Social Interaction in Campuses Open Spaces

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

The first thing I would like to do after finishing my dissertation is to thank god for the generosity, blessings, and giving me the power to finish it. Secondly Thanks to my tutors and all those who have contributed to the content, structure, and style of this book. Finally, I would like to thank my family. My great father and my lovely Mother, the biggest support in my life that helps me a lot to reach all my goals. Also, my brothers and sisters who believed in me and supported me. At the end many thanks to everyone who helped and inspired me on my journey.

CONTENTS: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Research Question 1.4. Research Structure 1.5. Abstract 1.5. Introduction 2. Physical elements of open spaces in Campus 2.1. Connectivity and Circulations 2.2. Types and numbers of activities 2.3. Edges and Gateways 2.4. Spaces 2.5. Lighting and Shading 2.6. Conclusion 3. social elements of open spaces in Campus 3.1. Types of social interaction 3.2. Group membership 3.3. Informal social centers on campus 3.4. Different Social Distances 3.5. Public participation 3.6. Conclusion 4. Campuses and city Universities 4.1. Campus universities 4.2. City universities 5. Case studies 5.1. Introduction 5.1. University of Greenwich (Main campus) 5.2. University of Greenwich (Avery Hill campus) 5.3. University college of London 5.4. King’s College London Guy’s Campus 6.

7.

8.

9.

9.

Conclusion References Figures list Bibliography Appendix

word count: 6485

8 9 10 12

18 23 23 26 33 33

38 39 39 42 42 43

46 46

50 51 64 76 88 104 108 110 111 113

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

8

1

How do open spaces affect social interaction between people and what are the main elements that affect social interaction and create more efficient spaces?

2

Which type of universities have better effects on social interaction of their students: campuses or city universities?

RESEARCH STRUCTURE

9

ABSTRACT

T

he main aim of this research is to show how important outdoor spaces are in terms of creating a better social life and increasing social interaction between the users of these spaces. The study will attempt to explain all the physical and the social elements of any campus space and then endeavour to show the relationship between these elements. After that, the study will detail the differences between city universities and campuses and prove that campuses are more efficient than city universities when it comes to increasing social interaction. The study for defining which type is better will be done on four case studies, two universities from each type trying to reach a conclusion to compare them.

11

INTRODUCTION

12

A

ccording to Cooper Marcus and Francis (1998) ‘‘outdoor spaces can enhance social interaction. People go to outdoor spaces because of their need for social interaction’’. Architecture now is not about form and design only, it is more about relationships and society. Everyone knows that parks, gardens and open public spaces are the places where we meet new people and interact with others, but directly after getting out of these spaces, people may find themselves in a different world with a lack of communication and interaction with others. That is why currently public spaces are one of the most important features of urban design.

Talking about social relations takes us to one of the most significant places for creating social relationships, which is university. University is a main starting point for adults to have some real relationships and interact with the world. Universities can be considered small communities or small cities.

They are places that provide for and improve social interaction for a rather large percentage of the community. Universities have a huge and main role in changing society to reach a better sustainable future (Waite, 2003, p.

86-87). Campuses are now considered main urban projects themselves that have a huge impact on cities. Sometimes campuses can even include rivers, forests, streets and agricultural lands. Furthermore, universities are highdensity institutes that consume a great deal of water, food, transportation, energy etc, which means the impact on the city is high. Campus outdoor areas are very important spaces that should not be designed or treated as leftover spaces that merely follow the buildings. Spaces should be designed taking into consideration all the details of the building: axis, security, and outdoor study space. Designing outdoor campus spaces should be treated on a par with other urban projects, which means that the users should be part of the project and be included in the decision-making process.

Furthermore, landscape architects should be involved in the project from the first moment of designing the campuses not just after completing them, because designing the space should be done by going through every one of the design phases of the project (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999).

13

PHYSICAL ELEMENTS OF OPEN SPACES IN CAMPUS

A

lmost 45% of first-year students do not discuss their ideas and problems from their classes with one of the faculty members outside the classroom. The teaching and learning at university is supposed to happen on the whole campus, not only in class. That is why academic institutions should start thinking more about investing more not only in classes but also in all the spaces, especially those outdoors, “More than 50% of student learning in college occurs outside the classroom. Even for academic coursework alone, although students may spend 44 to 48 hours per week on academic pursuits, they attend class only 12 to 16 hours per week� (Kenneg, and Dumont, 2005).

Moreover, most of the institutions have a plan and targets that support the view that the mission of the institution is not only concerned with the academic purposes. They also have the objective of helping students to improve and develop their social lives, acquire leadership skills and create their own personality. (Kenneg, and Dumont, 2005, p.38). In this part, the research will discuss the physical components of urban design that support the performance of the campus in being sustainable and efficient. The main dealing in this chapter is with the physical services that are afforded to those on the campus. The physical points are considered as the fundamental basis for achieving optimum levels of open spaces. These elements can be defined in 5 main points:

16

Fig(1): Studying Outside in Loyola Marymount University 17

2.1. Connectivity and Circulations:

The level of connectivity appears through the working of systems like streets, cycle routes and pathways, and how simple accessibility is so that users can reach whichever location they want.

