Complexity in the Built Environment: Wayfinding Difficulties in the Modular Design of Qatar University’s Most Iconic Building

Mark David Major,Shaikha Al-Thani,Lolwa Al-Mohannadi,Doha Elsaman,Meera Al-Khulifi,Heba O Tannous

doi:10.3390/smartcities3030048

Abstract

Constructed in the 1980s, the BCR Corridors complex is the most iconic building at Qatar University (QU). However, it is also notorious for way-finding difficulties. The problem appears to derive from the repetitive similarity of individual parts in its modular design. Elevators, stairwells, screens, and temporary installations also create impediments to user readability and visibility. Collectively, this tends to complicate its relationship to the immediate context of the university campus. Recently, researchers at QU conducted a post-occupancy evaluation (PoE) of the BCR Corridors. It included (1) direct observation of movement flows and static occupation of space in common areas, (2) room use and photographic surveys, and (3) computer modeling of the spatial layout using space syntax. Space syntax is an international research program of academics and practitioners studying the role of built space in society from the single building to entire cities. The purpose of the PoE study was to understand observed patterns of movement and space use with reference to the problems for way-finding in the BCR Corridors. Based on this, researchers developed proposals for design alterations to enable easier use of the complex. The findings of the study support the above hypothesis about navigation problems in the building.

Highlights

With the advent of the internet and smart devices facilitating tracking or surveillance over the last two decades, smart with a capital ‘s’ has increasingly become associated with technological solutions to problems of the built environment, often responsive to the individual needs of end uses [1,2]
There appear to be less than 30 dedicated classrooms in the BCR Corridors
There appears to be an alternating pattern of classrooms, offices, and labs corridor to corridor via these spaces and associated hallways. It is most evident in the use of local the most extended length of each module, providing some degree of local cross-circulation from hallways for offices and lab spaces in the most central sequence of modules. It is most evident in the use of local extended length of the building in an east-to-west direction) from Corridor A–J on the first floor and hallways for offices and lab spaces in the most central sequence of modules

Summary

Introduction

With the advent of the internet and smart devices facilitating tracking or surveillance over the last two decades, smart with a capital ‘s’ has increasingly become associated with technological solutions to problems of the built environment, often responsive to the individual needs of end uses [1,2]. The financial incentives of ‘if we can’ often overrides common sense considerations of ‘if we should’ when it comes to architecture and urbanism. This is not the only definition of smart or smartness in buildings and cities. Many continue to advocate for the smartness of embracing and perpetuating thousands of years of received wisdom about the built environment. Their goal is to promote the long-term resilience and sustainability of our homes and urban places [4,5,6]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion