privacy play an important role in the psychological well being of a person, contributing to their academic performance, in other words, when a person feels secure and within his own comfort zone he/she will be a lot more productive and open to improvement. It was also noticeable that privacy was achieved through a varied media of designs, leveling was an essential one; looking at the elevations and sections drawing of the complex , one could immediately notice the altitudes being varied; the open court at the entrance is at a relatively lower level than the small entrance tower to the left, establishing a sense of security and belonging to the place, and as one walks through the passage way it is kind of limited in space and surrounded by columns until one turns to the common spaces where the 'boundless' public area is located. The verticality of the units also contributed to the positive harmony within the urban context of the dorms (refer to the example of the sports center- Building Profile).

Figure 15- Leveling in the open area

19

Figure 16- Entrance to unit

When entering a unit, the residents have to pass through a gate only accessible to those living in the specific unit which emphasizes the concept of security of the units. In addition, the visibility of almost all units inside the campus cannot be clearly perceived by an outsider due to the variation in levels of the complex. The focus on providing a high sense of security in the complex has very much affected the accessibility of the place; in comparison to the other buildings on campus, the dormitories have only a single entrance. However, one can understand the architect‟s choice of compromising accessibility for the sake of achieving high security levels to fulfill the users‟ needs. The division of the spaces inside the complex also promoted privacy as well as comfort by the extensive use of entrances defining different spaces according to their level of privacy; the entrance to the women‟s dormitories on the left totally separates it from the common area and then men‟s dormitories, and as one enters through the women‟s dorms the feeling of another separate „individual‟ community is predominant to the user through the common spaces available inside, then the entrance to each single unit again gives the sense of individuality and connection to the space, subsequently the allocation of rooms inside the units is considering the privacy of the residents. The well-chosen option of 20

lowering the level of the courtyards hence elevating the ground floor view, all helped promote the sense of belonging through accentuating privacy and visual comfort for those accommodated in the ground floor rooms that overlook the open space outside.

Many factors have been taken into consideration when deciding on the content of each unit module. The plans of each room inside the units were, in terms of design, coherently read, which conforms to one of the main criteria of modern design. By using clean, sharp forms (rectangular) the architect strengthened the modern elements implemented.

Through using those kinds of forms, the architects succeeded in promoting another very important element to the users; „flexibility‟. In fact this sub-keyword wasn‟t only promoted in the interior design of the units only, but also in the common area as one enters the complex, the choice of a rhombus form in the common area was done for a clear purpose, that we haven‟t acknowledged on our own but through the users‟ comments; as Ahmed Sherif and Mahmoud Fathy, residents in the complex stated. They have pointed out how they are allowed to move furniture inside spaces as they please, directly lifting their sense of belonging to the space. Later when we analyzed how much allowance does this rhombus format give the user in terms of geometry (dimensions of walls), we concluded that the common room is spacious and would definitely allow alterations to occur. Shifting back to the interior of the rooms, one could say that the choice of sharp edged forms helped in the „order’ and organization of the spaces within the units; the appearance of a module again persists inside each unit by having a certain template distributed; each four bedrooms are connected by one lounge and two bathrooms with their own lobby, which is, technically speaking, a division that one would most likely see in a private house, where the average sized house has 2-3 bedrooms and 21

one bathroom with a public area, including a living room, dining room and a kitchen. The very similar distribution of spaces inside the units gives a strong sense of belonging and feeling of home to the users.

The L-shaped organization of the units, as mentioned earlier, is a great way of encouraging socialization, it gives more options for “bounded” spaces for socialization, by having courts that are inviting. By comparison, having a rectangular space wouldn‟t have achieved the same effect, since the space is static and identical from all sides, and thus does not promote any particular shaded or social area that would fulfill the sense of community desired in the residential dorms. Moreover, repeating the same cluster of units (l-shape + square) while orienting them and offsetting them in different ways throughout the site shows how the architects have achieved the concept of standardization of parts suiting the modern movement. By having these sets of modules, they have succeeded in emphasizing the organization of the units together, as well as the relation between the spaces within the units themselves.