According to Tresidder Definitions (2005): 1- Link: A path segment or street line that connect between two nodes.

A connection from a dead end to an intersection or between two intersections.

2- Node: The endpoint of a link 3- Real node: The link endpoint that connects to other links. In a simple way it is an intersection.

4- Dangle node: The link endpoint but there is no other connections. In a simple way it is a dead-end.

Dangle Node Real Node Link

18

The level of connectivity benefits of urban spaces can be classified into three levels (Stiles, 2013): 1- Environmental: Connectivity used as a connection for flora corridors.

Furthermore, it provides for the movement of air masses.

2- Helps to create easy and comfortable movement for the users.

3- Helps to create effective links between the spaces, and form a strong fabric that gives the sense of orientation when using the connection between the spaces.

Stiles (2013) states that the best connecting networks are those that allow its users to preferably reach their destinations on foot rather than using a car or other means of transport.

Here are the main Criteria for the circulation:

a- Pedestrian:

Pedestrian walkways are most important elements of any campus. The most successful design of any campus should include pedestrian walkways connecting the buildings rather than people having to use vehicles.

Furthermore, various points should be within 10 minutes’ walk with a speed of 5 to 6.5 km/h and a gradient of less than 4 % (Dober, 2000, p. 112-119).

Pedestrian walkways serve to connect buildings and spaces on campus.

Apart from their form and dimensions, they show and identify a direction and circulation flow. Pedestrian pathways organize the visual experience of the campus. There are some main points that help in organizing and designing the paths (Dober, 1992, p. 212): • There must be a proportion between the path and the number of users.

• The path should be clear - without obstacles.

• Secondary paths should be as important as main ones regarding the visual design because, ultimately, they are still part of the whole campus design.

• All the paths should be designed to be used by all types of users especially the disabled.

• Path designs should consider safety issues, including bicycles, and be easy accessible by emergency vehicles.

• Separate the pedestrian from the vehicular circulation and if there are intersections, they should be designed in a safe way.

19

b- Breezeways:

Breezeways or arcades are used as a strategy for dispersing the pedestrian pathways and providing an assortment of alternatives for getting around.

Furthermore, they create suitable indoor-outdoor connections that can suit diverse design typologies fig(2).

c- Cycling:

These days a few campuses are encouraging cycling in various ways; for instance: providing maps, showers and locker rooms, offering bicycle maintenance services on campus, giving bicycle safety classes and even money as a reward for using bicycle as a supportable strategy for transportation. Because cycling is a very important, healthy and environmentally friendly mode of transportation, it should be the second priority after pedestrians. Cycling paths can be divided into 3 main types (Dober, 1992, p. 141) fig (3): 1- Bike paths: These paths are designed only for bikes - no other type of transport can use them.

2- Bike lanes: part of the main road as a segment set aside from the road for bikes only, with a space like a car park on the side of the road.

3- Bike routes: in the same path as vehicles but separated by signs, striping or some other signalling device

Fig(2): Greenwich University (preezway example)

20

Bikeroute

Bikelane

Bikepath

Fig(3): Types of cycling paths

Fig(4): different type of paths in University of illinois

21

d- Vehicular:

This type of transport can have a negative influence, but at the same time can be very important, especially for emergency cases. Vehicles should be separated, making for minimum interaction with pedestrian and cycling paths. In order to separate pedestrian and vehicular paths there are two main methods (Queen’s University, 2013, p. 79-81): • Create the pedestrian path using various and resilient materials.

• More physical separation like walled seats, ornamental fences, bollards or hedges These are the main strategies for having a good connection between vehicular and pedestrian circulation: • Provide narrow roads which will lead to slower traffic movement and safe pedestrian paths.

• Provide parking on the street, which will also help towards slower traffic movement.

• Dense roundabouts are a bad choice if there are dense pedestrian spots.

• Provide wide sidewalks and suitable crosswalks as well as traffic controls As an example, in UNB Fredericton Campus they use a unique type of pillar beside the crosswalk to indicate that this area is for pedestrians to cross rather than using the normal signs fig (5-6).

Fig(5):Campus Street in UNB Fredericton

22

Fig(6):Section for Campus Street in UNB Fredericton

2.2. types and numbers of activities:

- The spaces must have different types of activities depends on the time of the year and time of the day to attract new users.

2.3. edges and gateways:

the design of the university should be reflected by its edges, and the gates should have a good level of safety and connectivity to the public spaces within the universities. sometimes the gate can be just a symbol to give the feeling for an entrance without having real walls, only to show the main traditional design fig(7), sometimes using some old local materials or keep an important historical gate as it is. fig(8).

Fig(7): Symbolic door reflecting the campus design - Indiana University

23

Fig(8): Christ Church College, Oxford

Gates is not only about form, it is also about design and function. It is very important to analyze the gate function for all normal and emergency cases.

For example, fig(9) an analyze for gate design depends on the function.

