Floor Plans College of Architecture Texas Arlington Many Schools Summary Document3 W C CLARK VIRGINIA USA COLLEGES

R e v i s i o n i n g t h e S c h o o l o f A r c h i t e c t u r e B u i l d i n g , U n i v e r s i t y o f Te x a s a t A r l i n g t o n
Table of Contents
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
Building Committee Concerns .................................................................................................. 3
Process Outline......................................................................................................................... 4
Preliminary Studio Desk Proposal ................................................................................................... 6
Study of William M. Pena and Steven A. Parshall's Problem Seeking: An Architectural
Programming Primer ........................................................................................................................ 7
Documentation of User Group Needs .............................................................................................. 9
Study of Edward T. Hall’s The Hidden Dimension ......................................................................... 12
Precedent Studies .......................................................................................................................... 14
Glasgow School of Art, Scotland, 1899-1909, Charles Rennie Mackintosh .............................. 16
The Bauhaus, Dessau, Germany, 1925-6, Walter Gropius........................................................ 22
Crown Hall, IIT, Chicago, Illinois, 1950-1956 Mies Van der Rohe ............................................. 24
Yale Art + Architecture Building, New Haven, CT, 1958-64, Paul Rudolph ............................... 26
George Gund Hall, Harvard Graduate School of Design, Cambridge, MA, 1969, John Andrews,
Anderson, Baldwin Architects ..................................................................................................... 28
Gerald D. Hines Building, University of Houston School of Architecture, 1985, Philip Johnson 32
Netherlands Architecture Institute, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1993, Jo Coenen ................. 34
Art and Design Building, Monash University, Melbourne Australia, 1999, Denton Corker
Marshall ...................................................................................................................................... 38
Swiss School of Engineering for Wood Industry, Berne Switzerland, 1999, Meili + Peter
Architekten .................................................................................................................................. 42
Mattin Arts Center, Baltimore, MD, 2001, Billie Tslen Todd Williams ........................................ 46
Oslo School of Architecture and Design, Norway, 2001, Einar Jarmund Hakon Vigsnae ......... 48
Studio Addition, Cranbrook Academy of Art, Bloomfield Hills, MI, 2001, Rafael Moneo ........... 50
College of Architecture and Landscape, Minneapolis, MN, 2003, Steven Holl .......................... 52
Prairie View School of Architecture, Prairie View, TX, 2005, Roto Architects ........................... 54
George Pearl Hall, University of New Mexico School Architecture and Planning, Albuquerque,
NM, 2008, Antoine Predock ....................................................................................................... 58
1
Campbell Hall, University of Virginia School of Architecture, 2008, William Sherman, W.G.
Clark and Warren Byrd Jr. .......................................................................................................... 62
Renovation Addition, Yale Art + Architecture Building, 2008, Gwathmey Siegel & Associates . 64
Creating As-Built Drawings ............................................................................................................ 66
Observations of Gathering Patterns ............................................................................................... 67
Building Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 69
Space Type + Area Summary ........................................................................................................ 71
First Floor Plan ........................................................................................................................... 72
Second Floor Plan ...................................................................................................................... 73
Third Floor Plan .......................................................................................................................... 74
Fourth Floor Plan ........................................................................................................................ 75
User Survey ................................................................................................................................... 76
Problem Statements....................................................................................................................... 86
2
Introduction
Building Committee Concerns

The design process begins not with schematics, but with programming. The University of Texas
at Arlington’s School of Architecture has requested that the Senior Interior Design Studio 4563
reprogram the building. The process started with the building committee voicing their concerns
about the current state of the space. They listed 16 major areas of concern:
• determination of the needs of the first floor computer lab and future render farm and
proposals to relocate it to the south end of the first floor
• determination of the needs of the slide library and proposals for the expansion of the
architecture and fine arts library to include it
• proposals to improve the use of room 105 including enclosed studio(s) options
• proposals that improve the building entry and procession
• reconsideration of the relationship between the administrative office suite and the building
entrance, circulation and wayfinding
• proposals for a more space efficient administrative office suite
• proposals for a research studio to accommodate teams working on grants/competitions
• proposals for “higher uses” of the second floor lobby to eliminate 'dead space,' including
furnishings above the quality provided by the physical plant
• proposals to accommodate simultaneous reviews in the second floor pin-up space
adjacent to the stairs
• proposals to improve the functioning of room 201 (conference room) including pin-up
surfaces, and conference table configurations
• brainstorm options for jury spaces at the north and south ends of the building on second,
third and fourth floors
• reconsider level of enclosure for studios (partition removal options)
• reconsider studio configurations in terms of furniture options
• consider location of student lounge/lounges
• consider variations in programming requirements for undergraduate and graduate
students
• proposals for the $75,000 dedicated to studio furnishings
3
Introduction
Process Outline
Many of the issues that the building committee voiced regarded the locations of existing
functions, the possibilities of different levels of enclosure, the abundance of poorly utilized space,
and additions to the program that do not yet exist.
To meet this challenge, the class needed a greater understanding of the programming process
itself. In order to do this, the class read both Edward T. Hall’s The Hidden Dimension, and William
Pena’s Problem Solving, which explored proxemics and the programming process respectively.
Then students prepared studio desk proposals in order to investigate the spacial, and ergonomic
requirements of their classmates.
The need to further examine the building called on the studio to acquire accurate drawings of the
space. The students split into groups and verified the existing building drawings. After updating
the drawings, the class observed gathering patterns of users throughout the day. Doing this
enabled the students to better understand how the space is currently being utilized. To gain
further incite on the requirements of the occupants, the studio interviewed important user groups.
This helped the class to decipher the needs of particular areas of the building such as the library,
slide library, and administrative suite. Interviews also included the dean and associate dean
which accessed the spacial and economic constraints of the process.
Students then picked existing schools of architecture to explore the failures and successes of
their precedent buildings. By studying the precedents through diagramming, the class was able to
attain a greater knowledge of how other schools approached design. This information allowed the
class to better analyze the current state of the UTA School of Architecture building. Concepts that
were investigated through the process of diagramming include; entry sequence, utilization of
space, availability of mixed use spaces, interaction between studios and students, and the
existing building image. Each student then compared the analysis of the UTA School of
Architecture building to his or her assigned precedent.
4
With this information the class created a survey to hand out to the occupants of the architecture
school, which included students and faculty. After all surveys were completed and collected, the
answers were analyzed in order to understand the major concerns of the building’s users.
Problem statements were then created, using the topics of orientation, space utilization,
interaction, and image. Each of these topics, were stated in terms of the four design
considerations of function, form, economy, and time. By investigating these concepts our class
has compiled a significant amount of information that has better prepared us to explore the
possibilities of reprogramming the UTA School of Architecture building.
5
Preliminary Studio Desk Proposal
The University of Texas at Arlington has received $75,000 to improve old studio furniture. Interior
Design 4563 students did preliminary research through observation of their own work habits and
interviewing students in the Architecture program. Based on the research results, each student
then created a list of desk requirements that addressed student needs, the versatility of a desk,
and kept in mind the given budget which could be exceeded if the solution required. Through
discussion of the students’ designs, three primary proposals were agreed upon. One consists of
an individual desk for each student, another includes different levels of surfaces, and the third a
communal system incorporating individual work space and a collaborative area.
These initial projects lead to a deeper analysis of how the individuals viewed desking concepts.
However, it also stressed the need for a more organized and thorough research process to
answer important design questions.
6
Study of William M. Pena and Steven A.

