Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Durable Solutions for the Beautification of the Abdul Ladha Building Ali, Hadir; Rosales, Guilherme; Wu, Sean 2019-04-30

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
66428-Ali_H_et_al_GPP_504_Durable_solutions_beautification_Abdul_Ladha_building_final_report.pdf [ 1.54MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 66428-1.0392588.json
JSON-LD: 66428-1.0392588-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 66428-1.0392588-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 66428-1.0392588-rdf.json
Turtle: 66428-1.0392588-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 66428-1.0392588-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 66428-1.0392588-source.json
Full Text
66428-1.0392588-fulltext.txt
Citation
66428-1.0392588.ris

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program Student Research Report         Durable Solutions for the Beautification of the Abdul Ladha Building Hadir Ali, Guilherme Rosales, Sean Wu University of British Columbia GPP 504 Themes: Waste, Community, Materials  Date: April 30, 2019       Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”. Durable Solutions for the Beautification of the Abdul Ladha BuildingHadir Ali, Guilherme Rosalesand Sean WuA joint project with UBC SEEDSTABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive SummaryClient OverviewDefination and Description of the Policy Problem Research and AssesmentsMethodologyLimitationsFeasability and BudgetEstablishing Core Values and CriteriaRisk of Inaction and Assessment of Risk via Possibilities Implementation and Policy Evaluation Recommendations ConclusionAppendix4456689101213161820- 3 -ABBREVIATIONSSUSCAMCBAScience Undergraduate Societycriteria alternatives matrixcost-benefit analysisEXECUTIVE SUMMARYIn January of 2019, students in GPP 504 Policy Analysis and Evaluation were commissioned with different faculties at UBC in collaboration with SEEDs with different assigned policy problems. Our group, consisting of Hadir Ali, Sean Wu, and Guilherme Rosales were tasked with the “Beautification” of the Abdul Ladha Science Student Centre. We were presented with multiple perceived issues within the building but ultimately we were told that the building was built approximately ten years ago, and as a result of lack of upkeep it is currently in bad aesthetic condition. In order to address and resolve this issue our group has put together a package of options to make Ladha more inviting and aesthetically pleasing. In this endeavour we visited the building multiple times, reviewed the current policies of the Science Undergraduate Society (SUS), collaborated with different faculties and workshopped ideas to enhance Ladha aesthetically. CLIENT OVERVIEWOur client in this case is the SUS, Specifically Ms. Kim Vu who is the Vice President for Administration. Ms. Vu provided us with a breakdown of the concerns for Ladha building. She mentioned the following list of concerns and the direct issues she would like to see addressed.• Lighting is too dim;• Garbage cans are right next to the Entrance;• Student spaces are heavily cluttered; • Dilapidated furniture;• Drab décor;• Temperature is cold; • Communal space for students is generally depressingWhile the building is only a little over 10 years old, it appears that a lack of change - 4 -and a lack of adequate upkeep has led to it looking disorganized and uninviting. Unsuccessful attempts have been made in the past to ensure that the space stays organized and clean but there haven’t been any other significant moves to address the listed client concerns. A general lack of significant policies to address these concerns have meant that our group has had no previous policies to build off on. Rather, this project was solely organized and realized by our three team members. Because past policies were not a factor in the development of this policy plan we decided to meet with Ms. Vu multiple times in order to ensure that we had gaged the situation correctly and through frequent consultation we were able to ensure that out proposed ideas were well received by the client. Through, significant background research we have determined that the following policy recommendation is a  “pioneer” recommendation. This designation is a result of the fact that, as mentioned, little to nothing has been done to address this problem.  Currently the SUS has no arts or cultural policy providing them a mandate or vision in terms of art displays, or simply what to do with their space.DEFINITION AND DESCRIPTION OF THE POLICY PROBLEMUpon physically touring the building, it became clear that Ladha’s upkeep was not on par with other buildings on campus and especially our own Liu building.  As it stands their building has colder colors, jarring accent walls and their space is being underutilized. Where the space is open and has the potential to promote a greater sense of comfort, ease, enjoyment and even community it is instead left in an unappealing condition. The furniture is old and worn out. The space has a lot of natural lighting but is generally darker inside due to the color choices of accent walls. For the most part the space is also rather barren and devoid of any sense of uniqueness or comfort. Through these observations, and meetings with the client we were able to narrow down our policy problem to the following statement:“The Science Undergraduate Society does not have an arts and cultural policy mandate to help direct their vision to visually enhance and maintain the Abdul Ladha Science - 5 -Student Centre.”Our group was able to narrow down the problem to the above statement. After formulating the specific policy problem we got to work breaking down the causes of the problem and possible solutions and different alternatives. To formulate the different options and assess them we laid out the following research and assessments.RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENTSTo further simplify this policy problem, we broke it down into two fundamental objectives, a short term objective and a long term one.Short Term Objective: The building desperately needs new furniture and other creative options to  beautify the student space.Long Term Objective: There needs to be a policy/mandate in place to ensure the longevity of a beautification plan. METHODOLOGYFor this project we will be used some qualitative and quantitative tools primarily to establish the student bodies wants and needs for their space, along with aligning the various values ascertained in talks with the student association executive.  