Pedestrians and Emergency Vehicles

Pedestrians with single Opening for Vehicles

Pedestrians with split Entry/Exit and Opening for Vehicles

Fig(9): Sketch by the Author for Gate Design analyze by Moshe Sfadie (1989).

25

2.4. Spaces:

Types of spaces can be categorized into two main parts: 1- Types with reference to the form of the space 2- Types with reference to the function of the space According to Dober, (2000), the form of the open space and how it is organized can be classified mainly in ten compositions like in Fig(10): Closed courts, open courts, pyramids, telescope, the T, the cross, avenues closed and open, unsymmetrical on two axes and line fig.

Types of the spaces dependent on functions can be divided into five types (Dober, 1992, p. 141): 1- Heritage space (primary) fig (11): An outdoor space for some campuses’ activities, rites, meetings, discussion and relaxation.

Furthermore, such spaces can be used for some outdoor classes if the weather is suitable.

2- Secondary spaces, fig (12): The difference between the primary and the secondary is not in size or design: it is in the expression of the space and which one has the greater visual impact in terms of the campus design.

3- Tertiary spaces, fig (14): Landscaped nooks and crannies or small outdoor areas that allow the students as individual or small groups to relax and interact.

4- Wetscapes, fig (13): Simply a space that is famous or known for using water, which can range from a small fountain to a huge lake.

5- Dryscapes, fig (15): This term is usually used for the landscape in arid areas.

6- Green spaces, fig (16): Simply a full green space containing different types of plants .

26

Closed courts

Open courts

The T

Avenues closed

Pyramids

The Cross

Telescope

Avenues open

Line Unsymmetrical on two axes

Fig(10): Different ideas for organizing open spaces (Dober,2000, p.162)

27

Fig(11): Heritage Spaces - Brown University

Fig(12): Courtyard (Secondary space) - London Business school

Fig(13): Wetscape - Cambridge University

Fig(14): Tertiary space - No Name college (Dober,2000, p.162)

Fig(15): Dryscape

Fig(16): Green space - Greenwich University

Defining the good space:

Defining the good space is one of the most important steps in understanding how to design a better space. In simple terms, there are 3 main factors to define a good urban space (Stiles, 2013, p. 13): 1- Environmental: - Improving climactic conditions - Noise decreasing - Supporting water saving systems 2- Social: - Provide suitable space for entertainment and activities - Create space that support and enhance social interaction - Create space that support interaction with nature 3- Structure and Function: - Dividing different spaces as well as connecting them and connecting the spaces with the surrounding area.

- Enhance the sense of space - Give the space an identity and concept Additionally, to further describe how to define the space there are some key criteria in the effective design of campus spaces (Capilano University, 2012, p. 31): • Space should be defined by buildings, plants or both; otherwise space will be weak.

• The proportions of the buildings, comparing them to space, where both should respect the human scale.

• The selection of materials and furniture has a huge effect on the effectiveness of campus design. Furthermore, there must be design criteria for using material and furniture in unity and harmony.

• The relationship between softscape and hardscape must be strong.

Furthermore, there must be variety in the open spaces and different types, such as private, semi-public, and public spaces.

32

Street furniture:

Outdoor furniture on campuses is one of the most important points which defines how efficient the space is because it is supposed to be used every day by the members. The furniture should be comfortable, attractive in appearance, functional, easily maintained, sufficient, and durable. So as to have designs that provide for a pleasant environment serving to increase social human interaction, the number of furniture items should be sufficient for the number of users. Furthermore, the furniture should cover all the spaces that are designed for social interaction. For example, there are focal points for designing furniture around the campus in Dalhousie University campus (Dalhousie University, 2010, p. 31): • Furniture should be readily visible and offer a clear path to the user without blocking their way.

• The design should be executed according to universal standards.

• Taking sustainability into account, the furniture providers should consider using local materials and technology.

2.5. Lighting and shading:

Lighting has a huge effect on the space and on the users. Furthermore, the amount of shading during the day will also strongly affect users of the space.

For better light distribution there are some criteria (Thompson & Sorvig, 2007, p. 293-307): • Using LED lights to decrease the price of electricity consumption.

• For walkways and parking areas it is better to use wall mounted lights.

• Using smart lighting systems that work according to usage.

• Using lights that work with PV, photocells or clocks or both for morenhighly efficient energy consumption

2.6. Conclusion:

Sustainability on campus focuses on providing elements for physical spaces and urban design that can enable the most efficient usage and the easy and safe compliance with different needs. Having these successful physical elements in place will give a strong base for high quality spaces and will give the first push towards increasing social interaction.

33

SOCIAL ELEMENTS OF OPEN SPACES IN CAMPUS

A

ccording to McKenzie ( 2004). “ A system of cultural relations in which the positive aspects of disparate cultures are valued and protected, and in which cultural integration is supported and promoted when it is desired by individuals and groups.” Thus, according to this statement, it is possible to say that creating good open spaces with physical qualities will lead to a better social life. Most of the time, architects, landscape architects and designers take into account the function of the place when planning and consider this to be the first and foremost element, yet the function will never work in a successful manner without taking into consideration social aspects. Social interactions are the power source for any space to create an active and live space and fulfill the function that the space was designed to serve. The space without strong social interaction within it is useless.