Parshall's Problem Seeking: An
Architectural Programming Primer
In order to reprogram the architecture building, the Interior Design Senior Studio studied the
process of programming. Problem Seeking by William Pena helps to explain this procedure.
Pena teaches that when programming, it is imperative to gather information that can be analyzed,
organized, and accessible. The ability to do this successfully comes from knowing the data you
need, and narrowing that information down to data that is relevant to the project. It is then
necessary to devise a way to arrange the information into a system that is easy to understand, so
the data is readily available to those who need it. There are four programming categories of goals
that aid in this process: function, form, economy, and time.
Function is one that evaluates the performance of the space, the intentions of the project, and the
practical needs of the end user. Questions that a programmer might ask when investigating this
category would be as follows: Why is this project being under taken? What are the enrollment
numbers, and what are the occupancy codes? What are the degrees and types of interaction with
regard to individuals and the groups? And what is the hierarchy of values for the client/user?
Questions like these allow a programmer to understand the functionality of a space. They help a
designer know a space’s requirements, needs, failures, and successes.
Form is the goal that explores the possibilities of space. They ask what this space is presently
and what it can become. These goals try to understand the attitude of the current user toward the
space and maximize the space’s capabilities. To identify these ideas, a programmer might ask:
What is the client’s attitude toward existing elements on the site? What is the client’s attitude
toward the condition of the physical environment? What kind of social/ psychological environment
does the client want to provide, and what is the required level of physical comfort? These
questions aid the programmer in understanding the occupant-to-building relationship, as well as
the building-to-site relationship.
7
Economy is the goal that focuses on receiving the maximum return for the investment by
minimizing the operational costs and maintenances. Some examples of economy questions are:
What is the current budget, and what are the available funds? Another economy consideration is
durability. For instance, if a project requires furniture, their life cycles should be evaluated, and a
decision should be made on the most lucrative option for the project. The designer must ask
whether it is better to buy a more expensive piece that is likely to last longer, or a less expensive
piece that will need to be replaced frequently. The same question can be asked when considering
sustainability. Is the client interested in spending the extra money on sustainability if the building
will cost less to run and maintain throughout its duration? It is information like this that the
programmer can gather to help the client see a return on their investment and save on future
building and operational costs.
Time is the category that looks at the entire project with regards to the schedule. The programmer
must identify the availability of funds over time and the desired occupancy date. This helps to
schedule the project according to the budget. The programmer must consider the condition of the
building and its occupants in the future. For instance, what does the client see as the projected
growth in ten years, and how can the building design prepare for that? It is also important to know
if the client anticipates any changes in the building so that the designer can consider them when
designing. This allows the building process to stay on schedule, and it also allows the building to
continue to work well for the occupants in the future.
These four goals provide a programmer with a strategy for gathering and organizing data for both
the designer and the client. This strategy was used by the senior class in conducting pre-
programming studies including writing, administering, and analyzing a user survey and
conducting and assessing user interviews.
Pena, William M. & Steven A. Parshall. Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer.
4 ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2001.
th
8
Documentation of User Group Needs
Faculty and Staff Interviews

When reprogramming a space it is necessary to first understand where the building is successful
and what areas are unsuccessful. To recognize these issues it is important to interview all the
user groups. The students filled out surveys which gave us their opinions on where the building
functions well and where it could be improved. To find this information from the faculty and staff
we interviewed key individuals and groups. They included: Dean Gatzke, Professor Jones, the
librarians, the administration, and the slide librarian, Dr. Ruzicka. Through their interviews we
identified how the school could better function.
The Dean believes that the second floor lobby does not function well for students as a place to
gather. He would like to see more interaction on the second floor. He also felt more offices are
needed in the suite for the heads of departments. The Dean would like his own personal
conference room because the two existing rooms are used at capacity by others. He would like
to see another entry to the suite that is on the building’s axis because he believes this would help
guests identify the building’s entry more easily.
By interviewing Professor Jones we gained insight about the building committee’s priorities as
well as the professors’ wishes. He noted the bad acoustics and lighting throughout the building.
Faculty offices have no auditory privacy. He gave us the example of the original building in the art
department that had a completely open floor plan. The acoustics and lighting were more
successful in that space and professors preferred the open floor plan. He explained the partitions
in the current studios are more of a function of meeting fire codes than design goals. He told us
there is no set budget for renovations, but improvements to student spaces would take
precedence over renewing office spaces. Also in regards to budget, saving money by recycling is
a priority, and the committee has agreed to pay for five to six extra workers in the woodshop for
reconfiguring objects for the space. Professor James told us the committee has no problem with
color or personalization of the building, and that there is an interest in mixing different levels of
studios on the same floor level. There is no part of the building they are not interested in
9
redesigning. One feature that is not to be altered is the exterior courtyard, as it is seen as an
asset to the building. The committee is interesting in having research labs to provide space for
undergraduate and graduate research grants. They will need about the same space that the
landscape labs have in room 107. Professor James told us that the sun levers still work and the
school would only consider changes if it would save more money and lower energy costs.
nd
Vestibules that would create an air lock around the sliding doors, especially on the 2 floor, are a
priority.
By interviewing the administration staff, which consists of Chen, Cheryl, and Landa, we learned
the administration’s desires. All of them believe that the space looks like a doctor’s office and
would like to see aesthetic improvements. They also feel the break room has not been utilized to
its full potential. They suggest the lobby could be smaller to have more room for other needed
spaces such as storage and offices.
From the librarians we learned about the functions of their space. The librarians need more visual
access to the front desk in order to be able to watch what is going on without having to be
physically present. The space could also use more varied student gathering areas to
accommodate small to medium sized groups. Currently the break room is used as storage
because the storage that they have does not meet there needs. They will need a small room
where they can leave recording equipment.
Dr. Ruzicka, the slide librarian, was interviewed to determine needs within his space. Currently,
the school is working on condensing the slides into smaller cabinets, which can hold more slides
than the current ones. Dr. Ruzicka mentioned that dust and moisture can destroy slides. While
considering a location for the new slide library, Dr. Ruzicka noted that it would be best placed
somewhere with thick interior walls and no windows. This environment is the best for slides.
Overall, the interviewees would like to project the image of a professional architecture school that
expresses a concern for design. Currently, there is inadequate space for certain functions while in
10
other areas there is a large amount of excess square footage. Through these interviews we have
been able to identify key concerns of the administration and faculty.
11
Study of Edward T. Hall’s The Hidden

Dimension
Proxemics, Fixed-Feature Space, and Semifixed-Feature Space

In order to better understand the different types of space and the effects of space on human
behavior, the students of the senior interior design studio studied Edward T. Hall’s, The Hidden
Dimension. From this book, the class learned about proxemics, fixed-feature space, and
semifixed-feature space. These concepts provide important information that will aid in the
redesign of space within the architecture building.
According to Edward T. Hall, “Proxemics is the term for the interrelated observations and theories
of man’s use of space as a specialized elaboration of culture.” Proxemics relates to the
comfortable distance that people keep between one another in a social setting and to the reasons
for that distance.
There are three types of proxemic patterns: infracultural, precultural, and microcultural.
Infracultural patterns are behavioral and are created by a person’s past through culture and
biology. For example, people of different cultures have different responses to crowding.
Precultural patterns are physiological and relate to the way people function in the present. For
example, people rely on the redundancy of sounds and movements in order to speak.
Microcultural patterns are spatial and are created by actual proxemic observations. For example,
people have natural boundaries by which they space themselves from one another. Proxemics
divides microcultural patterns into three types: fixed-feature, semifixed-feature, and informal.
Hall considers fixed-feature space to be a basic organizational method that categorizes the
activities of individuals and groups. Within this idea, Hall discusses the establishment of
boundaries, both as material manifestations (walls and buildings) and as subconscious creations
believed to govern universal behaviors. An example of this subconscious “design” is territoriality,
the inherent need to personalize space. According to Hall, “The important point about fixed-
feature space is that it is the mold into which a great deal of behavior is cast.” A strong example
12
of fixed-feature space is found in the Western home where rooms are often separated by
permanent walls and designated for certain functions such as dining, living, and sleeping.
In the architecture building, the spatial organization is comprised of mostly fixed-feature spaces.
Individual studios, classrooms and offices are separated from one another and each is fully
enclosed by permanent partitions.
Hall considers semifixed-feature space to be an environment that is comprised of movable parts.

