ABSTRACT
Summary
Long after they graduate, alumni remember the buildings where they first studied architecture. Temple Buell Hall, a 1995 addition to the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, is no exception.
Our post-occupancy evaluation of Temple Buell Hall included an analysis of archives about the building, physical traces, behavioral observations, and surveys of 424 students, faculty, and staff.
Results show students, faculty, and staff as highly satisfied with the building. The exterior survey, completed by 141 individuals, revealed that respondents rated overall appearance of the exterior favorably, and also liked its impressive looks, excitement, and lighting features after dark. In particular they liked the west glass wall, the use of glass, and the curve. They disliked the west entrance and the north façade.
The interior survey, completed by 283 occupants, yielded favorable but more mixed results. Respondents gave the most favorable rating to the aesthetic quality of the exterior, maintenance, security, proximity of views, quality of building materials, aesthetic quality of interior, and ability to find Anatomy of a Success
The university had many avenues of oversight.
It exerted a fair amount of control over size, form, and materials of buildings on campus.
It had strict design restrictions; the red brick exterior ties in with surrounding buildings in terms of massing, roof lines, and more. This may explain why respondents judged it as compatible.
The school administration played a significant role in overseeing the design of the building, monitoring just about every aspect of the design.
The university design review committee also oversaw the project.
The architect—Ralph Johnson from Perkins and Will—designed a building that works for the users. He did not give making a statement a higher priority over fitting in with existing campus architecture.
Good materials. Brick dominates the building inside and out, giving a solid, stable appearance.
The Atrium is a star space; and perched atop it, the Eagle’s Nest studio stands out as a visually impressive landmark.
Wayfinding is one of the building’s greatest strengths. Because the atrium is such a large, central, open space which can be seen from almost every spot in the building’s interior, it is almost impossible to get lost. Circulation and wayfinding work well because most circulation areas are open to the atrium. The design has hardly any enclosed corridors.
The studios and jury/crit spaces have huge windows, some studios feature two-story spaces with large expanses of glass, and most review rooms have glass doors that can be shut for privacy.
The design successfully put one roof over the three academic units, Architecture, Landscape Architecture, and Urban and Regional Planning, which had formerly been split across the campus (although architecture still has a significant footprint in other buildings).
your way. They were least satisfied with its environmental quality. Responses to open-ended questions captured some complaints. Although occupants praised the building’s visual quality, they criticized deficiencies in spatial programming; inconvenient functional provisions; a loud heating, ventilating, and air conditioning system; and a poor landscape design.
Three changes can improve the building: i) Activate the atrium space with more exhibitions, ongoing events, and regular food service; 2) Activate the plaza with a greater variety of outdoor seating arrangements in sun and shade; and 3) Lower counters in administrative offices to make them more welcoming to persons with physical disabilities.