“The quality of campus is recognized by its sense of place and the activities occurring within it.” (Dober, 2000). Designing campuses social spaces should start from the fisrt step and first sketches in the design thinking about all the social aspects like the example in fig(17). This chapter will deal with the social aspect and how it will be affected by open spaces.

Circulation routes expansion specialized teaching space School nucleii general teaching space restaurant centres

activity centre group centre residential accommodation site boundary

Fig(17): Schematic diagram done for University of Bath

3.1. Types of social interaction:

Firstly, before discussing social interaction, it is important to understand the types of social interaction. According to Peter H. Mann (1954), social interactions are classified into three types: 1-Manifest interaction: This type transpires when a group of people or students have a fixed plan for meeting each other at a specific time to spend time together.

2-Latent interaction: It happens when two people who do not know each other meet and interact according to a necessity that comes up.

3-Spontaneous interaction: It is an unplanned interaction that happens by chance between people who know each other but without planning for such a meeting.

It is sometimes nigh on impossible to find a way in our current society that allows people to create friendships or lets people connect with each other but there are some design elements in the open spaces that can help to enhance opportunities for people to communicate more and create a comfortable environment for them to increase social interaction. Here are the main criteria for friendship formation in campus open areas: 1- Making action spaces visible from the edge of various parts of the open space.

2- Constructing more alternate walk ways and shortcuts that could lead to concentrated activity which upgrades social connectivity.

3- Creating walkways that meet and interact with zones of action could influence the users to take the position of an observer expanding the social association.

4- Providing spots that accommodate performances or are ready for performances or activities that encourage users to gather around.

38

5- The arrangement of seats by gates and adjacent to each of the available activities allows for the possibility of making various gatherings as necessary.

Making eye contact is the first point of any social interaction. Mostly this happen while walking down walkways where people can see each other and make first eye contact. That is why it is important to consider some main points when designing walkways to increase the interact along them; for instance: 1- Provide some small spaces for people to stand away from the pedestrian flow of the walkway.

2- Provide seats for rest and which should be out of the pedestrian flow area.

3.2. Group membership:

According to the studies done by Deasy & Lasswell (1985), in public spaces 71% of the groups only contains two members, there are 21% with 3 members, 6% with 4 members and 2% are groups with more members. So, according to this study, it is clear that people prefer to be in small groups which means this should be considered in designing public space and arranging the seats for small groups.

3.3. Informal social centers on campus:

On many occasions, students just find for themselves a place which is considered to be a main gathering area for groups. However, such places are sometimes not designed in terms of purpose as gathering areas - they could be outdoors, like under a big tree, near to the entrance of a building, on the stairs like fig(18), or next to some landmark or they could be related to studies like class corridors. These areas could create some serious problems when using the space if they are not planned to serve the purpose of what students are using them for. So, to create these areas in a better way, there are main criteri to consider(Deasy & Lasswell. 1985, p.98): 1- These areas should be linked to the main circulation system and if not then some important and attractive activity should be added to the area.

39

Fig(18): Informal social centers - Stairs

2- Mostly it is better to have these areas at crossroads or junctions with services that provide food.

3- These spaces should have seats and tables.

4- Having some shady areas.

3.4. Different Social Distances:

Mostly, in all cultures and societies, people would like to maintain a fixed distance between themselves and their surroundings. This distance can be different depending on the situation, interaction and how well people know each other. According to Deasy & Lasswell (1985, p.20-25), these distances can be placed into 3 categories: 1- Intimate distance: This is the shortest distance and it is from direct interaction to 18 inches away. This can be with family, lovers, children and very close friends.

2- Personal distance: This space is the normal space between all different types of people yet still mostly not for total strangers. The distance ranges from 1.5 to 4 feet.

3- Social distance: This distance for different public interaction that ranges from 4 feet to 12 feet. From 4 to 7 feet is considered less formal than the range from 7 to 12 feet. The more formal can be in meetings while the less formal, for example, includes working environments.

3.5. Public participation

Public participation and its impact:

“Plazas cannot be designed without the functional uses determined by the social groups who will use it.� (Hillier & Hanson, 1984). This statement can prove how important public participation is in the design of landscape.

People usually like the feeling of being part of any project which will give them the sensation of responsibility toward the project. This will help in the

42

development and protection of the design because, in this case, people will take care of the project and feel that they are part of the place. That is why it is very important to let the stakeholder be part of the decision making.

Public participation is the voluntary work that is done by users of the project to affect and influence the government or decision making body for a specific problem or some important point of view.

Types of public participation:

1- Charrette: this happen for a specific time only by number of stakeholders trying to help or explain some problem.

2- Workshops: Similar to Charrette because it last for a limited time only, but it is more focused on a topic: mostly some academic topic.

3- Public meetings: this type is helpful if people need approval for some decisions, but usually only a select number of the people present will talk while the rest could be silent.

4- Steering group: in this type, usually, there will be some kind of designer or design team or some leaders that meet each time to give recommendations and instructors to the group.

