ABSTRACT
Summary
The building for the Dokuz Eylul University School of Architecture (DEU-SA) opened in September 2004. The Architecture Department occupies one wing, and the City and Regional Planning Department occupies the other wing. In May 2005, 159 people (students, faculty, and staff members from two departments) participated in a post-occupancy survey to evaluate the interior and exterior of the facility.
Overall, the building received negative scores. Respondents rated the exterior unfavorably. They gave the least favorable ratings to the lighting after dark, their willingness to walk out of their way to see it, and its excitement. Occupants reported neither satisfaction nor dissatisfaction with the interior. They had the lowest satisfaction for accessibility for the disabled, environmental quality, security, and wayfinding. They had the highest satisfaction (roughly equal to neutral scores) for the quality of building materials— floor, wall, ceiling, and maintenance. Open-ended responses agreed with these findings. For the exterior, respondents criticized the building size and color, entrance and security, and poor landscape. The only favorable comments were on uniqueness and window details. While a few participants found the articulation on the façade unnecessary and overdone, more people 206liked it because it distinguishes the building from the campus architecture. For the interior, respondents criticized accessibility for persons with a disability, security, environmental quality concerning temperature, and acoustics.
Ratings of specific spaces revealed that most spaces did not score well. The cafeteria emerged as the least liked space. Occupants complained about its furniture and poor connection to the outdoors and the atrium. The medium classrooms emerged as the most liked spaces, receiving praise for their large, shaded windows. Occupants also liked the restrooms, praising their upkeep and newness.
On a campus, architecture buildings should draw students from other departments, but this architecture building does not. With small improvements such as landscaping the surrounding area, adding activity to the atrium and cafeteria, the building has the potential to draw people to socialize. Students and faculty members spend most of their time in studios; and they tend to find the design of the studios unsatisfactory. Softening the wall and floor surfaces (to reduce acoustical problems) and adding comfortable and movable seats can improve the studio spaces. While digital technologies have become more important, the building works against their use with its inefficiently used computer laboratories. Relocation (closer to entrance, darker room, fewer windows) and better equipment (e.g., cameras and digital key entrances) would allow the labs to stay open day and night. Up-to-date computers would also increase lab use by students.
