Kenyatta University Repository
Kenyatta University Institutional Repository is a digital archive that collects, preserves and disseminates scholarly outputs of the Institution
IMPORTANT LINKS
Communities in DSpace
Select a community to browse its collections.
Recent Submissions
Design of University Campus Student Hubs, Part three: Design Solutions
(Department of Architecture and Interior Design (DAID), School of Engineering and Architecture (SEA), Kenyatta University (KU), Nairobi, Kenya, 2026) Maringa, Paul Mwangi; Elnaggar, Rehab Hamdi; Makaguta, Noel Onyango; Kedogo, Joseph
The design process for architectural design studio project: student hub as a third place
A Hub for Minds in Motion
The aim of the design studio was to design a multifunctional student hub that fostered interaction, community-building, socialization, wellness and
wellbeing, academic support, and campus life engagement. The hub was to be user-cantered, climate-responsive, and functional, enhancing student life
by integrating academic, social, and wellness functions. Emphasis was to be placed on flexibility, accessibility, sustainability, student identity and
creating a strong sense of community within the campus, in sum, incorporating sustainable design strategies. In this way, the hub was act as a third
place outside the class and residence. This is in reference to the concept of a Third Place from Ray Oldenburg (1989)- The Great Good Place, referring
to spaces outside home (first place) and work/study (second place) where people gather, socialize, collaborate, and relax. As a consequence, the
learning objectives included strengthening spatial design skills to deal with real-life needs by responding to site-specific context and constraints and
user research and participatory design strategies. This was also to involve clear conceptual development from idea to form towards developing
sustainable and inclusive design strategies. Correspondingly, the Design Priorities were Inclusivity (to accommodate diverse student needs and
abilities); Flexibility (to adaptable spaces for different uses/times of day); Sustainability (to emphasise passive cooling, daylight use, water efficiency);
Community (to enhance student identity, sense of belonging) and finally the Context (to reflect the university’s character and local culture).
Processes, Phases and Deliverables
The prescribed project timelines were as follows:
• Week 1–2: Precedent studies, Site visit, analysis and mapping
• Week 3–4: Concept and Form development
• Week 5–6: Space programming, schematic design
• Week 7–10: Design development, presentation drawings & models
These timelines were more or less adhered to the students, the expected back and forth especially after design crits, pinups or discussions that
necessitated relooking at some steps.
As a consequence, the design process for designing the Student Hub as a Third Place followed a systematic sequence of stages that helped transform
the initial ideas into developed architectural proposals, following a structured design process that moves from understanding the problem to producing
optimum final solutions, that adequately respond to student needs, site conditions, functional requirements and more importantly bring out the desired
concepts and meanings. Therefore, the design process roughly and often cyclic with several iterations followed the steps as follows
Week 1–2: Precedent studies, site visit, analysis and mapping
Process No.01: Project Introduction, Understanding, Brief and Problem Definition
The purpose and meaning of the Student Hub were clarified, discussed and agreed upon. These activities in this stage included understanding what a
Third Place meant for students, understanding the purpose of the Student Hub, identifying the target users (students, staff, visitors), defining project
objectives and expectations and establishing the scope of the project. The students also identified and defined the key activities of the hub inclining
social interaction, relaxation, food and drink, refreshment, worship, events, exhibition, collaboration, and sometimes studying. Hence the outputs in this
stage were: The Project goals and objectives, the Design Brief, the key spatial requirements and the initial project statement, defining the "why," "what,"
and "who" of a project, outlining goals, target audience, scope, and key deliverables. The aim was to align and bridge to targeted user needs with the
proposed design solutions.
Process No. 02: Research Literature Review and Precedent Studies
The students researched on similar projects, theoretical concepts and background information relevant to student hubs with the aim of building
theoretical knowledge and design inspiration. The focus included characteristics of successful third places such as accessibility, comfort, flexibility and
inclusivity. The case study and precedent analyses focused on analysing existing student hubs and similar buildings to learn from real examples: spatial
organisation, functional zoning, circulation patterns, architectural form, material use and the relationship with outdoor spaces. The focus was on student
behaviour and campus life, informal learning environments, collaborative learning spaces and social spaces in universities. This involved the study
existing student hubs, learning commons, informal campus gathering spaces, community spaces student union buildings, social and collaborative spaces,
campus community interaction, community centres, student-centred and informal learning environments, both locally and internationally, as well as in
the present and in the past. As such the key activities at this stage included study of books, articles, and journals; review of review existing student hub
designs; and discussion with experts, students, and staff. Hence, the key expected out puts at this stage were a demonstration of conceptual
understanding of student spaces and key design principles, case study diagrams, strengths and weaknesses of precedents, and lessons learned leading to
design principles and key ideas that would inform the project.
