Final DRAFT- Dorms Analysis
-
Upload
layla-sabry -
Category
Documents
-
view
236 -
download
4
description
Transcript of Final DRAFT- Dorms Analysis
08 Fall
D u e : 3 1 s t o f M a r c h 2 0 1 1
By: AmiraBadran
LaylaSabry
LobnaHouta
Presented to:
Dr. KhaledAsfour
The American
University in Cairo
Analysis of the AUC Dorms in light of
the Modern Movement
2
Table of Contents
Introduction
Architect’s Profile
Building Profile
Analysis of the Complex
Drawbacks
Design Proposal 3D – Model showing design Proposal
Conclusion
3
The 20th
century witnessed a profound change in the Architectural field; Modern
architecture style was initiated at the time, a style that proved its dominance in the
modern era and that goes back to the prominent, influential architects and designers
associated with the trend of the age.
The modern movement was initiated at the time of the post World War II; when
Europe had undergone severe damage in diverse areas, economically, culturally, socially
and psychologically. The condition of the European countries at that time explains their
deep concern of rebuilding their countries in the fastest and most economical means.The
context of the war left behind many psychological defects to the people of the countries
affected, one of which is the sense of enclosure, everything was identical and the concept
of “follow the crowd” was predominant. The movement actually was brought about to
transform the limited vision of architecture at this era to one of a boundless, unified style
shifting the vision to a wider scope
Walter Gropius, one of the masters of the modern
movement, wrote in 1919 what embraces his thoughts of the
“despair at an internal collapse” as becoming nullified and
requires the swinging to a new form and order in a hopeful spirit
of innovation.Changes occurred in emerging new cultures, ones
that conform to treatment of the disturbed psychology of the
people, by setting up norms that sought individuality,
uniqueness, innovation, all representing a novel character to the
design of structures. Those alterations were manifested in both
attitudes and values of people as well as in design of buildings and houses
Figure 1 - A number of profound urban and interior modern designs following the Bauhaus philosophy and led by Gropius
4
Bauhaus School, one of the most influential currents in the Modern era, was
established by Walter Gropius in Germany and followed the approach to design that it
originated. The formation of the Bauhaus was the first step towards Gropius‟ eventual
target of “regeneration of German Visual Culture through Arts”. Gropius believed that to
reach the optimum design for the future building that combines architecture, painting and
sculpture; Craftsmenwere the major elementsneeded. By putting needs of the modern era
as the fuel igniting the handcrafting, he succeeded in turning around the beliefs and
reuniting the aesthetic awareness and effective design.
Characteristics of the architectural buildings were coherent, simple and reflecting
technology; sharp forms, romantic silhouettes and transparent surfaces were the main
keywords.As a matter of fact those keywords were just the result of the predominating
conditions of the society back then, the age‟s spirit. Hegel‟s second modern philosophy,
therefore, was based on the word „zeitgeist‟, which stated that the historical product was
always determined and defined by the events and conditions of the society itself. The
Figure 2- The Bauhaus Head Building, serving as the foundation of a modern culture.
5
simple and minimalistic features were of an essential essence, aiming to cut down the
expensive craftsmanship used in the previous styles.
The „spirit of the age‟ was a factor that led Gropius to launch the Bauhaus with
hopes of establishing a new school that incorporated all the theories of modernism.
Beside the creation of forms and composite entities, the Bauhaus‟ modern medium of
design was machinery, the aim was to represent technology and its increasing power that
cannot be ignored, in other words, the design forms focused on values of mechanized
epoch 1. The target of the design was no longer looking after aesthetic meanings of
decorations and details, but rather on a clear, organic architecture that adapts to
technology, includes standardization of parts and is characterized by the use of new
materials such as steel, concrete and glass, which later have become used to show
modernist attitude in projects.
Although the modern movement had uniform motives and equal targets, there
happened shifts in moods and forms throughout the unleashing of the modern style. An
example is the Concrete Office Building Project,
by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe; emphasis in this
building changed to cover the horizontal layering
of space and expression of planes, as noticed in
figure 3.
