UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

User evaluation of the Walter Gage student residence at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver,… Mallik, Devi Prosad 1975

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
831-UBC_1975_A7_3 M34_5.pdf [ 14.01MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093382.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093382-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093382-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093382-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093382-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093382-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093382-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093382-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093382.ris

Full Text

USER EVALUATION OF THE WALTER GAGE STUDENT RESIDENCE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, VANCOUVER, CANADA by' DEVI PROSAD MALLIK Arch. (1st C l a s s ) , 1960 and Dip. Town & Regional P i n g . , 19 U n i v e r s i t y of C a l c u t t a , I n d i a A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHITECTURE i ; i n 'the^School. . t of A r c h i t e c t u r e We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1975 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s in p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I f u r t h e r agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . It i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n permission. Depa rtment The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date A P * U , 3 C M ? f 5 i i i ABSTRACT: This empirical study i s based on a broad premise of relationship between human behavior and the structured micro-environment within buildings. It took the form of a survey to evaluate the design quality of a student residence by means of personal observation and the interpretation of responses of a systematically selected sample of residents to a set of structured questionnaires. The Walter Gage Residence, a group of hewly-built highrise, coed -l i v i n g dormitories within the campus of the University of British Columbia Vancouver, serves as a case to i l l u s t r a t e application of behavioral premises and architectural design. Research on i t was mainly based on four techniques: (1) literature research, (2) systematic observation, (3) exploratory- interview, and (4) distribution of questionnaire among a systematically selected sample. The information includes data on the residents' general biographic background, childhood residential environment, just-previous residence, tenure of l i v i n g in the Gage Residence, potential mobility and c r i t e r i a for selecting the Walter Gage Residence to l i v e i n . The students' perception and self-rating of the quality of architectural design of the Gage Residence as measured on a 7-point semantic scale specifically developed for the purpose while residents' perception of the social climate within their own suites were obtained on a standard environmental scale. An attempt was made to assess residents' friendship patterns, mutual trust, and helping behavior. Assessment of daily activity patterns of students inside the residence also included information on their average daily hours spent in study and iv i n other extracurricular a c t i v i t i e s within quads and common block lounges i n main floor. A measure of residents' perception of personal space, privacy and t e r r i t o r i a l i t y was also attempted. Part of this study was designed to determine whether the results of some similar studies previously conducted in the USA could be replicated. Finally, the users' overall satisfaction with l i v i n g in this residence was measured. The summary of conclusions were that: 1. While the towers of the Gage Residence were observed to possess a medium density, the emerging trend of i t s residents' perception and rating of i t s architectural design qualities conformed reasonably with the results of previous studies on low or low-medium density residences i n the USA. The Gage resident rated the design of his residence positively on convenience, uniqueness, safety and relaxation, and negatively on crampedness. Conversely, Gage residents' ratings were found to par a l l e l dimensions that would be considered desirable with high density residences eg. safety, convenience and well orderliness. Furthermore, the Gage residents' indicated a relatively higher degree of helping behavior, but a lower degree of s o c i a l , responsiblity motivation as compared to other studies on equivalent (medium) density student residences i n the USA. 2. In the perception of their social climate in their respective quad apartments, Gage residents rated high on the subscales of involvement, emotional support, academic achievement, intellectuality and independance, but low i n student influence as compared to some previous studies. Also, users' perception of the social environment of their quads positively correlated with their judgement about i t s architectural qualities. V 3. Residents' self-evaluation of the architectural design attributes of their residence were influenced by their childhood housing, type of urban area, just previous residence, mobility, selection criteria for living in i t , friendship pattern, mutual trust stress/anxiety and over-a l l satisfaction. 4. Residents' overall satisfaction with living in the Gage Residence was generally influenced by their biographic background. In particular, area of childhood living housing type, just previous residence before moving in the Gage Residence, degree of mobility, tenure in this residence, living with more number of self-chosen mates, (degree of intimacy), and mutual trust have a l l influenced their satisfaction. 5. Although living in this residence was found acceptable by the majority of residents, their responses indicate that its design imposed limitation on the desirable level of social interaction within i t . The self-sufficiently designs quads (suites) have severely limited students' involvement with adjacent quads. Consequently, the stereotyped design has produced a monotonous, cold and socially sterile living environment typically prevalent in downtown apartment living. In short, the design of this residence has embodied a l l the best and worst features of apartment living. v i 6. F i n a l l y i t w a s c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e r e c a n b e n o o n e d e s i g n s o l u t i o n o f s t u d e n t r e s i d e n c e s t o s u i t t h e n e e d o f e v e r y k i n d o f s t u d e n t ; s t u d e n t r e s i d e n c e s d e s i g n e d w i t h s u i t e t y p e a r r a n g e m e n t s m a y h a v e m a n y p o t e n t i a l a d v a n t a g e s b u t t h e y a l s o i n t e n s i f y p r o b l e m s o f a d j u s t m e n t a n d c o o r d i n a t i o n w i t h v a r i o u s p e r s o n a l i t i e s w i t h i n t h e s u i t e d A s s u c h , s u i t e s s h o u l d n o t b e t h e o n l y d e s i g n s o l u t i o n o f f e r e d t o a l l b u t s h o u l d b e a n o p t i o n a v a i l a b l e o n l y t o t h o s e w h o d e s i r e i t o r i n t e n d t o l i v e t h e r e w i t h m u t u a l l y c h o s e n m a t e s . F a c u l t y A d v i s o r TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract i i i Table of Contents v i i L i s t of Tables i x L i s t of Figures x L i s t of I l l u s t r a t i o n s x Acknowledgements x i Chapters I INTRODUCTION 2 Background of the Study 11 Study Rationale 12 J u s t i f i c a t i o n of Se l e c t i n g the Problem 13 Review of L i t e r a t u r e 17 Review of Previous Studies r e l a t e d to the Present Study 22 I I REVIEW OF THE, DESIGN PROCESS 27 H i s t o r i c a l Background of the Design 27 Preliminary Review of the Design 30 Design Philosophy 30 Design d i f f e r e n c e with other student Residences on-campus 31 Design Layout .32 Design Aesthetics 34 Design Merits as the Students and Administrators see 35 Complaints from the Residents 38 Organisation of I n v e s t i g a t i o n 42 II I SURVEY METHODOLOGY 45 Subjects 45 Measures 46 Procedures 52 Sample Size 56 Drawing the Sample 57 Data Analysis 58 IV RESULTS 60 Summary of Results 60 Subjects' b i o g r a p h i c a l data 62 Intimacy and Friendship Data 67 S a t i s f a c t i o n and Preference Data 69 Subjects' Ratings on URES i n compari-son with Gerst and Sweetwood's Study 72 IV RESULTS (Cont.) Users' Perception of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Atmosphere of the Residence i n Comparison with r e s u l t s of Bickman's Study 76 Factors Influencing Perception of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Atmosphere 90 S a t i s f a c t i o n 90 Students' A c t i v i t i e s : Results & Discussion 100 V DISCUSSIONS 114 Comparison with Bickman's Study 114 Comparison with the Study of Gerst & Sweetwood 115 Impact of Design on Behavior and S o c i a l Network 118 Design and Friendship Pattern 119 S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n R e s t r i c t e d Within the In d i v i d u a l Quads 120 Lack of Intta-quad I n t e r a c t i o n 122 Lack of Opportunity of Large Group . I n t e r a c t i o n 124 Design and Student Organisation 125 E f f e c t of Structure Density 126 S a t i s f a c t i o n 130 Suites are not the Ultimate S o l u t i o n 137 VI EPILOGUE 139 Implication of Design on A r c h i t e c t u r a l Education 139 Li m i t a t i o n s of the Study 142 REFERENCES 145 APPENDICES A- D e s c r i p t i o n of the Walter Gage Residence with s i t e plan, tower-floor plans, plan of common b u i l d i n g s , h o r i z o n t a l s e c t i o n , a r c h i t e c t ' s sketches 152 B«' D e f i n i t i o n of URES Subscales 16 C«- Sample Questionnaire 16 Table LIST OF TABLES Page 0 Sample and return 58 1 Childhood Area 63 2 Family House Lived i n Childhood 63 3 Exclusive Room as a c h i l d 64 4a Just previous Residence 64 4b Previous off-campus Residence 65 5 Residents Length of Stay i n Gage Residence 65 6a M o b i l i t y 66 6b Dependence on P u b l i c Transport 66 7 E l e c t r i c a l Appliances Owned 67 8 Trend of self-chosen quad mates 68 9 Residents ratings of importance of reasons .for s e l e c t i n g Gage Residence 70 10 L i k e l y to Return Next Year 11 L i k e l i h o o d of Returning to same room or quad 71 12 Preference f o r Gage Residence as compared to other residence Previously l i v e d i n 72 13 O v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i v i n g i n Gage Residence 72 14 A r c h i t e c t u r a l Perception as a function of low and high URES scores i n Gage Residence 75 15 Mean Ratings of the Gage Residence by i t s own residents as compared to Bickman's Study 77 16 Measure of Trust, Helping Behavior and S o c i a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y of Gage Residents as compared to Bickman's Study 81 17 R e l a t i o n between biographic background and the residents' negative r a t i n g on a r c h i t e c t u r a l atmosphere 18 Re l a t i o n between resid e n t s ' s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a and t h e i r negative ratings on a r c h i t e c t u r a l atmosphere 85 19 Rela t i o n between Friendship Pattern and A r c h i t e c t u r a l Perception 87 20 Re l a t i o n between s a t i s f a c t i o n and A r c h i t e c t u r a l 88 Perception 21 Rela t i o n between D i s s a t i s f a c t i o n and negative Perception on A r c h i t e c t u r a l A t t r i b u t e s 90 22 Aspects or f a c i l i t i e s missed by Residents 93 23 S a t i s f a c t i o n and previous place of Residence 94 24 S a t i s f a c t i o n and Childhood Area 94 25 S a t i s f a c t i o n and Possession of E l e c t r i c a l Appliances 95 26a S a t i s f a c t i o n and Personal M o b i l i t y 96 26b S a t i s f a c t i o n and use of P u b l i c Transport 96 27 S a t i s f a c t i o n and Tenure i n Gage Residence 97 28 S a t i s f a c t i o n and L i v i n g with Mutually-chosen quad mates 98 29 S a t i s f a c t i o n and Friendship wi t h i n quads 98 30 S a t i s f a c t i o n and Friendship with other quad members 99 X Table Page 31 S a t i s f a c t i o n and Mean URES Score 100 32a Average d a i l y time spent by Residents i n Pr i v a t e Study ioi 32b Average d a i l y time spent i n s i d e i n d i v i d u a l Quads 102 32c Average d a i l y time spent i n s i d e quad lounges 102 32d Average d a i l y time spent outside quads but Inside Residences 103 . 32e Average d a i l y time spent outside Residence 105 33a S p a t i a l use of Common Areas 105 33b Type of use of Common Areas 108 34 Users' Perception of Personal Space and T e r r i t o r i a l i t y 109 LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page 1 A General Model showing the r o l e of Evaluation i n the Designing Process 9 2 URES P r o f i l e s of Gage Residents' Perception of S o c i a l Climate 74 3 Comparative P r o f i l e s of Mean Ratings on A r c h i t e c t u r a l Environment Perception of Gage Residents and that of Bickmans' Study 78 4 Average d a i l y time spent on various a c t i v i t i e s by a t y p i c a l Gage Resident 104 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS I l l u s t r a t i o n Page 1 Outside view of Walter Gage Residence by day and night 34a 2 Inside view of Common Lounge, Main F l o o r , Common Block 34b 3 Inside view of kitchen-dining Lounge i n s i d e each quad 34c 4 Inside view of a t y p i c a l s i n g l e room 34d x i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research could not have been completed without the cooperation of many persons at the University of British Columbia who assisted me in various stages of this study. I take this opportunity to acknowledge my indebtedness and thanks to a l l of them. At first,I wish to thank a l l the residents in the Walter Gage Residence for their generous interest in and cooperation with this study. The house advisors and the house staff of the residence have a l l provided me with a wide range of ideas and suggest-ions while the staff of the offices of the Director of Residences of the University provided important statistical data for the study. Both the members of my research advisory committee are deeply appreciated for their willingness to provide guidance. Their keen interest in my work and their sustained help and constructive criticism were most helpful. Conceptual indebtedness is due to Dr. Richard Seaton, Associate Professor of the School of Architecture, University of British Columbia, from whom I learnt a great deal about the methods of this kind of survey research. It was a pleasant and memorable experience to work with him in the design and planning of the survey. I am grateful too for his giving me every possible assistance and extending to me the financial support provided under Canada Council Research Grant // F74-0311 of which the Professor is the principal investigator. It covered the expenses of this study just at the time when its viability was most threatened due to my financial inadequacies. My special thanks and gratitude are due to Mr. Wolfgang Gerson, x i i i Professor i n Charge of Graduate Program, School.of A r c h i t e c t u r e , UBC who helped me i n formulating the i n i t i a l concept of the study and gave i n v a l u -able suggestions i n c l a r i f y i n g many issues while w r i t i n g the text. He nurtured the v i s i o n and p h i l o s o p h i c a l aspect of my research and gave l i b e r a l access to h i s busy schedule. Dr. John B. C o l l i n s merits s p e c i a l mention, f o r h i s very valuable suggestions i n the i n i t i a l stages of my research study. Dr. Brian L i t t l e ' s extremely c a p t i v a t i n g and brainstorm-ing l e c t u r e s on the course of environmental psychology were the foundation on which many concepts and measures of my research are based. Over the years I gained c e r t a i n ideas and concepts which have been i n f l u e n c i a l i n t h i s study. That I have not given s p e c i f i c c r e d i t Is no measure of any major i n t e l l e c t u a l debts to i t s o r i g i n a t o r . The views expressed here are those of many promulgators of Behavioral Science such as Roger Barker, R. Studer, Christopher Alexander, Rene Dubos, Charles Burnette, Jon Lang, Garry Winkel, Robert Gutman, Stanley Milgram, Harold Proshansky, Edward H a l l , Leon Festinger and Robert Sommer. Marvin Gerst, and Sweetwood, R. Moos, Henry Sanoff, Robert Hershberger, L. Bickman, Judi t h Corbett, Martin H e i l w e i l , J . K l e i n and Henry Sears, Sim Van der Ryne and M. S i l v e r s t e i n are the o r i g i n a l springs from which I have drawn much of what I have to say. In more ways than I can count, t h i s research owes more to them than anyone e l s e . I hope the parents of these concepts and words w i l l not mind that I have adopted many of t h e i r b r a i n c h i l d r e n and included them i n t o my text. G r a t e f u l acknowledgement i s made of the f i n a n c i a l support that enabled me to sustain the study and the preparation of the report. This was xiv provided by the President's Award Office, UBC i n the form of Graduate Fellowship and Summer Research Grant. I also take this opportunity to express my indebtedness to Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organisation (CMPO), Govt, of West Bengal, India who sponsored me with a Ford Foundation Grant for study/training abroad. I thankfully acknowledge the assistance received from Mr. Jason Halm of Computing Centre UBC, in preparing the specification for the MVTAB Program. My thanks are also due to Mr. Jim Anderson, Teaching Assistant of the English Department, and Mr. Rod Borrier, a Ph.D. candidate of the Psychology Department, both of this University for reading my original manuscripts and giving me many valuable suggestions on organising and presenting the survey results. Miss Rosalind Bailey did miracles i n ryping and retyping my original manuscripts including the f i n a l report which she completed within a very brief period. In conclusion I may be allowed the personal privilege of extending a special note 6f thanks to my wife, Sanghamitra and our children, who bore patiently the years and months of the entire study programme i n this university that culminated i n preparation of this monograph. She welcomed a l l the odds and strains and equally shared with my personal sacrifice with an eager expectation to i t s successful completion, while my children very generously excused me from many outdoor play sessions. Without their support and personal encouragement, this study program would never have been completed. Lastly, the entire responsibility for i t s remaining errors and omissions must be mine. X V "Man -inhabits two worlds. One is the natural world of plants and animals j of soils and airs and waters which -preceded him by billions of years and of which he is a part. The other is the world of social institutions and artifacts he builds for himself3 using his tools and engines^ his science and his dreams to fashion an environment obedient to human purpose and direction. The search for a better-managed human society is as old as man himself. It is rooted in the nature of human experience. Men believe they can be happy. They experience comfort3 security3 joyful participation3 mental vigour3 intellectual discovery 3 poetic insight3 peace of soul3 bodily rest. They seek to embody them in their human enviTonment . . . " Barbara Ward and Bene Dubos in "Only One Earth - Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet." W. W. Norton & Co. Inc. 3 New Jork3 1972. 1. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION How man perceives his designed environment, how he adapts to i t in the spatial context, and reciprocates i t on the basis of his environmental assessments are matters of increasing moment to scholars, researchers and decision-makers of the developed nations in the Western World. Writers, artists, designers, composers and poets have a l l explored, in their own way, this aspect of human ecology in the study of man's interaction with his near environment. Contributions to the understanding of environ-mental perception and behavior have increased' rapidly in recent years. Nevertheless, the authorities in this field themselves confess that the cumulative output of a l l the scholarly researches done so far has only begun to skim the surface of the complex relations which man has with his physical environment. The term "environment"itself, has, as a result, taken on an added meaning: i t is now felt to incorporate every aspect of our physical and social surroundings, from the dimensions of a room to the earth as a whole. Man's near environment includes the architectural design of his own neighbourhood facilities, housing, home furnishing, household equipment, clothing and textiles, food and family. The colours, forms, textures or shapes, noises, odours, humidity, temperatures and pressures emanating from this physical environment may be viewed as environmental structures to which man as an organism reacts and reciprocates through his behavioral responses. These responses may be physiological in nature or may involve mental, social or emotional behavior. Designers of physical environment have only recently started recognizing the infinite variety of and complex 3. relationship between the processes of environmental behavior and the concerns of architecture. Although there is a growing awareness of the relevance of the study of the behavioral sciences to architecture, crystal-lization of theories has yet to take place in order to apply the i l l -defined concepts and research techniques of these sciences to actual design projects. From the design professionals' viewpoint, research in this field has yet to prove its usefulness and applicability in everyday design solution. (Lang, et al, 1974 p. 223). The motivation underlying the present investigation springs from the author's conviction that there exists a subtle inter-relationship between man's perception of his micro-environment and his behavior. The author also believes that architecturally-designed environment, throughout history has played a dominant role (if not determined) both in facilitating, pro-foundly influencing and in some instances limiting behavioral patterns. As stated by Hans Blumenfeld (1971): The man-made or-man-modified physical environment is the effect rather than the cause of the quality of the l i f e of human society. But the physical environment reacts on the social, indirectly influencing i t by limiting or facilitating, human relations. In addition i t has a direct influence on health and may have through its aesthetic aspects, an influence on happiness (p- .505). Through conscious, rational architectural design, the "potential" archi-tectural environment, by its symbolic content, can be a major soclo-cultural artifact or "effective" environment. (Gans,1968) Recoginising the part played by architecture in the transformation of the environment, Lewis Mumford (1938) said: "This arises . . . because architecture reflects and focusae such a wide variety of social facts." Conversely, i t can greatly inhibit man's socio-cultural activities and hinder communication processes, that 4 form the basis of social l i f e . The after-effects of the man-made environ-ment and its design impact on man has been picturesquely expressed in Winston Churchill's statement that "We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us." Buckminster Fuller has almost amplified the same sssumpticn in his statement; (Fuller 1970). Man is not unique in having altered his environment. A l l living creatures alter environment in one way or another, and then altered environment alters them back. There is a chain reaction that goes on, giving rise to what we call evolution. And not only living creatures but every physical plant system gives off energies entropically, and thereby alters the environment (p. 4). Hence the functional goal of architecture is to provide structured spaces through environmental layouts or design "forms" and objects which: 1) support the physiological states required by people to achieve