An evaluation of the settlement patterns in campus planning with regard to the criteria of accessibility
Zengel, Rengin
An evaluation of the settlement patterns in campus planning with regard to the criteria of accessibility Rengin Zengel; Supervisor: Atilla Cimcoz - İzmir Dokuz Eylül University 1998 - 276 p. table 30.5 cm
Includes appendices (224-276 p.) Includes references.(216-223 p.)
Chapter One INTRODUCTION A General Framework 1 Aim of the Study 1 Method of Study 3 Definition of University 5 Mass Education 7 Continual Education 7 Elite Education 7 Interdisciplinary Flexible Programs 8 Standardization And Accreditation 8 Advanced Technologies/Remote Education 8 Directed and Organized Basic Research 8 Historical Evaluation of University Education in the World 9 Effects CIAM Congress and Team 10(X) ON University Patterns 13 Historical Evolution of Higher Education in Turkey 15 Provincial Universities 20 Sub - Regional and Regional Universities 20 Metropolitan Universities 21 Methodology of University Planning 22 Theoretical Scale 22 Planning Scale 23 Design Scale 24 Chapter Two DETERMINATION OF PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESSIBILITY CRITERIA FOR UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES Determination of Planning, Design and Accessibility criteria for University Campuses 26 Planning Criteria 26 Locational Aspects 26 Cultural Aspects 27 Financial Potentials 27 Population Criteria 28 Education Criteria 28 Traffic Segregation 30 Relationships Between City and Industries 31 Flexibility Criteria 31 Campus Growth Models 32 Micro Growth Model 33 Micro Growth Model 33 Design Criteria 37 Determination of the User Groups 37 Determination of the Major Zones 38 Determination of Primary and Interdisciplinary Relations between the Major Zones 39 Accessibility Criteria 43 Physical Control of the Campus 43 The Meaning of Open Spaces for Pedestrians in Campus Settlements 47 Determination of Primary Pedestrian Axes of a Given Site 52 The Meaning of Accessibility Criteria on Campus Design 54 Accessibility Criteria for Students 54 Accessibility Criteria for Academics Staff 55 Accessibility criteria for Recreational Facilities 57 Four Major Accessibility Criteria on Campus Design 59 Chapter Three COMPARISON OF CAMPUS PATTERNS WITH CITY MODELS Comparison of Campus Pattern with City Model 72 Molecular Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements 72 Satellite City Model 74 Example of a Molecular Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements University of York 75 Centralized Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements 78 The Star City Model 82 Example of a Radial Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements Temasek Polytechnic 84 Linear Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements 86 Linear City Model 92 Example of Linear Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements/ 93 University of Surrey 93 University of Bath 96 Grid Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements 99 The Rectangular Grid City Model 99 Example of a grid Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements University of Loughborough 100 Scattered Type of Expansion in Campus Settlement 102 Scattered (Irregular)City Models 102 The Baroque Axial Network Model 102 The Lacework City Model 103 Example of Scattered Type of Expansion in Campus Settlement/University of Leeds 104 Mega-structure Grouping Campus Settlements 106 Mega - Structure City Model (A Proposed Model) 106 Trihex Grid City Model (A Proposed Model) 107 Example of a Mega-structural Grouping in Campus Settlements/ Lethbridge University 107 Horizontal Grouping in Campus Settlements 109 Example of Horizontal Grouping in Campus Settlements/University City of Mexico 110 Vertical Grouping in Campus Settlements 114 Example of Vertical Grouping in Campus Settlements / Tougaloo University 114 Chapter Four A SURVEY OF EXISTING TURKISH UNIVERSITIES Method Employed on the Survey 119 Evaluation of the Survey Questionnaires From Question 1 to Question 5 120 Question 1: The Organisation of the Faculty Buildings in the University 121 Question 2: Type of the Educational Hinterland the University is Located 121 Question 3: The Present Student Population of the University 125 Question 4:Numbers of Staff in Turkish Universities 128 Question 5: Numbers of Academics Institutions in the Universities 132 Evaluation of the Survey Questions from Question 6 to Question 14 136 Question 6:Type of the campus pattern Adapted for the eixsting or Proposed Campus Site of the