We started this project with the intention of not only providing an analysis of what are the best options in terms of drafting an arts and cultural policy for the student executive, but also we hoped to: provide a cost/benefit analysis in terms of types of furniture to buy to maximize the budget constraints of the executive that balances all of the criteria they are looking for; provide options for further ‘beautification plans’ such as plants, display cases, or art displays; and provide one tangible, implementable solution by the end of the semester which will be an art display.  Our intention throughout our meetings with the client and designing this project plan has been to provide a plan to Ms. Vu and future executives, that is both easy to - 6 -implement and maintain. Throughout this whole process we were very well aware that while the SUS might be our client we must ensure the overall satisfaction of the Student body and especially those who frequent the building. With this in mind, we set out to create a survey to assess the student body’s impression of the building and what can be improved. Unfortunately, we did not receive survey results in time to produce this report, but when we eventually received them, it revealed that the science student body overwhelmingly agreed with the issues that we intended to address in our recommendations. Almost all students felt that the building was being under-utilized and needed upgrading mainly in furniture and space utilization. For a detailed analysis of the survey, refer to Page 24 of the Appendix.Below are the methodological tools that were used in the design of this project plan:1. SurveyWe distributed a survey with detailed questions into the opportunity for improvement as seen by students. This survey was distributed by the SUS online and included non-biased questions. But unfortunately, as mentioned above, results were not recieved in time and were not included in this report.  2, Literature Review: The brief review of ‘art therapy’ literature and plant science helped to strengthen the weight of our recommendations for the SUS in terms of the types of things they communicated they were looking for.. We also  reviewed other organizations arts and cultural policies to gain a sense of what policy statements, policies, and documentation of this form generally established.  3. Methods of Evaluation for Different Options:Throughout the selection process of the project plan’s different options and alternative we utilized different methods of evaluation. The first method which was constantly deployed was a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) of the different furniture - 7 -options we assembled, the cost versus the benefits from having real plants versus fake plants to make the space feel more welcoming and alive with life, and the cost versus the benefits of artistic projects requiring either no budget, some budget or a larger budget to fund artists and art displays. Throughout this project, with every recommendation made, we used CBA to ensure we were maximizing opportunity and satisfaction balanced against their core values which were our main criteria in assessing this policy issue. Demonstrated in the Appendix, we also used the criteria alternatives matrix (CAM) to weight the different options we were proposing and to ensure that once again we were picking the option with the most benefit.LIMITATIONSUnfortunately, this undertaking has multiple limitations which has made it more difficult to enhance the space to its full potential. The following is a list of what we believe were the biggest limitations within this project that pose a possible risk as to the ultimate success of this project.1. BudgetWith a limited budget of $10,000 it is not possible to completely overhaul the interior of the building and redesign it in a more sustainable manner. The building is in dire need of new furniture, new paint, flooring update, and general upgrade. Without a higher budget we had to prioritize what we determined were the most pressing necessary changes. This in itself is very much a disservice to the overall space and its potential. 2. UpkeepUpon touring the building it became clear that there is a general lack of upkeep for the building. There was garbage everywhere, broken furniture strewn about, and rundown/old posters, and old decoration. the lack of a framework for accountability, with no one person truly in charge of effective upkeep, we are - 8 -unable to guarantee the proper implementation of our plan. 3. Employee and Student ApathyA large part of why the space has aesthetically deteriorated to the extent that it has, is in large part due to lack of care by students who use the building and by employees who only carry out limited responsibilities. This lack of care/apathy is a large hurdle to the longevity of this project. Awareness campaigns by our colleagues can circumvent this but the problem remains that if students and especially employees are not invested in the space then its deterioration may be unavoidable. 