\
1 As stated by the architects of the modern era, “Modern Architecture since 1900”, by Curtis, William J.
Figure 3 - The Concrete Office Building Project
6
The Architect
Legorreta+ Legorreta was founded in 1963 by Ricardo Legorreta, Noe Castro, and Carlos
Vargas senior, and its main objective is to create architecture inspired by human values.
Ricardo Legorreta graduated from the Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, and was awarded the
UIA Gold Medal in 1991. Some of the firm‟s famous
works are: Camino Real Hotel, IBM Factory, and the
Cathedral of Managua.
Figure 4- Ricardo Legorreta
Figure 5- Their famous cathedral de Managua built in 2003 after the earthquake that damaged the old one in 1972
7
Their works are influenced by Mexican vernacular architecture and Luis Baragan.
Their architecture recognizes the importance of the role played by human values in
architecture. Moreover, today, with the constant innovations and discoveries in the
domain of information and technology, the firm takes advantage of both to make
buildings that encourage us to “be better human beings”.
The idea that architecture is at the service of the society is greatly emphasized in the
designs as they carefully respond to every need and aspiration of their future users. Thus,
the main aspects that they aim to achieve in their designs are functionality, efficiency,
and cost that are reached through a friendly environment, an atmosphere of intimacy,
8
peace, and optimism. The use of color, water, light, and mystery are a signature of their
style in reaching this environment. In fact, this blending of water, light and color is
greatly influenced and inspired by Luis Baragan‟s style in architecture, one of Mexico‟s
most influential 20th
century architects. He brought the international style to a whole new
level, and transformed it into a more vibrant and cheerful Mexican style. His favorite
themes were light and water, and it is greatly noticeable how much he has affected
Legorreta‟s style in buildings. However, Legorreta firm differs from the Baragan‟s
theories in the idea that Luis Baragan believed that functionality was never as important
as emotions in designing homes, as opposed to Legorreta, who always managed to reach
both functionality and emotionality through his innovative designs.
Building Profile:
The dorms complex is composed of 13
individual units, dispersed in an area
marking the end of the built area of the
campus land. Each unit is composed of an
L- shaped building, with a square one
connected to it. When Ricardo Legorreta,
the senior member of the father-son
Mexico City firm and the Designer of the
University Residence and Campus Center, was asked to give his opinion on the teamwork
style and how it affected the architecture of the campus he said; “Without your team
Figure 6- Google map view of the AUC Campus
9
members, you can do nothing. Fortunately, we have this collaborative spirit and humble
perspective among the architects on this project”.2
Moving to the University Residence, one could see that Legorreta aimed on reflecting the
Egyptian culture while leaving his design trademarks on the building. As perceived from
the general layout of the new campus, the residential building (no. 8) is located at the far
right, relatively far from the buildings where classes are taking place. Around the
2 A 2002 interview conducted with the seven architectural firms discussed the integration of their
individual schools and conforming it to the main theme of the AUC campus. AUC Official Website. Web. Mar, 2011.
Figure 7- A general layout of the Campus defining facilities surrounding the main spine.
10
residence units, one can see different types of facilities, the nearest is building (no. 9), the
ARTOC Sports Center, located right across the central spine from the dormitories.
Figure 9- Layout of the Dorms
Each of the L- shaped units houses 10 bedrooms on one floor where a number of
bedrooms share a bathroom as well as a living area. The layout is divided into two where
the men‟s dormitory is located at the left of the entrance and the women‟s on the right.
Both are connected to each other and the entrance through a main spine and both share
one main courtyard.
Figure 8- View of the outside area between the sports center (right) and the Dormitories (left)
11
Moreover, the modern movement turned against the concept of enclosure in architecture.
To establish universal spacing as element of the modern movement alongside other major
keywords and reasons mentioned below, the architect chose to organize the building
blocks and units of the dorms around courtyards. Thereby he chose to use a repeated
element of the campus and of the old Cairo architecture as one of the driving forces of the
campus architecture to establish this universal spacing. As a consequence, he related the
dorms to its surrounding and created harmony within the campus complex, therefore
achieving one of his goals and philosophies in design, stating that a good building must
always take into consideration the environment and the surrounding context.