University 136 Question 7: Existing Conditions of the University Campus on the Requirement of Accessibility Distances for a Pedestrian between Center and the Farthest Edge in Less Than 10-15 Minutes Walking Period 137 Question 8:Total Space of the Existing or Proposed Major Campus Site 141 Question 9:Accessibility Possibilities between the City and the Campus Site 144 Question 10:Most Dominant Circulation Network within the University Campus 146 Question 11: Degrees of Traffic Segregation within Each Circulation Network of the Evaluated Campuses 148 Question 12: Location of the Socialization Centers of the University Either inside or Outside the Campus Site 152 Question 13: Location of the Dormitory Buildings in the Major Campus Site 156 Question 14: Location of the Library Halls in the Major Campus Site of the University 161 General Results of the Survey Study 164 Chapter Five EVALUATION OF THE AEGEAN UNIVERSITY AS A CASE STUDY Case Study : Aegean University 170 Definition of a Case Study 170 Method Employed on the Case Study 172 Evaluation of the Existing Conditions of the Aegean University 172 A Redevelopment Project for the Aegean University 174 Proposed Network for Campus Circulation 177 Proposed Pedestrian Bridges 180 Pedestrian Bridges 182 Conversion of the Academics Programs 184 New Building Proposals for the Existing Plan 187 An idealized Scheme for the Existing Academic Program 193 Chapter Six CONCLUSIONS Conclusions 199 A New Higher Education Policy 199 Alternative University Models 200 Compact Nucleated Structures with An Axial Order 205 The organisation of the Major Groups of Functions and Their Repetition for Ideal Campus Settlements 207 References Appendices
' ABSTRACT Higher Eucation Councils are the most efficient institutions for the rapid progress of nations on international platforms.They are the leading institutions on developmant of the countries on science and technology.Turkish Higher Education Council,which give service on diffrent parts of the country since the establishment of Turkish Goverment is supported by the new changes on the laws after 1992.Following that year there has been a definite increase on the numbers of established universities there has been inflation on universty planning process. Consequently during this re-construction period of Turkish Higher Education System some problems are met by the user group of the newly built university campuses.The most comeaccrossed problem on campus planning in the recent years seems that the universities do not perform a definite unity in their campus settlements.Instead of collecting all the academic programs a certain university under a major campus site,most of the universities have distributed their academic programs into minor campuses that are separated from each other. Besides that,when the major groups of functions such as resting-feeding-socializing and learning are not designed under a major campus site and they are socializing and learning are not designed under major campus site and they are separated from each other,then the basis of the 24-hour university concept cannor be obtained.Because of this situation the present trend on establishing scattered campuses for a proposed university should be investigated from the begining and alternative university models should be developed for these problematic universities. On the contrary,among the existing Turkish University that are established under a major campus site most of them,either related to their selected campus pattern or to largeness of the selected campus site,are not used effectively as it is desired by the students.Generally these university campuses'development schemes are planned above the average walking distances of pedestrians.So,in most of their land-use palns the accessibilty distances between the major groups of functions and between the relative academic spaces usually exceed the defined average walking standards for pedestrians.As a result students have difficulties on the perception and orientation of the campus spaces.They cannot share with others easily,social unification does not occur and students lack of their social identities on belonging to a certain community. On behalf of these discussions made,it is required to analyze the design process of campus settlements in relation with the requirement of the campus users.It is tried to analyze the alternative models of various land-use plans on the basis of the accessibility in order to create livable campus enviroments. ÖZET Yüksek öğrenim kurumları toplumların biliçlenmesi açısından uluslararası platformdaki en önemli müesseselerdir.