ABSTRACT
Summary
The study of architectural building types, which embody functional and formal properties, can be used as an analytical tool to develop a fund of shared knowledge. As an analytical tool, the historical and cultural context provides a framework for understanding societal conventions. Objects such as buildings have not only a “use” value but also a “message” value. A connection, therefore, exists between the concepts of type and meaning. The meaning, however, must be shared and understood by the makers and the users of an object if it is to serve the intended purpose. Meanings are constructed in accordance with context-dependent conventions and change over time. This investigation is an analysis of architecture schools as a building type. Beginning with a historical perspective through an assessment of several recent buildings (chapter 3), it will be shown that building types change slowly, but they do evolve over time.
A post-occupancy evaluation was developed to compare notable architecture buildings from the users’ perspectives. A comparative assessment of six architecture buildings was conducted, using a walkthrough evaluation rating scale. The buildings selected were at Florida A&M University, University of North Carolina—Charlotte, University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee, 184University of Cincinnati, North Carolina State University, and Roger Williams University. This approach sought direct responses from architecture students according to six elements: context, massing, interface, wajfinding, socio-spatial environment, and confort. By using a series of checklist questions and numeric ratings from satisfactory to unsatisfactory, scores were assigned to each element being appraised. Individual scores were graphed to establish a building profile, and profiles were compared. The results demonstrate that wajfinding and confort were consistently identified as the least satisfactory building element for all buildings in the study. In a similar vein, buildings touted by architectural critics received mixed responses from students.