Another remarkable feature in the organization of the spaces is the location of the common area: it is basically centered and forms a connection between the men‟s units and the women‟s units, and thus shows how the union between the two genders is important and crucial to the well-being of a community. Those common spaces were deliberately designed to be universal spaces. The modern movement was initiated at the time of the post World War II so that the context of war left behind many psychological defects to the people of the countries affected, one of which is the sense of enclosure. The movement actually was brought about to transform the limited vision of architecture at this era to one of a boundless, unified style shifting the vision to a wider scope and using 22

open universal spaces instead of the enclosed ones. Legorreta, the dormitory architect, chose to organize the building blocks and units of the dorms around courtyards thereby using a repeated element of the campus and of the old Cairo architecture as one of the driving forces of the campus architecture to establish this universal spacing, As a consequence, he related the dorms to its surrounding and created harmony within the campus complex.Through the use of the universal, open spaces as common area the architect made the spaces more attractive to the students than enclosed spaces would be.

In addition, the architectural language used by the architects to represent the concept and idea of village is clear; they have successfully done so by a constant gradation of spaces that reflects and emphasizes the feeling of community in the area. In fact, the whole complex of the dorms is carefully ordered around a main plaza, which acts as some sort of vestibule to the different areas. This open space then leads to a transitional one, which is the portico (colonnade) that is followed by the common spaces of the residents (computing rooms, lounge, study rooms, etc.‌.) and then one is guided by the passageway to find the units themselves organized around courtyards that also mark a transitional area between the common and the private zones. Although the architects put a lot of effort in the relation and gradation of the spaces to reach this sense of community, there is however a major issue concerning the pathway going through the complex; it is located in such a way that it is impossible for someone to reach any area (whether inside or outside the dorms complex) without passing by a social area like open courtyards and common spaces. This attempt to promote interaction and create an atmosphere of socialization is again consistent with the concept of community, but the problem we found was that the users disliked the fact that they should always not only 23

pass by a social area filled with crowds, but also take a longer route that sometimes goes around the units themselves just to reach a relatively close destination5. As a result, the students have resorted to creating a shortcut themselves, which includes having to cross a deserted area of the complex; thus, it can be said that the promotion of interaction within the spaces should have also been compensated with the opportunity to choose between different types of routes, that, according to the circumstance, would fulfill the needs and desires of the user in passing by either a common area or simply a regular space.

Figure 17- Interior of the rooms

Moreover, the sense of community is not only achieved through the organization of the spaces together as a whole complex, but also in their proximity relationship in each unit plan. The emphasis on having a direct connection between the common room and the courtyard of each unit (common room directly opening onto the outdoor area in plan) reflects the importance given by the designer to the idea of creating a social gathering and community atmosphere between the units. The same concept of promotion of socialization and interaction is even seen within the plan of each unit; having four bedrooms connected to one lobby facilitates the communication between the users and thus provides them with more opportunities to socialize and feel more in a community environment. The openness of the indoor and outdoor public spaces is a major element 5

As concluded from responses of Interviews conducted.

24

contributing to the modernistic image of the complex. Having the kitchen open on to the living and dining area shows the universality of this space, since there are no fixed walls bounding the different functional areas, and thus reflects the modern values and theories that guided the design of the spaces.

The design of the dorms also contains several drawbacks in various aspects of the design.

The extensive use of courts in the dormitory creates a certain confusion and distortion to the user. As mentioned above, the courtyards were implemented as a primary tool to promote interaction and the spirit of community to achieve the keyword sense of community. However, when we visited the building ourselves, we soon noticed the excessive number of courts within the building complex. So as a new student to the campus with not many acquaintance, a person would be confused as to which court to use for social interaction and where to sit. As a result, students have grown accustomed to gathering in their living rooms with their close friends rather than in the court to meet new and other people. Therefore, the extensive use of courts although trying to fulfil one of the keywords has become a drawback for the design.

