ABSTRACT
Summary
The College of Design, Architecture, Art, and Planning (DAAP) complex has had four phases of development, starting with the 1952 Alms Wing; the 1958 DAAP Wing; the 1976 Wilson Wing; and, the 1996 Aronoff Center for Design and Art. Previous evaluation studies were a POE carried out by a team of freshman students—the Aronoff Center POE Study Group (ACPSG) (1998)—followed by a “Vital Signs” project (Smith, et al., 1999). The post-occupancy evaluation reported here focuses on the latest development phase and design.
Although architect Peter Eisenman characterized his design in 1990 as “a rock concert in concrete,” passersby gave the building low scores. As one critic, Adele Santos, said, “What astounds me is that a School of Architecture would pick an architect whose work is going to be so clearly defined at a point in time, knowing that would be the image of the school forever more. This is precisely one of the building types that require a certain kind of neutrality, flexibility, and future open-endedness” (1991).
On entry at Level 3000, one has difficulty getting ones bearings and knowing where to proceed, especially if there is no human being in sight to ask for directions. Wayfinding is circuitous and particularly difficult when 129changing levels, since first-time users cannot easily see the elevator and stairs.
Once in the building, users complained about the abysmal signage. Persons with disabilities face major problems getting around, since none of the three elevators connect the same stories, and one must travel long distances between them. Users also disliked the lack of natural light, sunlight, and views out, which make the interior feel like a dungeon for most of the year.
Users liked two spaces: the library and the atrium/food court. The latter succeeded in bringing the four schools of the college together in one cafeteria space. This large space, however, contributes to the overall low efficiency of only ςο percent net usable space in the building, and this comes at a relatively high building cost of more than $250 per square foot. The areas most disliked were the public areas/corridors and studios, exacerbated by poor wayfinding, lack of daylight, and harsh acoustics. Studios had problems with temperatures and poor ventilation.
The design has serious problems with waterproofing and leakage through the ceilings and walls, as well as maintenance, identified by other studies (Kristal, 200 ς). Regarding leakage, the design used an exterior insulation and finish system intended for light commercial construction, not for public buildings such as university facilities. The use of dry wall, cheap carpeting, and omnipresent, inappropriately used caulking, has created a maintenance nightmare.
There are lighting and acoustic problems in the building, as documented by a “Vital Signs” study (Smith, et al., 1999). Since corridors and the stepped platforms of the concourse (which are not accessible to people with disabilities) are used for design critiques, student presenters complain about noise interference from people passing by. (See Figure 10.1.)