In this condition, the partitions and contents of the space can be adjusted to accommodate
fluctuations in population. This mobility also allows the space to be adapted to the needs of
different user groups and to individual user needs, including territoriality. According to Hall, “What
is desirable is flexibility and congruence between design and function so that there is a variety of
spaces, and people can be involved or not, as the occasion and mood demand.” A strong
example of semifixed-feature space is found in the Japanese home where the walls are moveable
and the function of the room changes throughout the day.
In the architecture building, there are only two semifixed-feature spaces: the second floor bay
adjacent to the stairs and the gallery. These spaces have moveable partitions that are frequently
rearranged to accommodate functions such as juries, pin-ups, and exhibitions.
Currently, there are many spaces in the architecture building that do not function well which have
resulted in a great need for reprogramming. The study of space and how people interact with it
provides important information for the reprogramming process. A clear understanding of
proxemics will help determine the appropriate size and configuration of space for a given function
or functions and how many people can comfortably occupy that space. This knowledge will also
aid in the understanding of group and individual needs in relation to space. Overall, our study of
Edward T. Hall’s, The Hidden Dimension, will significantly contribute to the success of the design
solution.
Hall, Edward T. The Hidden Dimension. New York: Anchor Books, 1990.
13
Precedent Studies
Webster’s Dictionary defines a precedent as “something done or said that may serve as an
example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind.” In the
practice of architecture and interior design, it is imperative to look back on previous and
successful examples of what has been created in order to establish a broader knowledge of
building types to help guide the new project. Being aware of this, the Senior Interior Design
studio has diligently analyzed several well-known design schools through the practice of
diagramming.
Each student undertook the diagramming of a design school’s circulation, gathering spaces,
different user groups, adjacencies, axis, spatial organization type, processional sequence upon
entry, hierarchy, boundaries, scale, day-lighting, and proportion. Historic precedents were
chosen that spanned all the way from the Glasgow School of Art by Charles Rennie Mackintosh
(1899-1909) and the Bauhaus by Walter Gropius (1925-1926), to the current renovations and
addition to the Yale Art & Architecture building by Charles Gwathmey and Robert Siegel (2008).
This allowed the class to broaden their understanding beyond what is current and popular today.
The students did not limit themselves to architecture precedents, but also studied schools
including Cranbrook Academy of Art, Studio Addition by Rafael Moneo (2001), The Mattin Arts
Center at Johns Hopkins University by Tod Williams and Billie Tsien (2001), and the Swiss
School of Engineering for the Wood Industry by Meili and Peter Architekten (1999).
From research done on the precedent buildings, which included contacting current students and
professors at the schools, the class was able to better determine the successfulness of different
building aspects and school pedagogies. The students then individually compiled the same set of
diagrams and analysis for the UTA Architecture building. This process differed due to the
students’ familiarity with the UTA Architecture building and how its occupants currently use it. By
14
having both sets of information available, comparison studies and analysis of the two buildings
were possible.
During pin-ups, the group learned about the differing organizational styles of floor plans used in
design schools. Each school had its advantages and disadvantages; therefore, an ideal plan or
school was not discovered. As an example, the University of New Mexico’s George Pearl Hall by
Antoine Predock (2008) had a far more successful circulation and way-finding than the UTA
Architecture building, but due to its openness, there were complaints about the noise level that
occurred in the building’s pin-up area located within the circulation. The students were able to pin
point advantages within the researched schools which could possibly solve the current problems
of the UTA Architecture building. By examining such a large number of schools, and having them
all pinned up beside one another at the same time, the class was able to visually acknowledge
the significance that certain factors played in a majority of the buildings. It was clear that the
entry and way-finding, something that has been deemed relatively unsuccessful in the current
UTA Architecture building, was an issue strongly addressed in many of the precedent buildings.
The class taught each other how different precedents addressed gathering among the various
user groups. Students also addressed the many differing studio space layouts, and the
frequency in which the different types were used.
Through graphically expressing precedent studies, the students achieved a greater

understanding of each building diagrammed. Students illustrated the information to others in a
more concise manner for better comprehension. It is through this simplified perception of the
buildings, that pertinent information can be extracted, which will ultimately guide the new design
of the UTA Architecture building.
15
Glasgow School of Art, Charles Rennie

Mackintosh, 1899-1909
Entrances
The Glasgow School of Art in Scotland has its main entrance relatively close to sidewalk traffic and to the
street. The building has a grand staircase defining the main entrance to the building. This grand
staircase leads to a transition area connecting the outside to the interior of the building. This transition
area transforms into a rectangular foyer placed across from both the linear and vertical circulation. The
linear circulation runs from east to west while the vertical circulation is centrally placed and connecting all
four floors.
The UTA architecture building has a grass area and a seating area in front of the building before getting
to the entrance. The building has a void in the center of the ground floor where walking traffic can cross
through. This void also contains the two main entrances to the building, one leading to the north and the
other to the south of the building. The entrance at the north side of the building contains a large foyer and
two forms of vertical circulation, a set of stairs and elevators. The entrance at the south side of the
building has a small foyer that leads directly to the central circulation for the entire building, a grand
staircase.
Entry to Glasgow School of Art


Entrances
Glasgow School of Art, Scotland, 1899-1909,

Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Entrance Adjacencies and Axes

The Glasgow School of Art has a clearly defined ground floor entrance. A grand staircase leads into the
main foyer. To the left of the foyer are the administrative offices, and the staircase leading to the upper
floors is located straight ahead. The entrance, foyer, and staircase are located on an axis that crosses the
main axis.
The UTA School of Architecture has a clear second floor entrance. A lengthy outside atrium leads into the
large foyer. To the right of the foyer is the administrative office suite, and the staircase leading to the
upper floors is located to the left. The staircase is located on the main axis, while the entrance and offices
are located on two axes that cross the main axis.
Exterior First Floor Entry and Interior Gallery Space


Entrance Adjacencies and Axes
Glasgow School of Art
UTA Architecture Building Floor

Glasgow School of Art, Scotland, 1899-1909,

Charles Rennie Mackintosh
Studio spaces adjacent to pin-up spaces

The studios in the Glasgow School of Art dominate one side of the building creating a long open bay. The
continuous studio space can be divided into smaller studio spaces with partitions or modular walls. The
studios exit into the main circulation. In the circulation there are niches to display work and a gallery
which serves as pin-up.
The studios at UTA School of Architecture are clearly defined by fixed walls. The studios dominate the
two far ends of the building. The ends of the UTA building house the secondary circulation for the
building, and implied jury space.
Pin-Up Space and Studio


Studio spaces adjacent to Pin-up Areas
Glasgow School of Art

The Bauhaus, Dessau, Germany, 1925-6, Walter

Gropius
Studio Space vs. Faculty Space

The Bauhaus has large open studios in one wing of the building. Inside of these large studio spaces are
enclosed faculty spaces with direct site lines between the two for increased interaction.
The UTA Architecture building has studios grouped mostly along one side of the building and on the ends
of the and floors. The faculty offices are aligned on an axis and grouped separate from the studios.
The Bauhaus, Dessau, Germany, 1925-6, Walter

Gropius
Studio Space vs. Faculty Space
The Bauhaus
Faculty Space
Studio Space

Crown Hall, IIT, Chicago, Illinois, 1950-1956

Mies Van der Rohe
Open Studio Space vs. Closed Studio Space

At IIT Crown Hall all the studio spaces are set up on one floor level that is 120’ x 220’. There are only
four permanent partitions in the space. These partitions contribute in implementing a semi-fixed feature
space. There are four class levels on this floor each divided by a non-permanent partition that is used as
lockable storage. This space is semi-fixed because the studios are all semi-opened to one another.
At UTA School of Architecture the studios are a fixed feature space. Each studio is enclosed. The four
class levels are on different floors.
Open Studio Space at IIT Crown Hall

Crown Hall, IIT, Chicago, Illinois, 1950-1956

Mies Van der Rohe
Open Studio Space vs. Closed Studio Space
IIT Crown Hall
Closed Studio Space
Open Studio Space

Yale Art + Architecture Building, New Haven,

CT, 1958-64, Paul Rudolph
Defined and Implied Boundaries

The Yale Art and Architecture Building, explores the possibilities of implied boundaries by opening the
spaces, so that they overlook one another. The jury area is centralized and surrounded by two rings of
split level studios that are all open to a double volume.
In contrast, the UTA building is organized with a centralized circulation that has defined boundaries at its
perimeter. The few implied boundaries at either end of the UTA building are a result of the narrowing of
circulation, or an understood boundary by the users that gather in ends of the halls for pinups.
Floor Jury and Studio Space