Process No. 03: Site Analysis
The students examined and analysed the physical and social conditions of the project site. The key factors analysed included location within campus,
accessibility and circulation and pedestrian flow, climate (sun, wind, rain), topography, noise levels, activity zones, existing buildings and landscape, as
well as views and surrounding buildings. Some of the analysis tools employed were site maps, sun path diagrams, wind analysis, pedestrian flow
mapping, and circulation diagrams. The main output was the opportunities and constraints map that would guide to project to the end.
Process No. 04: User Analysis and Needs Assessment
The students sought to understand who will use the hub and how. This involved the use of surveys and questionnaires, interviews with students, staff
and visitors, as well as observation of campus activities. These included needs associated with quiet study spaces, group collaboration zones, social
gathering areas, event and activity zones, food and café spaces, individual study areas, indoor and outdoor relaxation spaces. The outputs included user
personas and profiles, user needs, activity patterns, activity diagrams, spatial needs list. More importantly the students were encouraged to look at the
user as themselves, asking themselves what space would meet their own individual needs in a ‘Third Place’, and then go ahead and design it.
Week 3–4: Concept and form development
Process No. 05: Space Programming or Program Development
The students translated the above user needs into architectural spaces and approximate sizes. For example, the need for informal interaction for 50
students at a time calls for a space called as social lounge of 100 square metres, and the need for group works calls for collaborative rooms among
others. Hence the out puts include space schedules, area requirements, and functional relationships.
Process No. 06: Concept Development
The students developed design ideas that expressed the Third-Place concept that incorporated their own personal views, outlooks and design
philosophies that would comprise the main central design ideas that would guide their projects to the end. The concepts focused on included
collaboration, connectivity, flexibility, community interaction, community/campus living room, Interactive learning environment, learning landscape,
open and flexible social hub, Indoor–outdoor social space. The tools used, which are the same as the outputs included concept sketches, diagrams, and
design statements, including conceptual drawings that incorporated all the previous processes.
Process No. 07: Spatial Organization and Zoning
The students organized the spaces according to activity types and levels. These included quiet zones for individual study, semi-active zones for
collaboration and group work, active/social zones for relaxation and interaction such as café and events, as well as private, semi-public and public
spaces. The tools and outputs included bubble diagrams, functional zoning diagrams, and circulation drawings among others.
Process No. 08: Form and Massing Development
The students translated the spatial ideas into building form and architectural expression. The key considerations included relationship and integration to
the site, landscape and context, building massing, the concept, openness and transparency, indoor–outdoor interaction, building orientation, natural
lighting, indoor–outdoor connections, ventilation and air movement among others. The tools and outputs were the massing models, form exploration
sketches, conceptual sections and 3D studies and 3D conceptual models.
Week 5–6: Space programming, schematic design
Design Development
In this stage the designs and the architecture were refined into more detailed architectural drawings. the focus was on utility, aesthetics, interior layout,
structure and structural systems, materials and façade design, landscape integration, environmental sustainability strategies, lighting and ventilation,
furniture and interior design. The typical tools, outputs and deliverables included floor plans, sections, elevations, detailed diagrams, 3D visualizations
and physical study models.
Week 7–10: Design development, presentation drawings & models
Process No. 10: Final Presentation
After several induvial desk crits, group crits, discussions, presentations and pinups, the students produced drawings that communicated the designs with
acceptable clarity and detail, that communicated satisfactorily the completed designs clearly and professionally. The tools and outputs included firstly a
presentation the outcomes of all the previous process such site analysis, needs assessments, concepts and others in a more distilled refined and concise
manner. Hence the deliverables were as follows:
• Site analysis and user research documentation
• Design concept statement and diagram
These were followed by the final outputs typically comprising design narratives explaining the concepts etc, site plan, master plan, floor plans, sections
and elevations, 3D renderings or visualizations, physical and digital models, design narrative and design reports. Hence the deliverables were as follows:
• Plans, sections, and elevations, landscape (to scale)
• 3D perspectives and renderings that showcase the interiors / digital or physical model
• Final presentation board and verbal presentation
• Technical Drawings/ Details: Develop technical drawings / construction details.