their goals; 2) provide, and allow people to interact and perceive opportuni-ties for the meaningful and beneficial behavior patterns and activities required by them to achieve their goals; 3) provide for the mental and emotional states necessary for people to achieve their goals by fu l f i l l i n g certain symbolic, esthetic and ambient functions. However,, the enlarged scope of environmental definition, in recent years, is both a product and a cause of converging disciplinary interests - those of architects, designers, social psychologists, behavior-al scientists, planners and geographers. A study of this nature, which seeks to illuminate the interrelationship between man's behavior and his designed ambiance needs to be explored from a special vantage point. A multi-disciplinary approach, encompassing many converging academic fields, such as Space and Behavioral Science, Biological Science, Physical Science and Humanities, is essential; the emerging field of Environmental Psycho-logy is especially pertinent to a study of this kind. It promises to 5 organise and coordinate the d i f f u s e studies that are necessary f o r proper understanding of complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n a manner that w i l l be of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t to a r c h i t e c t s and designers. Proshansky (1970) comments upon the p o t e n t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n of environmental psychology f o r the design pro f e s s i o n : The fundamental s i g n i f i c a n c e of environmental psychology f o r the design p r o f e s s i o n has i n i t s p o t e n t i a l capacity to provide a body of knowledge - conceptual and empirical - f o r understanding the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between human behavior and experience and the b u i l t environment (Lange, et a l , pp. 74, 77). Given such a body of knowledge, a r c h i t e c t s and designers w i l l have some reasonable basis f o r t h e i r design decisions. Aside from t h e i r b u i l d i n g and p r o v i s i o n of a body of knowledge, environmental design research meets an imperative need of the design prof e s s i o n f o r the design evaluation. One of the most common c r i t i c i s m s r a i s e d against the a r c h i t e c t s i s that they have been e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y r e l u c t a n t to welcome any s c i e n t i f i c a n a l y s i s or design evaluation based on systematic and d i s c i p l i n e d method-o l o g i e s , i n order to t e s t the v a l i d i t y and e f f i c a c y of t h e i r designs. Many a r c h i t e c t s apparently, s t i l l continue to remain romantically-i n c l i n e d a r t i s t s of the nineteenth century world of fantasy. They favor casual personal observation as a source of informational input and follow unsystematic design approaches based on dubious and untested assumptions about human behavioral patterns. C l i e n t s and s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , (Broady,1968) oft castigate a r c h i t e c t s f o r r e l y i n g too much on i n d i v i d u a l hunches, dubious guesswork and personal i n t u i t i o n s . I t i s said that a r c h i t e c t s have always been extremely wary of e f f o r t s to analyze and understand t h e i r methods of 6 designing - an uneasiness to analyse, stemming apparently from a f e a r that s c i e n t i f i c and f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s w i l l hamper c r e a t i v i t y . Conversely, we hear of a r c h i t e c t s who ask about t h e i r c l i e n t s and users p a t e r n a l i s t i c a l l y and arrogantly - "Why are people so stubborn or misguided as not to use the places and spaces we design e i t h e r not at a l l or i n the wrong way". Although i t i s d i f f i c u l t to detect whose f a u l t i t i s , we can s u r e l y say that t h i s i s an unfortunate, though a common, example of the communication gap which e x i s t s between the design profession and the users and/or c l i e n t s . There seems to have been great d i s p a r i t y between the f u n c t i o n a l success of b u i l d i n g design and the users' acceptance of s a t i s f a c t i o n with i t . This i l l u s t r a t e s the d i f f i c -u l t y a r c h i t e c t s have had i n p r e d i c t i n g the outcome of designs - t h e i r impact on people - with any reasonable p r o b a b i l i t y of accuracy. The reasons f o r this are diverse, but have to do b a s i c a l l y with the changing nature of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l c l i e n t . The p r o b a b i l i t y of success declines with the growing d i v e r s i t y or heterogeneity of c l i e n t groups, and the s h i f t i n g of needs over time from those r e l a t e d to physiology, s h e l t e r and s e c u r i t y toward higher order needs of self-esteem and s e l f - a c t u a l -i s a t i o n . (Maslow,1943) In an era of ra p i d t echnological change, man's r e l a t i o n s h i p with things i n an i n d u s t r i a l i s e d s o c i e t y i s highly temporary. ( T o f f l e r , 1970) Even a r c h i t e c t s know l e s s and l e s s about the ways i n which t h e i r products or design solutions w i l l be used i n the future. To quote Sommer: (1972) Like a l l creative a r t s , a r c h i t e c t u r e i s perceived, experienced and evaluated i n the fourth dimension of a changing time frame. Time has i t s own relevance and i s a major constituent of a r c h i t e c t u r a l or environmental experience and behavioral pattern. 7 People's re a c t i o n to a p a r t i c u l a r b u i l d i n g i s influenced by the past, the present, and the future as w e l l as by i t s p h y s i c a l dimension, colour, texture, m a t e r i a l , form and s t y l e . Whether or not a b u i l d i n g i s perceived as appropriate to the time and place may be important to the user's s a t i s f a c t i o n . A r c h i t e c t u r a l design i s bound to have an appreciable impact - both p o s i t i v e and negative. The negative impact however, cannot be allowed to be perpetuated i n future projects catering to s i m i l a r needs. Hence i t i s important that the c l i e n t s , a r c h i t e c t s and the users should share the b e n e f i t of l e a r n i n g something from the process of evaluation. As Sommer (1972) said evaluation of users' s a t i s f a c t i o n adds to the knowledge and promises that the next product w i l l be more r e f i n e d towards p e r f e c t i o n . I t has a p o s i t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n towards the p o t e n t i a l e f f i c a c y of the futufe design programming. According to him, i t s o b j e c t i v e i s analogous to the necessity of a patient's p e r i o d i c health check-up, which i s taken not so much to a s c e r t a i n the outcome of a s u r g i c a l operation but to catch present problems i n time before they become too serious. In a r c h i t e c t u r e , the follow-up studies of the b u i l d i n g i n action may r e v e a l any c o n f l i c t between the c l i e n t ' s goals and those of the users. Designers, l i k e the p r e s c r i b i n g of new d i s e a s e - f i g h t i n g drugs i n the medical p r o f e s s i o n , must i n v e s t i g a t e the intended as w e l l as the unintended consequences of the b u i l t environments they design. T r a d i t i o n a l l y , the methods of evaluating any housing p r o j e c t adopted by the housing admini-s t r a t i o n has been defined by c r i t e r i a such as degree of d i l a p i d a t i o n , adequacy and a v a i l a b i l i t y of sanitary and plumbing, heating, e l e c t r i c a l f i x t u r e s , safety from f i r e hazards and the density or the degree of crowding. 8 However, i n the context of the changed l e v e l of users' s a t i s f a c t i o n these c r i t e r i a are no longer s u f f i c i e n t . Purpose of Evaluation: The purpose of systematic evaluation i s to determine on the basis of users' r e a c t i o n whether or not a design has s a t i s f a c t o r i l y met i t s purpose or solved the user's needs, over a period of time. I t provides feed-back to the designer to t e s t the v a l i d i t y of h i s previous design assumptions and to a s s i s t him i n h i s future design. B u i l d i n g evaluation thus serves both as a feed-back and feed-forward mechanism. I t increases our knowledge of environmental problems and t h e i r s o l u t i o n s . Evaluation studies compare intended use and function with a c t u a l use of a f a c i l i t y , the l e v e l of user's comfort and adaptation, the f r u s t r a t i o n of a user's desired a c t i v i t i e s and the r e c o g n i s a b i l i t y of the intended environemntal image. The importance of design evaluation i s also emphasised by Henry Sanoff when he stat e s : (Sanoff, 1968) In a r c h i t e c t u r e today, evaluation i s the missing l i n k i n the design process. Evaluation, programming and designing are the l i n k e d a c t i v i t i e s drawing information from a systematic look at how people use e x i s t i n g environment. Analysing e x i s t i n g environments leads to programming. I t i s time, therefore that the a r c h i t e c t conduct h i s own surveys i n t o how people use t h e i r environment, what they l i k e and d i s l i k e about i t and what kind of environment they would p r e f e r (p. The important place and the function of evaluation i n the general model of the e n t i r e design i s w e l l i l l u s t r a t e d i n Figure 1 . I t has been suggested by many previous authors that the evaluation constitutes the f i n a l phase of the process of designing and should be a standard part of the a r c h i t e c t ' s a c t i v i t i e s . I f evaluation studies are to be worthwhile, Figure 1 INTELLIGENCE DESIGN CHOICE IMPLEMENTATION EVALUATION Development of architectural] program Sketching of a l t e r n a t i v e - ^ s o l u t i o n s S e l e c t i o n of best alternative!. Working drawings,] s p e c i f i c a t i o n s , contracting, construction jjEvaluation of •building i n use 'and process of (design used Correction Theory of f a u l t s i n bu i l d i n g f o r design future designing [Source: A General Model of the Designing Process A Model of the Designing Programme by John Lang: Designed f o r Human Behavior pp. 45] 10 they must produce information that architects can use to improve their future work. They must also contribute to architectural design theories. Architecture being a stationary product and anchored to the earth, i t s evaluation is necessary after the building has been in use for some time. This i s particularly necessary for institutional architecture which (according to Sociologist Robert Somer, 1972) is like a pet food business - the consumer (user) is not the purchaser (client) and unless the consumer becomes i l l or bites the purchaser, there isn't going to be much change. Nevertheless, the user's evaluation does not necessarily mean that the customer i s always right, or vox pbpuli, vox del; some effort should be made to see how satisfactory a building i s from the standpoint of the different people involved. The designers should be sceptical of design approaches that rely totally on users' responses. Evaluation should suggest which decisions are best l e f t to building users ? and what physical framework w i l l best be decided by planners. User satis-faction i s the most coveted reward to the architect - i t should be cherished far more ardently than that which he might receive from the sophisticated judgement of a panel of his professional colleagues. Robert Gutman and B. Westerguard (1966) have clearly summed up the problems of building evaluations. D i f f i c u l t i e s inherent in evaluation studies derive from the following: the lesser importance of the b u i l t -environment relative to other factores; the primitivism of theoretical notions about man-environmental relations; the large degree of personal variation found in response to the b u i l t environment; the need to specify whose satisfaction i s being talked about; the need to specify the time at which evaluation i s made; and the establishment of the proper unit to evaluate. 11 Background of the Study: The Walter Gage Residence i s a group of h i g h - r i s e coed dormitories b u i l t on the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Campus. I t houses approx-imately 1200 s i n g l e students which i s more than a t h i r d of on-campus student population. Opened i n 1972, the Residence was b u i l t at the cost of nine m i l l i o n d o l l a r s . I t has apparently been recognised as the s a t i s f a c t o r y outcome of a f r e s h and unconventional design concept, which provides students with an a l t e r n a t i v e (suite type) l i f e - s t y l e . I t s design program i s s a i d to have been drawn from the a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of various i n t e r e s t groups. The U n i v e r s i t y authority took pride to announce that there was nothing e l s e l i k e i t i n Canada (as f a r as they were aware) and that i t was a unique example of student residence f o r which no precedents existed. Several news items i n the c i t y ' s two l o c a l newspapers have headlined the q u a l i t y of l i v i n g i n the Gage Residence on the UBC campus. The papers reported the students' high o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n i n l i v i n g i n the residence and h a i l e d the a r c h i t e c t s ' design and the administrator's honest desire to s a t i s f y students' needs f o r an a l t e r n a t i v e design concept. In due time i t has a c t u a l l y proved to be the most sought-after student accommodation among a majority of students. This i s evidenced by the long w a i t i n g - l i s t of prospective student residents, (which might w e l l have l e f t administrators f e e l i n g complacent). However, the author has also taken note of the b i t t e r reactions t h i s design has created among the student community, as w e l l as i n the surrounding neighbourhood. There have been complaints about some of i t s severe l i m i t a t i o n s and some discussion of the u n s a t i s f a c t o r y aspects of l i v i n g there. Study Rationale The study i s being i n i t i a t e d out of the recognition that students' residence play a very important r o l e i n students' l i f e and work at the u n i v e r s i t y . As observed by K l i e n and Sears: (1969) Students are at u n i v e r s i t y f or a very short period i n t h e i r l i v e s . I t i s a unique and c r i t i c a l time f o r them. I t i s not only what they l e a r n that i s important. The ways i n which they lea r n , the ways i n which they mature, the ways i n which they acquire both t h e i r wisdom and t h e i r s k i l l s , w i l l have a profound impact upon them and, as they move through l i f e and society, among the poeple and community around them . . . How a student l i v e s i s important to h i s i n t e l l e c t u a l and emotional development. L i v i n g i s l e a r n i n g and housing plays an important r o l e i n enriching the le a r n i n g experience, or i n l i m i t i n g i t . . . Learning begins where we are - p h y s i c a l l y , emotionally and i n t e l l e c t u a l l y (p. v ) . • The r a t i o n a l e of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r research i s based on the researcher's conviction that although there has been furt h e r s u b s t a n t i a l f i n a n c i a l investment and bonanza of enthusiasm behind b u i l d i n g these on-campus student residences, l i t t l e research has been devoted to i n v e s t i g a t e the impact the design of these b u i l d i n g s may have on the res i d e n t s ' behavior and a t t i t u d e s . A r c h i t e c t s , administrators and users' committee members have appeared to be mainly concerned with the aesthetics and economics of the design without g i v i n g any consideration to the s o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l consequences the design might have on i t s future occupants. The author believes that the c l i e n t s or administrators some-times b r i n g forward one-sided o b j e c t i v e s - t h e i r desire to maximise such matters as maintenance e f f i c i e n c y or d o l l a r - r e t u r n on investment or s e c u r i t y , may have caused them to neglect or disregard other objectives 13. which ought to have higher p r i o r i t y . S a t i s f a c t i o n and complacency of the occupants must be recognised to be as important as economic c r i t e r i a i n the development of design programmes. I t i s important to study these residences because the influences of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l design w i l l l a s t at l e a s t f i f t y years - the usual terms of the b u i l d i n g mortgage - f a r longer than any administrator's tenure. Further, the s o c i a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l climate that u s u a l l y develops i n a t y p i c a l student residence must be f u l l y understood to maximise the a r c h i t e c t u r a l p o t e n t i a l s f o r the students' and the U n i v e r s i t y ' s general goals. The a l t e r n a t i v e i s to leave things to chance, and to c u s t o d i a l or v i s u a l - r a t h e r than functional-concerns. As with former residences on the campus, there i s every p o s i t i v e i n d i c a t i o n that the U n i v e r s i t y might be tempted to repeat t h i s contemporary design concept i d e n t i c a l l y with the i n t e n t i o n of meeting future housing needs. Any short term evaluation of a two year o l d residence to t e s t i t s f u n c t i o n a l e f f i c a c y or the s a t i s f a c t i o n i t generates i n users i s bound to be l i m i t e d i n extent and v a l i d i t y . Nevertheless, without evaluation research an apparently imposing facade of success and p o p u l a r i t y may b i a s the administrators' v i s i o n . The U n i v e r s i t y authority may over-look the f o l l i e s or d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the d i s i g n which can only be detected through a r a t i o n a l evaluation. I f the U n i v e r s i t y authority acknowledges that student residences are expected to f u l f i l l some r o l e i n academic, i n t e l l e c t u a l and s o c i a l development, then there i s an urgent need to take a c l o s e r look at a l l the aspects of the design of the e x i s t i n g residence and to encourage a systematic research and s c i e n t i f i c a n a l y s i s based on users' evaluations to a s c e r t a i n how f a r the design has been able to f u l f i l i t s proper r o l e , The authority should be prudent enough to r e a l i s e that there i s l i t t l e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r accepting the design b l i n d l y as the ultimate archetypal s o l u t i o n to the design of future student residences. As Christopher Alexander has suggested, i t i s not worthwhile to presume that man i s so adaptive and malleable that he can accomodate himself to any kind of p h y s i c a l design without s i g n i f i c a n t a l t e r a t i o n i n e i t h e r s o c i a l and behavioral patterns, nor can there be any guarantee that an a r c h i t e c t ' s i n t u i t i o n and p r e d i c t i o n about s u i t a b i l i t y of space w i l l serve diverse residents equally w e l l against the background of an emerging s o c i a l m i l i e u and changing customs. (Gerson, 1970) There i s the p o s s i b i l i t y that the U n i v e r s i t y campus, i n the future, may be exposed to changing sets of student values, a t t i t u d e s and l i f e -s t y l e s . I t may also be s u s c e p t i b l e to v i o l e n t demands from students f o r extensive p h y s i c a l change i n the l i v i n g environment. New or non-t r a d i t i o n a l design concepts may be adopted which make contemporary designs obsolete, and such events may be unforseeable to the best prognosticators of the present time. This i s what happened i n the i l l - f a t e d P r u i t t -Igoe low income housing p r o j e c t i n St. Louis, USA i n the student housing at the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley and at the U n i v e r s i t y of Massachusetts, Amherst - USA - where students not only had expressed d i s a t i s f a c t i o n with t h e i r high density, h i g h - r i s e dormitories, but were moving out of them at a rate that threatened the f i n a n c i a l v i a b i l i t y of the student housing f a c i l i t y . Justification of Selection of, .the Problem; The relative homogeneity of the student population makes any research on student residence worthwhile with relation to man-environment study. Variables such as age, educational background, nationality, and certain common socio-economic, cultural and subcultural characteristics of young student residents are roughly univariant with population. This helps in a survey to reduce uncontrolled variables or wide variation in responses of particular interest. Any comprehensive examination of the problems inside a student residence is bound to take the serious investigator into complex and larger environmental issues (e.g. the problem of youth unrest, student sub-cultures, the current problem of housing economics, the politics of students' organisation, or University administration, future housing programs and policies). These are not directly related to, but can profoundly influence, the design program and can influence, moreover, the outcome of architectural projects in student housing. However, these larger environmental issues are beyond the scope of this study. Nevertheless, the merit of this study lies in the excellent oppor-tunity to test without serious interruption, the behavioral implications of design of contemporary example of student residence, in a micro-scale environment. Furthermore, easy accessibility to a friendly and coopera-tive fragment of the on-campus student community was considered to be an added asset. This single study cannot claim to embrace a l l the possible aspects of this student residence, nor does i t pose to provide the panacea to the design solution. However, i t is hoped that i t might provide some useful information to the University administration and to the users' committee. It may provide a basis for the evolution of design criteria to meet future needs in student housing. It might also provide some useful groundwork upon which further research may be carried out that would help to clarify future design objectives. Review of Literature Science is a cumulative endeavour. If our knowledge is to grow rapidly, then we must incorporate in our work the findings and procedures of other investigators. In addition to providing substantive knowledge available on any given topic, a review of the scholarly literature relative to any research under-taking helps the researcher to get acquainted with the unique techniques and methodological procedures which have been used at other times. It is interesting to know how other investigators have measured the key terms, what strategies or research designs they have employed, type and size of sample and questionnaire developed and what statistical techniques they have used to analyse the results. Not only is i t much more pleasant to learn from other's errors than from one's own, i t is also eminently sensible to profit from other's methodological successes. Any close observation of the behavior of the inhabitants in physical setting demonstrates the fact that the place influences behavior. The designer, i f he is aware of the kinds of spaces and setting he is creat-ing, can reinforce the conduct of the user of space either negatively or positively. The way a design influences the behavior of the occupants of space is very complex, because the interactions of people and physical settings are difficult to measure. The research methods and measurement techniques used in this kind of research are complex, but the pursuit of man-environment studies must be pursued both for its understanding of behavior and as a tool for environmental designers. 