4. UpkeepWe are unable to monitor the project and ensure its success over the next couple of years. This means that our proposal must withstand the test of time in order to be effective. Another downfall of this limitation is that once we present our proposal we are unable to alter it depending on which areas were most effective or which areas fell short of delivering its desired outcome. While this is not an exhaustive list of all limitations to this undertaking, it is a list our most pressing limitations. Things which are unavoidable that may risk the success of this project.FEASIBILITY AND BUDGETThe current stated budget is $10,000. When presented with the problem of “beautifying the science building”, Ms. Vu had many concerns and was eager to present the problems and its potential solutions. While this in itself speaks to the feasibility of this project, the budget and stated limitations pose serious risks to said feasibility. Though, the task at hand is not impossible, its feasibility is questionable. In the short term, there is no doubt that with the said budget the SUS can make the comprehensive changes recommended in this report. This will both beautify the building and make the space more student-friendly. But the problem lies in - 9 -long-term feasibility, ensuring that our policy is carried out fully, and to ensure that no shortcuts are taken so the building would not again deteriorate to what it is today. Thus, it is our recommendation that our proposed policy be reassessed and reevaluated at on a yearly basis. This would ensure that the solutions we presented in our project has satisfactory longevity and will also allow for budgetary reassessments. ESTABLISHING CORE VALUES AND CRITERIAThrough multiple discussions with Ms. Vu it became clear that the number one priority for this client is to create an artistic/cultural mandate for their building.  The biggest value/criterion for a lot of any artistic or “beautifying” endeavours is cost (financial feasibility) and other limitations as laid out further down. Second, for furniture the two competing and closely intertwined values are functionality and aesthetic. Ms. Vu communicated that functionality is extremely important and heavily needed. It’s important to note that sustainability is an ongoing priority for the SUS and so all proposed plans must abide by this priority. The following is a breakdown of what we considered was a list of the overall tasks of this project plan:1. Create a sustainable policy/mandate for the building.2. Develop ideas for beautifying the building.3. Develop ideas to make the space more friendly and welcoming to students.To assess the best policy to use for the development of a solution to this policy problem we constructed a criteria alternative matrix, which assessed the different types of options we could offer. For the full table, refer to Page 23 of the Appendix.Alternatives1. Arts and Cultural Mandate that provides a rigid mandate/vision for the student body with a terms and reference for committee formation. This policy would be strict in nature and would involve hard time lines that must be followed - 10 -in regards to the maintenance of the building in terms of art/culture displays amongst other things. 2. Arts and Cultural Mandate that provides a flexible mandate/vision for the student body with a terms and reference for committee formation. This would include maintaining the building over time in terms of art/culture displays amongst other things.3. Arts and Cultural Mandate that provides only a mandate/vision from the exec for the student body with no committee and responsibility to execute vision solely. This option is designed to be flexible, like the first one but without any student body governance structure.CriteriaThe following is a list of criteria that we believe make up the most important values for the different available options:• Feasibility (budget): This criterion merely asks whether any of the options are feasible to implement from a budgetary standpoint. We are assuming committee formation will be a voluntary process either with or without a budget to work with that will come from the current budget.• Functionality: This criterion asks whether or not the policy will be functional for the client or clientele in its’ general usefulness in directing an aesthetic vision and in maintaining the building’s appearance.• Aesthetic/Theme: This criterion asks whether or not the policies will more often than not allow the flexibility to fit a certain aesthetic or changing theme/aesthetic over time for different student bodies.• Sustainability: This criterion asks whether or not the policy is sustainable in terms of an enduring and durable solution.  • Logistic Feasibility: This criterion asks how feasible is it to implement and - 11 -organize.Thus, through this CAM analysis we are able to determine that option 1 presents as the most viable option. Based on the idea of feasibility, considering social backlash, spreading responsibility, factoring in adaptability, transparency, accountability and creating a document that will represent not only the current student body and all future student bodies, option 1 presents itself as the most flexible, adaptable and highest scoring option of all three. Option 1, offers a balanced policy that is not too strict too fully and too lenient to ignore. We believe this option offers the proper amount of policy that can withstand the test of time. This longevity is crucial to the creation of any mandate in order to ensure that the policy we offer is one that can be properly maintained overtime and that w ould not result in resorting back to current practices which have led to the building’s deterioration. RISK OF INACTION AND ASSESSMENT OF RISK(Risk Factor 0 = not risky, 5 = extremely risky and can lead to backlash)Possibility 1:  No action is ever taken and the building stays the same. Risk Factor: 0 —Things stay the same.  