Yale Art and Architecture Building,

Paul Rudolph, 1963
Defined and Implied Boundaries
Yale Art and Architecture Building

George Gund Hall, Harvard Graduate School of

Design, Cambridge, MA, 1969, John Andrews,
Anderson, Baldwin Architects
Open Studio vs. Enclosed Studio

The Harvard Graduate School of Design has united all its departments (Landscape, Urban Design, and
Architecture) and studio courses into one large studio space. The four- level stepped studio space is
created by “overlapping trays” that form a continuous space under a large clear glass roof. The trays are
all linked by outer side stairs opening into each studio and by inner center stairs moving through the
studio space.
The UTA School of Architecture building has all its studios clearly defined by fixed walls. The studios are
separated by grade level and by department. At UTA the studios are stacked on top of each other from
the second through fourth floors with circulation running primarily through the center.
George Gund Hall Studio Space and Outer Side Stairs Leading to Studios

Open Studio vs. Enclosed Studio
George Gund Hall, Harvard Graduate School of Design
UTA Architecture Building Sections


Library Accessibility
To access the library at Gund Hall, it is very simple to do so. The library is located to the immediate left of
the main entry and is clearly visible once someone has entered the building, from the outside of the
building, as well as, from various other points within the building. Both buildings do have a covered
building overhang and walkway, which also directs them towards the way of the entrances of the building.
When someone enters the main entrance, one would have to make one right angle turn and the library is
located right there.
To access the library at UTA, it is more difficult. While it is visible from the exterior of the courtyard of the
first floor, that does not mean that it is readily accessible once inside the building. A person entering from
the ground level would have to make four right angle turns before entering into the library. The visibility of
seeing where the location of the library is when someone is inside the building is very limited. It is “tucked
away” into a corner with only the main entrance to the library as being dominate. Visibility of the library
from the exterior does not mean that it is as easily accessible to get there from the interior of the building.
Exterior of the Gund Hall Library


Library Accessibility
Gund Hall

Gerald D. Hines Building, University of Houston

School of Architecture, 1985, Philip Johnson
Sightlines to Develop Way-finding

The University of Houston’s SOA building has a clear entry space with adjacent public spaces all located
on the ground floor that are easily found due to direct view from the entrance lobby.
In contrast, UTA’s SOA building has two entry “lobbies” that do not allow for direct view of the adjacent
public spaces, thus making way-finding difficult to those unfamiliar with the building.
Entry Lobby images showing sightline

Gerald D. Hines Building, University of Houston

School of Architecture, 1985, Philip Johnson
Sightlines to Develop Way-finding, 1/96”=1’0”
Gerald D. Hines College, Floor
UTA Architecture Building, Floor

Netherlands Architecture Institute, Rotterdam,

The Netherlands, 1993, Jo Coenen
Defined and Undefined Spaces

The Netherlands Architecture Institute (NAI) clearly defines all spaces which allow each area of the
building to be used and appreciated. By giving each space a function, users feel comfortable utilizing
each area. Even very public areas for gathering within circulation are functional due to this spatial
definition.
The UTA building has many spaces without a defined function which has created transitional spaces
which are underutilized. The gallery space, circulation areas, and jury spaces have no defined function
and when they are not being used by a classroom these spaces are for the most part ignored.
Defined Reception Area


Defined and Undefined Spaces
Netherlands Architecture Institute


Entry Circulation/ Orientation

The Netherlands Architecture Institute’s building exterior circulation leads to an interior lobby with an axial
connection to vertical circulation.
The University of Texas at Arlington’s building exterior circulation leads to an exterior node with no visible
distinction between main building entry and secondary building entry. Inside the main building entry the
connection to vertical circulation is not axial.
Aerial walkway connecting entrance hall with exhibition galleries


Entry Circulation/ Orientation
Netherlands Architecture Institute

Art and Design Building, Monash University,

Melbourne Australia, 1999, Denton Corker
Marshall
Visibility & Sight Lines

Monash University’s SOA building is an example of an open plan studio with sight lines and visibility. Its
ground floor has a clear sight line as the entry hall becomes wider towards the open studio. There is a
door and a glass partition at the ends of the main circulation that allows passersby to get a glimpse of the
pin up area. This creates an opportunity to view other student’s work and presentation.
UT Arlington’s SOA building is currently using Room 105 as a studio. The sight line is interrupted by the
location of the main staircase which blocks the view into the pin up area as one enters the building. This
creates disturbances when one enters and exits the building because there is visibility into the studio
space, rather than the pin up area. The same condition occurs on the south end of the hall whose sight
line is blocked by a wall, stopping the view yet opening up to the studio.
View from entry at Monash


Marshall
Visibility & Sight Lines
Monash University Architecture Building Ground Floor


Marshall
Circulation vs. Gathering Spaces

The Monash School of Architecture building has gathering spaces that are located to the side of primary
and secondary circulation and defined by the ceiling height change.
The University of Texas at Arlington’s School of Architecture building has gathering spaces are
intersected by primary circulation and are not spatially defined.
Faculty lounge beside secondary circulation


Marshall
Circulation vs Gathering Spaces
Monash Architectural School Floor
Gathering Spaces
Circulation

Swiss School of Engineering for Wood Industry,

Berne Switzerland, 1999, Meili + Peter
Architekten
Gallery as Gathering Space
In the Swiss School of Engineering for Wood Industry building, the gallery serves as both an exhibition
and a gathering space. The proximity of the gallery to the lecture hall allows it to accommodate gathering
in coordination with lectures. In addition, the gallery provides space for casual gathering. By its direct
alignment to the secondary circulation axis and its adjacency to the primary axis, the gallery is accessible
from every day paths of travel.
In the UTA School of Architecture building, the gallery serves as exhibition space, but not as gathering
space. The gallery is adjacent to the lecture hall, but the two spaces do not share the direct relationship
found in the precedent, nor does it provide space for casual gathering. While the gallery is aligned on a
transverse axis, it is not aligned with the secondary circulation axis or directly adjacent to the primary axis,
which disconnects it from every day paths of travel.
Gallery in the Wood Industry building:


Architekten
Gallery as Gathering Space
Swiss School of Engineering for Wood Industry Floor


Architekten
Library and Study Location

The Swiss building’s library is positioned on the top floor with large windows that provide day lighting. It is
located at the termination of the circulation access.
Contrast this to the UTA Architecture building’s library positioned on the first floor tucked away in a corner
with daylight entering the space in only one area. It does not directly align with the circulation access.
Student Gathering Area on Floor


Architekten
Library and Study Location
Swiss School of Wood Engineering
Current
Proposed
UTA Architecture Building, Floor

Mattin Arts Center, Baltimore, MD, 2001, Billie

Tslen Todd Williams
Visitor Procession to Performance/Display Areas

At the Mattin Arts Center, visitors enter from the street or a parking lot and travel to the main entrance
located at the termination of the two axis. Once inside, the theater is located straight ahead and a
gathering area and a café are located to the left.
At the UTA Architecture building, visitors must come to the second floor via stairs, elevators, or the
second floor entrance. Then they travel down the corridor to the termination of the long axis, where they
must turn right and enter through a set of glass doors. The gallery is located straight ahead, while the
lecture hall is to the left. There is a small seating area located between the doors to the lecture hall.
View of Procession toward Entry and Main Visitor Destination

Mattin Arts Center, Baltimore, MD, 2001, Billie

Tslen Todd Williams
Visitor Procession to Performance/Display Areas
Mattin Arts Center

Oslo School of Architecture and Design,

Norway, 2001, Einar Jarmund Hakon Vigsnaes
Public Space vs. Private Space

At the Oslo School of Architecture and Design, the three levels have been designated for specific
functions. The ground floor holds public amenities such as communal dining space, a library and
workshops. The first floor is reserved for classrooms and studios and the second floor is designed for
individual private offices and research rooms. The diagram explains the gradual push from loud, public
space to quiet, private space.
At UTA School of Architecture all four levels maximizes the use of each floor by merging all user types
together. The second floor diagram is used to show that there is not a separation between the different
user types and functions.
Interior shot of the Oslo School of Architecture public level used for displaying student work.
Oslo School of Architecture and Design,

Norway, 2001, Einar Jarmund Hakon Vigsnaes
Public Space vs. Private Space
Oslo School of Architecture and Design
UTA School of Architecture 2nd Floor

Studio Addition, Cranbrook Academy of Art,

Bloomfield Hills, MI, 2001, Rafael Moneo
Shared Work Spaces

An interesting feature at Cranbrook is the shared working spaces used by both faculty and students.
Using an apprentice-style method of teaching, artist-in-residence professors work on their individual
pieces in the same workshops used by their students.
In contrast, the UTA School of Architecture building has no shared working spaces. Faculty tend to work
on their own projects in their private offices located off campus. Students are separated from their
professors, and have little time outside of class to experience and learn from the creative process of their
professors.
Shared Workshop Space

Studio Addition, Cranbrook Academy of Art,

Bloomfield Hills, MI, 2001, Rafael Moneo
Shared Work Spaces
Cranbrook Academy of Art, Second Floor
UTA School of Architecture, Third Floor

College of Architecture and Landscape,

Minneapolis, MN, 2003, Steven Holl
Central Circulation/Gathering Space

The University of Minnesota School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture addition employs a large
centralized circulation and gathering space. The building’s cross axes meet in this gathering and
circulation space, allowing it to become the organizer of the building.
The University of Texas at Arlington school of Architecture has similar cross axes that meet in a
circulation and gathering zone. It is made up of the north second floor lobby and exterior courtyard. This
zone is made less dominant by restrooms placed at its center.
First Floor Lobby

College of Architecture and Landscape,

Minneapolis, MN, 2003, Steven Holl
Central Circulation/Gathering Space
University of Minnesota

Prairie View School of Architecture, Prairie

View, TX, 2005, Roto Architects
Closed verses Open Studio Plan

The Prairie View School of Architecture building has open studio spaces, all located on the third floor.
Space is partitioned with moveable walls which separate the studios from the circulation paths near the
stairs.
The UTA School of Architecture building has fully enclosed studio spaces. The different year students are
kept separated by floors. Also, the majors are not grouped together; rather they are spread throughout
the building.
View of staircase used by students to gather


Closed verses Open Studio Plan
Prarie View A & M


Comparison of Classroom, Studio, and Faculty/Office locations

The level of the UT Arlington School of architecture houses studio, classroom, and faculty/office
locations. These areas are located along the edges of the building and are placed in a linear fashion
along the terminus of primary circulation.
The A&M Prairie View School of Architecture houses classroom and faculty/office locations on the level.
The office locations are located along the edges of the building while the classrooms are placed within
areas of secondary circulation patterns.
Rendered Axonometric of A&M Prairie View from second floor to first floor.
View School of Architecture

Comparison of Classroom, Studio, and Faculty/Office locations
\
George Pearl Hall, University of New Mexico

School Architecture and Planning, Albuquerque,
NM, 2008, Antoine Predock
Comparison of Jury Space Location
The University of New Mexico building has a ground floor that integrates a row of jury/pin-up spaces
along with administrative offices, gallery, and auditorium. The jury space contains rotating panels that
allow students to pin up work. These panels become an integral part of the circulation system.
The designated jury spaces in the school of architecture building at UTA do not interact with the main
circulation. Located on the far north and south ends of the building, the jury/pin-up areas are situated at
the far ends of each floor’s main circulation and create an uninviting setting that hinders any type of
interaction.
Overlooking crits from second-floor studio space Jury space on ground floor

Comparison of Jury Space Location
George Pearl Hall


Circulation’s Interaction with Studios

The circulation at the University of New Mexico School is located in the center of the building. The stairs
are positioned on a vertical axis while the building is a linear plan. The stairs lead directly to open studio
spaces.
The circulation at the University of Texas at Arlington is located in the center of the building with
continuous flights of stairs leading to each level. The stairs are positioned on a horizontal axis in line with
the linear plan. The circulation path leads to circulation used to access closed studios.
Vertical circulation adjacent to open studios; view of studio


Circulation leading to studio(s)
University of New Mexico: 104,000 sq ft. (2nd Floor)
University of Texas at Arlington 35000 sq ft. (3rd Floor)

Campbell Hall, University of Virginia School of

Architecture, 2008, William Sherman, W.G. Clark
and Warren Byrd Jr.
Comparison of the Relation of Studios to Faculty Offices

The University of Virginia’s Architecture building has offices on the studio floor with a central location that
places them equidistant from the open studios.
UTA’s architecture building has offices on the studio floor with a central location. The enclosed studios
are spread out over the floor with differening travel distances from the offices.
North East view of UVa, Studio windows in distance and Office Space located on South Side
Revisioning t h e S c h o o l o f A r c h i t e c t u r e B u i l d i n g , U n i v e r s i t y o f Te x a s a t A r l i n g t o n
Campbell Hall, University of Virginia School of

Architecture, 2008, William Sherman, W.G. Clark
and Warren Byrd Jr.
Comparison of the Relation of Studios to Faculty Offices
Open Studio Space

Office Space
Campbell Hall Building 3rd Floor
Enclosed Studio Space

Faculty Offices
UTA 3rd Floor

Renovation Addition, Yale Art + Architecture

Building, 2008, Gwathmey Siegel & Associates
Studio and Jury Space Adjacencies

The Yale Art and Architecture Building’s open studio spaces share immediate adjacency with the sunken
jury spaces which are centrally located among the studios.
The UTA School of Architecture jury spaces are located at the termination of the buildings linear
circulation while enclosed studio spaces are located along the circulation axis with only a few studio
spaces located immediately adjacent.
Yale students participate in jury deliberation while other students work in the open studio spaces beyond.
Renovation Addition, Yale Art + Architecture

Building, 2008, Gwathmey Siegel & Associates
Studio and Jury Space Adjacencies
Yale Art and Architecture Building Floor
Studio
Jury