Figure 10 - Layout of the residence with its surroundings
12
Analysis:
Looking at the dorms there are several main keywords associated with a dormitory and
residential building. Foremost, the dormitory houses international students or students
living away from home. Therefore, it is important to give those students a feeling of
home in the dorms to try and reduce the longing for their other home and their family.
The feeling of home is established through several sub-keywords.
For some to get the feeling of home, one needs to have privacy. The feeling of having a
private area or a personal space away from the public atmosphere is crucial. The house
gives such privacy where a person has his own personal space and room away from the
eyes of the public, therefore for some having that same feeling of privacy in the dorms
could give a feeling of home.
Another way to trigger feeling at home is giving comfort. Having a comfortable space to
relax in such as is the case in a house and with family reminds a person of the home he
has. The home is a comfortable space, where a person can be relaxed and at ease.
Therefore, giving comfort in a house is a key element to deliver the feeling of home.
In addition, when a person can organize his own space to show his identity and character
it feels more like a private space of your own. So organizing the space according one‟s
identity and as a person pleases, makes him/her feel that this is his own home. This can
be established through giving the users the freedom to change the organization of
furniture and to add personal stuff.
The house is also a hiding space, a safe space where a person can feel secure and
protected and therefore it is important to give the users safety and take architectural and
13
technological safety measures to give security. Through turning the dorms into a safe
space where the students feel protected, the users will feel it to be more like home.
The feeling of home is not the only keyword associated with a dormitory but also a sense
of communication. The home has a main component very important to the residents,
which is the family and the neighborhood. The house and its surroundings holds for the
person a community close to him/her and one he sees on a daily basis. When they move
into a dormitory, they loose the community and surrounding they have been living in.
Therefore, it is of great importance to revive this sense of community for the users in the
dormitory as well.
This sense of community can be established through facilitating socialization in the
dormitory. Facilitating socialization gathers the users of the dormitory and makes them
interact and get to know each other so that by time they grow to become one community.
Thereby, they promote sense of community within the dormitory.
Another way to promote such community is through universality, a main concept of
modernity. Through universality the architects creates spaces that gathers the users and
attracts them into one main place. The universal spaces are always preferred by the users
for its openness it provides, so the implementation of universal spaced areas attracts the
users into that place creating a community within the building.
14
After determining these main keywords in our opinion related to dorms, it is
essential to examine how these keywords were implemented into the design of the AUC
dorms.
The placement of the dorms within the surrounding facilities acquired a certain
atmosphere that conforms to its program. By emerging the impression of a village to
anyone passing by or through the dorms, Legorreta succeeded in treating the residence
space as a „neighborhood‟, in other words, the position of the
residence quite away from where the classes are conducted,
gave this place a reflection of a home; residence have to
walk out of the dorms, pass by the main facilities then reach
the central plaza of the campus, where the classes are
located. Same like a housing in a neighborhood; students are
required to walk out of their village into the streets until they
reach their university.
Main Keywords
Sense of Home &
Belonging
ComfortPrivacy & Security
Contact with Nature
Sense of community
Socialization/ Interaction
Universality
Figure 10- A repeated design template in many mosques as well as public and private spaces built during the Islamic age.
15
In a clear attempt to denote a strong feeling of home, the open spaces as one
enters the dormitories will be directly noticed due to the clear divisions of the public and
private spaces, one could see the main open courtyard at a lower level than the entrance,
as an example. As one steps down a couple of levels to the passageway around the
courtyard, again it‟ll be separated from the central open space by the colonnade structure,
the portico. The Mediterranean architecture influence reflected in the usage of courtyards
cannot be neglected in this framework; the open courtyard surrounded by a portico has
been a character defining the domestic architecture of buildings through different ages,
including the Islamic and Mexican cultures. Legorreta deliberately implemented the
design of an open courtyard at many areas inside the dormitories, each with a different
orientation, and aesthetically considered very similar to the common, central spaces
found in the Islamic or Mediterranean modules of an open space as he explained in his
statement that our main aim was to “design architecture that belongs to Egypt and
Cairo”3. Although the architect succeeded in his aim of blending the culture of Old Cairo
in his design, he still, in terms of the modern movement‟s criteria, contravened one of the
main attitudes by using a traditional aspect in his design, since one of the Bauhaus‟
modern philosophies was to unlearn all the clichés of architectural history and have a
stronger sense of individuality and uniqueness.