• Sustainability Plan: Outline sustainable design strategies and technologies incorporated into your project
• Presentation: A comprehensive presentation that communicates the whole journey
Evaluation Criteria for the final design included clarity of design concept, responsiveness to user needs, site and environmental integration, technical
resolution and creativity, graphic communication and presentation quality. Among several other principles, the design process and evaluation criteria was
generally guided by the Vitruvian Triad of ‘Firmitas, Utilitas, Venustas’ or Firmness, Commodity, and Delight; three core principles of architecture
defined by Vitruvius dictates that state that a structure must be strong, functional, and beautiful to be truly successful. Firstly, the structural integrity and
durability of a building was to be clearly demonstrated through a clear efficient practical and buildable structural system. Secondly, the design was to
serve its purpose effectively, be user-friendly, and with efficiency of space. Thirdly, the aesthetic quality, proportion, and visual harmony, was to provide
pleasure and emotional impact to the users.
In conclusion, while the design process followed the above ten sequential processes, the process was not liner by any means. There were numerous
overlaps and back and forth, with the designs having several iterations towards the improved final solutions. For example, several students we still
refining their concepts and forms in the Eighth week (week 8) even as they worked on design development, and final presentation drawings and models.
Importantly the student became more aware of the fact that Architectural Design is not a liner process following a straight programme, but a cyclical
iterative process that eventual moves towards more optimum and desired solutions for the problems at hand
Design of University Campus Student Hubs, Part 2: Site Analysis
(Department of Architecture and Interior Design (DAID), School of Engineering and Architecture (SEA), Kenyatta University (KU), Nairobi, Kenya, 2026) Maringa, Paul Mwangi; Elnagga, Rehab Hamdi; Makaguta, Noel Onyango; Kedogo, Joseph
The design process for architectural design studio project: student hub as a third place
A Hub for Minds in Motion
The aim of the design studio was to design a multifunctional student hub that fostered interaction, community-building, socialization, wellness and
wellbeing, academic support, and campus life engagement. The hub was to be user-cantered, climate-responsive, and functional, enhancing student life
by integrating academic, social, and wellness functions. Emphasis was to be placed on flexibility, accessibility, sustainability, student identity and
creating a strong sense of community within the campus, in sum, incorporating sustainable design strategies. In this way, the hub was act as a third
place outside the class and residence. This is in reference to the concept of a Third Place from Ray Oldenburg (1989)- The Great Good Place, referring
to spaces outside home (first place) and work/study (second place) where people gather, socialize, collaborate, and relax. As a consequence, the
learning objectives included strengthening spatial design skills to deal with real-life needs by responding to site-specific context and constraints and
user research and participatory design strategies. This was also to involve clear conceptual development from idea to form towards developing
sustainable and inclusive design strategies. Correspondingly, the Design Priorities were Inclusivity (to accommodate diverse student needs and
abilities); Flexibility (to adaptable spaces for different uses/times of day); Sustainability (to emphasise passive cooling, daylight use, water efficiency);
Community (to enhance student identity, sense of belonging) and finally the Context (to reflect the university’s character and local culture).
Processes, Phases and Deliverables
The prescribed project timelines were as follows:
• Week 1–2: Precedent studies, Site visit, analysis and mapping
• Week 3–4: Concept and Form development
• Week 5–6: Space programming, schematic design
• Week 7–10: Design development, presentation drawings & models
These timelines were more or less adhered to the students, the expected back and forth especially after design crits, pinups or discussions that
necessitated relooking at some steps.
As a consequence, the design process for designing the Student Hub as a Third Place followed a systematic sequence of stages that helped transform
the initial ideas into developed architectural proposals, following a structured design process that moves from understanding the problem to producing
optimum final solutions, that adequately respond to student needs, site conditions, functional requirements and more importantly bring out the desired
concepts and meanings. Therefore, the design process roughly and often cyclic with several iterations followed the steps as follows
Week 1–2: precedent studies, site visit, analysis and mapping
Process No.01: Project Introduction, Understanding, Brief and Problem Definition
The purpose and meaning of the Student Hub were clarified, discussed and agreed upon. These activities in this stage included understanding what a
Third Place meant for students, understanding the purpose of the Student Hub, identifying the target users (students, staff, visitors), defining project
objectives and expectations and establishing the scope of the project. The students also identified and defined the key activities of the hub inclining
social interaction, relaxation, food and drink, refreshment, worship, events, exhibition, collaboration, and sometimes studying. Hence the outputs in this
stage were: The Project goals and objectives, the Design Brief, the key spatial requirements and the initial project statement, defining the "why," "what,"
and "who" of a project, outlining goals, target audience, scope, and key deliverables. The aim was to align and bridge to targeted user needs with the
proposed design solutions.