There may be a long-term decrease in people using the building as there are more welcoming, aesthetically pleasing spaces, and more functional spaces on campus. Why should the student body choose to study here, especially if it gets dinger, darker, and more undesirable?Possibility 2:  Some action happens occasionally, but without direction, guidance, oversight or a clear plan of action. Risk Factor 2.5—in this scenario there is a 50/50 chance of some art going up, without a clear strategy or mandate to guide them, and in the process miscommunication occurs and something offensive occurs or goes up.  Students will stick around in the long term, but may migrate to other buildings.  It may provide an uptick in traffic if it is offensive, or even if not.  Ultimately the conclusion is cloudy and the risk is higher than most.- 12 -Possibility 3: Action happens through strategic grassroots formation of a committee that is either casually given from the executive to the student body through a call out, or an individual initiative. There is no direction, guidance or oversight from an executive.Risk Factor: 1.5 —this is slightly risky.  With organization there is less likely a chance that something would go unnoticed as a group is involved.  Yet the exec has no direct control or oversight.  Ultimately the exec is the arbitrator of all decisions so veto power still rests with them.  Yet there is room for a grassroots style committee from the student body to just “take action” and put things up without consent.  Yet in following a call out from the exec there may be a plan, but it may not be very clear.  Some art goes up, but it is a clunky process and not fitting in with a holistic or directed vision.  Some students like it, others don’t, things may roughly stay the same.This is not meant to be a comprehensive list of risk assessment; merely some primary and tangible events that may occur if no action is taken by the executive on this issue.  IMPLEMENTATION AND POLICY EVALUATIONObjective 1: Create a sustainable policy/mandate for the building.Through this policy statement the SUS can begin to ensure that any changes made through task numbers 2 or 3 are well-kept, maintained and durable. For a draft of the mandate, refer to Page 27 of the Appendix.Objective 2: Develop ideas for beautifying the building.For task number 2, we started with furniture options and developed a list of viable options. For this task we  weighed the needs of the SUS against costs, while optimizing the budget of under $10,000.  Following a some research on sustainable furniture options, we determined that IKEA was the most cost-effective, sustainable, and modernly functional source of furniture. IKEA has recently vowed to ensure - 13 -that by 2030 all furniture manufactured will be comprised of recycled materials. Currently, 80% of all their furniture is made from recycled materials which is much more sustainable than most other furniture options.  Another, sustainably friendly element to IKEA is that they have developed a ‘buy back program’ IKEA furniture can be recycled at a local IKEA and the customer would gain back store credit for further purchases.  This clearly meets the preset criteria of sustainability and went further than most other companies in their commitment to sustainability. The following furniture list includes recommendations, and goes over the more functional considerations that were assessed, along with aesthetics considerations. For a full list of furniture recommendations, refer to page 30 of the Appendix. A pricing guide can also be found on Pagd 34 of the Appendix.Secondly, in our consideration of aesthetic improvements, we assessed the option of purchasing plants to add a sense of comfort to students. In the art therapy literature that was reviewed by our team, it was established that plants produce a calming effect in any space and we determined this to be an unique option for Ladha. Beyond this we also considered the fact that NASA has conducted multiple studies which have established the importance of plants in spaces as a means of increasing air filtration of toxic chemicals which are created through the deterioration of building materials. Alternatively, there is also literature which connects better mental well-being. The option of plants, creates both functional improvements, and increases green space in Ladha. Thus, supporting the overall objective of ‘beautifying’ the building and can be a means of demonstrating SUS culture and values in terms of both well-being and sustainability.It should be noted here that once again we weighed the broader and numerous criteria in deciding the recommended option. We had to ask ourselves, after our observations of the space, would undergraduates be willing to take on the responsibility of living plants? What type of plants would we recommend to reduce the responsibility of such upkeep? In our design formation and from our observations we came to the conclusion that some responsibility would be acceptable and is in line with the core values of the SUS. Alternatively, we also considered artificial plants as they would lessen the burden of taking care of a - 14 -large number of plants, while extending the appearance of a “greener” space. For a breakdown of options with specific suggestions for living plant types that are low maintenance (can be watered only once every 2-3 weeks) but also some of the top NASA approved plants for air filtration capacity, refer to page 35 on the Appendix.Furniture, in combination with the right type of plants can mean that the space is now more inclusive, and aesthetically pleasing with the plants add a calming effect and air filtration. To take this a step further we recommend repainting the main second floor. While keeping the wood intact, a fresh coat of neutral paint to the walls could refresh the building’s interior and make it a more calming environment to students. For a list of colour recommendations, refer to Page 36 of the Appendix.It is also important to note that the first level