Ülkemizde yükseköğretime verilen değer özellikle 1992 yılında yasalarda yapılan yeni düzenlemelerle artmıştır.Üniversitelerimizin sayılarında kısa sürede belirgin bir artış olmuştur ve 1998 yılı itibariyle sayıları 72 ye yükselmiştir.Dolayısıyla bu sürade ciddi bir üniversite enflasyonu yaşanmıştır.Bu yapılanma döneminde tasarlanan üniversite kampüslerinde kullanıcılar tarafından bir takım sorunlarla karşılaşılmıştır.Buradaki en önemli problem özellikle son yıllarda tasarlanan üniversite kampüslerinde belirgin bir bütünlük görülmemesidir.Aynı üniversiteye ait akademik mekanların farklı bölgelerdeki kampüslere dağıtılmış olması üniversite öğrencilerini belirli bir kampüse dolayısıyla,sosyal kimliğe sahip olma yoksun bırakmaktadır. Öte yanda bir üniversitede bulunması gereken ana foksiyon gruplarının bir başka deyişle yeme-uyuma-öğrenme-sosyokültürel ilişkileri geliştirme imkanlarının tek bir kampüs içinde çözülememiş olması öğrencilerin ihtiyacı olan 24-saatlik üniversite ortamını sağlayamamaktadır.Bu açıdan var olan bu dağınık kampüsleşme eğilimleri tekrar gözden geçirilmeli ve bu tür yaklaşımlara alternatif tasarım önerileri getirilmelidir. Bir ana kampüs alanı içinde tasarlanmış olan üniversitelerimizin çoğunluğunda ise gerek seçilen kampüs tipolojisinden gerekse uygulanan kampüsün büyüklüğünden kaynaklanan problemlerden dolayı bu kampüsler istenildiği gibi etkin kullanılamamaktadır.Genellikle bu üniveriste kampüslerinin gelişim şemaları yayaların ideal yürüme standartlarının çok üstünde planlanmıştır.Dolayısyla kampüs binalarının organizasyonunda fakültelerarası ve ana fonksiyon arasındaki mesafelerin ortalama yürüme standartlartlarına göre uzak olması akademik birimler arasında diyolog kopukluğu oluşturmaktadır.Kampüs alanları kullanıcılar tarafından kolay algılanabilir veya tanımlanabilir olamamaktadır.Böylelikle bir akademik çervedee paylaşılması gereken bilgi iletişimi ve sosyal bütünleşme istenilen düzeyde gerçekleştirilememektedir. Sonuç olarak yukarıda açıklanan tartışmalar ışığında,bu tez çalışmasında kampüs mekanlarının kullanıcıların ihtiyaçlarına bağlı olarak nasıl bir dağılım şeması ile biraraya gelebileğini,ve bunların hangi ulaşılabilirlik kriterlerine göre konumlanabileceğini araştırmak gereği duyulmuştur. '
Architecture
Bina tasarımı
Mimarlık
Building design
An evaluation of the settlement patterns in campus planning with regard to the criteria of accessibility Rengin Zengel; Supervisor: Atilla Cimcoz - İzmir Dokuz Eylül University 1998 - 276 p. table 30.5 cm
Includes appendices (224-276 p.) Includes references.(216-223 p.)
Chapter One INTRODUCTION A General Framework 1 Aim of the Study 1 Method of Study 3 Definition of University 5 Mass Education 7 Continual Education 7 Elite Education 7 Interdisciplinary Flexible Programs 8 Standardization And Accreditation 8 Advanced Technologies/Remote Education 8 Directed and Organized Basic Research 8 Historical Evaluation of University Education in the World 9 Effects CIAM Congress and Team 10(X) ON University Patterns 13 Historical Evolution of Higher Education in Turkey 15 Provincial Universities 20 Sub - Regional and Regional Universities 20 Metropolitan Universities 21 Methodology of University Planning 22 Theoretical Scale 22 Planning Scale 23 Design Scale 24 Chapter Two DETERMINATION OF PLANNING, DESIGN AND ACCESSIBILITY CRITERIA FOR UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES Determination of Planning, Design and Accessibility criteria for University Campuses 26 Planning Criteria 26 Locational Aspects 26 Cultural Aspects 27 Financial Potentials 27 Population Criteria 28 Education Criteria 28 Traffic Segregation 30 Relationships Between City and Industries 31 Flexibility Criteria 31 Campus Growth Models 32 Micro Growth Model 33 Micro Growth Model 33 Design Criteria 37 Determination of the User Groups 37 Determination of the Major Zones 38 Determination of Primary and Interdisciplinary Relations between the Major Zones 39 Accessibility Criteria 43 Physical Control of the Campus 43 The Meaning of Open Spaces for Pedestrians in Campus Settlements 47 Determination of Primary Pedestrian Axes of a Given Site 52 The Meaning of Accessibility Criteria on Campus Design 54 Accessibility Criteria for Students 54 Accessibility Criteria for Academics Staff 55 Accessibility criteria for Recreational Facilities 57 Four Major Accessibility Criteria on Campus Design 59 Chapter Three COMPARISON OF CAMPUS PATTERNS WITH CITY MODELS Comparison of Campus Pattern with City Model 72 