Process No. 02: Research Literature Review and Precedent Studies
The students researched on similar projects, theoretical concepts and background information relevant to student hubs with the aim of building
theoretical knowledge and design inspiration. The focus included characteristics of successful third places such as accessibility, comfort, flexibility and
inclusivity. The case study and precedent analyses focused on analysing existing student hubs and similar buildings to learn from real examples: spatial
organisation, functional zoning, circulation patterns, architectural form, material use and the relationship with outdoor spaces. The focus was on student
behaviour and campus life, informal learning environments, collaborative learning spaces and social spaces in universities. This involved the study
existing student hubs, learning commons, informal campus gathering spaces, community spaces student union buildings, social and collaborative spaces,
campus community interaction, community centres, student-centred and informal learning environments, both locally and internationally, as well as in
the present and in the past. As such the key activities at this stage included study of books, articles, and journals; review of review existing student hub
designs; and discussion with experts, students, and staff. Hence, the key expected out puts at this stage were a demonstration of conceptual
understanding of student spaces and key design principles, case study diagrams, strengths and weaknesses of precedents, and lessons learned leading to
design principles and key ideas that would inform the project.
Process No. 03: Site Analysis
The students examined and analysed the physical and social conditions of the project site. The key factors analysed included location within campus,
accessibility and circulation and pedestrian flow, climate (sun, wind, rain), topography, noise levels, activity zones, existing buildings and landscape, as
well as views and surrounding buildings. Some of the analysis tools employed were site maps, sun path diagrams, wind analysis, pedestrian flow
mapping, and circulation diagrams. The main output was the opportunities and constraints map that would guide to project to the end.
Process No. 04: User Analysis and Needs Assessment
The students sought to understand who will use the hub and how. This involved the use of surveys and questionnaires, interviews with students, staff
and visitors, as well as observation of campus activities. These included needs associated with quiet study spaces, group collaboration zones, social
gathering areas, event and activity zones, food and café spaces, individual study areas, indoor and outdoor relaxation spaces. The outputs included user
personas and profiles, user needs, activity patterns, activity diagrams, spatial needs list. More importantly the students were encouraged to look at the
user as themselves, asking themselves what space would meet their own individual needs in a ‘Third Place’, and then go ahead and design it.
Week 3–4: concept and form development
Process No. 05: Space Programming or Program Development
The students translated the above user needs into architectural spaces and approximate sizes. For example, the need for informal interaction for 50
students at a time calls for a space called as social lounge of 100 square metres, and the need for group works calls for collaborative rooms among
others. Hence the out puts include space schedules, area requirements, and functional relationships.
Process No. 06: Concept Development
The students developed design ideas that expressed the Third-Place concept that incorporated their own personal views, outlooks and design
philosophies that would comprise the main central design ideas that would guide their projects to the end. The concepts focused on included
collaboration, connectivity, flexibility, community interaction, community/campus living room, Interactive learning environment, learning landscape,
open and flexible social hub, Indoor–outdoor social space. The tools used, which are the same as the outputs included concept sketches, diagrams, and
design statements, including conceptual drawings that incorporated all the previous processes.
Process No. 07: Spatial Organization and Zoning
The students organized the spaces according to activity types and levels. These included quiet zones for individual study, semi-active zones for
collaboration and group work, active/social zones for relaxation and interaction such as café and events, as well as private, semi-public and public
spaces. The tools and outputs included bubble diagrams, functional zoning diagrams, and circulation drawings among others.
Process No. 08: Form and Massing Development
The students translated the spatial ideas into building form and architectural expression. The key considerations included relationship and integration to
the site, landscape and context, building massing, the concept, openness and transparency, indoor–outdoor interaction, building orientation, natural
lighting, indoor–outdoor connections, ventilation and air movement among others. The tools and outputs were the massing models, form exploration
sketches, conceptual sections and 3D studies and 3D conceptual models.
Week 5–6: space programming, schematic design
Design Development
In this stage the designs and the architecture were refined into more detailed architectural drawings. the focus was on utility, aesthetics, interior layout,
structure and structural systems, materials and façade design, landscape integration, environmental sustainability strategies, lighting and ventilation,
furniture and interior design. The typical tools, outputs and deliverables included floor plans, sections, elevations, detailed diagrams, 3D visualizations
and physical study models.
Week 7–10: design development, presentation drawings & models
Process No. 10: Final Presentation
After several induvial desk crits, group crits, discussions, presentations and pinups, the students produced drawings that communicated the designs with
acceptable clarity and detail, that communicated satisfactorily the completed designs clearly and professionally. The tools and outputs included firstly a
presentation the outcomes of all the previous process such site analysis, needs assessments, concepts and others in a more distilled refined and concise
manner. Hence the deliverables were as follows:
• Site analysis and user research documentation
• Design concept statement and diagram
These were followed by the final outputs typically comprising design narratives explaining the concepts etc, site plan, master plan, floor plans, sections
and elevations, 3D renderings or visualizations, physical and digital models, design narrative and design reports. Hence the deliverables were as follows:
• Plans, sections, and elevations, landscape (to scale)
• 3D perspectives and renderings that showcase the interiors / digital or physical model
• Final presentation board and verbal presentation
• Technical Drawings/ Details: Develop technical drawings / construction details.
• Sustainability Plan: Outline sustainable design strategies and technologies incorporated into your project
• Presentation: A comprehensive presentation that communicates the whole journey
Evaluation Criteria for the final design included clarity of design concept, responsiveness to user needs, site and environmental integration, technical
resolution and creativity, graphic communication and presentation quality. Among several other principles, the design process and evaluation criteria was
generally guided by the Vitruvian Triad of ‘Firmitas, Utilitas, Venustas’ or Firmness, Commodity, and Delight; three core principles of architecture
defined by Vitruvius dictates that state that a structure must be strong, functional, and beautiful to be truly successful. Firstly, the structural integrity and
durability of a building was to be clearly demonstrated through a clear efficient practical and buildable structural system. Secondly, the design was to
serve its purpose effectively, be user-friendly, and with efficiency of space. Thirdly, the aesthetic quality, proportion, and visual harmony, was to provide
pleasure and emotional impact to the users.
In conclusion, while the design process followed the above ten sequential processes, the process was not liner by any means. There were numerous
overlaps and back and forth, with the designs having several iterations towards the improved final solutions. For example, several students we still
refining their concepts and forms in the Eighth week (week 8) even as they worked on design development, and final presentation drawings and models.
Importantly the student became more aware of the fact that Architectural Design is not a liner process following a straight programme, but a cyclical
iterative process that eventual moves towards more optimum and desired solutions for the problems at hand
Strategic positioning and sustainable competitive Advantage at postal corporation of Kenya, Nairobi City County
(Kenyatta University, 2025-04) Nyamai, Roda Muthoni
Postal Corporation of Kenya (PCK) operates within a rapidly evolving business landscape shaped by technological advancements, changing consumer demands, and global disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic. It faced challenges, including the decline in traditional mail volumes, financial losses that limited infrastructure investment, outdated infrastructure leading to inefficiencies and frequent customer complaints, regulatory issues, and workforce losses. The primary objective of this research was to evaluate how strategic market placement tactics affected the enduring competitive edge of the Postal Corporation of Kenya (PCK) within Nairobi City County. Specifically, it examined three key positioning strategies: the effects of information and communication technology (ICT) integration, digital commerce, and mixed work arrangements on long-term competitive superiority. The study's theoretical foundation rested on the Competitive Advantage Theory, the Resource Based Perspective, the Adaptable Business Framework, and the Technology Adoption Paradigm. A descriptive survey methodology was utilized, with a focus on managerial personnel at PCK's central office in Nairobi City County. The total population was 61, and due to its limited size, a comprehensive census was conducted, making the sample identical to the entire population. Data was collected through both digital and paperbased surveys and analyzed using correlational and multivariate regression methods. A preliminary survey, involving six PCK central office employees, was carried out to ascertain the tool's accuracy and consistency. Content and surface validity were assessed, and internal reliability was measured, with outcomes benchmarked against the Cronbach's alpha standard of 0.7 for an optimal instrument. The acquired data was interpreted using both descriptive and inferential statistics, and results were presented via visuals, including graphs, diagrams, and tables. The outcomes demonstrated the significance of strategic market positioning in fostering durable competitive advantage. The researcher offered recommendations to PCK and other entities aiming to strengthen their market stance in the digital age, emphasizing the importance of informed positioning approaches for sustained longevity and relevance in contemporary markets. Ultimately, the study concluded that the incorporation of ICT, electronic trade, and flexible work structures significantly contributes to PCK's competitive advantage. ICT improves operational efficiency, e-commerce expands market reach, and hybrid work boosts productivity and cost management. While digital transformation is essential, challenges in e-commerce adoption persist. The study recommends investing in ICT infrastructure, expanding e-commerce capabilities, adopting innovative payment solutions, and optimizing hybrid work models to strengthen competitiveness and ensure long-term sustainability