5- Community Forum: This is a meeting for community activities which will be held to discuss community issues.

3.6. Conclusion:

Understanding human actions and interacting with people will help the designer to access some physical elements and ideas that will lead to creating a standard that could be used in the design process to increase interaction and enhance social life in the public space and, in turn, create a healthier environment. Furthermore, it is obvious that a great deal of details have a huge impact on social life like seating, lighting and even walking distance.

43

CAMPUSES AND CITY UNIVERSITIES

44

4. Campuses and city Universities 4.1. Campus universities 4.2. City universities 4.3. Conclusion

45

N

owadays universities are divided mainly into two main types: campus universities and city universities. To understand the relation of social interaction with the type of university it is important to understand each type.

4.1. Campus universities:

Campuses is a term that is used to refer to universities that have all the services on site like, accommodation, research and teaching facilities, shops, gym, etc. According to Royal Holloway university of London (no date): “A campus university is the one that’s built across one site with student accommodation, teaching and research facilities as well as sport and leisure activities in close proximity to each other. Although typically situated within one location, some universities may be spread across a number of campus sites within a particular region or area.” Mainly, this type exists in suburban areas or at least not in the centre of the city because of the huge spaces that these institutes needs. Furthermore, usually this type has more green areas, open spaces, sports areas, outdoor teaching areas, etc. In campus students can get to know more about their university’s environment and feel safer. Students can feel a sense of community, since all the facilities are in one place, which means every student will be in the same place most of the time, which will help to make new friends and meet new people. Also having more green areas means more spaces to meet friends and participate in an activity. Furthermore, having green areas will create a more pleasant and healthier environment for the users. Another important point to mention is that having more outdoor space means that lots of activities and events can be engaged in which is a very important step towards increasing social interaction between students. Having more spaces can lead to better designs, including water features, which will create more landmarks and social spaces. The main goal of the campuses is to create a full community in which everything is walkable to serve the students and give them a pleasant and healthy environment for their educational life.

4.2. City universities:

According to Royal Holloway University of London (no date): “A city university is based within a major town/city with student accommodation, teaching and research facilities as well as sport and leisure activities spread across a central urban area. Therefore, the university can be located

46

across various parts of its home town/city either in the form of colleges or as separate academic and student buildings.” It is clear from the name “city universities” that this type is always inside the cities, in high-density areas with mostly small buildings. Because of the high density and the high price of lands in large cities, most of the time this type of universities will be small with less outdoor areas and more vertical floors. That means typical city life, such as higher pollution, less green areas and more noise. City universities have a huge lack of community sense because of the spreading out of the buildings. So, when comparing the two types of university, it is not only about social interaction but even about health. According to the research department, Arkin Mental Health Institute in Amsterdam 21% of the people who live in the city increased risk of anxiety disorders and 39% have the problem of increasing mood disorders. Furthermore, living in a city environment will double the chance of having an incidence of schizophrenia.

So, in this type there is a huge lack of landscape and “A campus without landscape is as likely as a circle without a circumference, an arch without a keystone, an ocean without water. Most campuses have significant acreage devoted to lawns, greens, and playfields. Areas between buildings have aesthetic, functional, and symbolic purposes which landscape defines and sustains. Landscape can serve as the skeleton for the overall campus plan, and the interior circulation systems such as walks and roads, as well as providing a background for subtle and finer grain landscape motifs.

The greenery includes the campus edges, gateways, gardens, arboretums, memorials, bell towers, fountains, outdoor sitting areas, signs, site furniture, and natural features on the site, including ponds, woodlands, and rock formations. These landscapes and plant material can abate noise, control dust, divert traffic, secure boundaries, afford privacy and be arranged for pleasure.” (Dober, 1992, p. 167-169). That quoted, this essay is not meant to discuss the negative health influences of living and studying in a city, but for social interaction there is a massive difference between the two types, and campuses have a better impact on social life for the students than city universities. In addition, the results of the case studies in the coming chapter will demonstrate and analyse in further detail the two types to provide a clearer view about which one of the two types is better for social interaction.

47

CASE STUDIES

5. Case studies 5.1. Introduction 5.1. University of Greenwich (Main campus) 5.2. University of Greenwich (Avery Hill campus) 5.3. University college of London 5.4. King’s College London Guy’s Campus 5.5. Conclusion

I

n this chapter there will be a full analysis of 4 case studies. All the case studies are from London, UK. Two of the case studies will be campus universities and two will be city universities. The results of the analysis of case studies will be from an analysis, observation, and a questionnaire that was carried out with many users of the space, trying to reach a result showing the differences between the two types to ascertain which type has more affect on the social interaction aspect of the students.

Results:

The average final grade for the case study according to the users and by taking the average of the questionnaire results. The number of the final evaluation will be a result from: 1- How many elements exist from the 10 elements in the check list 2- The users’ evaluation out of 10 3- The circulation average that was evaluated by the users.

4- For each part the results were calculated from taking an average number according to the results of the questionnaire.

5- The percentage of the green space also is translated to a result out of 10.