18. Probably Robert Ezra Park was the f i r s t t h e o r i s t of " e c o l o g i c a l behaviorism" and inventor of the term "environmental psychology." (Bell,1973) In 1916, Park suggested with h i s prophetic i n s i g h t i n one of h i s essays, e n t i t l e d "The C i t y : Suggestions f o r the I n v e s t i g a t i o n of Human Behavior i n the Urban Environment", that psychologists began to think i n terms of the environment as a stimulus f o r behavior and to measure the e f f e c t s of environment upon the behavior of man. Apart from great contributions of P a t r i c k Geddes (1917) and Lewis Mumford (1938) who are regarded as two pioneers i n the concept of environmental determinism"j Louis Wirth's work i n t h i s subject c e r t a i n l y deserves mention. The notion that the p h y s i c a l structures sets the stage f o r man's s o c i a l l i f e and p s y c h o l ogical d i s p o s i -t i o n was expressed i n h i s works (1938). However, the influence of the p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g on human behavior has been best understood and studied by Roger Barker whose d e s c r i p t i o n of the concept of e c o l o g i c a l psychology, published i n 1968, has been the basis f o r extensive recent research. Later i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l as w e l l as j o i n t work Raymond Studer and David Stea (1966) claim that behavioral needs provide the only reasonable basis f o r design, and that problems i n design are meaningful only when formulated i n behavioral terms. They evolved a program f o r symbolically representing and synthesising behavioral requirements into a formal system and i l l u -s t r a t e d i t with se v e r a l examples which were r e l a t e d d i r e c t l y to the establishment of behavior s e t t i n g s and the l a t e r works of Alexander and Barkeri Studer believes that environment design i s the manipulation of behaviors and that parts of the environment can be treated as s t i m u l i . He also o u t l i n e d the basic implications of the u t i l i z a t i o n of behavioral settings i n the design, and proposed a methodology f o r designing environ-ments which are conceptualised as dynamic systems capable of moving toward 19. more appropriate states. He has outlined a process for design which includes an information and control system as integral components. Christopher Alexander and his colleagues have advocated several fascinating design concepts (1970) on the basis of behavioral setting which are to be augmented with participation by residents in the design process. Alexander invented a vocabulary to identify the psychological, cultural and social requirements of the environment. This is a pattern language which describes behavior in design terms. The patterns are design components which are defined analytically and which are combined and arranged into forms that f i t . It can be used to describe a l l possible designs for the environment. Constance Perin's highly readable book (1970) about this important subject dealt with how concepts from behavioral sciences can bring a central concern for human behavior and development to environmental design. She has suggested the prospectus although not in specifics that new theories of design need to encompass concepts developed in behavioral disciplines. She considers the design program as central - as a set of behavior criteria, as a representation of the values of the ultimate user and as a subject of research before the ultimate design is undertaken. She also suggests post construction evaluations to assess the fulfilment of behavioral expectations. The work of Wolfgang Preiser (1972) deserves mention in this context. As a part of his valuable contribution in this field, he undertook several case studies to analyse how poeple react to and interact in specific spaces, 20. observing the time, frequency, duration,, location of stationary and moving subjects, body postures, etc. His concern was whether these spaces facilitated a desirable diversity of behavior categories. His studies concluded with useful suggestions to designers. Among works of several social psychologists who did individual survey research on the relationship between the works of Leon Festinger, William Whyte, Herbert Gans, William Michelson, Suzanne Keller deserve mention. They have a l l investigated the residential grouping as setting for social inter-actions. Festinger and his colleagues studied the housing projects in Massachussets Institute of Technology, Boston, inhabited by students and their families. Basic concern in this study was building orientations related to face to face groups function. Their study reveals the dependence of friendship formation cooperation and comradeship on the proximity and functional distance i.e. (layout), physical formation of houses. They studied how membership in groups and their intercommuni-cation affected people's attitudes and behaviors. Their research technique is simple, ingenious and original. Leon Festinger elsewhere concluded that architectural design has a decided effect on the formation of friendships among residents of projects. Cases of satisfying and dissatisfying involuntary group membership are cited as they relate to architectural features and group social standards. William Whyte in his research (1956) has provided remarkable insights into social implications of suburbia - the new man-made environment. The author maintains a strong conviction that a community's design has a powerful effect on social interaction. The results of his case study concentrated on rental courts in Illinois suburb, shows that the uniqueness 21. i s maintained although new people move i n t o the u n i t s . He i s able to reach some very i n t e r e s t i n g conclusions that the designers can take as lessons. But he seems to be cautious about the extreme a p p l i c a t i o n s of design on s o c i o l o g i c a l aspects. Ms. K e l l e r ' s research (1968) i s regarded as the penetrating explora-t i o n i n t o the s o c i o l o g i c a l dimensions of urban neighbourhood. She deals with the ambiguities inherent i n the concept of neighbourhood and describes the a c t i v i t y of neighbouring and the changing r o l e of neighbours i n contemporary urban centres. Her book c i t e s the necessity f o r a r e -d e f i n i t i o n of the neighbourhood as a s p a t i a l and s o c i a l e n t i t y with valuable implications f o r planning our urban environment. Herbert Gans has dealt with great i n s i g h t and wisdom the s o c i o l o g i c a l dimensions of American Planning. He has brought a l i v e through h i s Study (1962) the peer group culture of the working class and shows how i t s values a f f e c t the ambitious self-image of the people. In h i s e a r l y work (1961) he stressed that heterogeneous population o f f e r s no r e a l advantages over homogeneous population. The planner, developer, e t c . should attempt to achieve a mix which w i l l best serve the community i n so l v i n g the problems. According to him both homogeneity and heterogeneity are equally needed i n any community. He has also advocated that i n new and e x i s t i n g communities, propinquity brings neighbours to v i s u a l or s o c i a l contact. The i n t e n s i t y and/or q u a l i t y of fri e n d s h i p are based on homogeneity of i n t e r e s t , e.g. s i m i l a r p o l i t i c a l b e l i e f s , c h i l d r e a r i n g methods. While s i t e planning may, to some degree encourage or discourage s o c i a l patterns, i t should not be the ultimate goal of a planner, but to 22. provide for a. maximum possibility of choice. Works of I. Rosow, (1961), Robert Gutman (1966) and William Michelson (1970) on the social effects of the physical design, distance and environment are relevant to a comparatively larger neighbourhood setting. Review of Previous Studies Related to the Present Research: Focussing on the influence of the designed environment on human behavior at the small group particularly at the institutional level, the present study is specifically designed to investigate satisfaction, perceptions and relation among residents in student housing. Several articles published in Vol. 5 No. 4 December 1973 issue of the Environment  and' Behavior (specifically devoted to Student Housing; Architecture and Social Behavior) were consulted and reviewed with relevance to the present study. The article by Marvin Gerst and Hervey Sweetwood entitled "Correlates of Dormitory Social Climate (pp. 440-r469) sampled 198 students in seven dormitories and 55 suites in a Western State University in USA in an effort to elucidate the relationships between the social environment within the residence as perceived by the student residents friendship patterns as well as perception of the architecture of dormi-tories. The results indicated a consistent pattern of relationship to exist between these variables. It was found that students who described the social climate of their dormitories or suites as being highly invol-ving, supportive, innovative and student controlled, tended to have a more positive set of subjective moods, had a more extended and intimate network of friendships and perceived their dormitory architecture as being 23. more attractive and interesting. Differences in the social climate between dormitories with or without suites was also assessed, with the results that dormitories with suites perceived as more involving and supportive, innovative, and student controlled than the dormitories without them. In the present study, the scales used by Gerst and Sweetwood are applied to test residences with suite type dormitories. Another part of the present study is designed to investigate the probable impact of density on friendship pattern, trust and helping behavior, and on their evaluation of the architectural qualities of residence environment. The objective of this part of the study is to determine i f the results of a previous study on student residences conducted in the University of Pennsylvania, USA by Leonard Bickman, Alan Tegar and others (1973) can be replicated in the test residence studied. The subjects of the study by Bickman and others were drawn from 3526 male and female students living in several dormitories with various types of densities at the University and off-campus town houses. Two high-rise (25 storey) dormitories, housing an average of 954 students and having an average of 39.8 students per floor, were considered the high-density dormitories. The two medium-density dormitories housed an average of 233 students each. These buildings were four storeys high and averaged 58.2 students per floor. The low-density housing units were 64 town houses located close to the campus, averaging twelve persons per house. The average height of these buildings was three storeys with an average of four residents per floor. As compared with these examples the Walter Gage Residence at the UBC has 384 student residents in each of the three towers (16 storeys) with 24 residents per floor. It has been defined in this study to possess medium density as compared to the standards defined in Bickman's study density. The study by Bickman et al investigated the relationship between dormitory behavior and attitudes of student residents. The question asked by Bickman and his colleagues is whether the structure density within a student residence influences the evaluation or ratings (on a semantic differential) that the subjects made of the architectural qualities of their own residence, as well as of their friendship patterns and socially responsive behavior (such as trust, responsibility and helping behavior). The results of Bickman's study indicated that the higher the density, the less trust, cooperativeness and friendliness reported. Moreover, an observation of helping behavior indicated that students in higher density dormitories behaved in a less socially responsible manner toward other dorm residents than the students in the lower density dormitories. Students living in dormitories with higher densities also perceived their architectural qualities as comparatively more unfriendly, cold and impersonal. The implications of these results for planners and architects were discussed. Student residence with suite arrangements have recently been advo-cated as a desirable design solution. A simple but interesting study by Judith Corbett (1973) was undertaken to test that assumption. Corbett stated that although suites offered students opportunity for close interaction 25. and for privacy, they are not panacea for social and residential problems. They intensify the problems of coordination, compatability and communication among suite mates. Satisfaction with suites also increased considerably when suite mates were allocated by choice rather than through random placement. Other studies undertaken previously on student residences include that of (1) Evan H. Walker's University of Guelph Student Housing Study, November 1965 (2) Victor Hsia's Master dissertation i n Architectural Psychology at the University of Utah, 1967, entitled "Residence Hall Environment: A comparative study in Architectural Psychology", and (3) Dorms at Berkeley: An Environmental Analysis by Sim Van der Ryn and Murray Silverstein, University of California, 1967. (4) Rooms to Learn - Klein and Sears (1969) Walker's study i s probably the f i r s t perceptive analysis i n Canada of student housing problems. Although not based on original research, the study draws together the best existing research as of 1965. Some of his conclusions make very sound and useful proposals. Hsia used questionnaires to gauge the reaction of the resident stu-^ dents to the architectural environment of residence halls at the University of Utah. His study attempts to identify the architectural elements i n each residence h a l l liked or disliked by students; to learn how students use their time and various spaces i n the residence halls and to learn how their major needs are f u l f i l l e d by l i v i n g in the residence halls. He was able to isolate some specific problems and to suggest specific improvements to document how students used the environment provided and where they spent their time, Hsia then established a long l i s t of implications for student housing which flow naturally from the detailed study. Some of these are minor, like window shapes,: others have to do with the underuse of main lounges or in the mix. of student characteristics. In the present study, average weekly hours spent by the Gage residents inside their rooms and total weekly hours devoted in studies are compared with Hsia 1s data. The study by Van der Ryn and Silverstein focused on the qualitative aspects of student housing design and emphasised need for feedback studies to evaluate existing buildings. It advocated five methods to investigate and develop data; observation, interview, questionnaire, student's diary or activity log and literature search. Their report pinpoints significant issues and comments very effectively on the limitations of the particular buildings they studied. The present study on Gage residence owes much to the study by Van der Ryn and Silverstein especially with respect to the survey techniques adopted for this study. Other aspects of similarity between the present study and that by Sim Van der Ryn and Silverstein are data on students' hourly usage of their rooms, total time devoted in studies, and differences among male and female residents in their perception of personal space and territoriality, privacy and behavioral adaption to a similar setting. Many of these are related to the original concepts of proximities advocated by Edward Hall (1966,1956) and Robert Sommer,(1969). CHAPTER II 27 REVIEW OF DESIGN PROCESS It i s imperative to study the entire process the building has passed through from the planning stages through f i n a l construction, as some of the shortcomings apparent i n the design of the building under evaluation might have resulted mostly from the direction of budgetary cutbacks decided on by the client. Hence in the process of evaluation i t is not f a i r to c r i t i c i z e limitations of the designer in order to defend the needs of the users or clients, unless the actual nature of decision-making in the design and building is thoroughly studied. The architect oft en finds i t d i f f i c u l t to tackle the reconciliation of computing values and design c r i t e r i a . (Adelman, 1969) Historical Background of the Design The rapidly growing pressure of student population, coupled with inadequacies in existing student accommodation within the campus, persuaded the University authorities to consider the construction of new student residences. An important factor influencing the unconventional design of the residences had been the student's expressed discontent with the large, traditionally-designed dormitories with the typical "institutional syndrome1 characterised namely by the long central and double-loaded corridors with identical rooms on both sides, "gang washrooms" and floor lounges with their appearance like "furniture showrooms". Students had expressed, through various surveys previously conducted on this campus, a strong and positive opposition also to the " i n loco parentis" l i f e - s t y l e . The trend of s h i f t reflected the oscillation in l i f e - s t y l e s , with each swing opening up new options f o r l i v i n g . They expressed t h e i r preference f o r smalls-group s e t t i n g s l i k e " i n s u i t e l i v i n g " . They asked f o r l i b e r a l i z a t i o n of the a u t h o r i t i e s ' irksome rules and regulations. In summary, t h e i r demands r e f l e c t e d an abandonment from the t r a d i t i o n a l l i f e - ^ s t y l e , and towards coed f l o o r l i v i n g , proximity to the U n i v e r s i t y , more pr i v a c y , freedom of a c t i v i t i e s , more opportunity f o r s e l f - i d e n t i t y , economic rent s t r u c t u r e , amenities of i n d i v i d u a l food preparation or self-cooking. •"Above a l l , they ardently desired a t o t a l e l i m i n a t i o n of the o v e r a l l i n s t i t u t i o n a l look of the t r a d i t i o n a l students' dormitories, i n exchange f o r producing an increased range of l i f e - s t y l e s that w i l l allow or even f o s t e r d i v e r s i t y i n i n d i v i d u a l development. The administration of the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia had t r a d -i t i o n a l l y met student housing needs through a s e r i e s of sporadic responses to student and community demand, without any c e n t r a l and o v e r a l l planning p o l i c y or philosophy. Responding to the above demands, they now j o i n e d i n with the contemporary North American trend of b u i l d i n g student housing arranged i n s u i t e s . Probably the Un i v e r s i t y authority are motivated by what has been observed by Martin H e i l w e i l (1973), that: The trend toward suites i s a trend toward c e r t a i n s o c i a l climates. .Apparently people are moving c l o s e r to smallness, intimacy and support, and away from competition, perhaps from independence, and perhaps from some facet of i n t e l l e c t u a l i t y . I t appears that students' preference f o r smallness of l i v i n g unit was welcomed by the University Housing Authority. For the smaller the s i z e , the more the fragmentation and the easier i t i s to c o n t r o l and i d e n t i f y . Smallness also helps to ensure r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and as such helps i n minimizing p i l f e r a g e and damage - both serious problems. Small groups entrusted with the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of self-maintenance, and replacement of worn or damaged f i x t u r e s are considered to be e s s e n t i a l . The a r c h i t e c t -u r a l program of th i s residence must have been developed bearing these factors i n mind. Presumably the ultimate o b j e c t i v e of the design of t h i s residence was to create a happy and harmonious academic community wit h i n t h i s residence by providing the students with the best combination of a convenient on-campus residence l i f e and at the same time the freedoia of high density down town l i v i n g both of which were equally needed i n a students' world. Further, a deliberate attempt was made through the design to reduce the group s i z e to a smaller l i v i n g unit as w e l l as to provide a s u i t a b l e forum of meaningful s o c i a l intercourse w i t h i n some h i e r a r c h i a l order. The purpose was to ensure maximum privacy and quietude and minimum i n t e r r u p t i o n that were e s s e n t i a l l y conducive to p r i v a t e study among senior students. A l l these conform to what Sim Van der Ryn observed (1967): The most i n t e l l i g e n t c o llege housing proposals i n the l a s t few years have advanced the notion of "n a t u r a l " s o c i a l groupings as key determinants of the housing plan. The suggestion i s that there are optimum group s i z e s f o r various a c t i v i t i e s , and that c o l l e c t i o n s of small groups make up ever l a r g e r groups. By manip-u l a t i n g c i r c u l a t i o n routes, patterns of adjacency and room c l u s t e r s , designers have sought to provide f o r the student an e x p l i c i t hierarchy of s o c i a l groupings or communities.. Ultimately, the users' committee along with the a u t h o r i t i e s of t h i s U n i v e r s i t y administration, i n the program of these residences decided i t to be "the f i r s t design s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r senior s i n g l e students, taking a completely new approach away from the former i n s t i t u t i o n a l arrangement." According to t h i s University's Housing Information booklet (1974-75): Two years of d e l i b e r a t i o n between a r c h i t e c t s , administrators and students who f o r t h e f i r s t time had a very a c t i v e r o l e i n d e c i s i o n -making, was the base of the design o f f e r i n g a l t e r n a t i v e l i f e - s t y l e s 30 iwithin the same complex ... with the f a c i l i t i e s more conductive to p r i v a t e study. Lt was a l s o the f i r s t student residence on campus to provide self-cooking f a c i l i t i e s f o r students to prepare t h e i r own meals ... and f i n a l l y to provide the best combination of residence l i f e on campus as w e l l as downtown h i g h - r i s e apartment l i v i n g . Preliminary Review of the Design Design Philosophy: I t was evident that the r e s u l t of student-admin-i s t r a t i o n c o l l a b o r a t i o n , i n the design of the Gage Residence during 1970-71, had embodied a number of innovations. The Design Program s p e c i f i c a l l y recognized the environmental complexities of s t u d e n t s ' l i v i n g and l e a r n i n g . P o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t existed between the order and e f f i c i e n c y of the i n s t i t u t i o n and the students' desire to r e t a i n t h e i r privacy and personal i d e n t i t y . Recognising that both were necessary but both must work, the program of t h i s new student residence aimed at r e s o l v i n g t h i s c o n f l i c t by " s c a l i n g down" ( i n gradual and e a s i l y descernible steps) the student's r e l a t i o n s h i p between h i s i n d i v i d u a l u n i t and the service n e c e s s i t i e s and s o c i a l climate of h i s common b u i l d i n g s . An i n d i v i d u a l student i s sure to experience t h i s graduation as maintained i n the design when he moves from the " t o t a l involvement" of the common areas to h i s p a r t i c u l a r tower, by elevator to a s p e c i f i c f l o o r , i n t o the semi-privacy of a s u i t e shared by other f i v e companions and f i n a l l y into h i s p r i v a t e room - the ultimate p r i v i l e g e . As the a r c h i t e c t ' s program explains, " privacy i s I n t e g r a l l y r e l a t e d to s i z e of group - but the ultimate privacy of the i n d i v i d u a l room i s not achieved at the