In contrast, Legorreta fulfilled a crucial element of design that conforms to his
philosophy which is „contact with nature’; by all means the architect affirmed the sense
of natural dominance in the complex by his choice of the specific allocation of units and
the connections between them. In more details, one can notice in the overall layout of the
residence, the clusters consisting of a number of units are in an l-shaped orientation with
3 AUC Official Website. Article on the Planning and Design of the New Campus, July 2002. Web. Mar,2011.
16
an added cube next to it, separated by an open passage. Assumptions within the group
members varied around the purpose of this 'consistently' repeated module throughout the
complex bringing about one of the main criteria of modern movement which is
standardization of parts, but what we highly predict is that the architects focused on
environmental factors.
Given the campus location in the
hot desert, they focused specifically on the
circulation of wind; through the shifting of
each cluster and avoiding „symmetrical‟
orientation, the architect managed to
provide each cluster with an amount of
prevailing wind coming through that was
also stressed on by positioning the clusters
in such format, he allowed the upper wing of the „L‟ facing the wind direction to catch a
breeze of air through the opening and pass it all through the main open corridor in the
cluster directed to the opening on the second wing of the „L‟ leading to what we call
wind tunneling effect in architecture, and therefore giving all the residents of the cluster
the privilege of having a continuous fresh breeze of air all day long. In addition, this
orientation actually brought about with it several positive factors, the formation of
shading facades due to the bounding of each cluster in such format overlooking the open
court from all sides, which we assume to conform to the modern movement's theory of
adjusting several planes and not only moving in one direction, also adding to the
Figure 11 - Prevailing wind direction in the campus matching the intended specific distribution of the units.
17
aesthetics of the place by emphasizing the shades and shadows along the open spaces. In
addition, the L-shaped units organized in an unsymmetrical fashion emphasize the main
difference of the Bauhaus to the Beaux Art where the Bauhaus schools was known to
transform the symmetrical relationships of parts and their central orientation to an
equilibrated asymmetrical but rhythmical balance of parts4.
Figure 12- Layout
In a home, we believe that ‘comfort’ is essential and obligatory to give the true
feeling of attachment to the place. In the AUC dormitories, we found several elements
used that gave the users comfort and calmness, as stated by Renate Amin, a resident in
the dorms, stated that the organization of units gave her this feeling of comfort. The well
balanced and consistent modules of the complex, which as mentioned earlier, is believed
to be inspired by the village design, is actually propelling a variety of vibes one of which
is visual comfort. When looking at the overall layout (Fig 12), one can conclude the
strong feeling of containment that this complex reflects through the curved boundaries all
4 “Beaux art and the Bauhaus philosophy differences”. Modern Architecture since 1900, by Curtis, William
J.
18
overlooking the open spaces. The use of water features adds to the list of comforting
elements as well, besides its environmental purpose of cooling down the air in the area (
as repeated in the whole campus), they give a sense of comfort in many ways,
aesthetically, environmentally and even physiologically, as Renate added in the
interview. However, the water features' extensive use is not an element inspired by the
modern era, again the Islamic influence of extensive use of water fountains is done
intentionally in the complex.