of the ALSC building is in dire need of a new paint job as the current neon green colour is a distraction and does not elevate the building in anyway. As can be seen by the photos below. We also recommend dedicating a portion of the budget to fixing the hardwood floor which is currently in bad shape. We did not explore the flooring options further than this as the budget is currently extremely low and fixing flooring is a an expensive endeavour. Objective 3: Develop ideas to make the space more inclusive, inspiring and welcoming to students.There are two main driving forces behind the third objective. We believe that in order to upgrade Ladha a step further we should include an art therapy element which has been proven to improve mental health and can simply be very aesthetically pleasing. Secondly, ti highlight and visibly celebrate science students we recommend a student showcase. This option can either be a 3D display of a student project or merely a framed photo of a “student of the month”.Objective 3.1: Art ShowcaseThrough multiple literature reviews, we were able to determine that the presence of artwork in a building has multiple beneficial effects. Art therapy is proven to - 15 -reduce mental stress, depression and other mental health disorders; and can be very effective for adults. In order to mitigate stress, negative mental health impacts of school and programs, improving aesthetic, having plants, and artistic pieces has been proven to improve moodsUltimately, Art therapy is a continuing process, it generally improves emotional, social, mental and cognitive well-being. It can help further a sense of community and belonging, celebrating inclusive culture and art is necessary. Coupled with these findings is also the understanding that we are advocating for a shift away from ‘western’ conceptions of space which assume that “a space is empty until it is entered,” as stated by the philosopher Henk Oosterling.  Instead we advocate for a conception of space that is more inclusive and comforting and as, ‘an extension of culture and values,’ rather than being a place where such things happen. This is how the Japanese understand space and from whence part of our inspiration in facilitating this vision for the SUS.Objective 3.2: Student Achievement ShowcaseBy designating a specific space for showcasing student achieve this can as a motivating factor to students studying in the space. It can also a platform for different science departments to promote their students as well as raise awareness for important issues or important student work. Two Science departments expressed interest in this initiative; the Physics and Astronomy department and the Michael Smith Laboratories. Potential ways to showcase student achievement include a framed ‘student of the month’ photo or showcasing a science model made by a science student.Both options have extreme potential and can be a student that has demonstrated great academic achievement or that is nominated by a faculty member or fellow student. A selection and nomination process such as this would enhance community engagement and would create a sense of unity and pride for science students among one another. Alternatively, it can also drive up competitiveness and inspire students to work harder so that they are nominated for a similar showcase opportunity. We also recommend a budget of $25–$50 in the form of a - 16 -coffee card or a bookstore gift card as a congratulatory gift to the student selected.RECOMMENDATIONSTo further simplify this project plan and to make sure that it is implementable and can operate successfully over time, we have created the following finalized step by step recommendations. Step 1: Implement the Science Undergraduate Society Inclusive Arts and Culture Policy StatementThe proposed Science Undergraduate Society Inclusive Arts and Culture Policy Statement must be approved, amended if necessary at the earliest opportunity by the Executive to ensure that the mandate is kept and maintained for years to come. This is the fundamental durable solution that will assist in guiding and establishing a procedural basis for all other subsequent activity for the SUS and the larger student body.Step 2: Purchase Recommended Plants and Furniture The purchase of the following recommended furniture and plants. But first, existing furniture must be assessed. Furniture that is still in good condition should be moved to the second floor where students frequent most often. Newly purchased furniture should be kept on the third floor to extend life. The total cost based on our furniture recommendations will be $9526.16A combination of both artificial and natural plants should be distributed around all three floors to ensure that all three floors are aesthetically similar concentrating living plants on the second floor.Both natural and artificial plants can be purchased at IKEA. we recommend a total of 10 artificial plants and 10 natural ones (Snake plants, Peace Lilies, Spider Plants and Dragon Trees). The total tentative proposed budget will $200–400 including self water pots and soil for living plants.