expense of i t s 31. convenience to the common centre. S t r i c t adherence to a sc a l e of p r i o r i -t i e s i s the means by which maximum f a c i l i t y to the l i v i n g / l e a r n i n g process i s achieved'.' The' design has thus created an unusual challenge - p h y s i c a l and p s y c h o l o g i c a l . • Almost a l l the U n i v e r s i t i e s are presently caught i n a wh i r l p o o l of constructing c o s t l y h i g h - r i s e student residences. Many other f a c t o r s , of course, !' influence the dec i s i o n to b u i l d . h i g h - r i s e student housing. Limitations on a v a i l a b l e land probably played an important r o l e i n determing the administrators' f i n a l decisiona about the Gage Towers. High operational cost was another key f a c t o r ; one might also consider that c e r t a i n features of h i g h - r i s e l i v i n g as an a l t e r n a t i v e l i f e - s t y l e i n campus student residence could be a t t r a c t i v e to administrators. For example, residents i n a h i g h - r i s e cannot e a s i l y d r i f t from t h e i r rooms i n t o outside as can residents i n low-rise b u i l d i n g s . Open-air-landscaped-lawns and paved courtyards or plazas are therby l e s s a c c e s s i b l e even i n f a i r , weather and. consequently more e a s i l y maintained. The higher a b u i l d -ing i s , the harder i t i s to leave i t ; therefore, fewer demands f o r out-door space as w e l l as f a c i l i t i e s are placed upon the surrounding environ-ment by the student residents i n t h e i r l e i s u r e l y p u r s u i t s . In one sense at l e a s t , a h i g h - r i s e student residence i s an administrator's dream. O v e r a l l economy of the e n t i r e project was of paramount importance because the a l l o t ed d o l l a r . amount per student had to account f o r general f a c i l i t i e s as w e l l as act u a l l i v i n g accommodation. Design Differences with Other Student Residences on-campus The major dif f e r e n c e s observed between the Gage Residence and other 32. on-campus residences li e s in i t s exclusive allotment to senior students of legal age. It is also meant for senior students desiring to l i v e i n clusters with coed -living dorms in suite arrangements each-accommodating six students with self-cooking and other necessary l i v i n g f a c i l i t i e s . While the Gage Residence consists of a group of three essentially look-alike 17 storey towers, other on-campus residences (Totem Park, 6 buildings of 6 storeys each;and Place Vanier, eight buildings of 4 storeys each) are low-rise. This means that there are more students l i v i n g within a comparatively small site (1386 people i n a site of 7.6 acres). This amounts to an increase i n the project density (180 persons per acre) as well as in overall structure density. Again, since towers of Gage Residences are composed of vertical structures, upper floors are accessible only by elevators. Each floor has four independent quads accommodating 24 students i n a l l i n each floor. Six students, with individual single rooms, form a separate, self - s u f f i c i e n t quadrant, sharing a common wash-room, lounge and kitchenette. The students' social behavior and daily a c i t i v i t i e s are thus profoundly i n f l u -enced by the design layout. Design layout The architectural layout of .Gage Residents was developed by the architect: i n the following manner. The three 17-storey residence towers - are..tied together with a spoke-like connections with a common building as i t s hub, i n a pinwheel juxta-relationships. Each of the three identical towers has 6,000 Sq. Ft. per storey, with the exception of main floors. Each identical suite consists of a front door and hallway, six single rooms, the occupants of which share washroom f a c i l i t i e s , lounge and kitchenette. (See Plan,Appendix) Elimination of long, formal central 33. i c o r r i d o r s with rooms strung on i t s two aides succeeded i n e l i m i n a t i n g the t y p i c a l appearance of the " i n s t i t u t i o n a l syndrome". F a c i l i t i e s i n Common Block: The Gage Residence i s designed to function during the summer months s i m i l a r to a h o t e l operation f o r large group conventions - and conference o f f i c e s are oriented to promote t h i s operation. Although the convention f a c i l i t i e s are revenue magnets during the summer months, they are designed to become student oriented during the academic year.The ground f l o o r space which can be subdivided i n t o areas Sf from 2-5 space/ usages by means of f o l d i n g , sound-proof doors . accommodate groups of 30 to 200 persons. They open d i r e c t l y out i n t o . c e n t r a l lounge area and are conveniently adjacent to the dining f a c i l i t i e s . The common block b u i l d i n g , which i s the s o c i a l and s e r v i c e centre of the complex, i s d i r e c t l y interconnected h o r i z o n t a l l y to the residence towers and v e r t i c a l l y to the parking/service areas. I t i s conceived by the a r c h i t e c t s as the free flowing space of s o c i a l exchange and s e r v i c e convenience. The o v e r a l l atmosphere one of movement and t o t a l movement: The common block includes many functions such as kitchen, snack bar, c a f e t e r i a , food pick-up areas, delicatessen, administration, c e n t r a l lBunge, house-keeping o f f i c e , conference o f f i c e s , large seminar room, small conference rooms, Loading Dock. Deciding on the most-appropriate design layout f o r s u i t e s , i n the residence towers diagonally accessed from a c e n t r a l core of a f l o o r lobby surrounded by two stairways and two elevators, must have posed a "Chinese Puzzle" f o r the a r c h i t e c t s . A compact, square, symmetrical and formal geometrical form, resolved a s o l u t i o n . 34 This made each tower take an identical exterior elevation on a l l i t s four facades. Optimum use of space was necessary to avoid excessive dead area i n the core of the building and a l l the six bedrooms and the lounge in each suite were to have a large window and a small triangular open balcony. Though remarkable for i t s clarity and simplicity i n allocating floor space, project design architect Wally Moroz's (of M/S Reno Negrin, and Associate Architects of Vancouver) unconventional layout created constructional challenges for the contractors. The four sides of each tower generate ten faces, each having eight right angles and a balcony wall at 45° to the core centre - a multi-faceted facading that resulted i n the perimeter walls being proportionately greater i n area than i s usual for apartment buildings. Contractor Frank Stanzl tackled this complicated job by adopting a special construction technique. The structural engineers also specified steel staircases for greater economy. Landings and treads were of concrete. A l l materials used were simple and architectural surfaces were sandblasted. The record shows that the contractor could complete one storey every five days and the entire building complex took two years to complete. Design Aesthetics, Internal and External Functional interrelationships of various elements of the design of this residence have dictated the building form. The architects' ingenious design of a compact, symmetrical floor plan has succeeded in creating an interesting cluster of four quads on each floor with admirable clarity and simplicity. They establish a strong and easily perceptible pattern, visual order and form. The visual impact of the buildings interior design EXTERIOR VIEW OF THE WALTER GAGE RESIDENCE BY NIGHT I n t e r i o r V i e w o f t h e C o m m o n L o u n g e , C o m m o n B l o c k , M a i n F l o o r . ( C o m p a r a b l e w i t h A r c h i t e c t ' s D r a w i n g i n A p p e n d i x A ) tUUST*A.TI<JNJ INTERIOR VIEW OF THE STUDENT LOUNGE INSIDE EACH QUAD WALTER GAGE TOWERS (Comparable w i t h A r c h i t e c t ' s Drawing i n Appendix A ) 35. and f u r n i s h i n g , are pleasing, c h e e r f u l , warm, simple and o r d e r l y , while f u n c t i o n a l l y they are convenient and safe. However, the appreciation of the external appearnace of the "drab and f a c e l e s s , grey concrete" facades of super block-towers might arouse some controversy. From an urban design context, the a r c h i t e c t u r a l massing and grouping of the h i g h - r i s e towers around the common block creates an o v e r a l l compactness, cohesiveness and unity. The Gage towers are a dominant a r c h i t e c t u r a l landmarks i n the e n t i r e campus r i s i n g i n harmony with the magnificent backdrop of the North Shore m o u n t a i n s . ( I l l u s t r a t i o n l)The Vist looking from south through the Gage towers of tower of the Vancouver School of Theology, (romantically .designed, i n Gothic s t y l e and dramatically i l l u m i n a t e d at n i g h t ) have been c a r e f u l l y retained and w e l l a l i d out. This group of residences forms a d i s t i n c t e n t i t y of t h e i r own as compared to other examples of on-campus residences, being the t a l l e s t group of structures w i t h i n the campus. The Gage Towers look more a t t r a c t i v e and dramatic at night when t h e i r thousand wamly-lit windows g l i t t e r l i k e jewels against the dark sky and are noticeable from a long distance with t h e i r flame (golden yellow and saffron) coloured drapes. (See I l l u s t r a t i o n 2) Design Merits as the Students and Administrators see-This b u i l d i n g complex i s constructed f o r s i n g l e occupancy by senior students. They are arranged i n c l u s t e r s of s i x rooms. While maximum privacy i s thus ensured, each group of rooms e n c i r c l e d a number of common f a c i l i t i e s (such as a quadrant lounge, kitchenette, etc.) that may be enjoyed by the residents i n t h e i r gregarious moments. Consequently, the chances of f e e l i n g i s o l a t e d while l i v i n g i n a h i g h - r i s e apartment (e.g. f l a t neurosis) are reduced. Every amenity f o r l i v i n g f a c i l i t y that may be needed f o r students i s a v a i l a b l e , i n s i d e the b u i l d i n g complex. In f a c t , with a good organisation, a student can probably l i v e i n t h i s tower f o r years without ever going outside. Tower .residents seem to accept shortages and o r g a n i s a t i o n a l problems s t o i c a l l y . They c a l l these problems " f a c t s of t h i s r e s i d e n c e - l i v i n g at UBC". According to the majority of students, t h i s residence combines the best of both worlds: l i v i n g on-campus with the fredom of l i v i n g off-campus. One student s a i d to t h i s researcher: "You can pretty much do what you want to do and you're w i t h i n easy walking distance of almost everything." The researcher observed that the favourable image t h i s residence had to i t s residents was b u i l t around i t s convenience and economy. The Gage Residence i s praised f o r i t s w e l l l a i d - o u t design, I t s t a s t e f u l and comfortable f u r n i s h i n g s , i t s r e l a t i v e privacy; the design i s appreciated, i n a d d i t i o n , f o r being safe, orderly and well-maintained. I t s main f l o o r oounges are l a v i s h l y furnished with f i r e p l a c e and thick red plush carpet (shag rug) luxurious l i g h t i n g f i x t u r e s , and the e n t i r e f l o o r surfaces are comfortably carpeted from w a l l to w a l l . A l l the quad lounges are provided with a l l modern f a c i l i t i e s , comfortable f u r n i t u r e and f i x t u r e s ; a l l of i t s large windowed ( w a l l - t o - w a l l ) , rooms are r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e r , and well-designed with f l e x i b l e f u r n i t u r e , pleasing f u r n i s h i n g and enough storage space i n s i d e . They are l e s s s t e r i l e - l o o k i n g as compared to other older on-campus residences. And l a s t but not l e a s t , every window of every tower promises to greet one's eyes with a spectacular view of the mountains, water and lush green land i n and around the U n i v e r s i t y Endowment Lands. This added asset can c e r t a i n l y compete with any f i r s t c l a s s apartment or h o t e l i n downtown. A l l these features are a v a i l a b l e to students at a very cheap rent. Students presently ( u n t i l A p r i l 1975) pay rent ( f o r room only) of 37. $282.22 f o r the winter term and $315.10 f o r the Spring Term, ( i . e . a t o t a l of $597.32 based on 218 days or approximately $85.00 per month). In comparison, the t o t a l cost of stay i n the older residences where meals are provided i s about $55 to $67 more. Even i n these days of high l i v i n g cost a student r e s i d i n g i n i t can l i v e w i t h i n $120 and $150 a month, so he does save money by chosing t h i s residence over others. One male resident o u t l i n e d i t s advantages r e a l i s t i c a l l y : I f one considers the s i x people are each paying $90 a month, f o r renting a quad, i t s t a r t s to sound a l i t t l e more expensive. The c r u c i a l thing i s a v a i l a b i l i t y . Six people could e a s i l y rent a house f o r l e s s than $90 a month each i f they could get i t . There i s a housing shortage i n Vancouver ( p a r t i c u l a r l y close to the U n i v e r s i t y ) . Convenience i s a major reason f o r l i v i n g on campds. The Walter Gage Residence i s r i g h t on the campus and f o r the most part has almost everything the students need. As an a l t e r n a t i v e to other on-campus residences ( l i k e Totem Park and Place Vanier) i t has a l o t going f o r i t . As an a l t e r n a t i v e to l i v i n g off-campus i n a sleeping room i n East 41st i t has a l o t going f o r i t . Now i f the rest of us could only see the mountains! To be a resident i n the Walter Gage residence, a student has to be of minimum l e g a l age (19 years). According to L e s l i e Rohringer, D i r e c t o r of Residences, UBC students here are treated as mature, responsible, adult persons. According to him: (Vancouver Sun, A p r i l 20,1972) Any student of l e g a l age should be able to r e a l i s e h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y enough to lead h i s own l i f e . They make t h e i r own r u l e s , behave i n a responsible way, and look a f t e r t h e i r own b u i l d i n g . There i s , i n f a c t no r e s t r i c t i o n on v i s i t o r s or l i m i t a t i o n s of v i s i t i n g hours i n thi s residence. The Walter Gage Residence runs l i k e a downtown h o t e l and, according to the housing o f f i c e , provides more trouble-free operation than other residences. Vandalism and damage had dropped at one time from $5 per student per year to 50(? i n s p i t e of the s p i r a l l i n g operational cost. A business manager f o r the UBC Housing Administration once remarked,(Sun,Oct'7 "When the cry has been f o r more and more l i b e r a l i z a t i o n our experience has been that small steps taken i n that d i r e c t i o n have met with a backlash". 38. Commenting on the;general r e a c t i o n to t h i s coed residence and the unbridled sex passion which i t might provoke, he s a i d : "Male and female students l i v e i n separate quads on each f l o o r of the new b u i l d i n g s . But the U n i v e r s i t y w i l l not i n t e r f e r e should they wish to v i s i t each other's rooms or turn t h e i r rooms into love nests". I t has been pointed i n the Student Housing I n s t r u c t i o n Booklet as the standing i n s t r u c t i o n f o r overnight v i s i t o r s or guests that: "The U n i v e r s i t y recognises the b e n e f i t of co-educational f a c i l i t i e s but does not accept cohabitation. On t h i s aspect of residence l i f e he also remarked elsewhere that "We are not concerned with t h e i r morals or sexual habits once they are of l e g a l age; I don't think anyone be l i e v e s i t i s the University's job to go around pinning c h a s t i t y b e l t s on people". The prime consideration, however, according to him, was to induce thoughtfulness towards neighbours. In other words, he echoed the statement of Edward Eddy, President of Chatham College as he s a i d : (Van der Ryn,'67 I do not b e l i e v e that any problem of immorality on a college campus i s solved by p u b l i c , p r e s i d e n t i a l proclamations. Too many colleges lean on such professed standards i n order to protect t h e i r own good name, without f i r s t p l a c i n g emphasis on the i n d i v i d u a l human being. (pp.68) Complaints from the Residents: However, l i v i n g i n the Gage Residence i s not a l l wine and roses. By taking a c l o s e r look w i t h i n i t s l i v i n g q u a l i t i e s one might f i n d i t to be plagued with several s p e c i a l problems. In various contexts students had complained about how the U n i v e r s i t y Administration had been taking f u l l advantage of i t s monopoly s i t u a t i o n with regard to student housing. As regards the e x t e r i o r appearance of t h i s group of residences, students often described i t as a "drab, f a c e l e s s , grey concrete matchbox" or as "ugly, hideous, a monsterous superblock". Although the early prediction about "the claustrophobia", "red light areas" and provoking "unbridled sex passion" have a l l proved un-founded, there have however, been frequent complaints by the student community about the sterile lifestyle within this residence. Some have described i t as "a cold and impersonal, emotionally-depressing and socially suffocating place to live". Possibly the most common criticism against this residence was that i t had within i t an extremely restricted social interaction due to the suite-type arrangements encouraging independent, individualistic life-styles within a vertically stratified structure. Among other innumerable but minor complaints expressed by the respondents includes those about the daily hassle with overcrowded elevators, problems with overheating of the rooms, poor lighting layout within the quads, particularly about light fittings at the back of the kitchen counter, lounge and individual rooms, cramped kitchen space, . inadequacies of car parking, insufficient sanitary fixtures inside washrooms, absence of indoor games facili t i e s , jammed garbage shutes, inadequate shelving and storage spaces in kitchens, not enough chairs in the quads' dining areas (for example 3 chairs for 6 people), inconvenient telephone arrangements. Again out of six, two rooms in every quad have windows of lesser width. As one woman resident wrote, "the fridge is too small for six peopl; the cupboards in the kitchen are really too high for people 5 '5 " and under. Lighting in kitchen is terrible, you can't see what you're cooking because the light is behind you; the same for dish washing; cannot read magazines on couch with l i t t l e light in corner. Lighting in bathroom is not good when you're having a shower. Little lights in the bedrooms are terrible for studying - you couldn't read in bed because of 40. poor lighting; balconies are also a waste - nobody uses them except for storage of beer bottles. There is very l i t t l e space i n bathroom to put make-ups. Bedroom i s alright and furniture i s good." Question raised by some, "why do we have to rent additional 'fridge; also not enough chairs in dining area for dinner." One female resident summed up the complaints with f a i r amount of c l a r i t y : "Kitchen cupboards are too narrow for doors to close with dinner plates on the shelves - many find i t impossible to store food for six in the narrow cupboards. To buy food i n bulk w i l l force one to store food i n bedroom cupboards or even under bathroom sink". Cramped kitchen storage space and University Housing Administrations provision of a solidary small 'fridge' in each quad compelled every group of quad members to rent a second fridge while the majority of the balconies attached to quad lounges were used as an additional kitchen cold storage space. It was a pity that these beautiful and costly outdoor spaces had to be so misused. Noise seemed to be another major complaint among the residents. It threatened the privacy and quiet necessary for effective study and relax-ation. As a student observed: "the situation of the Towers causes noises to carry a great distance, and parties and stereos tend to cause noise, even though kept as quiet as possible. The noise does not help the rather uncertain relationship between the inhabitants of the otwers and the surrounding community, a relationship which is not helped by the unfortunate tendency of the community to believe the very worst of a coed residence". Many respondents also complained aboutthe poor sound insulation that permits the sound (from stereos, slamming of doors, garbage shutes etc.) to penetrate inside rooms and hamper the auditory privacy. Excessive heating sometimes compels residents to keep their 41. windows open which in turn invites external noise to come in. However, residents (particularly women) were not aware of any visual invasion of privacy. Although the author felt that the two hollow stair wells in a l l towers functioned as capillary tubes to carry noise upwards, however, he did not quite agree with these students views on the severity of the problem. Many residents thought there was a tolerable observation of "quiet hours". This view was confirmed by the researcher's frequent and informal check-ins, in "quiet hours", in late evenings particularly before examinations. It was obvious that many of the resident's complaints might have sprung from inefficient programming and maintenance, while few '.were from their peculiar idiosyncracies and maladjustments with their own personality traits. However, some suggestions received from the residents that were genuinely constructive. As one female respondent suggested: If anyone was going to design similar residences I would suggest plan-ning tower lounges on the top floor so that everyone could enjoy the view. Another male respondent suggest that "The Social Committee could do much better i f i t had more student participation". Several female respondents remarked that the foyer area between bedrooms was a waste and that the bedrooms could be made bigger in size instead of that wasted space. Never-theless, the author observed that these foyers were being well-used in many quads in activities ranging from ironing, tailoring, telephone conversations, copying and light tracing. Finally, although proximity to University is a major locational merit 42. of this residence, this did not appear to be advantageous i n every context. More than 50% of the residents do not possess any personal vehicle.and obviously they had to depend on public transport. According to several female students, six people l i v i n g together i n a quad have many and varied shopping needs. The location of this group of residences was considered to be quite far from the bus route, as i t might compet many of the residents to take a long, strenuous walk from the bus-stop particularly from the nearest shopping areas carrying heavy bags of groceries. Organisation of Investigation: On the basis of the preliminary review of the design of the Gage . Residence, the present research is designed to investigate following issues which are stated i n question form. 1. How does the occupancy-density within this particular example of stu-dent residence compare with the study by Bickman et a l i n affecting, a) Users' perception and evaluation of the architectural qualities of their residence environment? b) Users' social behavior such as mutual trust, social responsibility and helping behavior? 2. a) How does student rating of social climate measured on the same standard scale compare with Gerst and Sweetwood's study? b) How far i s the student's ratings of the architectural design t qualities of this residence environment related to their psycho-logi c a l perception of the social climate existing i n their residence as compared to the study by Gerst and Sweetowood, (measured on the same standard environmental scale?) 