Deb,
We have recently gone through the same
process--deciding on space needs
for labs, office space, etc. This isn't so hard. You have to decide
on whether to have a small single-occupant office for each faculty
member or larger, shared offices. You need to decide your space needs
for current activities and then project a bit for growth and add a dash
of flexibility for changes in program strategy. What is more
difficult, in my opinion, is making design recommendations for the
psychology of building function. I'll give you an example,
Currently, we are housed in a 1950s brick and cinderblock 2-story
building. While space is tight, the building is highly successful from
a behavioral perspective. We have faculty, staff, and classrooms all
in the same building. There are spaces near major trafficways for
people to hang out, meet in study groups, or study for the next class.
There are vending machines in these informal spaces, seating, and
tables. Two well-equipped computer labs are in the building. While
aesthetically unappealing, this building has everything one needs to
bring people together, hold them, and attend to their social and
educational needs. In other words, this old building really works--it
helps to provide an informal social climate, supports a sense of
belonging, and helps to create a "family" feeling in the psychology
department.
Contrast this with the new social sciences building--a multi-story
structure to be built in the next year or two. The faculty and staff
will be somewhere on a high floor with individual offices and a view of
Humboldt Bay. But our classrooms will be in other buildings and not
particularly close. Students will not have a convenient public lounge
space as they do now. They will have to really want to see a professor
to schlep up to the new building and climb several floors to see if a
particular faculty member is in. The casual drop-in meetings will
become only a dim memory. I predict our shiny new facilities will be
associated with an increase in social alienation and a drop in our
current cohesiveness. Put simply, if you separate
students-faculty-staff geographically, you can expect an accompanying
increase in social distance and a decrease in sense of community.
While people like Robert Sommers wrote persuasively about the
behavioral basis of design, I think our current architects missed such
readings. It seems as if contemporary campus buildings are built
primarily with an accountant's perspective. It's all about dollars and
square feet without any sense of the impact on building users when they
attempt to pursue their individual objectives in the newly-built
space. Issues of habitability and functionality or behavioral
sensitivity don't carry much weight in the training of architects and
designers these days.
So my advice would be to think about how the
building design supports or elicits desirable behaviors on the part of
the students and faculty. I really think there is quite a bit of truth
to the concept of environmental determinism (OK, call it environmental
possibilism): the building design can help to create a sense of
community or it can lead to alienation. Create spaces that bring
people together (along with the needed class/staff/lab space needs) and
you will have a successful building.
There isn't a whole lot of literature on this
topic, but you might look up some of Sommers books, like Personal
Space, or Hard Architecture. For what it's worth, I had an article on
this topic in Environment and Behavior. The reference is: Campbell,
D. E., & Campbell, T. A. (1988). A
new look at informal communication:The role of the
physical environment. Environment and Behavior, 20, 211-226.
--Dave
___________________________________________________________________
David E. Campbell, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Psychology Phone:
707-826-3721
Humboldt State University FAX:
707-826-4993
Arcata, CA
95521-8299 www.humboldt.edu/~campbell/psyc.htm