Design of University Campus Student Hubs, Part 1: Precedent Studies
(Department of Architecture and Interior Design (DAID), School of Engineering and Architecture (SEA), Kenyatta University (KU), Nairobi, Kenya, 2026) Maringa, Paul Mwangi; Elnaggar, Rehab Hamdi; Makagutu, Noel Onyango; Kedogo,Joseph
The design process for architectural design studio project: Student hub as a third place
A Hub for Minds in Motion
The aim of the design studio was to design a multifunctional student hub that fostered interaction, community-building, socialization, wellness and
wellbeing, academic support, and campus life engagement. The hub was to be user-cantered, climate-responsive, and functional, enhancing student life
by integrating academic, social, and wellness functions. Emphasis was to be placed on flexibility, accessibility, sustainability, student identity and
creating a strong sense of community within the campus, in sum, incorporating sustainable design strategies. In this way, the hub was act as a third
place outside the class and residence. This is in reference to the concept of a Third Place from Ray Oldenburg (1989)- The Great Good Place, referring
to spaces outside home (first place) and work/study (second place) where people gather, socialize, collaborate, and relax. As a consequence, the
learning objectives included strengthening spatial design skills to deal with real-life needs by responding to site-specific context and constraints and
user research and participatory design strategies. This was also to involve clear conceptual development from idea to form towards developing
sustainable and inclusive design strategies. Correspondingly, the Design Priorities were Inclusivity (to accommodate diverse student needs and
abilities); Flexibility (to adaptable spaces for different uses/times of day); Sustainability (to emphasise passive cooling, daylight use, water
efficiency); Community (to enhance student identity, sense of belonging) and finally the Context (to reflect the university’s character and local
culture).
Processes, Phases and Deliverables
The prescribed project timelines were as follows:
• Week 1–2: Precedent studies, Site visit, analysis and mapping
• Week 3–4: Concept and Form development
• Week 5–6: Space programming, schematic design
• Week 7–10: Design development, presentation drawings & models
These timelines were more or less adhered to the students, the expected back and forth especially after design crits, pinups or discussions that
necessitated relooking at some steps.
As a consequence, the design process for designing the Student Hub as a Third Place followed a systematic sequence of stages that helped transform
the initial ideas into developed architectural proposals, following a structured design process that moves from understanding the problem to producing
optimum final solutions, that adequately respond to student needs, site conditions, functional requirements and more importantly bring out the desired
concepts and meanings. Therefore, the design process roughly and often cyclic with several iterations followed the steps as follows
WEEK 1–2: Precedent studies, site visit, analysis and mapping
Process No.01: Project Introduction, Understanding, Brief and Problem Definition
The purpose and meaning of the Student Hub were clarified, discussed and agreed upon. These activities in this stage included understanding what a
Third Place meant for students, understanding the purpose of the Student Hub, identifying the target users (students, staff, visitors), defining project
objectives and expectations and establishing the scope of the project. The students also identified and defined the key activities of the hub inclining
social interaction, relaxation, food and drink, refreshment, worship, events, exhibition, collaboration, and sometimes studying. Hence the outputs in this
stage were: The Project goals and objectives, the Design Brief, the key spatial requirements and the initial project statement, defining the "why," "what,"
and "who" of a project, outlining goals, target audience, scope, and key deliverables. The aim was to align and bridge to targeted user needs with the
proposed design solutions.
Process No. 02: Research Literature Review and Precedent Studies
The students researched on similar projects, theoretical concepts and background information relevant to student hubs with the aim of building
theoretical knowledge and design inspiration. The focus included characteristics of successful third places such as accessibility, comfort, flexibility and
inclusivity. The case study and precedent analyses focused on analysing existing student hubs and similar buildings to learn from real examples: spatial
organisation, functional zoning, circulation patterns, architectural form, material use and the relationship with outdoor spaces. The focus was on student
behaviour and campus life, informal learning environments, collaborative learning spaces and social spaces in universities. This involved the study
existing student hubs, learning commons, informal campus gathering spaces, community spaces student union buildings, social and collaborative spaces,
campus community interaction, community centres, student-centred and informal learning environments, both locally and internationally, as well as in
the present and in the past. As such the key activities at this stage included study of books, articles, and journals; review of review existing student hub
designs; and discussion with experts, students, and staff. Hence, the key expected out puts at this stage were a demonstration of conceptual
understanding of student spaces and key design principles, case study diagrams, strengths and weaknesses of precedents, and lessons learned leading to
design principles and key ideas that would inform the project.