3. How are the residents' perception and self ratings on their architect-urally designed environment related to their biographic background, childhood home environment, quality or type of previous residence, friend-ship patterns, trust and incidence of theft, crime and overall satis-faction. 4. To what extent is a students' overall satisfaction with living in this specific residence influenced by: a) His childhood residential environment? b) Potential for mobility? (Possession of personal vehicles and dependability on public transport)? c) Type of residence lived in previously and tenure of present living?. d) Predetermined criteria for selection to live in this particular residence? e) Interpersonal involvement, living with self-chosen quad mates, degree of intimacy and friendship pattern with other members in same quadrant or same floor? f) Perception of social climate prevailing within their living unit (as measured on a standard environmental scale)? 5. How does the architectural design of this residence foster or inhibit satisfactory social interaction between the student residents inside the quads or floors? 6. Are the suites (quads) the most satisfactory solution to the design of student residence? The author further informally investigated and discussed other aspects of the design on the basis of some careful observations and with the help of analysis of the questionnaire responses: These are as follows: 1. How inducive is the designed environment to private study? How does design relate to the time that the students spend daily in studies 44. inside their rooms and i n other a c t i v i t i e s in rooms, quads, floors and other areas in the residence? 2. How do the students perceive personal space, privacy and range of t e r r i t o r i a l i t y ? Does the personal space concept of men significantly d i f f e r from that of women in a similar setting? 3. To what extent do the residents personalise their own space or adapt the l i v i n g environment i n their quadrants? 4. Are the expensively-designed lounges i n the main floor effectively used by the residents and are they li k e l y the scene for spontaneous group activity without formal programming of interesting activities? CHAPTER I I I 45. SURVEY METHODOLOGY  A. SUBJECTS The p o t e n t i a l subjects of t h i s study (n=96) were among the 1165 s i n g l e students (male and female) of t h i s U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia r e s i d i n g i n the three high r i s e towers of the Walter Gage Resi-dence, a group of high and low-rise dormitories newly b u i l t w i t h i n the campus. The student population r e s i d i n g i n i t constitute a l i t t l e more than a t h i r d of the t o t a l on-campus s i n g l e student population of 3454 (December 1974). At the time when this research was conducted wi t h i n Gage Residence, (between December 1974 and January 1975) there were 1165 s i n g l e students l i v i n g i n these three towers out of which 600 (51.5%) were men while 565 (48%) were women. The breakdown of accommodation of students i n the en t i r e residence according to sex and academic year was as follo w s : Academic Year ... I II I I I IV V Grad T o t a l i n T o t a l i n Residence 3 towers Male 7 92 205 200 74 76 = 654 600 Female 35 134 219 157 26 48 = 619 565 T o t a l 42 226 424 357 100 124 = 1273 [Source: O f f i c e of the Dir e c t o r of Residence UBC]. 1165 46. A sample of 96 residents was approached in this survey. Forty-six male subjects received questionnaires, 43 responded, 41 (89%) were provided usable data. Among 50 female subjects approached, 42 (82%) responded, out of which one was rejected . Among the respondents, 65 (80%), 33 men, 32 women, were native-born Canadians, 7 (8.5%) were from the UK, 1 was from the USA, 2 were from West-European countries, 5 were from Asian countries and 1 was from Australia (see Table 1). As many as 62 (76%) declared their permanent home address to be in BC (including 7 from Greater Vancouver Regional D i s t r i c t ) , 3 from other rpovinces i n Canada, 4 from Asia, 1 from USA, 1 from West Europe while 11 did not answer (see table). The average declared age of the male respondents was tabulated to be 21.5 years while that of female was 20.5 years. Hence the mean age of a l l the respondents taken together was 21 years. The distribution of subjects in different academic years is represented as follows: 1st year 1; 2nd year 16; 3rd year 29; 4th year 25; 5th year 9. The major faculties to which the majority of the subjects of this residence belonged were as follows: 19 belonged to the Faculty of Arts, 16 to Science, 14 to Education, 12 to Applied Science, and others were distributed to various schools or departments mainly under remaining 8 faculties. B. MEASURES A structured self-administered questionnaire (a copy attached at Appendix) including a standardised Environmental Scale (short form of URES) was u t i l i s e d with minor modification,to investigate the specific aspects of the residence and i t s users' l i f e styles. The major variables examined in this survey are described as follows. 47. 1. Biographical Information: Questions were designed to tap information on subjects' sex, age, f a c u l t y , academic year, country of o r i g i n , c h i l d -hood r e s i d e n t i a l environment ( i . e . r e s i d e n t i a l density and type of house l i v e d , degree of m o b i l i t y , possession of e l e c t r o n i c equipment and communication f a c i l i t i e s ) tenure of l i v i n g i n Gage Residence and area and type of dwelling j u s t p r i o r to coming to Gage Residence. (Q.l - 11, 15, 16). 2. Subjects' C r i t e r i a f o r Choosing to Live i n t h i s Residence: On a 5-point s c a l e , students were asked to r a t e the p r i o r i t y they gave to residence-choice c r i t e r i a before choosing to l i v e i n Gage Residence. These 16 c r i t e r i a were s e l e c t e d under f i v e headings i n c l u d i n g proximity, economy, l i f e s t y l e , p e r sonality and design aspects. (Q.17). 3. [a] Friendship Pattern: Measurement of the degree of intimacy each respondant maintains with other members of his/her own quad or with members of other quadrants i n the same f l o o r were attempted. The questions developed for t h i s part of the study measured the number of quad mates who chose each other mutually before moving to t h i s residence; proximity of majority of the f r i e n d s ( i . e . whether they had most fr i e n d s l i v i n g i n s i d e the dorm or outside i t ) a n d number of sex of best f r i e n d s . The degree of intimacy among quad mates and with members of other quads i n the same f l o o r s were measured i n scales ranging from casually acquainted to very good f r i e n d s . (Q.22). Ib] Mutual Trust, Helping Behavior and S o c i a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : A number of questions were designed to measure the degree of t r u s t students had f o r each other. They were asked whether they usually lock the doors of t h e i r rooms or quadrants, whether they were aware of incidents of t h e f t , 48. i n t r u s i o n or p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e committed on t h e i r f l o o r , and whether they f e l t that s e c u r i t y measures should be i n t e n s i f i e d w i t h i n t h e i r residence. A question was asked to assess how much they would be w i l l i n g to help a stranger wandering through the main f l o o r lounge. I t asked p r e c i s e l y whether they would ignore or heip or report her/him. (Q.23, 24). The l a s t question i n t h i s s e c t i o n on mutual t r u s t was designed to measure how much sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y students have f o r t h e i r p h y s i c a l environment. Respondants were asked what they would do i f they noticed a broken window i n t h e i r tower, (not w i t h i n t h e i r own quad) and whether they do ignore or report i t . " 4. S a t i s f a c t i o n : An important dependent v a r i a b l e was the users' l e v e l s of s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i v i n g i n Gage Residence, how many intend to come back next year, and whether occupants l i k e d Gage Residence b e t t e r than the places where they l a s t l i v e d . Residents were f u r t h e r asked to mention the things they were most missed i n Gage as compared to t h e i r previous residences. This gave the researcher some opportunity to make a comparison between the present residence and the other o l d e r on-campus student accommodation. (Q.12, 13, 14, 25). 5. Evaluation:A second important v a r i a b l e was users' evaluation of Gage Residence measured on a semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l scale of 17 a r c h i t e c t u r a l dim-ensions. User's response to a l l these questions were f i r s t compared with that of Bickman's study on student residences with various d e n s i t i e s . The trend of conformity of the r e s u l t s of t h i s study was tested against those group d e n s i t i e s with which i t more or less coincided. (Q.20). 49. 6. Social Climate' The social climate of (the quadrants of) this r e s i -dence as perceived by residents was measured by applying a short form of University Residence Environment Scale (URES) which was adopted from the URES Manual developed and prepared by Rudolf Moos and Marvin Gerst, Social Ecological Laboratory (July, 1973), USA. This standard environ-mental scale was developed to evaluate ''the on-campus l i v i n g residence where students spend the majority of their non-classroom time and i n which a large, proportion of interpersonal learning and peer influence occurs". It was assumed that the students' immediate l i v i n g environment (college residence) might have a significant influence p6 students' satisfaction with university l i f e as well as an intellectual and academic productivity. The attempt was made to investigate whether the students who described the social climate of their floor or quads as being highly involving, supportive, innovative and student-controlled also perceived their residence architecture i n a positive way. In the present study, a standardized Short Form (Form S) was applied to serve the researcher's purpose. It i s used tb obtain a relatively rapid assessment of the l i v i n g group's social climate. The form contains a brief 40-item, true/false scale which provides a profile of a residence environment along ten subscale dimensions. Four items each of the ten URES subscales described i n (Appendix C). Mean, standard deviations and standard scores were calculated for these ten four-items subscales for the present sample, and shown in Result section. A sample of Form S of the URES is attached i n the Appendix C. A positively-loaded item checked as "true" scores 1 point. A negatively loaded item scores 1 point i f marked "false". The total 50. subscale score (highest w i l l be 4 and lowest w i l l be zero) is simply the number of items answered in the scored direction. (See Appendix C for sub-scale definitions). URES subscales with scoring items are described as follows: Interpersonal Relationships: (1) Involvement (items 10+, 16-, 26+, 32+) (2) Emotional Support (1+, 11-, 14+, 37+) Personal Growth: (3) Independence (17-, 19+, 22+, 24+) (4) Traditional Social Orientation (13+, 18+, 25-, 29+) Intellectual Growth: (5) Competition (7-, 20+, 33-, 35+) (6) Academic Achievement (8-, 23-, 27+, 36+) (7) Intellectuality (4+, 6+, 28-, 38-) (8) Order and Organisation (9-, 12-, 31+, 40+) (9) Innovation (3+, 5-, 34-, 39-) (10) Student Influence (2-, 15-, 21+, 30+) 7. Architectural Atmosphere: Part of this study was designed to determine i f the results of a similar study by Bickman et a l . and the other one by Gerst and Sweetwood, (as mentioned earlier) could be replicated i n the Gage Residence. The students perception of the architectural atmosphere was measured using the semantic differentials. Respondants were asked to rate the architectural environment of their residence according to their own individual perception alcng 17 architect-ural dimensions on a 7-point scale. The semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l , a general measuring technique developed by Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957) to measure connotative meaning, was incorporated by the researcher i n this 51. study. B r i e f l y , the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l u t i l i s e s a number of scales c o n s i s t i n g of b i p o l a r adjectives or nouns, (word- couplets). The scales are divided i n t o seven steps as follows f o r example: (Cheerful Depressing) Each subject was asked to consider each of the .17 couplets and place a check i n the blank which he or she f e l t applied. From l e f t to r i g h t on the above example, a check i n one of the blanks would i n d i c a t e (1) extremely c h e e r f u l , (2) quite c h e e r f u l , (3) s l i g h t l y c h e e r f u l , (4) neither cheerful nor depressing, (5) s l i g h t l y depressing (6) quite depressing, and (7) extremely depressing. Since the midpoint of the scale (which i s 4 i n t h i s study) i s taken as an index of meaninglessness, departure from the midpoint .to any d i r e c t i o n may be r e f e r r e d as meaningful-ness. References were made to the extensive l i s t of adjecti"vepairs generated i n previous studies of Kenneth Craik (1971), Henry Sanoff (1968), Robert Hershberger (1972), and John B. C o l l i n s (1969). The l i s t was reduced to 17 items to compare the r e s u l t s by Bickman et a l as we l l as Gerst and Sweetwood with t h i s study and f o r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n . The items were mainly grouped i n t o three categories: e.g. evaluation, potency and a c t i o n o r i e n t a t i o n . 8. A d d i t i o n a l items; , Among other questions included i n the question-* a i r e , which were not r e l a t e d to any hypotheses were: a) s p e c i f i c areas respondants f e e l as " p r i v a t e " "semi-private"or"public spaces". (Q.18). • 52. b) students' allocation of daily or weekly hours i n studies, (Q.19), social l i v i n g and extra-curricular a c t i v i t i e s in his room, quad, elsewhere in the Residence. (Q.21). Some of these results were compared with the previous studies conducted by Sim Van der Ryne and Silverstein (1967) and the other by Victor Hsia (1967). Results of other studies were obtained from Heilweil (1974). C, PROCEDURE Before i n i t i a t i n g this survey, formal approval was obtained from the University Research Committee and the Director of Student Residence, UBC. The procedure was mainly based on following four techniques to collect information for this research study. These are: i) Literature search and review Ii) Systematic observation i i i ) Informal interview iv) Questionnaire response Literature Search: Traditional method of literature search proved a valu-able tool in collecting information on the Gage residence and also on gaining background information on relevant issues relating to the research. In addition to books, theses and monographs dealing with the aspect of student residential l i f e , other sources of information relied on were -local newspapers, housing administration office information booklets, UBC student newsletters, architects' program, professional journals rela-ting to architecture, housing, psychology and sociology and environmental psychology. Informal reconnaisance was a f i r s t step to include observations & anecdotal dialogue with some residents, staff members i n residence, as well as staff belonging to the Office of University Housing Administration. 53. Observation: Some systematic observations based on some predetermined working hypotheses were conducted to record users' pattern of behavior i n the spatial context of some specific areas inside the residence. Activities observed included the degree and varieties of student-use of the main floor lounges, tower lounges, quad lounges,, reception desk, mini shop, mail boxes telephone booth, kitchenettes, balconies, elevator lobbies, main floor lobbies, open plaza, and car park. The period of observation was extended over a specific period of the day and night for a few weeks. These helped the researcher to formulate the few hypotheses for the research. Informal Interview: At the i n i t i a l stage of the survey, interviewing i s the most eff i c i e n t technique to collect information. The objective was to entertain feedback of information, determining the range of problems to f a c i l i t a t e broad outline of the study pretesting the propositions and formulate a few hypotheses. It was further intended to seek for suggestions, cooperation from students and house staff i n distributing and collecting the questionnaires. Early interviews were anticipated to reveal broad generalisations and class of variables for the study. These generalisations were later refined into a set of working hypotheses and tested systematically through questionnaire responses. Various persons interviewed include the architect responsible for the design of this residence, student advisor and some other staff of the housing administration office, house staff alloted for duty inside the residence, resident attendant, house advisors (Dons), staff of Physical Plant Office and Totem Park Convention Centre in addition to a few randomly selected student residents. They a l l provided a broad range of 54. information regarding the residence concentrating on many s p e c i f i c items. This information helped the researcher to form v a r i a b l e s i n the design of the f i a n l questionnaire. Questionnaire: This was followed by the development and d i s t r i b u t i o n of a self-administered questionnaire amongst a systematically selected sample of 96 respondants. The questionnaire required le s s than f i f t e e n minutes f o r the subjects to complete. Each 25-item questionnaire was accompanied by a covering l e t t e r s o l i c i t i n g response and p a r t i c i p a t i o n from a l l the subjects. The questionnaire was pretested on a small group, as a p i l o t - s t u d y f o r determining whether the wording of every question was e a s i l y under-stood, and would e l i c i t the information desired. Every attempt was made to eliminate any confusion, m i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n or ambiguity due to poor or weak wording. Many suggestions from colleagues, house advisors and residents f o r re-wording the questionnaire were considered and incorpor-ated i n the f i n a l schedule. I t was f e l t necessary at t h i s stage to think w e l l ahead toward the stage of s t a t i s t i c a l t a b u l a t i o n and data a n a l y s i s . Each of the 96 selected subjects who received a questionnaire was met by the researcher personally who explained to them the purpose and usefulness of the survey. They were also requested to return i t i n a box s p e c i a l l y kept f o r t h i s purpose under the supervision of the resident attendant at the reception desk of the main f l o o r common block. In order to e n l i s t greatest cooperation and candid response, 55. respondants were assured of c o n f i d e n t i a l i t y and anonymity. This report has not exposed any response or findings which could be traced back to p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s , though a code had to be put at the back of each questionnaire to i d e n t i f y each respondant. (Oppenheim, 1966). The major problems confronted by the researcher were cases of "not-at-home", r e f u s a l s or non-responses. End-of-term examinations which kept most of the respondants busy, were assumed to be the main obstruction to a higher response. No sub s t i t i o j i s were allowed. A vigorous c a l l back process was c a r r i e d out by the researcher despite infringement on resid e n t s ' privacy and quiet during the examination.period p r i o r to Christmas holidays. The response on t h i s f i r s t a d ministrative phase was 69 cases (72%). A second vigorous follow-up was i n i t i a t e d i n the second week a f t e r the resumption of the spring term and the remaining 28% of non-respondants i n the sampling plan, were approached again with fresh questionnaires. The a d d i t i o n a l number of responses at the end of the t h i r d day was 16, three of which were considered unacceptable thus making the t o t a l 82 (85%). In t h i s way the c r i t i c a l problem of non-return was tacked and s u b s t a n t i a l l y over-come. i -I t was i n t e r e s t i n g to note that the majority of female respondants took much care to return t h e i r f i l l e d - i n questionnaires i n sealed envelopes with name and address of the researcher meticulously p r i n t e d on i t . The survey created a considerable i n t e r e s t among the student r e s -pondants, probably because of the range of items concerning t h e i r dormit-ory experience was rather wide. The majority of respondants were very 56. cooperative i n returning the questionnaire with many u n s o l i c i t e d , w i t t y and s t i m u l a t i n g comments which were proved to be v a l i d . Although some responses were callous and i n s i n c e r e , few were malicious and derogatory. A l l the questionnaires were d i s t r i b u t e d on the same day i . e . 