50

Greenwich University Background: Historically, the university dates back to November 1891, when it was one of the oldest polytechnics in the UK. It was in Woolwich, UK. Much later, in 1970, it merged with another polytechnic. In 1988 also, more polytechnics secured mergers with it. In 1992 the university was named Greenwich University and in 2001 the university left the old historical campus in Woolwich and moved to the current one in Greenwich

fig(19): Questionnaire sample The questionnaire was conducted with 12 females and 8 males.

1- Connectivity and Circulations:

fig(20): Type of transportation the users prefer

54

fig(21): Do the users consider their daily walk on campus tiring?

Check list fro the connectivity and circulation:

1- separate the car streets from pedestrian.....................................

2- cycling path ..............................................................................

3- breezeways ...............................................................................

campus space evaluated by the users (1 is the lowest - 10 is the highest)

55

fig(22): 3D sketch for all types of cirrculation in the site

fig(23): The percentage of the outdoor space from the total campus area

9

8

7

7

6

8

2 Clean

Distance

Entertainment

Seats

Shading

Green areas Handicap Design

Fig(24): Circulation marked by the users from different perspictive

2- Edges and gateways:

Checklist if the coming elements exist or not in the campuse: 1- Security guard 2- Cameras 3- Gates 4- Barrier

.......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

3- Parking:

Fig(25): Percentage of the parking space from the total space.

58

4- Space:

FIG(26): Types of spaces (Active space – Occasional active space).

Fig(27): The percentage of which space the users prefer:! outdoor or indoor?

59

Type of the space: Telescope

Fig(28): How users mark the quality of shading in the space

Checklist if the coming elements exist or not in the space:

1- Seats ..........................................................................

2- Water featurer .........................................................................

3- landmarks .........................................................................

Landmarks in the space:

Fig(29): types of landmarks according to the users?

60

Social Qualities

Fig(30): Which social space the users prefer?

61

Fig(31): The Percentage of Socially abandoned space from the total spaces?

62

Conclusion:

Fig(32): The final average evaluation is 7.5 out of 10

63

Greenwich University (Avery hill Campus)

Fig(33): Questionnaire sample The questionnaire was conducted with 12 females and 8 males.

1- Connectivity and Circulations:

Fig(34): Type of transportation the users prefer

66

Fig(35): Do the users consider their daily walk on campus tiring?

Checklist for existing elements for the connectivity and circulation:

1- separate the car streets from pedestrian.....................................

2- cycling path ..............................................................................

3- breezeways ...............................................................................

campus space evaluated by the users (1 is the lowest - 10 is the highest)

67

Fig(37): 3D sketch for all types of cirrculation in the site

Fig(36): The percentage of the outdoor space from the total campus area

8

9

8 5

5

Clean

Distance

Entertainment

Seats

Shading

Green areas Handicap Design

Fig(38): Circulation marked by the users from different perspictive

2- Edges and gateways:

Checklist if the coming elements exist or not in the campuse: 1- Security guard 2- Cameras 3- Gates 4- Barrier

.......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

3- Parking:

Fig(39): Percentage of the parking space from the total space.

70

9

7

4- Space:

Fig(40): Types of spaces (Active space – Occasional active space).

Fig(41): The percentage of which space the users prefer:! outdoor or indoor?

71

Type of the space: Pyramids

Fig(42): what users mark the quality of shaded spaces in the campus?

Checklist if the coming elements exist or not in the space:

1- Seats ..........................................................................

2- Water featurer .........................................................................

3- landmarks .........................................................................

Landmarks in the space:

Fig(43): types of landmarks according to the users?

72

Social Qualities

Fig(44): Which social space the users prefer?

73

Conclusion:

Fig(45): The final average evaluation is 8 out of 10

74

75

University College Background: The university was established on 11th February 1826. At that time it was called London University. From the time of its foundation, it was created to be a university, not a college or institute. After that, when University of London was established, it became a college and at that time the name of the university changed to University College

Fig(46): Questionnaire sample The questionnaire was conducted with 12 males and 8 females.

1- Connectivity and Circulations:

Fig(47): Type of transportation the users prefer

78

Fig(48): Do the users consider their daily walk on campus tiring?

Checklist for existing elements for the connectivity and circulation:

1- separate the car streets from pedestrian.....................................

2- cycling path ..............................................................................

3- breezeways ...............................................................................

campus space evaluate by the users (1 is the lowest - 10 is the highest)

79

Fig(49): The percentage of the outdoor space from the total campus area

Fig(50): 3D sketch for all types of cirrculation in the site

9

8

8

8

7

4

Clean

Distance

Entertainment

4

Seats

Shading

Green areas Handicap Design

Fig(51): Circulation marked by the users from different perspictive

2- Edges and gateways:

Checklist if the coming elements exist or not in the campuse: 1- Security guard 2- Cameras 3- Gates 4- Barrier

.......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

3- Parking:

Fig(52): Percentage of the parking space from the total space.

82

4- Space:

Fig(53): Types of spaces (Active space – Occasional active space).