Molecular Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements 72 Satellite City Model 74 Example of a Molecular Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements University of York 75 Centralized Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements 78 The Star City Model 82 Example of a Radial Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements Temasek Polytechnic 84 Linear Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements 86 Linear City Model 92 Example of Linear Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements/ 93 University of Surrey 93 University of Bath 96 Grid Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements 99 The Rectangular Grid City Model 99 Example of a grid Type of Expansion in Campus Settlements University of Loughborough 100 Scattered Type of Expansion in Campus Settlement 102 Scattered (Irregular)City Models 102 The Baroque Axial Network Model 102 The Lacework City Model 103 Example of Scattered Type of Expansion in Campus Settlement/University of Leeds 104 Mega-structure Grouping Campus Settlements 106 Mega - Structure City Model (A Proposed Model) 106 Trihex Grid City Model (A Proposed Model) 107 Example of a Mega-structural Grouping in Campus Settlements/ Lethbridge University 107 Horizontal Grouping in Campus Settlements 109 Example of Horizontal Grouping in Campus Settlements/University City of Mexico 110 Vertical Grouping in Campus Settlements 114 Example of Vertical Grouping in Campus Settlements / Tougaloo University 114 Chapter Four A SURVEY OF EXISTING TURKISH UNIVERSITIES Method Employed on the Survey 119 Evaluation of the Survey Questionnaires From Question 1 to Question 5 120 Question 1: The Organisation of the Faculty Buildings in the University 121 Question 2: Type of the Educational Hinterland the University is Located 121 Question 3: The Present Student Population of the University 125 Question 4:Numbers of Staff in Turkish Universities 128 Question 5: Numbers of Academics Institutions in the Universities 132 Evaluation of the Survey Questions from Question 6 to Question 14 136 Question 6:Type of the campus pattern Adapted for the eixsting or Proposed Campus Site of the University 136 Question 7: Existing Conditions of the University Campus on the Requirement of Accessibility Distances for a Pedestrian between Center and the Farthest Edge in Less Than 10-15 Minutes Walking Period 137 Question 8:Total Space of the Existing or Proposed Major Campus Site 141 Question 9:Accessibility Possibilities between the City and the Campus Site 144 Question 10:Most Dominant Circulation Network within the University Campus 146 Question 11: Degrees of Traffic Segregation within Each Circulation Network of the Evaluated Campuses 148 Question 12: Location of the Socialization Centers of the University Either inside or Outside the Campus Site 152 Question 13: Location of the Dormitory Buildings in the Major Campus Site 156 Question 14: Location of the Library Halls in the Major Campus Site of the University 161 General Results of the Survey Study 164 Chapter Five EVALUATION OF THE AEGEAN UNIVERSITY AS A CASE STUDY Case Study : Aegean University 170 Definition of a Case Study 170 Method Employed on the Case Study 172 Evaluation of the Existing Conditions of the Aegean University 172 A Redevelopment Project for the Aegean University 174 Proposed Network for Campus Circulation 177 Proposed Pedestrian Bridges 180 Pedestrian Bridges 182 Conversion of the Academics Programs 184 New Building Proposals for the Existing Plan 187 An idealized Scheme for the Existing Academic Program 193 Chapter Six CONCLUSIONS Conclusions 199 A New Higher Education Policy 199 Alternative University Models 200 Compact Nucleated Structures with An Axial Order 205 The organisation of the Major Groups of Functions and Their Repetition for Ideal Campus Settlements 207 References Appendices