Process No. 03: Site Analysis
The students examined and analysed the physical and social conditions of the project site. The key factors analysed included location within campus,
accessibility and circulation and pedestrian flow, climate (sun, wind, rain), topography, noise levels, activity zones, existing buildings and landscape, as
well as views and surrounding buildings. Some of the analysis tools employed were site maps, sun path diagrams, wind analysis, pedestrian flow
mapping, and circulation diagrams. The main output was the opportunities and constraints map that would guide to project to the end.
Process No. 04: User Analysis and Needs Assessment
The students sought to understand who will use the hub and how. This involved the use of surveys and questionnaires, interviews with students, staff
and visitors, as well as observation of campus activities. These included needs associated with quiet study spaces, group collaboration zones, social
gathering areas, event and activity zones, food and café spaces, individual study areas, indoor and outdoor relaxation spaces. The outputs included user
personas and profiles, user needs, activity patterns, activity diagrams, spatial needs list. More importantly the students were encouraged to look at the
user as themselves, asking themselves what space would meet their own individual needs in a ‘Third Place’, and then go ahead and design it.
Week 3–4: concept and form development
Process No. 05: Space Programming or Program Development
The students translated the above user needs into architectural spaces and approximate sizes. For example, the need for informal interaction for 50
students at a time calls for a space called as social lounge of 100 square metres, and the need for group works calls for collaborative rooms among
others. Hence the out puts include space schedules, area requirements, and functional relationships.
Process No. 06: Concept Development
The students developed design ideas that expressed the Third-Place concept that incorporated their own personal views, outlooks and design
philosophies that would comprise the main central design ideas that would guide their projects to the end. The concepts focused on included
collaboration, connectivity, flexibility, community interaction, community/campus living room, Interactive learning environment, learning landscape,
open and flexible social hub, Indoor–outdoor social space. The tools used, which are the same as the outputs included concept sketches, diagrams, and
design statements, including conceptual drawings that incorporated all the previous processes.
Process No. 07: Spatial Organization and Zoning
The students organized the spaces according to activity types and levels. These included quiet zones for individual study, semi-active zones for
collaboration and group work, active/social zones for relaxation and interaction such as café and events, as well as private, semi-public and public
spaces. The tools and outputs included bubble diagrams, functional zoning diagrams, and circulation drawings among others.
Process No. 08: Form and Massing Development
The students translated the spatial ideas into building form and architectural expression. The key considerations included relationship and integration to
the site, landscape and context, building massing, the concept, openness and transparency, indoor–outdoor interaction, building orientation, natural
lighting, indoor–outdoor connections, ventilation and air movement among others. The tools and outputs were the massing models, form exploration
sketches, conceptual sections and 3D studies and 3D conceptual models.
Week 5–6: space programming, schematic design
Design Development
In this stage the designs and the architecture were refined into more detailed architectural drawings. the focus was on utility, aesthetics, interior layout,
structure and structural systems, materials and façade design, landscape integration, environmental sustainability strategies, lighting and ventilation,
furniture and interior design. The typical tools, outputs and deliverables included floor plans, sections, elevations, detailed diagrams, 3D visualizations
and physical study models.
Week 7–10: design development, presentation drawings & models
Process No. 10: Final Presentation
After several induvial desk crits, group crits, discussions, presentations and pinups, the students produced drawings that communicated the designs with
acceptable clarity and detail, that communicated satisfactorily the completed designs clearly and professionally. The tools and outputs included firstly a
presentation the outcomes of all the previous process such site analysis, needs assessments, concepts and others in a more distilled refined and concise
manner. Hence the deliverables were as follows:
• Site analysis and user research documentation
• Design concept statement and diagram
These were followed by the final outputs typically comprising design narratives explaining the concepts etc, site plan, master plan, floor plans, sections
and elevations, 3D renderings or visualizations, physical and digital models, design narrative and design reports. Hence the deliverables were as follows:
• Plans, sections, and elevations, landscape (to scale)
• 3D perspectives and renderings that showcase the interiors / digital or physical model
• Final presentation board and verbal presentation
• Technical Drawings/ Details: Develop technical drawings / construction details.