Fig(54): The percentage of which space the users prefer:! outdoor or indoor?

83

Type of the space: Closed courts

FIG(55): what users mark the quality of shaded spaces in the campus?

Checklist if the coming elements exist or not in the space:

1- Seats ..........................................................................

2- Water featurer .........................................................................

3- landmarks .........................................................................

Landmarks in the space:

Fig(56): types of landmarks according to the users?

84

Social Qualities

Fig(57): Which social space the users prefer?

85

Conclusion:

Fig(58): The final average evaluation is 6.7 out of 10

86

87

King’s College London Guy’s Campus Background: The university was established in 1829 by King George IV. It is considered to be one of the oldest universities in England. King’s has 5 campuses and, as a case study, the research will be about King’s College London Guy’s Campus.

Fig(59): Questionnaire sample The questionnaire was conducted with 10 females and 10 males.

1- Connectivity and Circulations:

Fig(60): Type of transportation the users prefer

90

Fig(61): Do the users consider their daily walk on campus tiring?

Checklist for existing elements for the connectivity and circulation:

1- separate the car streets from pedestrian.....................................

2- cycling path ..............................................................................

3- breezeways ...............................................................................

campus space evaluate by the users (1 is the lowest - 10 is the highest)

91

Fig(62): The percentage of the outdoor space from the total campus area

Fig(63): 3D sketch for all types of cirrculation in the site

9

8

7 5

4

3

2 Clean

Distance

Entertainment

Seats

Shading

Green areas Handicap Design

Fig(64): Circulation marked by the users from different perspictive

2- Edges and gateways:

Checklist if the coming elements exist or not in the campuse: 1- Security guard 2- Cameras 3- Gates 4- Barrier

.......................................................................... ......................................................................... ......................................................................... .........................................................................

3- Parking:

Fig(65): Percentage of the parking space from the total space.

94

4- Space:

Fig(66): Types of spaces (Active space – Occasional active space).

FIG(67): The percentage of which space the users prefer:! outdoor or indoor?

95

Type of the space: Closed courts

FIG(68): what users mark the quality of shaded spaces in the campus?

Checklist if the coming elements exist or not in the space:

1- Seats ..........................................................................

2- Water featurer .........................................................................

3- landmarks .........................................................................

Landmarks in the space:

Fig(69): types of landmarks according to the users?

96

Social Qualities

Fig(70): Which social space the users prefer?

97

Conclusion:

Fig(71): The final average evaluation is 6.6 out of 10

98

99

according to the study, the analysis and the questionnaire for case studies, it is obvious that campus universities have a better effect on the social interaction. To conclude, the final results are clear as numbers in fig(72), fig(73), and fig(74) showing the difference in the evaluation for each one prooving that campuse universlity is more efficient.

100

Fig(72): The final average result for each element in each case study according to the questionnaire.

101

Fig(73): The final average result for each case study

102

Fig(74): The final average result for each university type

103

CONCLUSION

T

o sum up, it is clear that outdoor spaces of campuses are very important elements in the education level of the students and have a telling impact on their lives and their futures. It is not just some green space that happens to be between buildings. All the physical elements, rather than simply small or large ones, have a great effect on the social interaction of the users and are connected directly to the social elements of the space.

There is clearly a prominent link between them. To provide for better social interaction, it is very important to design the space in a very detailed way, taking into consideration all the small details like seating, lighting, walkways, shading devices, landmarks etc. After comparing the two types of universities and according to the analysis of the questionnaire and the 4 case studies, which were 2 campus universities and two city universities, the result shows that campus universities have a significant and more efficient effect on the social interaction of students than the city universities.

107

References 1- Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999, November 1). Communicating Behavioral Research to Campus Design: Factors Affecting the Perception and Use of Outdoor Spaces at the University of Jordan. Environment and Behavior, pp. 764-804.

2- C. Cooper Marcus, C. Francis. (1998). People Places: Design Guidelines for Urban Open Space. New York: John Willey &Sons.

3- Capilano University. (2012). Capilano University-Campus Conceptual Development Plan.

4- Dalhousie University. (2010). Dalhousie University- Campus Master Plan- Framework Plan.

5- Deasy, C. & Lasswell, T.E. (1985). Designing places for people. New York: The Whitney Library of Design.

6- Dober, R.P. (2000). Campus landscape functions, forms, features. John Wiley & Sons.

7- Dober, R. P. (1992). Campus Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 8- Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

9- Kenneg, D., Dumont, R. and Kenneg, G. (2005). mission and place Strengthening learning and community through campus design. USA: American Council on Education and praeger publishers, pp.35 - 49.

10- Mann, P.H. (1954). The Concept of Neighbourliness. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 163-168.

108

11- McKenzie, S. (2004). Social Sustainability: Towards some definitions.

Magill, South Australia: Hawke Research Institute – University of South Australia.

12- Queen’s University. Queen’s University Campus Plan 2002. Retrieved from Queen’s University Web site: http://www.queensu.ca/camplan/ reports/cplan02.html 13- Royal Holloway university of London. Online advertisement brochure. Retrieved from Royal Holloway university Web site: https://www.royalholloway.ac.uk/studyhere/guideforparents/home. aspx 14- Stiles, R. (2013). A Guideline for Making a Space- Joint Strategy Activity 3.3. Vienna: TU Wien.