' ABSTRACT Higher Eucation Councils are the most efficient institutions for the rapid progress of nations on international platforms.They are the leading institutions on developmant of the countries on science and technology.Turkish Higher Education Council,which give service on diffrent parts of the country since the establishment of Turkish Goverment is supported by the new changes on the laws after 1992.Following that year there has been a definite increase on the numbers of established universities there has been inflation on universty planning process. Consequently during this re-construction period of Turkish Higher Education System some problems are met by the user group of the newly built university campuses.The most comeaccrossed problem on campus planning in the recent years seems that the universities do not perform a definite unity in their campus settlements.Instead of collecting all the academic programs a certain university under a major campus site,most of the universities have distributed their academic programs into minor campuses that are separated from each other. Besides that,when the major groups of functions such as resting-feeding-socializing and learning are not designed under a major campus site and they are socializing and learning are not designed under major campus site and they are separated from each other,then the basis of the 24-hour university concept cannor be obtained.Because of this situation the present trend on establishing scattered campuses for a proposed university should be investigated from the begining and alternative university models should be developed for these problematic universities. On the contrary,among the existing Turkish University that are established under a major campus site most of them,either related to their selected campus pattern or to largeness of the selected campus site,are not used effectively as it is desired by the students.Generally these university campuses'development schemes are planned above the average walking distances of pedestrians.So,in most of their land-use palns the accessibilty distances between the major groups of functions and between the relative academic spaces usually exceed the defined average walking standards for pedestrians.As a result students have difficulties on the perception and orientation of the campus spaces.They cannot share with others easily,social unification does not occur and students lack of their social identities on belonging to a certain community. On behalf of these discussions made,it is required to analyze the design process of campus settlements in relation with the requirement of the campus users.It is tried to analyze the alternative models of various land-use plans on the basis of the accessibility in order to create livable campus enviroments. ÖZET Yüksek öğrenim kurumları toplumların biliçlenmesi açısından uluslararası platformdaki en önemli müesseselerdir.Ülkemizde yükseköğretime verilen değer özellikle 1992 yılında yasalarda yapılan yeni düzenlemelerle artmıştır.Üniversitelerimizin sayılarında kısa sürede belirgin bir artış olmuştur ve 1998 yılı itibariyle sayıları 72 ye yükselmiştir.Dolayısıyla bu sürade ciddi bir üniversite enflasyonu yaşanmıştır.Bu yapılanma döneminde tasarlanan üniversite kampüslerinde kullanıcılar tarafından bir takım sorunlarla karşılaşılmıştır.Buradaki en önemli problem özellikle son yıllarda tasarlanan üniversite kampüslerinde belirgin bir bütünlük görülmemesidir.Aynı üniversiteye ait akademik mekanların farklı bölgelerdeki kampüslere dağıtılmış olması üniversite öğrencilerini belirli bir kampüse dolayısıyla,sosyal kimliğe sahip olma yoksun bırakmaktadır. Öte yanda bir üniversitede bulunması gereken ana foksiyon gruplarının bir başka deyişle yeme-uyuma-öğrenme-sosyokültürel ilişkileri geliştirme imkanlarının tek bir kampüs içinde çözülememiş olması öğrencilerin ihtiyacı olan 24-saatlik üniversite ortamını sağlayamamaktadır.Bu açıdan var olan bu dağınık kampüsleşme eğilimleri tekrar gözden geçirilmeli ve bu tür yaklaşımlara alternatif tasarım önerileri getirilmelidir. Bir ana kampüs alanı içinde tasarlanmış olan üniversitelerimizin çoğunluğunda ise gerek seçilen kampüs tipolojisinden gerekse uygulanan kampüsün büyüklüğünden kaynaklanan problemlerden dolayı bu kampüsler istenildiği gibi etkin kullanılamamaktadır.Genellikle bu üniveriste kampüslerinin gelişim şemaları yayaların ideal yürüme standartlarının çok üstünde planlanmıştır.Dolayısyla kampüs binalarının organizasyonunda fakültelerarası ve ana fonksiyon arasındaki mesafelerin ortalama yürüme standartlartlarına göre uzak olması akademik birimler arasında diyolog kopukluğu oluşturmaktadır.Kampüs alanları kullanıcılar tarafından kolay algılanabilir veya tanımlanabilir olamamaktadır.Böylelikle bir akademik çervedee paylaşılması gereken bilgi iletişimi ve sosyal bütünleşme istenilen düzeyde gerçekleştirilememektedir. Sonuç olarak yukarıda açıklanan tartışmalar ışığında,bu tez çalışmasında kampüs mekanlarının kullanıcıların ihtiyaçlarına bağlı olarak nasıl bir dağılım şeması ile biraraya gelebileğini,ve bunların hangi ulaşılabilirlik kriterlerine göre konumlanabileceğini araştırmak gereği duyulmuştur. '
Architecture
Bina tasarımı
Mimarlık
Building design