- 17 -Step 3: Implement Art and Cultural Displays and Student ShowcaseImplement art and cultural displays by contacting Artist Network and enacting, and enabling the Arts and Culture Committee as per the Policy Statement.Purchase the Appropriate size (16×20”) picture frame from IKEA in order to showcase a “Student of the Month” in collaboration with other Science departments at UBC. This initiative uses approximately $12 of the budget for purchase of the frame and an ongoing budget of $2 per month to print student pictures. And a cost of $25 to $50 for the selected student. The total tentative proposed budget will be $39–$64.Step 4: Fix Floor and RepaintWhen affordable the SUS should take the necessary steps to remodel/fix the floor to ensure upkeep and to eliminate “the broken down” look that the floor is currently in. By improving the flooring condition this will enhance all other aesthetic changes made and ensure that the building overall is visually appealing. A contractor should be commissioned to repaint all three floors into the neutral colour of “smoke blue” and/or “blue ashes”. The total tentative proposed budget is around $3,000–$4,500. Due to the high cost of this undertaking. it was not included in the immediate budget, as the other proposed options are more pressing at the moment with the limited budget. Step 5: Formation of Committee and Terms and References CreationThe Executive should endeavour to create an Inclusive Arts & Cultural Committee, with its own drafted Terms and References as soon as possible to support the Executive in creating a space that reflects the values of the SUS. Ultimately maintains the priority of the SUS to ensure inclusivity, upkeep, aesthetical preservation, and sustainable design for the Abdul Ladha Student Centre- 18 -CONCLUSIONUltimately, we believe we have outlined the options and steps necessary to implement project “Beautify the Abdul Ladha Science Student Centre”. Through our three tasks of Creating a sustainable policy/mandate for the building, Developing ideas for beautifying the building, and developing ideas to make the space more friendly and welcoming to students; we were able to develop what we have deemed a comprehensive project proposal that takes the limited budget and stretches it enough to make significant aesthetic and cultural changes. But, most importantly we believe that the key to the longevity of this proposal is through the first task. By instituting the policy/mandate for an art culture we can ensure that these proposed changes withstand the test of time. But first we must make the necessary changes to ensure that Ladha is a welcoming, friendly and beautiful space for students to occupy.- 19 -APPENDIXReferencesArtist Network Contact ListCriteria Alternatives MatrixSurvey ResultsArts and Cultural Mandate Furniture GuideFurniture Cost BreakdownPlant GuidePaint Guide212223242730343536- 20 -WORKS CITED“16 NASA Approved Plants to Improve Your Air Quality.” Home Stratosphere.      https://www.homestratosphere.com/nasa-approved-plants/Bounds, Keith, Anne Johnson, B.C. Wolverton. “Interior Landscape Plants for Indoor    Air Pollution Abatement.” NASA. September 15, 1989. https://ntrs.nasa  gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930073077.pdfHutschenmaekers, Geil J.M., Rolf J. Kleber, Jeroen W. Knipscheer, Gerrit J. Niet, Karen  Alice Schouten. “The Effectiveness of Art Therapy in Treatment of  Traumatized Adults: A Systemic Review on Art Therapy and Trauma.” Sage.  November, 2014. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/  abs/10.1177/1524838014555032“Ikea Sustainablity Report FY18.” IKEA. 2018. https://preview.thenewsmarket.  com/Previews/IKEA/DocumentAssets/535135.pdfMcGrath, Jarrod. “The Japanese words for Space could Change your View of the    World.” Quartz Magazine. January, 18 2018. https://qz.com/1181019the    japanese-words-for-space-could-change-your-view-of-the-world/Pearson, Mark and Helen Wilson. “Soothing Spaces and Healing Spaces: Is     here an ideal Counselling room?” Psychotherapy in Australia. 2012. https://   www,researchgate.net/publication/254724357_Soothing_spaces_  and_healing _spaces_Is_there_an_ideal_counselling_roomRegev, Dafna, and Liat Cohen-Yatziv. “Effectiveness of Art Therapy with Adult Clients   in 2018 - What Progress Has Been Made?” Frontiers in Psychology. August 28,   2018. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01531/full- 21 -ARTIST CONTACT LISTEmily Ambergey and Rosaleen McAfee Liu Gallery Curators, Liu Institute for Global Issues emily.amburgey@ubc.ca rosaleempmcafee@gmail.comMatt Dolf Well-Being Director, UBC Well-Being Office matt.dolf@ubc.caTheresa Liao Communications Coordinator, Physics and Astronomy Department communications@phas.ubc.caTracy Pham Marketing and Communications Coordinator, Michael Smith Laboratories (MSL) tracy.pham@msl.ubc.caDeb Pickman Communications and Marketing Manager, UBC Arts & Culture District deb.pickman@ubc.caSheryda Warrener Professor, Creative Writing Department sheryda@mail.ubc.ca   - 22 -CRITERIA ALTERNATIVES MATRIX- 23 -Criteria Option 1 Option 2 Option 35 5 53 5 23 5 32.5 5 13.5 2 517 23 16Financial FeasibilityFunctionalityAesthetic/ThemeSustainabilityLogistical FeasibilityTotal- 24 -ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESULTSWhen respondents were asked about how they felt about a space decorated with art and plants, 89.6% of respondents indicated positive feelings towards a space being decorated with plants and art. 10.3% of respondents indicated indifference or negative feelings, broken down as follows, 1.6% of respondents indicated clear negative feelings towards a space being decorated with plants and art, while 8.7% of respondents indicated clearly they were indifferent.The overall sample size of undergraduate science students was 546. The mean indication of satisfaction with the building, on a scale of 1–5 (1 = not satisfied, 5 = very satisfied) was 3.41 indicating general satisfaction, but clear room for improvement as an implication.Other Notable Preliminary FindingsRespondents favorite features of the current building (Question 2) could broadly and generally be summed up in describing the study space, the natural lighting and large windows. When asked about what needed upgrading (Question 3) the overwhelming majority of respondents answered furniture items (chairs, couches, tables), appliances (more appliances, more space allocated for appliances), and better usage of space. There were very mixed results for how people felt about the Abdul Ladha Building in comparison to ther buildings (Question 4).The result findings, on whole, support our current report recommendations and further compliment the literature