The architects when locating the dormitories, definitely thought of 'privacy' in many
ways, not only by isolating them from
the other buildings in the campus, but
also by achieving a sense of privacy
from within the whole campus, within
spaces between different units and also
those within each unit, up till the
personal division of rooms and
personal facilities. In fact, he has
probably focused on the privacy levels
Figure 13 - Elevation showing the different levels of the complex
Figure 14 - Section showing the leveling within the buildings
19
to bring about the sense of belonging to the students in the campus since security and
privacy play an important role in the psychological well being of a person, contributing to
their academic performance, in other words, when a person feels secure and within his
own comfort zone he/she will be a lot more productive and open to improvement. It was
also noticeable that privacy was achieved through a varied media of designs, leveling was
an essential one; looking at the elevations and sections drawing of the complex , one
could immediately notice the altitudes being varied; the open court at the entrance is at a
relatively lower level than the small entrance tower to the left, establishing a sense of
security and belonging to the place, and as one walks through the passage way it is kind
of limited in space and surrounded by columns until one turns to the common spaces
where the 'boundless' public area is located. The verticality of the units also contributed
to the positive harmony within the urban context of the dorms (refer to the example of the
sports center- Building Profile).
Figure 15- Leveling in the open area
20
When entering a unit, the residents have to pass through a gate only accessible to
those living in the specific unit which emphasizes the concept of security of the units. In
addition, the visibility of almost all units inside the campus cannot be clearly perceived
by an outsider due to the variation in levels of the complex. The focus on providing a
high sense of security in the complex has very much affected the accessibility of the
place; in comparison to the other buildings on campus, the dormitories have only a single
entrance. However, one can understand the architect‟s choice of compromising
accessibility for the sake of achieving high security levels to fulfill the users‟ needs. The
division of the spaces inside the complex also promoted privacy as well as comfort by the
extensive use of entrances defining different spaces according to their level of privacy;
the entrance to the women‟s dormitories on the left totally separates it from the common
area and then men‟s dormitories, and as one enters through the women‟s dorms the
feeling of another separate „individual‟ community is predominant to the user through
the common spaces available inside, then the entrance to each single unit again gives the
sense of individuality and connection to the space, subsequently the allocation of rooms
inside the units is considering the privacy of the residents. The well-chosen option of
Figure 16- Entrance to unit
21
lowering the level of the courtyards hence elevating the ground floor view, all helped
promote the sense of belonging through accentuating privacy and visual comfort for those
accommodated in the ground floor rooms that overlook the open space outside.
Many factors have been taken into consideration when deciding on the content of each
unit module. The plans of each room inside the units were, in terms of design, coherently
read, which conforms to one of the main criteria of modern design. By using clean, sharp
forms (rectangular) the architect strengthened the modern elements implemented.
Through using those kinds of forms, the architects succeeded in promoting another very
important element to the users; „flexibility‟. In fact this sub-keyword wasn‟t only
promoted in the interior design of the units only, but also in the common area as one
enters the complex, the choice of a rhombus form in the common area was done for a
clear purpose, that we haven‟t acknowledged on our own but through the users‟
comments; as Ahmed Sherif and Mahmoud Fathy, residents in the complex stated. They
have pointed out how they are allowed to move furniture inside spaces as they please,
directly lifting their sense of belonging to the space. Later when we analyzed how much
allowance does this rhombus format give the user in terms of geometry (dimensions of
walls), we concluded that the common room is spacious and would definitely allow
alterations to occur. Shifting back to the interior of the rooms, one could say that the
choice of sharp edged forms helped in the „order’ and organization of the spaces within
the units; the appearance of a module again persists inside each unit by having a certain
template distributed; each four bedrooms are connected by one lounge and two
bathrooms with their own lobby, which is, technically speaking, a division that one would
most likely see in a private house, where the average sized house has 2-3 bedrooms and
22
one bathroom with a public area, including a living room, dining room and a kitchen. The
very similar distribution of spaces inside the units gives a strong sense of belonging and
feeling of home to the users.
The L-shaped organization of the units, as mentioned earlier, is a great way of
encouraging socialization, it gives more options for “bounded” spaces for socialization,
by having courts that are inviting. By comparison, having a rectangular space wouldn‟t
have achieved the same effect, since the space is static and identical from all sides, and
thus does not promote any particular shaded or social area that would fulfill the sense of
community desired in the residential dorms. Moreover, repeating the same cluster of units
(l-shape + square) while orienting them and offsetting them in different ways throughout
the site shows how the architects have achieved the concept of standardization of parts
suiting the modern movement. By having these sets of modules, they have succeeded in
emphasizing the organization of the units together, as well as the relation between the
spaces within the units themselves.
