Browsing by Author "Makaguta, Noel Onyango"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    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
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    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