10 December 1974, Time f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n of questionnaire was around the suppertime (5 p.m. to 7 p.m.) when everyone would be expected to be i n h i s / h e r room. Fortunately, the ensuing end-of-term examinations and i n -clement weather (with r a i n accompanied by cold, gusty wind) were blessings i n disguise and unexpectedly produced good r e s u l t s i n the f i r s t case. Almost a l l the subjects s e l e c t e d i n the sample were found to be present and received the questionnaire from the researcher himself. a. Sample s i z e : Other things being equal, large samples are more accurate than smaller ones. However, a small sample which i s sometimes representative of i t s population i s more valuable than a large sample which i s not. Among other elemnets determining the s i z e of a smaple i s the extent to whcih the population i s homogeneous. Homogeniety here may be defined as the degree to which people are a l i k e with respect to the p a r t i c u l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h i s student community being studied. The more the people i n a community are a l i k e , the smaller the sample can be. Every-one i s r a r e l y a l i k e but i t takes fewer people to produce a good sample of a f a i r l y homogeneous population than i t does to get a good sample of a heterogeneous population. (Backstrom and Hursh, 1963). The factors considered i n determining the sample s i z e were: degree of p r e c i s i o n desired, sampling method used, length of time, amount of 57. money, assistance from personnel a v a i l a b l e to the researcher i n c o l l e c t i n g information i n the f i e l d as w e l l as the time cost involved i n tabulating, processing or computing data. The f i e l d undertakings has to be f e a s i b l e ( and p r a c t i c a b l e i n the l i g h t of the researcher's resources. A small sample s i z e (96) with high percentage of response (85%) was be l i e v e d to o f f e r the opportunity of an in-depth study and to make a greater con-t r i b u t i o n than a shallow study of a l a r g e r group, b. Drawing the Sample: Two of the four (6-person) quads on each of 16 f l o o r s i n each of the three h i g h - r i s e s were syste m a t i c a l l y chosen as respondent addresses. One respondant was systematically selected from among the 6 students i n each chosen quad. This generated 2 p o t e n t i a l respondants from each f l o o r , g i v i n g a t o t a l number of subjects covering the three towers at 96. The p r i n c i p l e of simple random systematic sampling pro-cedure was adopted i n the drawing up the sample plan research. This gave a l l possible combinations of quadrants i n each of the 16 f l o o r s i n each of the three towers an equal p r o b a b i l i t y or chance of being included as • ' '• a sample source. This method of sampling provided assurance that members of the sample were geographically dispersed among the population. A complete l i s t of a l l the quadrants, f l o o r s and towers was f i r s t made a v a i l a b l e . A simple "game" was played with the above l i s t of 6 rooms, 4 quads, 16 f l o o r s and 3 towers to obtain a l l possible combinations of p a i r s of rooms i n each quad i n each f l o o r i n 3 towers. The p o s s i b l e p a i r s of rooms i n each quad could be 1-2, 2r-3, 3-4, 4-5, and 6-1. The possi b l e pairs of quads se l e c t e d were B-D, A-C, and CVD. Each of these combinations was w r i t t e n on a s l i p of paper, s l i p s were placed i n s i d e a 58. can, thoroughly s t i r r e d and s e l e c t e d by the r o l l i n g of dice. The two numbers on the s t r i p s of paper selected, representing two of the s i x rooms and two of the 4 quads co n s t i t u t e d the simple random sample of the resident population. The systematic sample plan thus obtained and used i n t h i s survey have represented exactly 96 (50%) of the t o t a l number of quads i n the e n t i r e group of residence although i t covered only about 8% of the e n t i r e resident population. The following table i n d i c a t e s the sample and the returns. .. TABLE 0 SAMPLE AND RETURN Male Quads Female Quads Gage As Approached As Approached Towers E x i s t s Responded Ex i s t s Responded North Tower 34 22 19 30 10 9 East " 32 14 13 32 18 16 South " 31 10 9 33 22 16 T o t a l : 97 46 41 95 50 41 TOTAL RESPONSE - N=82(85%) By chance, the response from the towers (as the above table indicates) achieved an exact sex balance among respondants. Non-responses were only 11, (12%) while 3 (3%) of responses were not acceptable. c. Data A n a l y s i s : A preliminary plan f o r analysing the data was made at the time the questionnaire was designed, Before processing of data for a n a l y s i s , the accuracy of data was c a r e f u l l y ascertained. The data were prepared f o r analysis by coding. Coding decisions were assembled and duplicated i n t o a manual f o r the use of the coder during a n a l y s i s , 59. programming or job deck set-ups. The coding manual provided construction of coding indexes for possible responses to each question and column by column instructions (except for items on which the codes were s e l f -evident) • Data were punched and placed in a f i l e i n the UBC Computing Centre and then run under Multivariate Contingency Tabulations. This particular computer programme i s usually used for questionnaire analysis i n the social sciences. Considering one question (variable) at a time (uni-variate case) , i t counts the number of people (subjects) who gave each response to the-question, calculate the percentage of people who gave each response to the question, and compute the variate frequency table and univariate total percentage table. Also considering two questions at a time (bivariate case) the programme constructs variate frequency tables of each pair of responses: i n the bivariate case, the programme also produces (upon request) tables of horizontal and/or vertical and/or total percentages. (UBC MVTAB Manual, June 19 74). Data analysis involved relatively straightforward presentation of computer output in the form of some univariate tables and few bivariate tables to cross-tabulate two variables at a time. CHAPTER IV 60. RESULTS The results are organised and presented in the following order: -A. Summary of Results. B. Subjects' biographical data. C. Intimacy and Friendship Data. D. Satisfaction and preference data. E. Subjects' ratings on University Residence Environmental Score in comparison with Gerst and Sweetwood's Study. F. Students ratings on Architectural Atmosphere - in comparison to Bickman's studj G. Factors influencing perception of Architectural Atmosphere. H. Satisfaction. I. Students' Activities: Results and Discussion on Secondary Investigations. A. SUMMARY OF RESULTS 1. Situation: The towers of Gage Residence accommodate 1165 of the 3454 UBC students (i.e. a third of on-campus student population. A Gage resident may consider himself to be in a very enviable position. He is paying one of the cheapest rents and at the same time having the oppor-tunity to live in one of the finest examples of student residences with very modern, progressive design concepts in the whole world. 2. Demography: From the questionnaire data one can outline a general profile of the average Gage Resident as he/she was in 1974/75. A Gage resident may by equal chance be a male or female occupant. The resident is probably in the second or third year at this university and the very 61. early twenties, unmarried, white, native-born Canadian, coming from a town or small city of the Province of BC. The resident typically comes from a middle or upper middle class family, grew up i n a small town or city i n a single-family detached home during childhood and had his own room as a child. More than half the respondants lived off-campus before move-ing here in Gage Residence. 3. Likes: The typical resident has lived in Gage for less than four months. He would l i k e to return* the next year to li v e i n this residence If not, i n the same room and quad. He likes l i v i n g i n Gage more than the place last lived in and overall he i s satisfied with l i v i n g here. He does not possess any personal vehicle or at the most a bicycle and to some degree i s dependent on the public transport. The more he must use public transport the more satisfied he i s with l i v i n g i n Gage. He may possess stereo or even share buying or renting a TV and Telephone i n his quad. He has given priority to the following c r i t e r i a i n choosing to live i n this residence: proximity to University/library, amenities of self-cooking, low rent, privacy and condition of residence. 4. Activity: An average Gage resident spends less than 15 hours per week i n studies inside his own room, about 12 hours daily inside his room, less than 3 hours daily in the kitchen/lounge of his 6-person quad, less than one hour daily,not i n the quad but inside the building, and about 6 hours daily outside Gage Residence. He spends very l i t t l e time i n any extra-curricular activities organised inside the building, and loves to personalise the space around him. 5. Friendship: The Gage resident has chosen at least one of his/her quad mates before coming to l i v e here, however, the majority of a residents' friends l i v e outside the residence. Most residents have an equal number of boy and g i r l friends; most of their quad-mates are their friends, although a majority among the other 18 members residing i n other three quads i n the same floor are either unfamiliar or only casually acquainted to respondents. 6. Dorm atmosphere and culture: The resident trusts other residents and exhibits some measure of social responsibility and helping behavior. In general, the resident has a positive perception or high feeling towards involvement, emotional support, independence, academic achievement intellectuality and innovation within the quad social climate. The resident also exhibits a negative feeling towards traditional social orientation and competition. With regard to perception of personal space and territoriality, he perceives his own room as personal space; perceives the quad lounge and washroom as semi-public Space. The resident has further given positive rating for his perception of the architecturally-designed atmosphere of his residential environment: convenient, unique, relaxed, safe, ordered (well-kept), friendly, cheerful and satisfying but felt i t rather cramped, separating and cold. B. BIOGRAPHICAL DATA The following results show basic biographical information that provides a general background of the subjects. 1. Family R e s i d e n t i a l Density: Table 1 shows that 21 (26%) out of the 82 respondants grew up i n big cities or its adjacent suburbs, 29 (33%) in small cities, 25 (31%) i n small towns, and only 6 grew up on farms. 63. TABLE 1 CHILDHOOD AREA Farm Small Town City Lg. City or Suburb i Total Male 3 Female 3 11 14 17 12 10 11 41 41 6 (7%) 25 (31%) 29 (35%) 21 (25%) 82 2. Family House: Table 2 shows that 79 (96%) lived i n single family detached-type of residences during their childhood, 2 lived i n semi-detached town-house apartments and only 1 lived i n a high rise apartment. Table 3 indicates that 45 persons (55%) had had their 'own exclusive room during childhood, while 9 did not answer. ' TABLE 2 FAMILY HOUSE LIVED IN CHILDHOOD Single family detached home High rise apt. Semi detached duplex Total Male 39 Female 40 0 1 2 0 41 41 79 (96%) 1 (2%) 2 (1%) 82 64. TABLE 3 EXCLUSIVE ROOM No response Yes No Total Male 4 24 13 41 Female 5 21 15 41 9 (11%) 45 (55%) 28 (34%) 82 3. Just Previous Residence: Table 4a indicates that a total of 39 (48%) persons lived on-campus immediately before coming to live i n Gage Residence. Others said that they were li v i n g i n a variety of off-campus residences, (with parents, with relatives, with friends or alone . . . (See Table 4b) . TABLE 4a JUST PREVIOUS RESIDENCE On-campus Of f-camp us Total Male Female 22 !? 19 24 41 41 39 (48%) 43 (52%) 82 65. TABLE 4b PREVIOUS OFF-CAMPUS RESIDENCES No response With parents With relatives With Friends Alone Total Male Female 1 0 6 13 2 2 5 6 5 3 19 24 1 19 4 11 8 43 4. Tenure i n Gage Residence: Half of the respondants lived i n Gage Residence for less than 4 months at time of interview (See Table 5). TABLE 5 RESIDENT'S LENGTH OF STAY IN. GAGE RESIDENCE Length of Residence Total (N 82) Male (41) Female (41) Less than 4 months 41 (50%) 19 22 4 months to 1 year 10 (12%) 5 5 1 year to 2 years 22 (27%) 12 10 More than 2 years 9 (11%) 5 4 5. Mobility: The degree of mobility potential of the subjects was found to be i n the following order (as shown i n Table 6a). Thirty-three (40%), 10 men, 23 women, did not possess any kind of personal vehicle. Ten (12%) had their own bike; 23 (28%) had their own car, and 16 (20%) had both car and bike. Thus, about half the respondants appear to be at least partly dependent on hitch-hiking or public transport as contrasted with privately-owned vehicles transport. (See Table 6b). TABLE 6a MOBILITY No personal vehicle Only bike Only car Both Total Male Female 10 23 3 7 16 7 12 4 41 41 33 (40%) 10 (12%) 23 (28%) 16 (20%) 82 TABLE 6b DEPENDENCE ON PUBLIC TRANSPORT Always Frequently Rarely Never Total Male Female 7 10 5 17 20 11 9 3 41 41 17 (21%) 22 (27%) 31 (28%) 12 (14%) 82 6. E l e c t r i c a l Appliances Owned: The possession and use of electronic appliances for entertaining or communication purposes have got direct impact on the auditory privacy and quietude i n a student residence. The housing administration authority permits student residents to bring their personal radios, TV's, stereos and ins t a l telephone connections in individual rooms and leaves the question of listening volume to the students' discretion. However, this becomes a problem when consideration and respect f o r the f e e l i n g s of others are not displayed. Of 82 respondents 30 s a i d they have t h e i r own stereos, 27 owned telephone, 22 s a i d they possessed t h e i r own TV's, 7 persons s a i d they possess a l l those items, while 31 (38%) s a i d they did not possess any (See Table 7). TABLE 7 ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES OWNED Nothing TV or (only other) Stereo (only or other) Telephone (only or other) A l l T o t a l three Male Female 11 20 12 3 14 9 11 9 4 41 3 41 31 (38%) 15 (18%) 23 (28%) 20 (24%) 7 (9%) 82 C. INTIMACY AND FRIENDSHIP DATA: With respect to the f r i e n d s h i p pattern and the i n t e n s i t y of s o c i a l involvement the residents had i n s i d e t h e i r residence, Table 8 i n d i c a t e s that i n a l l , 29 (35%), 19 men, 10 women, of the respondants d i d not mutually choose any quad-mate before coming to t h i s residence, while the remaining 53 chose between one and f i v e of t h e i r quad mates. Women residents were found more to choose mates before coming to l i v e here. However, 56 (60%) s a i d that majority of t h e i r f r i e n d s were l i v i n g out-sid e t h e i r quad residence. Another 20 (24%) s a i d t h e i r f r i e n d s were l i v i n g mainly i n s i d e , while 5 s a i d that they had t h e i r f r i e n d s equally d i s t r i b u t e d between i n s i d e and outside of the residence. TABLE 8 TREND OF SELF CHOSEN QUAD MATES No. of chosen mates 0 1 2 3 4 5 Total Male 19 1 7 5 6 3 41 Female 10 11 6 7 5 2 41 Total 29 12 13 12 11 5 82 Out of the total sample, 26 (21 men, 5 women) , had a majority of boyfriends, 19 (3 men, 16 women), had a majority of girlfriends, and a third (9 men, 18 women), had both i n equal numbers. 9 did not answer and one admitted to having no friends. In determining the friendship pattern developed within the quads i t was observed that a third (9 men and 18 women), of respondents stated that a l l the members of theirs were very good friends or most were very good friends, while the remaining two-thirds of respondants descri-bed their quad-mates as a f a i r l y good friends. The general trend, as observed, was that the majority of quad mates i n women quads were at least f a i r l y good friends, although 18 (21%), 9 men and 9 women, reported that a l l or a majority of quadrants were only casually acquainted. Conversely, with respect to the friendship pattern developed among different quads on any single floor, 14 persons (17%), 8 men and 6 women, reported that a l l the 18 of the other quad members were totally un-familiar, with some casually acquainted or familiar. Only 16 (19%) 69. 6 men and 10 women, said they had familiar or good friends among other quads on the same floor. The researcher also noticed that this trend was more prevelant among the freshmen. When asked where from did they entertain guests when they had floor parties, 15 (10 men 5 women), said that no party was held at a l l , 44 (19 men, 15 women), said the majority of their guests were from inside the building, 21 said that most of their friends were from outside and only 2 said to have guests from both inside and outside. D. PREFERENCE AND SATISFACTION DATA: 1. Individual Selection C r i t e r i a : Subjects were asked to assign 16 given reasons for choosing to l i v e i n Gage Residence. They were asked to put the reasons according to their p r i o r i t i e s on a 5-point scale. The results are presented i n the following Table 9. TABLE 9 RESIDENTS' RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE OF REASONS FOR SELECTING GAGE RESIDENCE Selection Criteria « {3 § {3 CJ 4J 4J 4-> "H r l 1-1 U 4J O S> O O u I* a §* §• O H > M M 4J 4-i rH c rO CO cd CO 4J 0) 4J O rH u rH U •H CO 0 4J O rH 4J 4-1 P< 4-1 PH O Im •H e O P « O H Im I-* M a <! H 1. Proximity to University/library 38 29 14 81 1 0 2. Amenities (self-cooking) 22 39 18 79 3 0 3. Rent/charges 17 25 32 74 8 0 4. Privacy 24 32 15 71 8 3 5. Condition of Residence 17 25 28 70 8 4 6. Extent of furnishing 11 24 29 64 16 2 7. Layout of residence 9 17 32 58 19 5 8. Freedom from some use and acti v i t i e s 10 19 24 53 13 16 9. Being close to action 9 16 28 53 23 6 10.Self-chosen room-mates 14 15 19 48 20 14 11. En joy able natural setting 6 15 26 47 24 11 12.Coed floor l i v i n g 6 13 27 46 30 6 13.Restriction on maximum age 6 11 17 34 39 9 14.Alternative l i f e -style 3 5 15 23 32 27 15.High rise apt. li v i n g 2 2 10 14 56 12 16.Others 5 3 2 10 5 67 2. Intention to Return: As many as 45 (55%) persons intended returning to Gage Residence next year, 22 said they preferred not to or were completing their study programme i n this University, while 14 (17%) were not sure (See Table 10). Among these returning, more than half (56%) indicated their preference to return to the same room, quad, floor tower while the other 20 did not so specify. (Table 11). 71. 3. Preference for Gage Residence; A total of 61 (74%) persons liked l i v i n g i n this residence more than the place last lived i n , 9 replied negatively, while 10 were not sure (See Table 12). 4. Overall Satisfaction: When residents were asked whether they were on the whole satis f i e d with l i v i n g i n this residence i n terms of avai l -able f a c i l i t i e s , architectural design, social climate, l i f e style and the rent, as many as 62 (76%) agreed, 8 (10%) did not agree, while 12 (14%) said they were not sure (See Table 13). ,TABLE 10 LIKELY TO RETURN NEXT YEAR Yes No Not sure No response Total Male Female 24 21 ~ 11 11 5 9 1 0 41 41 45 (54%) 22 (26%) 14 (17%) 1 82 TABLE 11 LIKELIHOOD OF RETURNING TO SAME ROOM OR QUAD (given intention to return at al l ) Same tower, quad and floor Not necessarily to same place Does not matter Total Male Female 13 12 11 5 0 4 24 21 25 (56%) 16 (36%) 4 (9%) 45 TABLE 12 PREFERENCE FOR GAGE RESIDENCE AS COMPARED TO OTHER RESIDENCE PREVIOUSLY LIVED IN Yes No Not sure No answer Total Male Female 30 31 3 7 1 6 3 1 41 41 61 (75%) 9 (11%) 10 (12%) 2 (2%) 82 TABLE 13 OVERALL SATISFIED IN LIVING IN GAGE RESIDENCE Yes No Not sure Total Male Female 29 33 5 7 3 5 41 41 62 (76%) 8 (10%) 12 (14%) 82 E. SUBJECTS' RATINGS ON UNIVERSITY RESIDENTS' ENVIRONMENTAL SCALE IN COMPARISON WITH GERST AND SWEETWOOD'S STUDY: The residents' social climate perception of their own quadrants were measured on the basis of a short form of the URES Scale as described e a r l i e r . Figure 2 represents the URES profiles for Social Climate Perception of respective quadrants by Gage residents as compared to the suites i n Gerst and Sweetwood's study. The mean environmental scores obtained on each of the ten URES subscales measured on a 5-point scale (4-10) were converted by a factor of 11 to make them equivalent to means obtained on the 11-point scale 5 (10-0) used in the study by Gerst and Sweetwood. As the figure indicates, quadrants of the Gage Residence were seen by its residents as more Involving, Supportive, Independent, Traditional, Social Oriented, Competitive, Academic Achieving, Intellectual, Ordered and Organised and Innovative than the previous study. The differences were observed to be greatest in academic achievement and intellectuality while the mean score on student influence in Gage Residence was observed to be lower than that obtained in the previous study. It was interesting to note that a comparatively higher percentage of female respondents observed their quadrants' social climate as more Involving (54:37), Emotionally Supportive (50%:44%), Academic Achieving (85:70), Intellectual (63:34), Ordered and Organised (56:31) and Innovative (44%:31%) than their male counterparts, while the latter observed i t more independent and competitive. A further attempt was made to detect whether any consistent pattern of relationships exists between the user's perception of the social climate and architectural atmosphere. The mean scores of the URES subscales were accordingly related to the subjects' rating on the 7-point scale of the adjective checklist (architectural atmosphere) used in this study. Responses to each URES subscale were dichotomized into a high and low group by allocating the subjects who scored above and below subscale the median. A bivariate frequency taBle was specified in the computer (MVTAB) programme on the FIGURE 2 URES P r o f i l e s f o r S o c i a l Climate Perception 74. As perceived by Gage res i d e n t s , UBC i n comparison with the study by Gerst and Sweetwood. URES SUBSCALES INVOLVEMENT EMOTIONAL SUPPORT INDEPENDENCE TRADITIONAL J. SOCIAL ORIENTATION COMPETITION 4-ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT INTELLECTUALITX ORDER AND 4-ORGANISATION INNOVATION STUDENT INFLUENCE ii—h 2 + + 4 5 6 Sub-Scale Score \ it \ 8 10 0 0 Perception of s u i t e by residents i n Gerst's Study,USA Perception of s u i t e by residents i n Gage Residence,UBC Table 14 Architectural Perception as a Function of low and High URES Scores in Gage Residence: URES Subscales Semantic Differential Descriptors Frequently Indi-cated by Subjects: Involvement 2, Emotional Support 3. Independence High Cheerful, relaxed, unifying, satisfying, friendly " warm Low Separating, unrestrictive,< tense, frustrating High Relaxed, Unifying, Warm, Friendly Low Unrestrictive, separating, cold, unfriendly High Unrestrictive, dynamic Low - -4. Traditional Social Orientation High Unique Low Common, ugly, static Competition 6. Academic Achievement High - : • -Low Cheerful, beautiful, clarity, safe High simple, unrestrictive Low -7. Intellectuality 8. Order and Organisation 9. Innovation High Warm Low Separating, ordered High Simple, safe, cheerful Low Inconvenient High Dynamic, warm Low 10. Student Influence High Warm relaxed Low N.B. The criteria for assigning descriptor to high or low groups were that at least 50% of the groups used the descriptor and that there was at least 20% difference between groups on the use of that descriptor. Because of the small range of URES Scores, perfect median splits were not possible. Groups were: made as equal as the scale permitted. basis of these two v a r i a b l e s . Table 14 i s the summary of r e s u l t s which indi c a t e s that subjects who perceived t h e i r residence-quadrant climate as high on Involvement, Emotional Support, T r a d i t i o n a l - S o c i a l O r i e n t a t i o n s , Academic Achievement, Order and Organisation and Innovation but low i n Competition tended also to describe the a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s as c h e e r f u l , relaxed, u n i f y i n g , dynamic, simple, safe, f r i e n d l y , warm and s a t i s f y i n g . Although the opposite i n d i c a t i o n was l e s s pronounced, yet i t was recorded that those who observed t h e i r quadrants' climate as low i n Involvement, Emotional Support, T r a d i t i o n a l S o c i a l Orientation, I n t e l l e c t u a l i t y and Order and Organisation also described the a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s as separating, s t a t i c , common, tense, u n r e s t r i c t i v e , inconvenient, u n f r i e n d l y , cold, ugly and f r u s t r a t i n g . F. USERS' PERCEPTION OF ARCHITECTURAL ATMOSPHERE OF THE RESIDENCE IN COMPARISON WITH RESULTS OF BICKMAN'S STUDY: An attempt was made to detect whether the perception of the a r c h i -t e c t u r a l atmosphere i s influenced by perception of r e s i d e n t i a l density. The r e s u l t s of the present survey was compared with a s i m i l a r study on student residence previously done by Bickman et a l . The subject's own judgements of t h e i r a r c h i t e c t u r a l atmosphere of Gage Residence were recorded on the semantic d i f f e r e n t i a l a d j e c t i v e c h e c k l i s t mentioned above. The means of the scores on each of the se v e r a l a r c h i t e c t u r a l c r i t e r i a were c a l c u l a t e d . The f i g u r e 3 shows the p r o f i l e s of residence pr e d i c t o r means alongside thqse of the study by Bickman et a l while the Table 15 compares the mean ratings the subjects gave f o r the a r c h i t e c t u r a l atmosphere of the Gage TABLE 15 MEAN RATINGS OF THE GAGE RESIDENCE BY ITS OWN RESIDENTS AS COMPARED TO BICKMAN'S STUDY Density of Bickman's Results of the Gage Study Residence High Medium Low CHEERFUL Depressing * 4.3 4, 2 3.4 3.0 FRIENDLY Unfriendly 4.7 3.7 2.8 2.9 RELAXING Stressful 3.5 3.6 2.5 2.8 UNIFYING Separating 5.5 4.3 4.3 3.7 UNRESTRICTIVE Limiting 4.7 4.0 2.4 3.0 DIVERSIFIED Uniform 5.8 5.6 2.1 3.0 SPACIOUS Cramped 4.7 3.2 4.5 CONVENIENT Inconvenient 2.2 3.3 3.1 2.2 SAFE Dangerous 3.1 3.2 5.2 2.7 WELL-KEPT Run-down 3.1 3.0 5.0 2.8 WARM Cold 5.2 4.3 2.7 3.7 UNIQUE Common — — — 2.6 DYNAMIC Static — — — 3.8 BEAUTIFUL Ugly -— — 3.7 SIMPLE Complex - - -3.2 CLARITY Ambiguity — — — 3.5 SATISFYING — - 3.3 Frustrating The scale is 1-7, with 1 corresponding to the word i n capital letters. 