Creating As-Built Drawings
Process of site verifying original documents and creating As-Built drawings
In order to have accurate drawings of the existing UTA School of Architecture building, our class
obtained paper copies of the original construction drawings from 1984 and digital drawings from
the library expansion of 2008. The digital drawings consisted of detailed information of the library
rd
expansion and 3 floor computer lab but lacked details and accuracy for all four floors.
Existing conditions within the building were documented by the class working in eight teams of
four. Each team measured one half of one floor of the building, documenting locations of interior
partitions, lighting, power and data.
New digital drawings of each half of each floor were created to reflect existing conditions. These
drawings were incorporated into the digital drawing set from 2008 as superseding pages with
corresponding page numbers.
66
Observations of Gathering Patterns
As part of our research, INTD 4563 students conducted observations of gathering patterns and
the different activities of the faculty and students in the school of architecture. Groups of students
observed different areas of the building for two days at different times.
Our observations showed the following:
First floor North-Very few people stopped to gather on the first floor north. Students went directly
to the elevator, the stairs, or the library after entering the building. The few people that stopped to
gather were the UTA landscapers on break. During the period of observation, they sat on the tile
benches for approximately twenty minutes.
First Floor South- The first floor south observers had similar findings, 96 percent of people who
entered the building went in the sliding glass doors at the north end rather than the manual
double doors in the center. The majority of traffic generally walked down the corridor to the west
side of the stairs. Entry doors lines up with the hallway and the light levels are dimmer on the
west side of the stairwell. The east side of the stair well is a studio space compared to the west
side which is defined for circulation.
Second Floor North-Most students exiting the auditorium after class did not stop to gather,
however they did gather outside the second floor entrance. The students whom gathered inside
the second floor entrance congregated while waiting for the elevators. The display cases were not
present at the time the observations were made. However, when the display cases were
returned, it was used as arm rests during the conversations.
Second Floor South-The south end studios were observed using the emergency stairwell to travel
between floors.
67
Third Floor North and South- Little activity was observed in the third floor corridors. The bathroom
on the south side of the building was the destination for many students coming out of the
computer lab. The students that had studios at the ends of the buildings use the emergency
stairwell to circulate between floors. The tile benches located in the in the alcoves at the entrance
were rarely used.
Fourth Floor North and South- Students moved directly to the classroom and their studios without
stopping on the fourth floor. The students often gather outside classroom 401 before class.
To summarize the findings from all observations, the majority of students congregate mainly in
their studios. Congregation between outside of studios students was infrequent. Intended
gathering areas with the tile benches were often vacant.
68
Building Analysis
The UTA School of Architecture building needs to be reprogrammed to better meet the needs of
all users: students, faculty, and staff. By conducting a thorough analysis, the students of the
interior design studio 4563 have determined what does, and what does not function well in the
building. In order to make these determinations, the class composed diagrams, conducted
interviews and surveys, and made direct observations of user activity throughout the building.
From the UTA building analysis, our class determined that the entry sequence is only partially
successful. The approach to the building from the exterior is made clear by the building façade,
which emphasizes the centrally located entry portal with height, tile and a solid to void contrast.
Once a visitor crosses the threshold of the portal, however, the direction one should take to enter
the interior of the building is completely unclear. There is no identifiable way finding system to
lead the visitor into the building and to a destination, such as the administrative offices, lecture
hall, or exhibition space.
Throughout the architecture building, there are both specific use and mixed use spaces. The
majority of spaces are specific use, such as studios, classrooms, offices, computer labs, the
lecture hall 204 and lecture room 401, the library, third and fourth floor jury/pin-up spaces,
storage closets, etc. Among these spaces, the class has discovered several “dead spaces” in
which an area is no longer in use or accessible. The few spaces within the building that are
mixed use include the exhibition space, seminar room 201, the circulation/display zones on all
floors, and the second floor bay adjacent to the stairs.
The overall building organization consists of a single primary circulation axis repeated on all floors
with secondary circulation axes occurring on the first and second floors. Correspondingly, the
first and second floors consist of primarily public spaces while the third and fourth floors consist of
primarily private spaces. This division of private and public space establishes several important
adjacencies. In the public realm, the circulation/display areas, gathering nodes, lecture hall,
exhibition space and library are situated either within, or directly adjacent to a major circulation
69
route. The administrative suite is adjacent to both the primary and secondary axes of the second
floor. Nevertheless, the suite’s location remains ambiguous to the first time visitor because it is
not in the line of sight established by the primary circulation route and there is no clear hierarchy
in the area. In the private realm, the adjacency of the faculty offices to the studios increases the
availability of interaction between the students and professors. In addition, the adjacency of the
third floor computer lab, the end of hall pin-up spaces, and the classrooms to the studios and
offices demonstrate the importance of quick and easy access for both students and professors.
The studios are where students spend most of their time. While the studio space is designated
as specific use, the students adapt it to meet their mixed needs; it is the place in which they work,
gather, eat and often sleep. In the existing state, studios are fully enclosed, private spaces.
These conditions allow for a high level of personalization. However, interaction is limited,
especially those on separate floors and in differing departments. Also, some studios are
underutilized, while others are over-crowded. Not only are some studios over-crowded, but some
classrooms have been converted to studios to accommodate the growing enrollment of the
school.
For the majority of the architecture building, the interior image is one of a low material quality.
These materials fail to distinguish any hierarchy of space nor do they enhance any spatial
experience within the building (with the exception of the lecture hall). Even the work exhibited in
display areas is detracted from by the low quality of its surroundings. Tile is the one accent
material used to designate casual gathering space, but it is cold and uncomfortable, which
actually inhibits gathering.
The architecture building analysis has enabled the class to identify what does, and what does not
function well in the building. Both the gained knowledge of extensive research and the inherent
knowledge of the direct user will be extremely valuable to the upcoming design phase of the
project.
70
Space Type + Area Summary
areas measured in square feet
Building Percentage of Total

Space Types 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor 4th Floor Totals Building Area
studio 2,111 7,999 9,412 11,304 30,826 28.07%
circulation 2,905 3,483 4,171 3,968 14,527 13.23%
circulation/display 1,791 4,367 2,265 2,242 10,665 9.71%
office 992 4,073 2,373 3,143 10,581 9.64%
library 9,121 0 0 0 9,121 8.31%
exhibition/pin-up 0 5,378 1,005 1,008 7,391 6.73%
lecture 0 2,984 0 1,356 4,340 3.95%
classroom 843 0 1,526 1,760 4,129 3.76%
computer lab 1,167 0 2,653 0 3,820 3.48%
restroom 645 602 665 740 2,652 2.42%
mechanical 2,683 234 199 182 3,298 3.00%
storage 1,398 1,241 291 335 3,265 2.97%
slide library 1,171 0 0 0 1,171 1.07%
basement 1,059 0 0 0 1,059 0.96%
lab 0 0 587 0 587 0.53%
janitor 262 34 113 118 527 0.48%
photo lab 462 0 0 0 462 0.42%
gathering 238 193 0 0 431 0.39%
research studio 379 0 0 0 379 0.35%
plotting 307 0 0 0 307 0.28%
spray booth 0 0 139 129 268 0.24%
Total Usable Area 27,534 30,588 25,399 26,285 109,806 100.00%
1
UTA School of Architecture Building, Pratt Box Henderson + Partners, 1987
First Floor Plan

Floor Space Type Areas
insert plan here circulation 2,905 sq ft

display/
circulation 1,791 sq ft
basement/
mechanical 3742 sq ft
studio 2,490 sq ft
classroom/
lecture 843 sq ft
office 992 sq ft
library 9,121 sq ft
janitor 262 sq ft
storage 1,398 sq ft
slide library 1,171 sq ft
photo lab 462 sq ft
computer lab 1,167 sq ft
plotter room 307 sq ft
restroom 645 sq ft
gathering space 238 sq ft
floor total
usable area 27,534 sq ft
Second Floor Plan

display/
exhibition/
pin-up 5,378 sq ft
studio 7,999 sq ft
classroom/
lecture 2,984 sq ft
office 4,073 sq ft
library 0 sq ft
janitor 34 sq ft
storage 1,241 sq ft
photo lab 0 sq ft
computer lab 0 sq ft
restroom 602 sq ft
floor total
Third Floor Plan

display/
exhibition/
pin-up 1,005 sq ft
studio 9,412 sq ft
classroom/
lecture 1,526 sq ft
office 2,373 sq ft
library 0 sq ft
janitor 113 sq ft
storage 291 sq ft
lab 587 sq ft
computer lab 2,653 sq ft
spray booth 139 sq ft
restroom 665 sq ft
floor total
Fourth Floor Plan