Another remarkable feature in the organization of the spaces is the location of the
common area: it is basically centered and forms a connection between the men‟s units
and the women‟s units, and thus shows how the union between the two genders is
important and crucial to the well-being of a community. Those common spaces were
deliberately designed to be universal spaces. The modern movement was initiated at the
time of the post World War II so that the context of war left behind many psychological
defects to the people of the countries affected, one of which is the sense of enclosure. The
movement actually was brought about to transform the limited vision of architecture at
this era to one of a boundless, unified style shifting the vision to a wider scope and using
23
open universal spaces instead of the enclosed ones. Legorreta, the dormitory architect,
chose to organize the building blocks and units of the dorms around courtyards thereby
using a repeated element of the campus and of the old Cairo architecture as one of the
driving forces of the campus architecture to establish this universal spacing, As a
consequence, he related the dorms to its surrounding and created harmony within the
campus complex.Through the use of the universal, open spaces as common area the
architect made the spaces more attractive to the students than enclosed spaces would be.
In addition, the architectural language used by the architects to represent the
concept and idea of village is clear; they have successfully done so by a constant
gradation of spaces that reflects and emphasizes the feeling of community in the area. In
fact, the whole complex of the dorms is carefully ordered around a main plaza, which
acts as some sort of vestibule to the different areas. This open space then leads to a
transitional one, which is the portico (colonnade) that is followed by the common spaces
of the residents (computing rooms, lounge, study rooms, etc.….) and then one is guided
by the passageway to find the units themselves organized around courtyards that also
mark a transitional area between the common and the private zones. Although the
architects put a lot of effort in the relation and gradation of the spaces to reach this sense
of community, there is however a major issue concerning the pathway going through the
complex; it is located in such a way that it is impossible for someone to reach any area
(whether inside or outside the dorms complex) without passing by a social area like open
courtyards and common spaces. This attempt to promote interaction and create an
atmosphere of socialization is again consistent with the concept of community, but the
problem we found was that the users disliked the fact that they should always not only
24
pass by a social area filled with crowds, but also take a longer route that sometimes goes
around the units themselves just to reach a relatively close destination5. As a result, the
students have resorted to creating a shortcut themselves, which includes having to cross a
deserted area of the complex; thus, it can be said that the promotion of interaction within
the spaces should have also been compensated with the opportunity to choose between
different types of routes, that, according to the circumstance, would fulfill the needs and
desires of the user in passing by either a common area or
simply a regular space.
Moreover, the sense of community is not only achieved through the organization
of the spaces together as a whole complex, but also in their proximity relationship in each
unit plan. The emphasis on having a direct connection between the common room and the
courtyard of each unit (common room directly opening onto the outdoor area in plan)
reflects the importance given by the designer to the idea of creating a social gathering and
community atmosphere between the units. The same concept of promotion of
socialization and interaction is even seen within the plan of each unit; having four
bedrooms connected to one lobby facilitates the communication between the users and
thus provides them with more opportunities to socialize and feel more in a community
environment. The openness of the indoor and outdoor public spaces is a major element
5 As concluded from responses of Interviews conducted.
Figure 17- Interior of the rooms
25
contributing to the modernistic image of the complex. Having the kitchen open on to the
living and dining area shows the universality of this space, since there are no fixed walls
bounding the different functional areas, and thus reflects the modern values and theories
that guided the design of the spaces.
The design of the dorms also contains several drawbacks in various aspects of the design.
The extensive use of courts in the dormitory creates a certain confusion and distortion to
the user. As mentioned above, the courtyards were implemented as a primary tool to
promote interaction and the spirit of community to achieve the keyword sense of
community. However, when we visited the building ourselves, we soon noticed the
excessive number of courts within the building complex. So as a new student to the
campus with not many acquaintance, a person would be confused as to which court to use
for social interaction and where to sit. As a result, students have grown accustomed to
gathering in their living rooms with their close friends rather than in the court to meet
new and other people. Therefore, the extensive use of courts although trying to fulfil one
of the keywords has become a drawback for the design.