review findings of art and plants being desirable in spaces. They also support the conclusion that the space is being underutilized and his room for improvement in many regards. Below are the preliminary result findings from a quick scan of the answers, and key word tally searches per question:- 25 -Question 1: On a scale from 1 to 5, how satisfied are you with the building’s current state? (n = 546)Mean answer: 3.41 Std Dev: .97Question 2: What is your favorite feature about the building? (n = 538, aggregation of keywords)83 instances of Study (15.4%) 61 instances Space (11%) 48 instances (8.9%) 35 instances (6.5%) 25 instances (4.6%)Question 3: In your opinion what features of the building is most in need of an upgrade? (n = 519, categorization of responses)32 instances of floor pertaining to furniture, space, and commenting on the arrangement of items or making the space better for studying (6.2%)  32 instances of space pertaining to furniture, study, appliances (6.2%) 30 instances of MORE being used to suggest more study space, seats microwaves, appliances (5.8%) 23 instances of ‘study’ being used in sentences such as ‘designing study spaces’ ‘study area is ugly and unispiring,’ and ‘better, more study areas’ (4.4%) 20 instances of tables (3.9%) 19 instances of couches (3.7%) 17 instances of chair (3.3%) 9 instances of cold (1.7%) 7 instances of heat, heating (1.3%) 7 instances of furniture (1.3%)  - 26 -Question 4: How do you feel when using the Abdul Ladha space, compared to other spaces on campus? (n = 527, categorization of responses)27 instances of “good” (5.1%) 27 instances of “comfortable” but in different regards with multiple qualifiers “it’s comfortable but, dark, gloomy, etc” (5.1%) 18 instances of “loud” with regards to being too loud (3.4%)Quickly scanning results of responses provides mixed results—overall it becomes apparent while some people enjoy it, the general sentiment is that it could be better and is being underutilized with many people commenting on how it is used and in some instances how it is not as good as other spaces on campus.Question 5: How do you feel when using the Abdul Ladha space, compared to other spaces on campus? (n = 531, categorization of responses)37 instances of “nice” (6.9%) 31 instances of “good” (5.8%) 31 instances of “ like” frequently used in “ I like it” (5.8%) 22 instances of “love” frequently used in “I love it” (4.1%) 20 instances of “better” (3.8%) 13 instances of “welcoming” (2.5%)A quick scan of all 23 pages of results reveals overwhelming positive support for arts and plants to be added. Only 55 respondents were either indifferent or did not like a space decorated with arts in plants. Of this number only 9 respondents clearly indicated that they did not enjoy spaces with arts and plants with such answers as ‘no,’ ‘Really Bad,’ and ‘Annoyed.’The remaining 46 respondents indicated general indifference.ARTS AND CULTURE POLICY MANDATEThe UBC Science Undergraduate Society (SUS) executive envisions that the Abdul Ladha building space will be used to its full potential. It is one of the ongoing priorities of the SUS to ensure inclusivity, upkeep, aesthetical enhancement, preservation, and a sustainable design for the Abdul Ladha Student Centre that is an extension of the SUS’s values and culture.In an effort of address this the Inclusive Arts and Culture Policy Statement has a multi-pronged approach set in three core values:1. Aesthetics: to provide, where feasible and possible, aesthetically intriguing, pleasing and vibrant modern pieces of art, works, displays, decor and furniture. To always incorporate aesthetics that is inclusive for all2. Functionality: to provide tangible, functional, comfortable, modern furniture in subsequent upgrades that fits with the changing usage of the space. To always attempt to procure items that fall in line with these values.3. Sustainability: to constantly strive to use recyclable, eco-friendly products in the display of art, awards, and cultural pieces and in the procurement of furniture and other decor and to recognize the need to be adaptable in continuing sustainability efforts.A few underlying values that will bind all of these values in design and implementation of various arts and cultural initiative efforts will be: flexibility and adaptability to various changes in conditions, circumstances, contexts and respect and inclusion.Vision• To facilitate a space that has art displays, cultural works, and brings an appealing, vibrant aesthetic feel for students. To create a space that is an extension of the student body’s broad culture and values.- 27 -- 28 -• To seek every yearly quarter to install new artworks, cultural works, achievement awards, from the science student body, primarily and secondarily from other departments• To establish input from the student body by the forming of a flexible student based Arts and Culture Committee for the Abdul Ladha Building• To review, periodically, artworks, cultural works and furniture are meeting the needs and aesthetic design outline of the executive and student led Arts and Culture Committee. To be adaptable, flexible and where appropriate, experimental in  efforts of consideration, design and implementationRationale:The main reasons for this policy is to help guide the inclusive artistic, or cultural visions of current and future executives, committees and student bodies for the Abdul Ladha Building. Having a flexible policy will allow for necessary changes to be made by the executive or committee, with the approval of the executive. This document is meant to lay the groundwork to guide visions, mandates and provide a template to create necessary procedures to implement and operationalize the visual design of the Abdul Ladha building with artistic and cultural endeavours and initiatives.Actions to be Taken: The executive will seek to form an inclusive arts & cultural committee (both in an advisory and enacting role where appropriate) from the student body to democratically begin directing the inclusive artistic and cultural vision for the ALSC.  