78. FIGURE 3 COMPARATIVE PROFILES OF MEAN RATINGS ON ARCHITECTURAL ENVIRONMENT PERCEPTION BETWEEN GAGE RESIDENTS AND OTHERS IN THE STUDY OF BICKMAN ET. AL depressing 4 5 6 ; -€> Gage Residents -+ Subject of Bichman's Low Density Dorms •-+- •» " » High " 79. Residence and those of Bickman's study. Gage residents 1 ratings on most of the architectural dimensions nearly paralled with the results of low or medium density dormitories of Bickman's study. These were particularly evident as the Gage residents identified their architectural atmosphere as cheerful, unifying, relaxed, unrestricted, diversified, warm and friendly. Conversely the mean ratings of the Gage residents almost coincided with that of Bickman's high density results in dimen-sions such as crampedness, convenience, safety and well-orderliness. 1. Trust: Parts of the study were designed to compare the degree of trust, social responsibility and helping behavior of the residents of this student residence with results of the Bickman et al study on dor-mitories of various densities. The results are presented in Table 16. When asked i f they kept their quad door or room door locked, 49 (60%) of Gage respondents said they did lock their room doors, as compated to Bickman's study where 82% of the subject in medium density dorms did lock their room. Further, only 23 (28%) of Gage residents were aware of incidents of theft, intrusion or physical violence Inside their residence, as compated to Bickman's results in low density dor-mitories of 75% and high density results of 97%. 80. Also 64 (78%) of the subjects of this study did not feel the necessity of security measure to be intensified although the remaining 18 (22%) f e l t i t should be increased, especially at the side entrance off the common rooms. However, these measures suggesting high trust and/or low anxiety about security i n Gage Residence may be an artifact of cultural differences between the sets of respondents compared. 2. Social Responsibility and Helping Behavior: Questions were designed to reveal how much responsibility the residents f e l t they should have for their residence and how much they would be w i l l i n g to help their fellow residents. Students were asked what they would do i f they saw a female stranger wandering through their residence. Table 16 indicates that 7 only (9%) said they would ignore her (as compared to 23% i n Bickman's study on low density dorms.) Gage residents expressed a higher degree of helping behavior even higher than Bickman's low density residents: 64 (78%) of the Gage residents said they would help her and 11 (14%) would report her. Students were also asked what they would do i f they noticed a broken window in their residence but not in a private room. Only 31 (38%) said they would report i t , as compared to Bickman's study where 83% of the subjects l i v i n g i n low density and 33% i n high density dorms said they would report. However, the apparent difference here may relate not to social responsibility as much as to conformity of behavior and anxiety about security. 81 TABLE 16 MEASURE OF TRUST, HELPING BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF GAGE RESIDENTS AS COMPARED TO THAT OF BICKMAN'S STUDY Aspects Bickman's results on Study on dormitories with Gage Low Medium High Residence Residents who keep their room doors locked (Trust) 48% Densities 82% 97% 49 (60%) Aware of incidents of thefts, intru-sions, and physical violence inside residence 75% 95% 97% 23 (28%) Did not want security measures inside residences to be intensified - - - 64 (78%) Did feel security measures be intensified (Tension/Anxiety) - - 18 (22%) Would ignore a female stranger wandering through residence 23% 40% 53% 7 (9%) Would help her (Helping Behavior) - • - 64 (78%) Would report after seeing a broken window inside their residence (Sense of Responsibility) 82% 60% 33% 31 (38%) G. FACTORS' INFLUENCING PERCEPTION OF ARCHITECTURAL ATMOSPHERE: Users' ratings of the atmosphere of their architectural environment were related to the background attributes e.g. childhood environment, type and quality of previous residence, degree of mobility, intensity of friendship and mutual trust, and to their overall satisfaction with Gage 82. Residence. The ratings were dichotomized. Those who scored below 4 (which was considered as mid-point) on any of the 16 architectural atmos-phere dimensions were considered as perceiving negatively on that item. 1. Childhood housing: (See Table 17). The survey results indicate that out of 79 respondents, most perceived the atmosphere of their residence as cramped and limiting. However, 3 students who used to liv e i n apartments (presumably in high density urban areas) and who did not have rooms of their own during their childhood, did not give nega-tive ratings on any of the architectural design aspect. 2. Type of Urban Area: Residential Density Urban Grew Up: Out of six respondents who grew up in farms, 5 (83%) observed the design of the residence as cramped, 4 (67%) as limiting, 3 (50%) as frustrating and complex, 2 (33%) as cold, st a t i c and inconvenient. Again, out of 25 residents who grew up i n small towns, 13 (53%) perceived the design as cramped, 7 (28%) each as cold, static and frustrating, 6 (24%) as separating, 5 dangerous. Among 29 who grew up i n small cit i e s 14 (48%) observed i t as cramped, 11 (38%) as ugly, 9 (31%) as separating, 8 (28%) as cold, 7 (24%) as limiting. Out of 21 who came from large c i t i e s , 13 (62%) perceived the design as cramped, 7 (33%) each as diverse, separating while 6 (29%) f e l t i t limiting. (See Table 17). 3. Previous Residence: Out of 42 students who used to li v e in off-campus residence with their parents, or friends, or relatives or alone, 26 rated the design as cramped, 14 each saw i t depressing, cold and ugly, 13 as separating, 12 as dangerous, 10 each as limiting, complex, ambiguous and frustrating (See Table 17). Out of 39 students moving from other TABLE 17 RELATION BETWEEN BIOGRAPHIC BACKGROUND AND THEIR NEGATIVE RATING ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Negative Attributes Nationality Family hods u co •g co H Cd c 0) CH cd a CU -H 00 CU > 13 •H rH •H cd 01 60 •S 9 or C •H P4 CU O 8 C c 0) B 4J cd ft <! e Childhood residence B cd c 4J u o •H •H 4-1 O O H H CU H H 60 cd cd H s e cd C/3 c/> Other res iderice co 3 o h o ca 3 o I Mobility u cd CU o CU H >> H CO CJ rH 4-1 3 •H Pi a Pi co O cd CU 3 r*. 3 .a H > a) cu CT" CU CU cu t-i CO o •H 1-1 co cd 3 S?5 pq M fe 3 Pi No. of subjects 65 16 . 79 43 3 6 25 29 21 39 42 33 10 16 39 43 Depressing * 7 7 9 5 0 1 3 4 2 1 14 5 1 3 4 5 Tense 7 1 9 3 0 0 4 2 3 3 6 7 1 1 6 3 Static 15 3 18 6 1 2 7 6 4 8 11 6 4 9 9 10 Separating 20 3 23 12 0 1 6 9 7 10 13 8 3 8 10 13 Limiting 14 4 19 11 0 4 2 7 6 8 10 8 2 8 7 12 Ugly 16 3 20 12 0 2 5 11 2 6 14 9 3 8 8 12 C ramped 38 6 45 26 0 5 13 14 13 19 26 19 5 10 23 22 Ambiguous 9 0 9 2 0 1 1 5 2 2 10 5 1 3 4 5 Inconvenient 6 3 9 6 0 2 2 1 4 4 5 3 0 8 2 7 Dangerous 9 2 12 6 0 1 5 2 4 7 12 5 1 6 6 6 Disordered 9 2 11 7 0 1 4 3 3 4 6 2 2 5 4 5 Unfriendly 10 1 12 8 0 1 4 6 1 7 5 4 1 7 3 9 Cold 17 4 22 16 0 2 7 8 5 9 14 6 3 8 11 11 F rustrating 13 3 17 l l 0 3 7 5 2 7 10 6 1 10 8 9 Complex 14 2 17 9 0 3 5 5 4 8 10 0 3 6 9 8 indicates number of times mentioned 84. oh-campus residence, 19 (48%) perceived i t as cramped, 22% as cold st a t i c but only one said depressing. 4. Mobility: Among the 33 subjects who did not possess any personal vehicle of their own, 19 (58%) observed the design as cramped, 9 (27%) f e l t i t ugly, 8 (24%) each as separating and limiting, but only 3 (9%) f e l t i t inconvenient, whereas out of 16 who did possess both cars and bikes (or in other words who never have to depend on public transport) 10 (63%) observed i t as frustrating and cramped, 9 as static, 8 (50%) each as inconvenient separating, limiting and cold and 4 (25%) as inconvenient (See Table 17). While students moving from other on-campus older residences (e.g. Place Vanier and Totem Park) many remarked that they could meet more people and make new friends i n their previous residence through central dining h a l l . Out of 39 of these students, 19 (48%) perceived the design of this residence as cramped, 10 (26%) as separating, 9 (23%) as cold, 8 (20%) each as st a t i c , limiting, complex and 7 as frustrating and unfriendly but only 1 as depressing. 5. Reasons for Choosing Gage Residence: Residents' individual and relative weightage assigned to various c r i t e r i a for choosing this residence selection c r i t e r i a were analysed to determine whether any relationship they have with subjects' negative ratings on the architect-ural perception of their residence. The Table 18 presents subjects who are divided according to the pr i o r i t i e s of the selection c r i t e r i a they assigned, the number and percentage of subjects using each negative description. TABLE 18 RELATION BETWEEN RESIDENTS' SELECTION CRITERIA AND THEIR NEGATIVE RATING ON ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Negative Attributes Selection C r i t e r i a 4J .H 3 81 O -H tH C PM 3 00 C •H •8 o o I rH CU w co 60 U co cu CJ > i H (-1 m o c a) o o •H C 4J OJ •H T J T J -H C CO O CU CJ H cu o q o cu •rt T J 4J •H a 60 CO cd MH 0 CU O •H t-i o e 4-1 •U co <+H O c •H O T J CU cu a CU co 4-1 u a) o M cd ri H w UH rH CO H CO 1 r l <+H 3 H 4J CU co cfl CO te C bO c J3 cc) CU •H 4J a rH > •H 00 •H & c C rH cu >, •rl CU CO o U TJ > o •<-> 4J CU •H c 0) o r J O W CO 00 CU a c >4H io vi u •rl o . r H cu •H > U CU •H 4-1 CO 4-1 co •H CO 0) r l c co M r l CU u cu rH CU CU 60 4J >> 00 •H r H 4J 4J < CC < CO o No. of respondents 81 (to whom i t was Tmnnrt-Ant-'* 79 74 71 70 64 58 53 53 48 47 46 34 14 13 10 Depressing * 10 8 10 8 6 4 6 5 2 A 5 2 3 0 4 1 Common 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 10 2 1 1 0 1 1 Tense 10 10 10 8 8 6 5 6 5 6 5 1 3 2 3 1 Diverse 16 14 14 12 14 10 9 9 11 5 9 9 7 2 3 2 Static 19 18 16 18 13 15 11 9 12 10 7 12 8 2 6 4 Separating 23 22 19 21 19 19 15 12 16 14 12 10 9 3 5 6 Limiting 19 18 16 18 17 12 13 8 14 11 8 7 10 2 7 2 Ugly 20 18 17 17 16 15 11 10 9 12 8 10 8 3 5 3 C omplex 17 15 15 14 12 13 7 11 10 7 8 8 4 1 1 2 Cramped 44 44 40 38 32 33 28 29 28 25 21 22 18 9 9 6 Ambiguous 11 9 11 10 10 10 7 8 4 9 6 7 5 2 5 2 Inconvenient 9 9 7 8 8 4 5 5 5 2 5 3 2 . 0 1 1 Dangerous 9 2 10 11 9 10 5 8 9 6 6 6 3 5 1 1 Disordered 11 11 10 9 11 8 7 9 7 7 7 6 5 3 1 0 Unfriendly 12 11 10 10 9 9 10 6 5 8 5 3 6 1 3 2 Cold 22 23 20 21 19 17 16 19 13 11 11 6 13 3 7 2 Frustrating 17 15 15 15 15 11 10 9 7 11 9 3 8 1 5 4 * no. of times mentioned 6. Friendship Pattern: The results in Table 19 indicate a relation between the residents' intensity of friendship pattern within their respective quads and their perception of the atmosphere of their architectural environment. Students who came here with self-chosen mates (i.e. with previously established friendships), perceived architectural environment more psoitiVely on a much higher percentage) than the students who came to live here without any chosen mates. Also a relation seems to exist between the architectural perception of those who came with self-chosen mates and those without. The more the -number of self-chosen mates, the less likely were negative ratings on architectural atmosphere. The results indicate that most of the 18 residents who said that a l l or most of their quad members were casually acquainted or unfamiliar (as compared to the other 63 who said a l l or most were good friends), perceived the architectural design of their residence more frustrating (33%-17%) unfriendly, (17%-13%) tense, (22%-13%) dangerous, cramped, cold, static, ugly, (39%-20%) and depressing (17%-9%) (See Table 19 ). Results also indicate that foreign students generally spend less time outside their quads in extracurricular activities, choose friends from their own home land and live within that chosen group. They generally gave higher ratings on most of the atmospheric attributes of their residence (See Table 19). •7, Trust: As many as 23 were aware of incidents of theft, physical violence or intrusion within their building. About 49 preferred keeping their room doors locked and 18 felt the necessity of intensifying the TABLE 19 RELATION BETWEEN FRIENDSHIP PATTERN AND ARCHITECTURAL PERCEPTION No. of self- Relation w/own Relation w/other Lock Aware of Want secuirty chosen mates quad mates quadmates i n same room theft or measures Negative floor door violence intensified Attributes 0 1-2 3-4 5 A l l Most Most Some Most No Yes No Yes No Yes friendly casual familiar fam. unfam. Total 29 25 23 5 63 18 16 14 51 33 49 59 23 64 18 Tense 6* 5 3 5 7 .5. 2 2 4 2 10 8 7 6 3 Static 7 6 4 0 9 9 2 3 13 7 12 15 4 7 5 Separating 8 6 7 2 15 8 4 5 14 11 12 19 8 17 6 Limiting 8 5 3 1 16 3 4 3 12 7 12 13 Ji. 13 6 Ugly 8 7 4 0 13 9 3 7 10 9 12 12 J . 13 £ Complex 8 7 2 1 13 3 3 11 6 11 11 8 15 5 Cramped 14 16 13 0 3A 11 10 10 24 18 27 32 13 37 8 Ambiguity 5 3 3 2 7 2 0 3 6 4 5 5 4 8 2 Inconvenient 5 3 1 0 7 2 2 2 5 2 7 4 5 9 .5 Dangerous 5 6 3 0 6 5 1 4 7 3 11 8 8 8 Disordered 3 6 2 0 8 1 2 3 4 1 ~8 6 5 6 *3 Unfriendly 2 6 4 0 0 4 0 3 14 6 8 6 6 8 4 Cold 8 8 4 0 6 8 2 5 13 7 15 i2 6 15 £ Frustrating 7 6 3 0 6 6 2 5 11 6 9 10 JL 13 6 Depressing 4 4 2 0 7 7 2 4 2 2 7 8 9 "4 no. of times mentioned 88. security measures within the residence. An average of one third of them perceived the design of the residence as unsafe or dangerous. (See Table 19) Reportedly they spent lesser time in studies inside their rooms perhaps due to their feeling of insecurity and distress. 8. Satisfaction: A further attempt was made to examine how far users' oVerall satisfaction might influence their rating on the architectural atmosphere on the semantic differential (adjective checklist) described earlier. Table 20 presents the mean scores of ratings on each of the 17 architectural dimensions. TABLE 20 RELATION BETWEEN SATISFACTION AND ARCHITECTURAL PERCEPTION Architectural attributes Satisfied N=62 Not sure N=12 Not satisfied N=8 Cheerful 5.2 3.9 3.9 Unique 5.5 4.8 5.5 Relaxed/peaceful 5.2 3.8 5.5 Uniform 4.9 3.9 4.9 Dynamic 4.2 4.3 3.9 Unifying 4.5 8.1 3.4 Unrestrictive 5.5 5.2 2.9 Beautiful 4.5 3.3 3.6 Simple 5.1 4.3 4.0 Spacious 3.7 2.8 2.9 Clear 4.9 4.2 4.5 C onvenient 6.1 5.4 4.9 Safe 5.4 5.3 4.4 Ordered 5.0 4.7 4.7 Friendly 5.4 4.7 4.4 Warm/int imat e 4.4 4.1 3.4 Satisfying 5.0 3.9 3.6 Mean scores were measured on a 7-point scale e.g. 1-7 (with 4 as midpoint) 8 9 . It was interesting to note that the satisfied respondents' mean score on as many as 12 out of 17 architectural dimensions were consis-tently higher than that of those who were not satisfied or not sure. This was especially true for social attributes l i k e cheerful, unifying, unrestrictive, safe, friendly, convenient, warm and satisfying. Contrarywise, both satisfied and other respondents roughly agreed on the extent that the design of the Gage Residence i s unique, uniform, ordered, clear and dynamic. 9. Dissatisfaction with Residence: Table 21 shows that among respondents who do not intend to return to Gage Residence next year (including those who were not sure), more than 4 out of 5 (78%) rated i t as cramped, ugly and about one out of three as cold, common etc. Among those who were not sati s f i e d (or not sure whether they were satisfied) with Gage Residence, two-thirds (68%) rated high on being cramped, 50% observed i t as frustrating and ugly, 45% perceived i t as cold, 40% as separating and 30% as depressing. 90. TABLE 21 RELATION BETWEEN DISSATISFACTION AND NEGATIVE PERCEPTION ON ARCHITECTURAL ATTRIBUTES Those who do not lik e to return or not sure Those who do not prefer l i v i n g here or not sure Those who are overall not satisfied or not sure (N=36) (N-19) (N-20) Depressing 8 (22%) 4 (21%) 6 (30%) Common 13 (36%) 1 2 Tense 6 3 3 Diverse 4 6 (32%) 5 Static 8 4 5 Separating 12 (33%) 5 (26%) 8 (40%) Limiting 10 5 (26%) 6 (30%) Ugly 14 (39%) 6 (32%) 10 (50%) Complex 10 (28%) 6 (32%) 7 (35%) Cramped 28 (78%) 11 (58%) 13 (65%) Ambiguity 7 5 (26%) 4 Inconvenient Dangerous 6 3 4 6 4 4 Disordered 6 4 4 Unfriendly 7 4 5 e o l d 13 (36%) 5 (26%) 9 (45%) Frustrating 12(33%) 5(26%) 10(50%) Users' Overall Satisfaction: A few broad characteristics on a basis of the survey results can be drawn for the subject sati s f i e d with l i v i n g in Gage Residence. A majority of those who are satisfied come from large c i t i e s (with urban densities). They typically grew up i n single-family detached houses, with rooms of their own as children. They belonged to the group who previously lived i n other student residences at UBC before moving i n Gage Residence. They do not possess any personal vehicle and are frequently, ( i f not always) dependent on public transport. They have been li v i n g in Gage Residence for less than four months. They came to l i v e here together with at least one ( i f not more) mutually chosen quad mates. Most of their respective mates are fairly good friends. They positively perceive the architectural design qualities of their residence and rate i t s design as more cheerful, unifying, unrestrictive, simple, convenient, safe, friendly, warm, and satisfying than do those who are not satisfied. They also perceive the social climate of this residence as high on involvement, emotional support, in t e l l e c t u a l i t y , innovation and low on independence, traditional social orientation, competition, academic achievement order and organisation and student influence. 92, H. SATISFACTION: General: After having lived in Gage resdience for four months in this year, three out of four of the students surveyed," expressed satis-faction with their accommodation. ISee Tables 10, 11, 12, 13], How-ever, within this high level of acceptance and general satisfaction, the results uncovered a few features of the project that met with criticism and which should be given consideration in the future design of future student residences. 2a. Comparison with Previous Residence: With a waiting l i s t of applicants seeking accommodation in this residence, only about 5% students chose to move out of Gage Residence by the end of the Winter Term, 1974-75. The housing office cited three reasons for these vacancy rates; 1) Students left the university because they completed studies or interrupted study for personal reasons. 2) Students moved to cheaper housing elsewhere outside the campus. 3) Students moved back to live with their parents. No information was available as to whether anyone had moved out of the Gage Residence because he/she was disatisfied with specifics of the architectural atmosphere or with the social climate which the design has fostered. However, data in Table 12 indicates that only 19 Gage residents in 82 (23%) regards his residence as less prefer-able than previous residences. Although 51 (6.2%) persons . reportedly missed some things, which they enjoyed in their previous residences (See Table 22) this did not devaluate their satisfaction with living in Gage Residence. TABLE 22 ASPECTS OR FACILITIES MISSED BY RESIDENTS No. of times mentioned Male Female T o t a l Prepared meals 7 2 9 (11%) Better f a c i l i t i e s (snack bar, coffee shop, indoor games, parking, dishwasher) 5 2 7 (9%) S p i r i t (better s o c a i l climate, more intense i n t e r a c t i o n , c e n t r a l dining h a l l s , f l o o r hockey, b e t t e r student organisation) 6 10 16 (20%) More privacy and quieter study environment 4 2 6 (7%) Smallness of a project scale to achieve more togetherness, no trouble with "imprisoned brotherhood" 2 0 2 (2%) Quicker mailing and b e t t e r cleaning s e r v i c e s 1 0 1 (1%) More spacious and comfortable l i v i n g areas (e.g. quad loursge/kitchen) 0 . 4 4 (5%) Missing home comfort (one s a i d "missing my mother very much") 0 6 6 (7%) T o t a l 25 26 51 (62%) No answer 9 7 16 (20%) No complaints 7 8 15 (18%) Grand t o t a l 41 41 . 82 (100%) 2b. S a t i s f a c t i o n and Previous Residence: However, student residents who moved out from older on-campus residences appeared to be more s a t i s f i e d with l i v i n g i n Gage Residence than those who were l i v i n g i n campus residence. As Table 23 shows that among the 39 respondents who were l i v i n g previously i n other older on-campus residences before moving to l i v e here, 33 (82%) were s a t i s f i e d , while 29 (69%) out of those 42 who were l i v i n g i n off-campus s a i d to be s a t i s f i e d . T A B L E 2 3 S A T I S F A C T I O N A N D P R E V I O U S P L A C E O F R E S I D E N C E S a t i s f i e d N o t s a t i s f i e d N o t s u r e T o t a l O t h e r o l d o n - c a m p u s r e s i d e n c e s O f f - c a m p u s r e s i d e n c e s 3 3 ( 8 2 % ) 2 9 ( 6 9 % ) 2 '. ' 5 4 3 9 8 4 2 . 3 . S a t i s f a c t i o n a n d C h i l d h o o d A r e a : T a b l e 2 4 s h o w s t h a t s t u d e n t s w h o g r e w u p i n l a r g e c i t i e s ( N = 2 1 ) w e r e m o r e s a t i s f i e d ( 8 1 % ) t h a n t h e s i x s t u d e n t s w h o g r e w u p i n f a r m s . T h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e a r e g u l a r e v i d e n c e i n s a t i s f a c t i o n a s a f u n c t i o n o f t h e s i z e o r s c a l e o f t h e c o m m u n i t y o f c h i l d h o o d o r i g i n . T A B L E 2 4 S A T I S F A C T I O N A N D C H I L D H O O D A R E A R e s i d e n t i a l D e n s i t y S a t i s f i e d N o t s a t i s f i e d N o t s u r e T o t a l F a r m 3 ( 5 0 % ) S m a l l t o w n 1 8 ( 7 2 % ) S m a l l c i t y 2 3 ( 7 0 % ) L g . c i t y a n d 1 7 ( 8 1 % ) a d j a c e n t s u b u r b s T o t a l 6 1 1 2 4 1 2 5 2 3 1 2 6 2 5 2 9 2 1 8 1 4 . S a t i s f a c t i o n a n d P o s s e s s i o n o f E l e c t r i c a l A p p l i a n c e s : R e s i d e n t s ' d e g r e e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f e l e c t r i c a l a p p l i a n c e s d i d n o t a p p e a r t o i n f l u e n c e t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h l i v i n g i n G a g e R e s i d e n c e . T a b l e 2 5 i n d i c a t e s 9 5 , t h a t a s m a n y a s 8 0 % o f t h o s e w h o d i d n o t p o s s e s s e v e r y t h i n g a r e s a t i s f i e d , w h e r e a s 7 1 % o f t h o s e w h o p o s s e s s a l l t h e s e a r e s a t i s f i e d w i t h l i v i n g i n i t . ( S e e T a b l e 2 5 ) . T A B L E 2 5 S A T I S F A C T I O N A N D P O S S E S S I O N O F E L E C T R I C A L A P P L I A N C E S S a t i s f i e d N o t s a t i s f i e d N o t s u r e T o t a l P o s s e s s i n g n o t h i n g 2 5 ( 8 0 % ) 3 3 3 1 ( 3 8 % ) P o s s e s s i n g T V a r i d o t h e r 1 2 ( 8 0 % ) 1 2 . 1 5 ( 1 8 % ) P o s s e s s i n g S t e r e o a n d o t h e r 1 6 ( 7 0 % ) 2 5 2 3 ( 2 8 % ) P o s s e s s i n g t e l e p h o n e a n d o t h e r 1 4 ( 7 4 % ) 3 5 2 0 ( 2 4 % ) P o s s e s s i n g a l l t h e s e 5 ( 7 1 % ) 1 1 7 ( 9 % ) 5 . S a t i s f a c t i o n a n d M o b i l i t y : W i t h r e s p e c t t o w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s a n y r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n r e s i d e n t s ' p o t e n t i a l f o r m o b i l i t y o r t h e i r d e p e n d e n c y o n p u b l i c t r a n s p o r t ) w i t h t h a t o f t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n s o m e i n t e r e s t i n g r e l a t i o n w a s f o u n d t o e x i s t . A s t a b l e 2 6 a s h o w s , a g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e o f p e o p l e w e r e s a t i s f i e d o u t o f t h e g r o u p p o s s e s s i n g n o v e h i c l e s o f t h e i r o w n . C o n v e r s e l y , o n l y 1 0 9 5 9 % ) w e r e s a t i s f i e d a n d o f 1 7 w h o w e r e p o s s e s s i n g b o t h c a r a n d b i k e . TABLE 26a SATISFACTION AND PERSONAL MOBILITY Own v e h i c l e S a t i s f i e d Not s a t i s f i e d Not sure T o t a l Having no v e h i c l e 29 (88%) 0 4 33 Bike only 7 (70%) •2 1 10 Car only 16 (73%) 3 3 22 Car and bike 10 (59%) 3 4 17 , S i m i l a r l y , more the respondents used p u b l i c transport, the more s a t i s f i e d they tend to be with l i v i n g i n Gage Residence (Table 26b). The t a b l e shows that out of 12 who never had to use p u b l i c transport only h a l f were s a t i s f i e d with Gage Residence whereas out of 17 who used i t "always", 14 (82%) were s a t i s f i e d . TABLE 26b SATISFACTION AND USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT S a t i s f i e d Not s a t i s f i e d Not sure T o t a l Always 14 (82%) 0 3 17 Frequently 18 (81%) 2 2 22 Rarely 24 (77%) 5 2 31 Never 6 (50%) 1 5 12 6. S a t i s f a c t i o n and length of stay: Users' s a t i s f a c t i o n was not r e l a t e d to tenure of stay i n Gage Residence. However, the Table 27 i n d i c a t e s , a majority of the respondents who l i v e d at Gage Residence f o r more than 2 years d i d not c l a s s i f y themselves as of s a t i s f i e d category. T A B L E 2 7 . S A T I S F A C T I O N R E L A T E D T O T E N U R E I N R E S I D E N C E L e s s t h a n 4 m o n t h s B e t w e e n 4 & 1 2 m o n t h s 1 - 1 . 