25

This problem can be improved and modified through replacing the several courtyards in the womenâ€&#x;s dorms with one main courtyards that combine all the units. However, these canâ€&#x;t be organized systematically or symmetric around the courtyard but they must still include the factors of climate etc., which are successfully included in the current layout.

All the units of the womenâ€&#x;s dorms are connected with the entrance through one passageway passing around all the courtyards as indicated by the red arrow below.

26

Unit 11

This would mean for a user in unit 11, she would have to walk around the whole courtyard and then pass through another one to reach only the entrance to the womenâ€&#x;s dorms. To reach the unit left of unit 11, the students would have to pass around the courtyard and through another adjacent court to reach the neighbouring unit.

As a result it would be a lot easier for students to cross the court inbetween both units as indicated by the green arrow, which according to student interview is actually the case.

However, at the moment this area between the two units is not a planted or covered with tiles but it is simply a deserted land. So according to student interviews, they use a short cut through deserted land rather than taking the given finished route.

27

Therefore, although he architect chose to create one passageway linking the units and going through the courts and common spaces so that a student could meet acquaintance and socialize or to promote interaction, this was not properly achieved. The students creating short cuts through desert land rather than taking the passageway shows a weakness and drawback in that aspect. The architect could have done small passageways alongside the main one to connect the units and replace the short cuts done by students.

Taking the court indicated above by the circle one discovers another drawback.

28

As seen in the pictures of the court it does not have any seating elements or aspects facilitating interaction. The court seems more like a passageway than a meeting point for community activities. Anyone sitting there will always be disturbed by any student passing by through the main passageway so that the place will hardly be used to interact and get a sense of community. In that sense, this space failed to deliver and facilitate achieving a sense of community within the dorms. Therefore, such a space needs to be replaced by a more private area or area dedicated to promoting community gatherings, socialization and getting to know ones neighbours.

Finally, looking at the detailed plans of the apartments and units there is a major drawback in the ground floor.

29

As seen above, the plan of the unit contains of four rooms are connected by a private foyer with an entrance from the corridor. The four bedrooms share one bathroom, which also has an entrance from the private foyer combining the bedrooms. However, it is noticeable that the bathroom has a second entrance from the corridor that raises doubt.

Since the bathroom has an access from the private foyer connecting it to the bedrooms, the second entrance seems to be dedicated to the users sitting in the open space or court at the entrance to the corridor of the unit. However, this would mean that the private bathrooms of the students can also be used by any user sitting in the court or the common space at the end of the corridor. This on the other hand doesnâ€&#x;t promote privacy in the bathroom for the users of those bedrooms and therefore contradict with the keyword feeling at home. When the private bathroom can also be used by other students and strangers, this reduces the feeling of home since privacy within the bathroom is a main component for the home.

30

Drawback

Proposal

Extensive use of courts

One main court with the units around it

Long passageway connecting the units with

Creating smaller passageways along side

the entrance of the dorms and the common the main one to prohibit the short cuts spaces

developed by the students

Common place more of a passageway than Giving the court a certain degree of privacy a space to promote interaction and a sense and of community

facilitating

interaction

between

students

Private bathroom for the bedrooms of the Closing the entrance to the bathroom from ground floor has two entrances; one the corridor and putting only one entrance serving the users in the court giving the from the private foyer of the bedrooms bathroom thereby no privacy

31

3D- Presentation: Before: Women’s Dormitories

Men’s Dormitories

Central Common Area

After:

Common Space II

Common Space

Central Common Area

32

Perspectives

33

Conclusion The design was mainly influenced by the modern movement architecture through implementing components such as universal spacing, straight lines, and the standardization of parts (units are organized in modules). However, one of the main concepts of modern movement was to turn away from tradition and focus on the future; this was partly not respected by the architects of the dorms through the implementation of courtyards and mashrabeyas, etc‌ which are traditional features of the Mediterranean and old Cairo architecture. Nevertheless, this use of traditional elements can be justified by the general aim of the architect to create harmony and integration of the dorms with the architecture of the campus as a whole.

34