With the current plans in place implementation will begin when feasible, or other projects will be started at the discretion of the executive if no committee is formed in a timely manner.Inter-Departmental Efforts: The executive and the committee will seek to create inter-departmental initiatives - 29 -and efforts in terms of artistic or cultural displays.  The executive will begin implementing current plans if the committee does not form in a timely fashion for the new school year. The executive may also begin implementing even with the formation of the committee but will keep them apprised of operations. Dispute Resolution Process: If the committee and executive cannot reach an agreement into what interdepartmental effort to pursue first they will either: 1. Seek mediation2. Create a framework for negotiations that is fair and equitable for all parties3. Seek analysis from the school of public policy to determine which option is best recommended4. Seek arbitration5. Resolve the matter in their own fashionThe executive will reserve the right to veto power over all decisions, but not without just cause.- 30 -FURNITURE GUIDEVimle$900.00 $1008.00 w/taxSofa, Farsta dark brown• More comfortable leather seats in exchange for a higher price• The cover is easy to keep clean as it can be wiped clean with a damp cloth.• Ten-year limited warrantyJäppling$599.99 $670.88 w/taxSofa, järstad brown• The cover cannot be removed but can be wiped with a damp clothFULL-SIZED SOFASLOVESEATSKarlstad$599.00 $670.88 w/taxLoveseat, Knisa light gray• The polyestercover is easy to keep clean as it is removable and can be machine washed• Ten-year limited warranty- 31 -LOVESEATS (cont.)Landskrona$719.00 $805.28 w/taxLoveseat, Gunnared dark gray/metal• More durability in exchange for higher price• Sleeves for the legs to match the cover are included• Ten-year limited warrantyKlippan$249.00 $278.88 w/taxLoveseat, Farsta dark brown• Less comfort and visual appeal in exchange for lower price• High durability and abrasion-resistant• Ten-year limited warrantyBalkarp$199.00 $222.88 w/taxFuton, Knisa black• Less comfort and visual appeal in exchange for even lower price• Would not be practical after attaching wheelsVimle$750.00 $840.00 w/taxLoveseat, Farsta dark brown• More durability in exchange for higher price• Sleeves for the legs to match the cover are included• Ten-year limited warranty- 32 -CHAIRS AND SINGLE SEATSBussan$149.99 $167.99 w/taxBeanbag, in/outdoor, gray• Fun and festive• Cost effective, easy to move aroundVedbo$249.00 $278.88 w/taxArmchair, Gunnared dark gray• High durability and abrasion-resistant• Ten-year limited warrantyTABLESJäppling$369.00 $413.28 w/taxArmchair, Järstad brown• More plush than Vedbo but lower back rest so not ideal to sleep inTingby$49.99 $55.99 w/taxSide table on casters, gray• Separate shelf for magazines, etc to assist in keep items organized and tabletops clear• The casters make it easy to move the table if needed- 33 -ACCESSORIESHeavy-duty swivel wheels*$74.30 per set $83.22 w/taxLockable wheels rated at 300 lbs/wheel• Attach to couches for easier movement•  *via Amazon.comRECOMMENDED FURNITURE COST BREAKDOWNHeavy Duty Swivel Wheels ($83.22 per set of four after tax)$499.32 for 6 sets $582.54 for 7 sets $665.76 for 8 setsJäppling Couch ($671.89 each after tax)$4031.34 for 6 couches, $4530.66 plus wheels $4703.23 for 7 couches, $5285.86 plus wheels $5375.12 for 8 couches, $6040.88 plus wheelsVebdo Chair ($278.88 each after tax)$2788.80 for 10 armchairs $3346.56 for 12 armchairs $3904.32 for 14 armchairs $4462.08 for 16 armchairs $5019.84 for 18 armchairs $5577.60 for 20 armchairsCombination totals7 couches + 14 chairs with wheels for couch legs = $9190.18 Same as above with 2 bean bags ($167.99 each after tax) = $9526.16Room for additional beanbag or Tingby side table purchases depends on the combination of furniture piece number procurement.- 34 -- 35 -PLANT GUIDESArtificial PlantsArtificial plants give the appearance of a natural plant. It adds greenery and it is low maintenance meaning its upkeep will not be problematic. It can also be placed around communal space without worry of damage or mistreatment; prices tend to be similar to regular plants or cheaper.Artificial PlantsSnake plants, Peace Lilies, Spider Plants and Dragon Trees, are all low maintenance as they can go up to 2-3 weeks without watering and are known to be aesthetically pleasing.   Dragon trees are aesthetically pleasing, grow very tall and are quite resilient.  These options are more sustainable, and effective than artificial plants but require more care and if not cared for effectively it can lead to the death of the plant.Combination of both (recommended)By limiting the number of real plants to under 10 or less, it can seriously enhance the environmental value of a live plant in filtering out toxic pollutants in the air (such as Benzene, Trichloroethylene, & Formaldehyde).  And to increase this aesthetic effect we recommend distributing artificial plants across the building. To make some of the living plants even more ‘low maintenance’ we suggest  purchasing a self-watering pot with wheels that can be left up to a month without needing to refill and can be purchased at IKEA as well.- 36 -PAINT GUIDEA fresh coat of neutral paint would both improve the atmosphere and visual setting of Ladha. A neutral colour with blue tones is not only calming, but also reflects the colour scheme of the SUS. Here are 12 suggestions for the building’s new paintjob.Marianna Blue Pale Lapis Smoke Blue Blue AshesBamiyan Blue Zenith Blue Welkin Blue Sea LavenderAndaman Sea Turkish Blue Blue Grass Duck Egg

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.66428.1-0392588/manifest

Comment

Related Items