15- Thompson, J. W., & Sorvig, K. (2007). Sustainable Landscape Construction: A Guide to Green Building Outdoors (2nd Edition).

Washington, DC, USA: Island Press.

16- Tresidder, M. (2005). Using GIS to Measure Connectivity: An Exploration of Issues Field Area Paper,School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland University.

17- Waite, P. S. (2003, March- May). Applying a Model of Sustainability on Cmapus. Planning for Higher Education, pp. 82-87.

109

Figures list: All the figures in this dissertation are done by the Author except: Fig (1): Kenneg, D., Dumont, R. and Kenneg, G. (2005). mission and place Strengthening learning and community through campus design.

USA: American Council on Education and praeger publishers, pp.38.

Fig (2): Constructionchat.co.uk. (2018). Greenwich University. [online] Available at: http://www.constructionchat.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/ Greenwich-uni-4.jpg [Accessed 27 Jan. 2018].

Fig (3): Dober, R. P. (1992). Campus Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fig (4): Dober, R. P. (1992). Campus Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fig (5): UNB Fredericton Campus Plan P.79 Fig (6): UNB Fredericton Campus Plan P.79 Fig (7): Indiana university (2018). [online] Available at: https:// ostromworkshop.indiana.edu/ [Accessed 27 Jan. 2018].

Fig (11): Dober, R. P. (1992). Campus Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fig (13): LifeBuzz. (2018). The 16 Most Beautiful College Campuses In The World. [online] Available at: http://www.lifebuzz.com/beautifuluniversities/ [Accessed 4 Jan. 2018].

Fig (14): Dober, R. P. (1992). Campus Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fig (15): Edgewoodslc.com. (2018). Landscape Construction | Edgewood Builder. [online] Available at: http://edgewoodslc.com/portfolio/ landscape-design/ [Accessed 27 Jan. 2018].

Fig (17): Dober, R. P. (1992). Campus Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fig (18): Dober, R. P. (1992). Campus Design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

110

Bibliography 1- Anon, (2009). planning for higher education, 37(2).

2- Anon, (2009). planning for higher education, 37(3).

3- Anon, (2009). planning for higher education, 37(4).

4- Campus Design Guidelines. (2018). California: University of California Riverside.

5- Dober, R. (1963). Campus Planning. USA: Reinhold publishing corporation.

6- Dober, Walquist and Harris (n.d.). University of Guelph, Long Range Development Plan, 1964.

7- Google Books. (2018). University Trends. [online] Available at: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=_y-DBAAAQBAJ&printsec=fro ntcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

8- Haidrani, L. (2018). University applications: campus vs city. [online] Telegraph.co.uk. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ universityeducation/student-life/10919646/University-applicationscampus-vs-city.html [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

9- Hajmirsadeghi, R., Shamsuddin, S. and Foroughi, A. (2014). The Relationship between Behavioral & Psychological Aspects of Design Factors and Social Interaction in Public Squares. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 140, pp.98-102.

10- Hajrasouliha, A. (2017). Campus score: Measuring university campus qualities. Landscape and Urban Planning, 158, pp.166-176.

11- Kcl.ac.uk. (2018). King’s College London - Our history. [online] Available at: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/lsm/about/history/index.aspx [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

111

12- King’s College London. (2018). The pros and cons of going to a city or a campus university. [online] Available at: https://thetab.com/ uk/kings/2017/03/13/city-vs-campus-universities-pros-cons-12809 [Accessed 16 Jan. 2018].

13- Peen, J., Schoevers, R., Beekman, A. and Dekker, J. (2010). The current status of urban-rural differences in psychiatric disorders. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 121(2), pp.84-93.

14- Perkin (1969). New Universities in the United Kingdom. lancaster: UNIVERSITY OF LANCASTER. 15- The Student Room. (2018). Campus vs City Universities? (pros/ cons). [online] Available at: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/ showthread.php?t=951486 [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

16- The Student Room. (2018). City and campus universities?. [online] Available at: https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread. php?t=1915747 [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

17- Times Higher Education (THE). (2018). Six trends in campus design. [online] Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/ features/six-trends-in-campus-design/2017412.article [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

18- UK University Search. (2018). A Campus Vs City University Experience: Which is Right for You?. [online] Available at: http://www. ukuniversitysearch.com/blog/a-campus-vs-city-university-experiencewhich-is-right-for-you [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

19- University of Greenwich. (2018). [online] Available at: http://www2. gre.ac.uk [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

20- welker, j. (1959). CAMPUS PLANNING. Manhattan.

21- www.padsforstudents.co.uk. (2018). Campus Life vs City Universities: Which To Choose? - Pads for Students Blog. [online] Available at: https://www.padsforstudents.co.uk/blog_article/campuslife-vs-city-universities-which-to-choose/ [Accessed 21 Jan. 2018].

112

Appendices Questionnaire

113