display/
exhibition/
pin-up 1,008 sq ft
studio 11,304 sq ft
classroom/
lecture 3,116 sq ft
office 3,143 sq ft
library 0 sq ft
janitor 118 sq ft
storage 335 sq ft
spray booth 129 sq ft
computer lab 0 sq ft
restroom 740 sq ft
floor total
User Survey
Results Summary
A questionnaire was administered to the students and faculty of the UTA architecture school to
determine how the various user groups view the space and what changes they would like to see.
The questionnaire was developed using William Pena’s Problem Seeking as a guide for both
format and pertinent questions. The questions relate to the general functionality of the building
and to specific information on existing or proposed spaces such as studios, computer labs, and
lounges.
The most general question in the survey concerned the overall functionality of the architecture
building. From the questionnaire results we can conclude that juniors, who spend the most time in
the building, most often opine that the building functions poorly. The sophomores, who spend the
second most amount of time in the building, are second most likely to make the same claim. In
contrast, the freshmen, who spend the least amount of time in the building, have the highest
percentage of those who believe the building functions well. From this data we can conclude that
those who use the space more often are more likely to feel that the building functions poorly.
Another general question in the survey addresses the separation of academic departments. The
survey results show that the majority of students (45%) disagree with departmental separation.
An overwhelming majority of students (72%) believe their education would benefit from greater
interaction between the different studio levels.
The questionnaire also elicits more specific information on the functionality of the studios and
generally students feel that they do not adequately meet their needs. Though the responses
show low satisfaction levels in all the listed categories, several relevant observations can be
made. When comparing the different student groups, the graduates exhibit a much lower
satisfaction level with available day lighting, the juniors exhibit a much lower satisfaction level with
thermal comfort, and the sophomores exhibit a much higher level of satisfaction with available
power and data. The results also suggest that the current acoustics of the studio are of the least
concern to the students while the lack of personal storage is of the greatest concern. In regards
to spatial organization, fully enclosed space is the first preference of juniors, sophomores and
76
graduates; completely open space is the first preference of seniors and freshman, while
partitioned space is the second choice for all the groups. When asked about preferences for new
studio furnishings, chairs are the priority, followed by desks and lockable storage.
Questions were also asked about other specialized areas both existing and proposed to
determine the specific wants of the student groups. The questionnaire indicates that students
would like to have additional plotters and printers, wireless printing, and laptop workstations
available in the computer labs. In lounges, comfortable furniture was followed by power, data,
and vending are the most desirable amenities. Overall, a student lounge area is highly desirable.
The majority of students would add a lounge before a break room with kitchenette and the break
room before additional jury space, communal desks, or a student conference room. The majority
would also prefer that a lounge be located on each floor. This strong desire for a lounge area is
further emphasized by the students’ response to the question of where they gather. The data
shows that currently there are only two areas where a significant percentage of students
frequently gather: in the studios and outside near the second floor entry. For a jury pin-up space,
seniors and juniors prefer the ends of the hall locations and the majority of freshmen,
sophomores and graduates prefer the gallery. All groups chose the studio as the second location
of preference.
Determining user needs is one of the most important steps in any successful project. The
questionnaire for the architecture building established the user’s views on both general
functionality of the entire building and on desired functionality of specialized spaces. The results
show that general questions often received a broad range of responses from the different class
groups. In contrast, the specific questions often received consistent responses. The information
provided by the results of this survey will be extremely valuable to the upcoming design phase of
the project.
77
User Survey
If you have been given this survey it is because you are interested in good design and realize its
importance. With the possibility of reprogramming the UTA architecture building we have decided
to tap our best resource, YOU. This survey will be administered to the students and faculty to
help us get an end users perspective of what does, and doesn’t function well in the building. The
accumulative data from this survey WILL be presented to the building committee. This is your
chance to contribute; please don’t hold back.
1. What studio are you currently enrolled in?

Please circle your department and specify the course number:
ARCH INTD MARCH LARC FACULTY
Course #:
2. On average, how many hours per week do you spend in the architecture building outside of
class?
Please circle one:
senior junior sophomore freshman graduate
0-5 7% 3% 4% 93% 25%

5-15 19% 21% 22% 7% 34%
15-30 37% 25% 31% 0% 30%
30+ 37% 51% 43% 0% 21%
For the following questions please circle one.
3. Overall, the School of Architecture building functions well.
78
Agree 22% 25% 25% 42% 19%

Disagree 22% 40% 38% 9% 28%
Neutral 56% 35% 37% 49% 53%
4. Overall, my studio space is well utilized.
Agree 41% 38% 40% 58% 37%

Disagree 41% 34% 36% 11% 46%
Neutral 18% 28% 24% 31% 17%
5. The academic departments (ARCH, INTD, MARCH, LARC) should be separated.
Agree 26% 28% 27% 24% 25%

Disagree 48% 48% 38% 32% 60%
Neutral 26% 24% 35% 44% 15%
6. My education would benefit from greater interaction between the different studio levels.
Agree 63% 84% 91% 46% 63%

Disagree 22% 6% 2% 2% 12%
Neutral 15% 10% 7% 52% 25%
For the following questions, please rank the answer choices in numerical order, with 1
being the most important.
79
7. In my studio, I would like to have:
__new desks senior chair, desk, lounge, storage

__new chairs juniors chair, desk, storage, lounge
__lockable storage sophomore desk, chair, storage, lounge
__lounge furniture freshman chair, desk, lounge, storage
__other graduate desk, chair, storage, lounge
8. In my studio, I would prefer the space to be:

senior open, partitioned, enclosed
__fully enclosed junior enclosed, partitioned, open
__completely open sophomore enclosed, partitioned, open
__partitioned (partially enclosed) freshman open, partitioned, enclosed
graduate enclosed, partitioned, open
9. For a jury/pin-up space, my ideal location is currently the:
__studio senior hall, std, glry, bay, conf, clsrm

__gallery junior hall, std, bay, glry, clsrm, conf
__ends of the hall sophomore glry, std, clsrm, hall, conf, bay
__classroom freshman glry, std, clsrm, hall, conf, bay
__second floor bay (adjacent to stairs) graduate glry, std, clsrm, hall, bay, conf
__second floor conference room
__other:
10. In a new computer lab, I would like to have:
__additional software, please specify: senior plotter, wireless, software, workstation

80
__additional plotters/printers junior wireless, plotter, workstation, software

__wireless printing sophomore workstation, wireless, plotter, software
__laptop workstations freshman workstation, wireless, plotter, software
__other: graduate plotter, wireless, workstation, software
11. In a student lounge, I would like to have:
__comfortable furniture seniors furn, d & p, kitch, vend, com dsk

__vending juniors furn, d & p, vend, com dsk, kitch
__data & power sophomores furn, d & p, com dsk, vend, kitch
__community desks freshman furn, d & p, vend, com dsk, kitch
__kitchenette graduates furn, d & p, com dsk, vend, kitch
__other:
12. For a student lounge, my ideal location would be:
st
__1 floor near the vending senior 2circ, 3/4std, 3/4circ, 1 vend, each flr
nd
__2 floor within the public circulation junior each flr, 3/4circ, 2circ, 1 vend, 3/4std
rd th
__3 or 4 floor near the studios sophomore each flr, 2circ, 3/4std, 3/4circ, 1 vend
rd th
__ 3 or 4 floor within the public circulation freshman each flr, 2circ, 3/4circ, 3/4std, 1 vend
__one on each floor graduate 2circ, 1 vend, 3/4std, 3/4circ, each flr
__other
13. In regards to the whole building, a space I would add is:
__a lounge area senior lounge, com dsk, jury, std conf, break
__a break room/kitchenette junior lounge, break, jury, com dsk, std conf
__an additional jury space sophomore break, lounge, com dsk, jury, std conf
__a communal desks with power and data freshman lounge, break, jury, com dsk, std conf
__a student conference room graduate lounge, break, jury, com dsk, std conf
__other
Please help us learn about the condition of your studio by checking ALL statements that
apply.
81
14. My studio:
__has adequate personal space 19% 26% 2% 28% 7%

__has an adequate amount of privacy 22% 17% 8% 5% 7%
__has adequate daylight 33% 29% 18% 37% 7%
__has adequate work surface 26% 15% 8% 33% 5%
__has adequate security 22% 14% 8% 4% 5%
__has adequate power and data 15% 14% 65% 2% 4%
__lacks personal storage 22% 37% 18% 35% 13%
__lacks adequate artificial lighting 0% 22% 12% 9% 11%
__lacks thermal comfort 7% 32% 6% 12% 4%
__lacks adequate communal work space 11% 28% 12% 19% 7%
__lacks adequate pinup space 30% 35% 14% 7% 11%
__lacks appropriate acoustics 7% 15% 5% 7% 0%
15. For socializing, I frequently gather:
__in studios 33% 32% 17% 7% 9%