• Sustainability Plan: Outline sustainable design strategies and technologies incorporated into your project
• Presentation: A comprehensive presentation that communicates the whole journey
Evaluation Criteria for the final design included clarity of design concept, responsiveness to user needs, site and environmental integration, technical
resolution and creativity, graphic communication and presentation quality. Among several other principles, the design process and evaluation criteria was
generally guided by the Vitruvian Triad of ‘Firmitas, Utilitas, Venustas’ or Firmness, Commodity, and Delight; three core principles of architecture
defined by Vitruvius dictates that state that a structure must be strong, functional, and beautiful to be truly successful. Firstly, the structural integrity and
durability of a building was to be clearly demonstrated through a clear efficient practical and buildable structural system. Secondly, the design was to
serve its purpose effectively, be user-friendly, and with efficiency of space. Thirdly, the aesthetic quality, proportion, and visual harmony, was to provide
pleasure and emotional impact to the users.
In conclusion, while the design process followed the above ten sequential processes, the process was not liner by any means. There were numerous
overlaps and back and forth, with the designs having several iterations towards the improved final solutions. For example, several students we still
refining their concepts and forms in the Eighth week (week 8) even as they worked on design development, and final presentation drawings and models.
Importantly the student became more aware of the fact that Architectural Design is not a liner process following a straight programme, but a cyclical
iterative process that eventual moves towards more optimum and desired solutions for the problems at hand.
Growth and Economic Performance of Improved Indigenous Chicken Fed On Diets Containing Black Soldier Fly (Hermaria Hiucens) Larvae Meal In Kenya
(Kenyatta University, 2023-03) Mwangi, Kevin Waithaka
ABSTRACT
poultry feed cost constitutes ab o
of protein f:‘ed resources, eSPegi\:atllz/of Otf‘total poultry production costs. This is mainly due to the high cost
have identified Black soldier fly (, He::f;fl"< concentrates, and their limited availability. Studies elsewhere
animal feeds. This study aimed to provid ia 'z‘ IMCEMS') larvae (BSFL) meal as an alternative protein source in
and determine the growth and economic e l? ormation on the nutritive value of locally prepared BSFL meal
eraded levels of the meal. A total of 3 lspec‘l" Omllance of 1mp}'oved indigenous chicken fed on diets containing
study. Five experimental diets were forml;lata }:'1(;' - KALRO Impider ks ol p::ocured i ascd e Ol
(C0), 5% (C5), 10% (C10), 15% (C15), and ;O‘V()r tche chick and'grower phases containing BSFL le\fels of 0%
(fishmeal and soybean meal). The diet; i % (C20), respectnvf:ly, to replace conventional protein sources
for the chick diets and 2550 Kcal/Kg ME redorn:ulated to contain at l'east 2800 Kcal/ Kg ME and 18% CP
randomly allocated to the eXperimeugtal and 15% for the growers’ fhets. Tl?e five dietary treatments were
Srets from 7to 56 days o T T units in a completely randomized design, and the birds were fed the
& od st gabyied o6 ph phase and frm.n. 57 to 126 days for the grower phase. The BSFL meal and
o i, Ab et ot proximate composition, and data on body weight and feed intake was collected
k y. A ic analysis was done to determine the cost implication of using the BSFL meal in the
feeding trial. ;I'he results showgd .that BSFL meal used in the diets had a high CP level at 43.9% and ether
ext'ract at 2_9.4 %. There'was a significant difference (P=0.0001) in the feed intake, final body weight, and daily
“.velght gain of the chicks at the end of the chick phase. However, in the grower phase, the treatments
s{gmf?cantly gffected feed intake, not the final body weight, daily weight gain, and feed conversion ratio. The
birds in the dietary treatment CO had the highest final body weight (1673.6:90.70g), and C20 had the lowest
final body weight ( 1383.0+86.04g). Dietary treatment €10, whose BSFL meal inclusion was 10%, had the
highest final body weight (1564.7+90.70g) among the diets with BSFL meal. Dietary treatments with high
inclusion levels of BSFL meal (C15 and C20) resulted in low feed intake and final body weight after the
iod, and it gradually
feeding trials. The cost of feed consumed was also significantly different for the entire pert
reduced with the increase of BSFL meal in the diets. The dietary treatment CO had the highest cost of feed
consumed, followed by Cs, C10, C15, and C20, respectively. The treatments also significantly affected the total cost of production, which reduced gradually, with the highest being CO and the lowest being C20. Nonetheless, the control diet CO recorded the highest gross profit margin (27 6.3+42.15 Ksh) in the feeding trials, while C10 recorded the highest gross profit margin (254.3+42.15) among fiie.ts with B.SFI., meal. According to these findings, BSFL meal can replace conventional protein sources it improved \nd{genous erformance. This study chicken diets at certain inclusion levels without affecting their grow