26
This problem can be improved and modified through replacing the several courtyards in
the women‟s dorms with one main courtyards that combine all the units. However, these
can‟t be organized systematically or symmetric around the courtyard but they must still
include the factors of climate etc., which are successfully included in the current layout.
All the units of the women‟s dorms are connected with the entrance through one
passageway passing around all the courtyards as indicated by the red arrow below.
27
This would mean for a user in unit 11, she would have to walk around the whole
courtyard and then pass through another one to reach only the entrance to the women‟s
dorms. To reach the unit left of unit 11, the students would have to pass around the
courtyard and through another adjacent court to reach the neighbouring unit.
As a result it would be a lot easier for students to cross the court inbetween both units as
indicated by the green arrow, which according to student interview is actually the case.
However, at the moment this area between the two units is not a planted or covered with
tiles but it is simply a deserted land. So according to student interviews, they use a short
cut through deserted land rather than taking the given finished route.
Unit 11
28
Therefore, although he architect chose to create one passageway linking the units and
going through the courts and common spaces so that a student could meet acquaintance
and socialize or to promote interaction, this was not properly achieved. The students
creating short cuts through desert land rather than taking the passageway shows a
weakness and drawback in that aspect. The architect could have done small passageways
alongside the main one to connect the units and replace the short cuts done by students.
Taking the court indicated above by the circle one discovers another drawback.
29
As seen in the pictures of the court it does not have any seating elements or aspects
facilitating interaction. The court seems more like a passageway than a meeting point for
community activities. Anyone sitting there will always be disturbed by any student
passing by through the main passageway so that the place will hardly be used to interact
and get a sense of community. In that sense, this space failed to deliver and facilitate
achieving a sense of community within the dorms. Therefore, such a space needs to be
replaced by a more private area or area dedicated to promoting community gatherings,
socialization and getting to know ones neighbours.
Finally, looking at the detailed plans of the apartments and units there is a major
drawback in the ground floor.
30
As seen above, the plan of the unit contains of four rooms are connected by a private
foyer with an entrance from the corridor. The four bedrooms share one bathroom, which
also has an entrance from the private foyer combining the bedrooms. However, it is
noticeable that the bathroom has a second entrance from the corridor that raises doubt.
Since the bathroom has an access from the private foyer connecting it to the bedrooms,
the second entrance seems to be dedicated to the users sitting in the open space or court at
the entrance to the corridor of the unit. However, this would mean that the private
bathrooms of the students can also be used by any user sitting in the court or the common
space at the end of the corridor. This on the other hand doesn‟t promote privacy in the
bathroom for the users of those bedrooms and therefore contradict with the keyword
feeling at home. When the private bathroom can also be used by other students and
strangers, this reduces the feeling of home since privacy within the bathroom is a main
component for the home.
31
Drawback
Proposal
Extensive use of courts
One main court with the units around it
Long passageway connecting the units with
the entrance of the dorms and the common
spaces
Creating smaller passageways along side
the main one to prohibit the short cuts
developed by the students
Common place more of a passageway than
a space to promote interaction and a sense
of community
Giving the court a certain degree of privacy
and facilitating interaction between
students
Private bathroom for the bedrooms of the
ground floor has two entrances; one
serving the users in the court giving the
bathroom thereby no privacy
Closing the entrance to the bathroom from
the corridor and putting only one entrance
from the private foyer of the bedrooms
32
3D- Presentation:
Before:
After:
Women’s Dormitories
Men’s Dormitories
Central Common Area
Common Space Common Space II
Central Common Area
33
Perspectives
34
Conclusion
The design was mainly influenced by the modern movement architecture through
implementing components such as universal spacing, straight lines, and the
standardization of parts (units are organized in modules). However, one of the main
concepts of modern movement was to turn away from tradition and focus on the future;
this was partly not respected by the architects of the dorms through the implementation of
courtyards and mashrabeyas, etc… which are traditional features of the Mediterranean
and old Cairo architecture. Nevertheless, this use of traditional elements can be justified
by the general aim of the architect to create harmony and integration of the dorms with
the architecture of the campus as a whole.