__at elevator lobbies 4% 9% 2% 4% 0%
__on tiled benches 7% 8% 3% 7% 2%
__outside second floor entry 30% 15% 9% 7% 9%
__inside second floor entry 15% 10% 6% 9% 0%
__I do not gather 0% 2% 6% 19% 0%
__other
Please include any additional comments on the reverse side.
82
Additional comments:
Freshman:
-Feels unfinished.
-Need lounge and food areas.
-A “Quiet Studio” (a room that bans all cell phones, radios, talking, etc.) would be
nice.
Sophomores:
- I prefer to be able to leave things in the studio, instead of daily transporting.
-Materials, special hierarchy, and ornamentation should all be changed.
-Ventilation ducts need to have deflectors, instead of blowing directly on
students.
-Need showers!
-Studios need more electrical outlets.
Juniors:
-we need a more comfortable environment.
nd
-2 floor circulation would be better utilized as communal seating /work space to
encourage interaction.
-Have vending on both first and fourth floors.
-Lounge area and kitchenette is a great idea.
-Adjustable thermostats that are accessible. Thermal comfort is very inconsistent.
-Electrical outlets on the floor and a nuisance, because they get debris in them.
-Level of cleaning needs to improve in studios and hallways, a new building or
renovation of this building would improve the learning environment and help in
recruiting new students to the program. We need an affordable place to get real
food on this side of campus.
- Need comfortable lounge furniture in studio, not little arm chairs. If you spend
money get something nice. What we have now is a disgustingly torn, broken,
blue couch that smells like doo doo.
-Add a café and lounge area
Seniors:
-Fix vending machines, so that they don’t steel our money
-Outdoor community that relates to the gym.
83
Graduates:
-I think lounge areas with couches and TVs and microwaves would be nice.
-Studios are too segregated, and lack enough power.
-More areas for students to gather
-24 hour food machine or cafeteria would be great
-An area for students to gather and study
-Studios are overcrowded, and Storage space is inadequate
-Security???????? Need more pinup space in studio
Thoughts on sustainability in regards to the building:
Freshman:
Sophomores:
-The building gets very hot on west side, and cold and drafty at night.
-Efficiency and sustainability of the building could be greatly improved.
-Toilet paper dispensers waste paper.
Juniors:
-Green roof.
-Sustainability should be taken into consideration.
-Not sustainable at all!
-Lights always on
-Light sensors
-Waterless urinals/toilets
-Operational windows, because there are so many nice days for natural
ventilation
Seniors:
-It is ridiculous to ignore sustainability; we should be setting the bar.
-I feel our faculty doesn’t give a damn about sustainability, even though the
students do.
-Go sustainable!
Graduates:
-The layout is backwards, the studio should be on the east side and the offices
on the west because they are not used during the hot part of the day.
84
-Add solar panels to roof

-The whole thing needs to be rethought regarding sustainability (solar exposure,
orientation, interior light management, water use and conservation)
-Include more daylight into the building
Thoughts on material quality in regards to the renovation:
Freshman:
- Needs new work surfaces, chairs, and different flooring to reduce noise and
coldness.
-Acoustics are the worst of any building I’ve been in.
Sophomores:
- Recycled materials?
-Materials should be a higher quality because this is a design school.
-Better colors.
Juniors:
-Comfortable materials
-Sustainable and modern materials
-I like the concrete flooring.
-More pinup space on the walls.
-Get rid of brick
Seniors:
-Sustainable materials
-Warmer materials
-Less warehouse feel
Graduates:
-Midgrade commercial at best, because we tend to be hard on things
-Softer materials in studio, for comfort
-Please change the green tiles on the façade, and interiors
-Operable windows, the air quality sucks in this building!
-Every wall should be able to be pinned up on.
85
Problem Statements
Orientation
Since the building is open to both students and visitors, the design should utilize clear and
concise wayfinding.
Since each user has different needs in the building, appropriate adjacencies should be
provided.
There are several areas of concern in regards to the orientation of the building: 1) library
(including slide library, librarian offices), 2) entry and procession to public spaces (administration
suite, lecture hall, gallery, second floor lobby) 3) a more clearly defined entry from the first floor
breezeway and procession to public spaces (library, vertical circulation) and, 4) studio (accessible
power, computer labs, faculty offices); therefore, the design should address better utilization
of these elements.
Space Utilization
Since we are currently at maximum capacity of 1,000 students, efficient space utilization is
necessary for anticipated increasing student population.
Since the goal is to provide a more beneficial learning and teaching environment, more efficient
spatial flexibility, including different levels of enclosure and multipurpose spaces should
be considered.
There are several areas of concern in regards to the space utilization of the building: 1) future
render farm and location, 2) slide library relocation, 3) studio located in room 105 (partial
enclosure), 4) administrative suite, 5) research studio, 6) second floor lobby, 7) second floor pin-
up space, 8) conference room 201, 9) end of hall pin-up spaces, and 10) studio enclosure and
reconfiguration; therefore, the design should address better utilization of these elements.
Interaction
Since the students, faculty, and administration require verbal and visual communication in order
to function successfully, the building’s design should incorporate spaces for formal,
informal, and chance gathering.
86
Since there is a lack of comfort within the learning environment, the design should address
changes which would enhance interaction between students and the building.
Since interaction between students and the building is highly important, the design should
include durable and cost-effective materials.
Since students spend so much time in the building, the design should reflect a flexible
environment.
There are several areas of concern in regards to the interaction of the building: 1) student/faculty
lounges, 2) building materials, 3) colors, 4) thermal comfort, and 5) furnishings (studio, gathering
locations, lounges); therefore, the design should address better utilization of these
elements.
Image
Since the building is a school of design, the design should show a concern for design quality
and be an inspiration for future campus designs.
Since the school teaches conceptual design to architecture and interior design students, the
building should reflect the same method of teaching and be an inspiration for the
students.
Since our school’s image should be timeless, the design should reflect what has been learned
through precedent research.
There are several areas of concern in regards to the image of the building: 1) public spaces, 2)
private spaces, 3) furnishings, and 4) building materials; therefore, the design should address
better utilization of these elements.
87

Floor Plans College of Architecture Texas Arlington Many Schools Summary Document3 W C CLARK VIRGINIA USA COLLEGES

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Floor Plans College of Architecture Texas Arlington Many Schools Summary Document3 W C CLARK VIRGINIA USA COLLEGES

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

R e v i s i o n i n g t h e S c h o o l o f A r c h i t e c t u r e B u i l d i n g , U n i v e r s i t y o f Te x a s a t A r l i n g t o n

Building Committee Concerns

Preliminary Studio Desk Proposal

Study of William M. Pena and Steven A.

Documentation of User Group Needs

Faculty and Staff Interviews

Study of Edward T. Hall’s The Hidden

Proxemics, Fixed-Feature Space, and Semifixed-Feature Space

Hall considers semifixed-feature space to be an environment that is comprised of movable parts.

Through graphically expressing precedent studies, the students achieved a greater

Glasgow School of Art, Charles Rennie

Entry to Glasgow School of Art

Glasgow School of Art, Charles Rennie

Glasgow School of Art, Scotland, 1899-1909,

Entrance Adjacencies and Axes

Exterior First Floor Entry and Interior Gallery Space

Glasgow School of Art, Charles Rennie

Entrance Adjacencies and Axes

Glasgow School of Art

UTA Architecture Building Floor

Glasgow School of Art, Scotland, 1899-1909,

Studio spaces adjacent to pin-up spaces

Pin-Up Space and Studio

Glasgow School of Art, Charles Rennie

Studio spaces adjacent to Pin-up Areas

Glasgow School of Art

UTA Architecture Building Floor

The Bauhaus, Dessau, Germany, 1925-6, Walter

Studio Space vs. Faculty Space

The Bauhaus, Dessau, Germany, 1925-6, Walter

Studio Space vs. Faculty Space

UTA Architecture Building Floor

Crown Hall, IIT, Chicago, Illinois, 1950-1956

Open Studio Space vs. Closed Studio Space

Open Studio Space at IIT Crown Hall

Crown Hall, IIT, Chicago, Illinois, 1950-1956

Open Studio Space vs. Closed Studio Space

IIT Crown Hall

Closed Studio Space

Open Studio Space

Yale Art + Architecture Building, New Haven,

Defined and Implied Boundaries

Floor Jury and Studio Space

Yale Art and Architecture Building,

Defined and Implied Boundaries

Yale Art and Architecture Building

UTA Architecture Building Floor

George Gund Hall, Harvard Graduate School of

Open Studio vs. Enclosed Studio

George Gund Hall, Harvard Graduate School of

Open Studio vs. Enclosed Studio

George Gund Hall, Harvard Graduate School of Design

UTA Architecture Building Sections

George Gund Hall, Harvard Graduate School of

Exterior of the Gund Hall Library

George Gund Hall, Harvard Graduate School of

UTA Architecture Building Floor

Gerald D. Hines Building, University of Houston

Sightlines to Develop Way-finding

Entry Lobby images showing sightline

Gerald D. Hines Building, University of Houston

Sightlines to Develop Way-finding, 1/96”=1’0”

Gerald D. Hines College, Floor

UTA Architecture Building, Floor