5 y e a r s 1 . 5 - 2 y e a r s M o r e t h a n 2 y e a r s T o t a l T o t a l 4 1 1 0 1 3 9 9 8 2 S a t i s f i e d N o t s a t i s f i e d N o t s u r e 3 5 ( 8 8 % ) 1 5 6 ( 6 0 % ) 2 2 1 0 ( 7 7 % ) 8 ( 9 0 % ) 1 0 2 1 " 3 ( 3 3 % ) 4 , 2 8 2 8 1 2 : 7 . S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h S e l e c t i o n C r i t e r i a : •-. U s e r s ' s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i a o n 1 6 p r e d e t e r m i n e d a s p e c t s f o r l i v i n g i n t h i s r e s i d e n c e w e r e r e l a t e d t o t h e i r s a t i s f a c t i o n t o i n v e s t i g a t e w h e t h e r a n y c o n s i s t a n t p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n c o u l d b e f o u n d . H o w e v e r , n o s i g n i f i c a n t l y c l e a r p i c t u r e d i d e m e r g e o u t o f i t . 8 . S a t i s f a c t i o n a n d Q u a d F r i e n d s : T h e m o r e i s t h e n u m b e r o f h i s s e l f -c h o s e n q u a d m a t e s , t h e m o r e s a t i s f i e d t h e s t u d e n t i s l i k e l y t o b e w i t h l i v i n g i n G a g e R e s i d e n c e ( S e e T a b l e 2 8 ) . A s t h e t a b l e s t r r j w s , o u t o f 2 9 w h o c a m e t o l i v e i n . G a g e w i t h o u t a n y c h o s e n q u a d m a t e s , 2 0 ( 7 0 % ) w e r e s a t i s f i e d w h e r e a s o u t o f 2 5 w h o m o v e d t o G a g e R e s i d e n c e w i t h m u t u a l l y c h o s e n m a t e s b e t w e e n 3 a n d 5 ( 9 0 % ) w e r e s a t i s f i e d . T h e r e s u l t s f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e ( S e e T a b l e 2 9 ) t h a t o u t o f 6 3 w h o s a i d t h a t m o s t o r m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r f r i e n d s w e r e l i v i n g i n s i d e t h e i r q u a d w e r e f a i r l y g o o d f r i e n d s 5 1 ( 8 % ) w e r e s a t i s f i e d . W h e r e a s s a t i s f a c t i o n w a s r e d u c e d t o 5 6 % w h e n r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d t h a t m o s t o f t h e i r q u a d m a t e s 98. were casually acquainted. However, s a t i s f a c t i o n seemed to be i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d with r e s i d e n t s ' degree of intimacy with members of other quads on same f l o o r (See Table 30). TABLE 28 SATISFACTION AND LIVING WITH MUTUALLY CHOSEN QUAD MATES No. of quad mates mutually chosen p r i o r to coming to l i v e here S a t i s f i e d Not s a t i s f i e d Unsure T o t a l 0 1-2 3-5 20 (70%) 17 (68%) 25 (90%) 3 4 1 6 29 4 25 2 28 T o t a l 62 (76%) 8 (10%) 12 (14%) 82 TABLE 29 SATISFACTION AND FRIENDSHIP WITHIN QUADS S a t i s f i e d Not s a t i s f i e d Unsure T o t a l Most at l e a s t f a i r l y good f r i e n d s Most only casually acquainted 51 (81%) 5 10 (56%) 3 7 5 63 18 9 9 . T A B L E 3 0 S A T I S F A C T I O N A N D R E L A T I O N W I T H O T H E R S I N O T H E R Q U A D S O N S A M E F L O O R S a t i s f i e d N o t s a t i s f i e d U n s u r e T o t a l M o s t S o m e M o s t f r i e n d l y f a m i l i a r u n f a m i l i a r 1 1 ( 6 9 % ) 2 1 3 ( 7 2 % ) 6 3 7 ( 7 9 % ) . 6 3 4 4 1 6 4 7 4 7 9 . S a t i s f a c t i o n a n d s e x o f F r i e n d s : S e x o f r e : s p o n d e n t s o r t h e i r f r i e n d s d i d n o t a p p e a r t o h a v e a n y r e l a t i o n w i t h t h e r e s i d e n t s ' s a t i s f a c t i o n . 1 0 . S a t i s f a c t i o n a n d P e r c e p t i o n o f S o c i a l C l i m a t e : A f u r t h e r a t t e m p t w a s m a d e t o e x a m i n e w h e t h e r t h e u s e r s ' f a v o u r a b l e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e m o r e p o s i t i v e e f f e c t o f t h e s o c i a l c l i m a t e i n s i d e t h e i r r e s i d e n c e ( a s m e a s u r e d o n U R E S s c a l e ) w a s i n f l u e n c e d b y u s e r s ' o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h l i v i n g h e r e . T h e m e a n r a t i n g s o n e a c h o f t e n s u b s c a l e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 3 1 f o r t h o s e w h o w e r e s a t i s f i e d , n o t s a t i s f i e d a n d f o r t h o s e w h o w e r e n o t s u r e . 100. T A B L E 3 1 S A T I S F A C T I O N A N D M E A N U R E S S C O R E S • M e a n s c o r e o n a 5 - p o i n t s c a l e 0 - 4 S a t i s f i e d N o t s u r e N o t s a t i s f i e d N = 6 2 N = 1 2 N = 8 I n v o l v e m e n t 1 . 7 1 . 2 0 . 5 E m o t i o n a l S u p p o r t 2 . 6 2 . 2 1 . 2 I n d e p e n d e n c e 2 . 0 2 . 8 2 . 4 T r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l 1 . 6 1 . 7 1 . 9 o r i e n t a t i o n C o m p e t i t i o n 1 . 6 ' ; 1 . 7 1 . 8 A c a d e m i c A c h i e v e m e n t 2 . 8 3 . 2 3 . 6 I n t e l l e c t u a l i t y 2 . 5 2 . 4 . • • 2 . 2 O r d e r a n d O r g a n i s a t i o n 1 . 5 1 . 0 1 . 4 I n n o v a t i o n 2 . 4 2 . 0 1 . 5 S t u d e n t I n f l u e n c e 1 . 8 1 . 7 1 . 6 T h e a b o v e t a b l e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e e x i s t a s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e s e t w o v a r i a b l e s o n s u b s c a l e s l i k e i n v o l v e m e n t , e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t , i n t e l l e c t u a l i t y , i n n o v a t i o n a n d s t u d e n t i n f l u e n c e . T h e m e a n U R E S s c o r e s o f t h o s e w h o a r e s a t i s f i e d w i t h l i v i n g i n t h e r e s i d e n c e a r e p e r s i s t e n t l y h i g h e r t h a n t h o s e w h o a r e n o t s a t i s f i e d o r n o t s u r e . H o w e v e r , t h e o p p o s i t e t r e n d w a s o b s e r v e d i n s u b s c a l e s l i k e t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n , a c a d e m i c a c h i e v m e n t , c o m p e t i t i o n a n d i n d e p e n d e n c e i n w h i c h s u b j e c t s s o c r i n g h i g h w e r e n o t s a t i s f i e d H . S T U D E N T S ' A C T I V I T I E S : R E S U L T S A N D D I S C U S S I O N : ( S e c o n d a r y I n v e s t i g a t i o n ) 1 . S t u d i e s : I f i t i s , : a s s u m e d . t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f . . . i n t e l l e c t u a l . e f f o r t i s p a r t i a l l y r e l a t e d t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t i n w h i c h t h e w o r k i s d o n e ( S i m a n d e r y n 1 9 6 6 p . 4 8 ) t h e n o n e m a y e x p e c t t h a t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t 1 0 1 . q u a l i t y o f G a g e R e s i d e n c e p r o m o t e s s t u d e n t s ' d e v o t i o n t o t h e i r p r i v a t e s t u d i e s i n s i d e t h e i r r o o m . A l t h o u g h i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e U R E S t h e r e s p o n d e n t s p e r c e i v e d t h e i r R e s i d e n c e a s h i g h o n a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t a n d i n t e l l e c t u a l i t y s u b s c a l e s , t h e i r a v e r a g e d e v o t i o n t o p r i v a t e s t u d i e s i n t h e i r r o o m s , a s e x p r e s s e d i n t h e i r t i m e a n d a c t i v i t y r e s p o n s e s f e l l s h o r t o f e x p e c t a t i o n . T h e s u r v e y r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e d ( T a b l e 3 2 a ) t h a t 5 6 % o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s s p e n t 1 - 3 h o u r s d a i l y i n p r i v a t e s t u d y i n s i d e r o o m s : 3 0 % s p e n t o v e r 3 h o u r s w h i l e 1 4 % s p e n t l e s s t h a n 1 h o u r d a i l y . A l t h o u g h i t c o u l d w e l l b e a s s u m e d t h a t s t u d e n t s r e s i d i n g i n G a g e R e s i d e n c e d e v o t e s o m e s t u d y h o u r s e l s e w h e r e ( e . g . l i b r a r i e s ) . S i m V a n d e r R y n ( 1 9 6 7 ) o b s e r v e d s t u d e n t s i n h i s r e s e a r c h s p e n t o n e - t h i r d o f t h e i r w a k i n g h o u r s i n t h e i r r o o m ( i . e . 5 - 6 h o u r s p e r d a y ) . A c c o r d i n g t o a s t u d y b y B a i l e y ( 1 9 5 8 ) , s t u d e n t s s p e n d 2 4 h o u r s p e r w e e k i n s t u d y o n a n a v e r a g e ( H e i w e l l , 1 9 7 3 ) . S t o k e . ( 1 9 6 0 ) f o u n d t h a t 7 0 % o f a n a v e r a g e s t u d e n t s ' t o t a l s t u d y t i m e w a s s p e n t i n h i s i n d i v i d u a l r o o m , w h i l e S o m m e r a n d P a t t e r s o n ( 1 9 6 6 ) n o t e d i t t o b e 8 0 % . V i c t o r H s i a f o u n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g f i g u r e i n h i s s t u d y o n s t u d e n t s a t U n i v e r s i t y o f U t a h ( 1 9 6 8 ) t o b e 7 4 % . T h e s t u d e n t s i n h i s s t u d i e s r e c o r d e d 2 5 . 9 h o u r s o f s t u d y p e r w e e k o n a n a v e r a g e ( H e i w e 1 1 , 1 9 7 3 ) . I t a s s u m e d t h a t t h e f i g u r e s v a r y , r e f l e c t i n g e i t h e r m e t h o d o l o g i c a l o r a c a d e m i c d i f f e r e n c e s b u t t h e y a r e a l l i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f a d e q u a t e s t u d y c o n d i t i o n s . T h e s m a l l s t u d y r o o m s p r o v i d e d a t t h e m a i n f l o o r s o f e a c h t o w e r w e r e a l s o r e c o r d e d t o b e v e r y l i t t l e u s e d . T h i s i s a g a i n p r o b a b l y d u e t o t h e i r l a c k o f p r o x i m i t y t o i n d i v i d u a l r o o m s . I n s o m e s e n s e i t i s 1Q2. TABLE 32a AVERAGE TIME SPENT BY GAGE RESIDENTS IN PRIVATE STUDY INSIDE THEIR ROOMS Hours 0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31-40 41-5( Male (41). 3 1 9 12 2 5 0 3 1 Female (41) 1 0 8 11 4 6 9 5 2 To t a l (82) 4 1 17 23 6 11 9 8 3 (5%) (1%) (21%) (28%) (7%) (13%) (11%) (10%) (4%) TABLE 32b AVERAGE TIME SPENT DAILY INSIDE INDIVIDUAL ROOMS Hours 6-10 11-15 16-20 Male (41) Female (41) 13 8 27 32 1 1 21 (26%) 59 (72%) 2 (2%) TABLE 32c AVERAGE TIME SPENT DAILY INSIDE QUAD LOUNGES Hours 1-2 2-4 4-6 More than 6 Male (41) <• Female (41) 23 12 15 17 3 11 0 1 35 (43%) 32 (39%) 14 (17%) 1 (1%) 1 0 3 . d o u b t f u l w h e t h e r t h e q u a d d e s i g n o f G a g e T o w e r s i s r e a l l y c o n d u c i v e t o q u i e t , p r i v a t e s t u d i e s . I n o l d e r d o r m s , o n e ' s r o o m i s h i s e x c l u s i v e p r i v a t e s t u d y a r e a . I f h e n e e d s s o c i a l i n v o l v e m e n t h e h a s t o g o a l o n g w a y t o t h e l o u n g e . Q u a d l o u n g e s j u s t a d j a c e n t t o p r i v a t e r o o m s a r e a t t r a c t i v e f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , e n t e r t a i n m e n t a n d t h i s t h r e a t e n s o r d i s t r a c t s s t u d y c o n c e n t r a t i o n . A s o n e G a g e r e s p o n d e n t r e m a r k e d , " I t i s i m p o s s i b l e t o s t u d y i n r o o m a s . s o c i a l l i f e d o m i n a t e s " . S u c h p r o x i m i t y o r a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s p a c e o v e r * t e m p t i n g t h e r e s i d e n t s t o b e g r e g a r i o u s i s n o t s o r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e i n o t h e r s t u d e n t r e s i d e n c e s o n c a m p u s . 2 . A c t i v i t i e s i n s i d e R e s i d e n c e : T h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s i n d i c a t e t h a t a s m a n y a s 5 9 ( 7 2 % ) o u t o f 8 2 G a g e r e s p o n d e n t s s p e n d b e t w e e n 1 1 - 1 5 h o u r s o f t h e i r a v e r a g e d a i l y r o u t i n e i n s i d e t h e i r o w n r o o m s . ( S e e F i g u r e 4 ) . . " ; A n a v e r a g e G a g e r e s i d e n t ; t h i n k s o f h i s r o o m a s e x c l u s i v e , p r i v a t e r e a l m o n e a r t h w h e r e h e c a n a c h i e v e s a t i s f a c t o r y v i s u a l a n d a u d i t o r y p r i v a c y o r a c c o r d i n g t o M a r t i n T r o w ( V a n d e r R y n , 1 9 6 7 . p p . . 3 1 ) c a n r e a l l y " e n j o y t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o b e a l o n e , t o t h i n k , t o r e a d , t o w o r k o r t o b e j u s t a l o n e . " I t m a y b e a s s u m e d t h a t i n s i d e t h i s - r o o m h e s p e n d s 8 h o u r s i n s l e e p i r a n d ' 3 h o u r s i n s t u d i e s o r o t h e r a c t i v i t i e s . . A n o t h e r 2 1 ( 2 6 % ) 1 3 m e n , 8 w o m e n , s p e n d l e s s t h a n 1 0 h o u r s i n s i d e t h e i r r o o m s . A s m a n y a s 6 7 ( 8 2 % ) 3 8 m e n , 2 9 w o m e n , o f t h e t o t a l s a m p l e s p e n d l e s s t h a n 4 h o u r s a n d c u t : . o f ; _ t h e s e 3 5 ( 4 3 % ) 2 3 m e n , 1 2 w o m e n ) s p e n d l e s s t h a n 2 h o u r s o f t h e i r , d a i l y a v e r a g e i n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e k i t c h e n / l o u n g e i n c o o k i n g , , e a t i n g a n d s o c i a l m i x i n g ; c h a t t i n g . w i t h f r i e n d s , p l a y i n g c a r d s , , l i g h t r e a d i n g ; , a r e m a i n i n g 1 4 ( 1 7 % ) s p e n d b e t w e e n 4 - 6 h o u r s ( T a b l e 3 2 c ) . A s m a n y a s 6 4 ( 7 8 % 0 o f r e s p o n d e n t s s p e n d , e v e n l e s s t h a n o n e h o u r a d a y o u t s i d e t h e i r FIGURE 4 AVERAGE DAILY TIME SPEND ON VARIOUS ACTIVITIES BY A TYPICAL GAGE RESIDENT E x t r a - c a r r i c u l a r A c t i v i t i e s Laundry, Mini Shopping, Ma i l Attending. Outside Quad but Inside Building! c Cleansing i n Washroom Cooking, Dining Chatting, or & J Light Reading Playing, Watching TV & Entertaining] Intra-quad I [ S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n i n Kitchen/Lounge I— Non-Routine Leisure A c t i v i t i e s eg\: Communicating, Hobbies or Othe' Past'times i n Lounge or Room / 105. o w n q u a d s b u t s o m e w h e r e i n s i d e t h e i r r e s i d e n c e . ( T a b l e 3 2 d ) . T h i s m i g h t i n c l u d e e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s o r a v i s i t t o t h e b a s e m e n t l a u n d r y o r t o f r i e n d s i n o t h e r q u a d s o r t o t h e m i n i - s h o p o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n o f m a i l a t t h e f r o n t d e s k . A t o t a l o f 7 3 ( 8 9 % ) , 3 5 m e n , 3 8 w o m e n , s p e n d l e s s t h a n 8 h o u r s d a i l y o u t s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e ; o u t o f t h e s e , 1 6 ( 2 0 % ) , 6 m e n , 1 0 w o m e n r e p o r t e d t o h a v e s p e n t e v e n l e s s t h a n 4 h o u r s p e r d a y o u t s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e . ( T a b l e 3 2 e ) . T h e r e m a i n i n g h o u r s ( a p p r o x . 3 h o u r s ) o f t h e d a y i s p r e s u m a b l y s p e n t i n l i g h t , u n r o u t i n e d , p r i v a t e o r s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s i n c l u d i n g a c l e a n s i n g o r b i o l o g i c a l n e c e s s i t i e s m a y b e i n s i d e r o o m s o r w a s h r o o m s . E s t i m a t e s o f a v e r a g e d a i l y t i m e s p e n t i n s t u d i e s i n o n e ' s o w n r o o m , t o t a l d a i l y t i m e s p e n t i n o n e ' s r o o m , t o t a l d a i l y t i m e s p e n t i n k i t c h e n / l o u n g e , i n s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e b u t o u t s i d e t h e q u a d a n d t o t a l d a i l y t i m e s p e n t o u t s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e w e r e c a l c u l a t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f t h e s u b j e c t s r e s p o n s e s i n t h i s s t u d y . I t w a s o b s e r v e d t h a t a g e n e r a l t e n d e n c y a m o n g G a g e . ; r e s p o n d e n t s w a s t o s t a y i n s i d e t h e i r o w n q u a d , e i t h e r i n t h e i r o w n r o o m o r i n s i d e t h e i r q u a d l o u n g e s w h e n t h e y w e r e w i t h i n t h e r e s i d e n c e . T h e y r e p o r t e d t h a t t h e y s p e n t a l m o s t n e g l i g i b l e t i m e i n a n y e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s i n s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e ( T a b l e 3 3 a ) ; a p p a r e n t l y t h e y w o u l d p r e f e r g o i n g o u t . T h e y d o n o t f r e q u e n t l y s e e m t o v i s i t d i f f e r e n t q u a d s i n s a m e o r o t h e r f l o o r s w i t h t h e m o t i v a t i o n t o e x p a n d t h e c i r c l e o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o t h e r t h a n t h o s e i n t h e i r o w n q u a d . T h e m o s t u n u s u a l f e a t u r e o f t h e G a g e r e s i d e n c e i s t h e s e l f - c o o k i n g a m e n i t i e s i n a c o o p e r a t i v e w a y s h a r e d o n l y a m o n g s t u d e n t s o f r e s p e c t i v e q u a d s . T h u s , i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y l a r g e c e n t r a l d i n i n g h a l l , c a n t e e n 106. TABLE 32d AVERAGE TIME SPENT DAILY OUTSIDE THE QUADS BUT INSIDE THE RESIDENCE HOurs 0 •• Within 0.5 Between 0.5-1 1-3 More than 3 Male (41) Female (41) 10 11 12 7 8 16 9 2 7 0 21 (26%) 19 (23%) 24 (29%) 16 (20%) 2 (2%) TABLE 32e AVERAGE TIME SPENT DAILY OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE Hours 1-4 4-8 8-12 More than 12 Male Female 6 10 29 28 6 2 0 1 16 (20%) 57 (70%) 8 (10%) 1 (1%) TABLE 33a SPATIAL USE OF COMMON AREAS (MAIN FLOOR) BY GAGE RESIDENTS Areas Never used once/twice a week More than once a week Quite Frequently Tower lounge Seminar/Ballrooms Main Lounge 46 (56%) 54 (66%) 33 (40%) 23 (28%) 22 (27%) 29 (35%) 9 (11%) 3 (4%) 11 (13%) 4 (5%) 3 (4%) 9 (11%) 107. or coffee bar, serving the e n t i r e complex, p r a c t i c a l l y there remains l i t t l e opportunity f o r the residents to see each other or make new f r i e n d s through large scale congregation. The spontaneous s o c i a l i n t e r c o u r s e i n t h i s e n t i r e residence seems to be severaly r e s t r i c t e d to only i n t e r -a c t i o n w i t h i n each quadj except f o r occasional centrally-programmed formal s o c i a l functions l i k e beer p a r t i e s , symposiums etc. I f i t i s taken f o r granted that the number of meetings the residence has i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to the density (Bickman et a l 1973), then t h i s d e s i r e f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n among the respondents i n Gage Residence i n d i c a t e that the residence possesses a l l the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a low density dormitory. As f a r as the record goes the number of meetings and beer p a r t i e s that were h e l d i n the F a l l term of t h i s year 1974-75 i n the main lounges or seminar rooms was f a i r l y high, as was also p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n them. Most of the students have i n d i c a t e d i n t h e i r responses that residents on t h e i r f l o o r got together f o r a f l o o r party h e l d on s e v e r a l occasions and they also attended other e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s h eld i n the common block. 3. T e r r i t o r i a l i t y and Privacy: Examination of the concepts of personal space '(Sommer, 1969) and T e r r i t o r i a l i t y (Stea, 1965) were undertaken among Gagej respondents by asking them to c l a s s i f y various spaces i n s i d e t h e i r quad and f l o o r i n terms of privacy. Almost 76 (93%) respondents c l a s s i f i e d t h e i r own rooms as personal p r i v a t e space (See Table 34). 108. TABLE 33b TYPE OF USE OF COMMON AREAS (MAIN FLOOR) BY GAGE RESIDENTS Type of use Never used Very seldom Occasionally Frequently Quite used used Often Dating 77 (94%) 3 (4%) 2 (2%) Informal Dropins 75 (92%) 5 (6%) 2 (2%) - -F l o o r Meetings 74 (90%) 5 (6%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) - , Study 68 (83%) 10 (12%) 4 (5%) -E x t r a c u r r i c u l a r 68 (23%) 7 (9%) 6 (7%) 1 (1%) a c t i v i t i e s (Games, music etc.) Pa r t i e s 3C (37%) 21 (26%) 23 (28%) 7 (9%) 1(1%) Waiting to re c e i v e 57 (70%) 10 (12%) 11 (13%) . 4 (5%) -f r i e n d s Watching c a b l e v i s i o n / 65 (79%) 11 (13%) 3 (4%) 2 (2%) 1(1%) TV programmes Conventions, Seminars 76 (93%) 5 (6%) 1 (1%) - - • Symposiums Others 73 (89%) 5 (6%) 3 (4%) 1 (1%) -109. TABLE 34 USERS' PERCEPTION OF PERSONAL SPACE, PRIVACY AND TERRITORIALITY P r i v a t e Semi p u b l i c P u b l i c Own rooms . M F Quad lounge M F Washrooms M F Eleva t o r lobby M F 36 40 1 4 3 8 0 0 5 1 32 29 32 26 10 16 0 0 8 8 6 7 31 25 It remains a mystery why the 5 men and one women thought of t h e i r rooms as the semi-private spaces. Probably the rooms f a i l e d to provide them with t o t a l and absolute privacy at the l e v e l of expectation with regard to t h e i r quadrant lounges: 5 thought of them as p r i v a t e space; 61 (74%) thought of the quad lounges as semi p u b l i c spaces while 16 16 (20%) thought of them as p u b l i c space. When respondents were asked about quad washrooms 11 (13%) thought of washrooms as priv a t e space (almost a l l these respondents were women),, ( K i r a , 1966). 58 ( 11 %) thought of i t as semi-public space. 13 thought of washrooms as pu b l i c space. L a s t l y when asked how they f e l t about t h e i r own f l o o r ' s e l e v a t o r lobby 26 (32%) thought of i t as semi-public space while 56 (68%) 31 men, 25 women thought of i t as p u b l i c space. • 110. In classifying floor and quad spaces on degrees of privacy, women respondents consistently tended more than men to classify the spaces as private rather than public or semi-public. Students want spaces that allow them privacy when i t is needed as well as the opportunity for gregarioushess when the mood takes them. They want to live on a human scale instead of an impersonal residence, and they do not want their colleagues to be surrogate parents. It was however interesting to note that a few respondants seemed disturbed with entering their \ rooms through a semi-public quad lobby. They commented about their inability to maintain secrecy in entering and leaving their private rooms directly from a public zone. This was, to many, an advantage in the older residences where they could maintain secrecy while coming in or going out of their own rooms directly to the common corridor without letting others be aware of their movements. 4. Personalization: -The author further contends that no matter how pleasing an interior decor is made by designers inside a residence, the occupant who lives with it for a certain period of time wants to make .his own choices. As Michael Rossman has written, "there is the need of human beings to shape their environment, to feel a sense of control and potency" (Van der Ryn, 1967, p. 31). Students in Gage Residence are fortunate in not having its furniture arrangement built-in. They were observed to take liberty of this flexibility in the design by a variety of alternative arrangements, suited to their own needs and personal taste, potentialities and idiosyncracies. In addition, amidst dull, monotonous sameness in the flcor design and drapes treatment of Gage Residence, a rich variety 111. o f t a s t e f u l , h u m o r o u s , b r i g h t a n d w i t t y p o s t e r s w a s o b s e r v e d a s w e l l a s g a y c o l o u r f u l p i c t u r e s , m e s s a g e s , C h r i s t m a s d e c o r a t i o n s , o r n a m e n t a t i o n , g r e e t i n g s , b u l l e t i n s , a r t w o r k , a n d g r a f f i t i ,. . . i n p e r s o n a l r o o m s a s w e l l i n t h e w a l l s o f q u a d l o u n g e s , q u a d l o b b i e s , e l e v a t o r l o b b i e s , a n d e l e v a t o r w a l l s . . . g r e e t e d a n d r e l i e v e d t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s e y e s . T h e a u t h o r n o w h e r e n o t i c e d a n y m a l i c i o u s m o t i v e t o d e f a c e t h e w a l l s o r i n t e r i o r f u r n i s h i n g s , a l t h o u g h h e w a s i n f o r m e d o f s o m e m i n o r i n c i d e n t s o f d a m a g e a n d p i l f e r a g e o c c u r e d i n s i d e t h e r e s i d e n c e . T h e a u t h o r a l s o n o t i c e d m a n y a r r e s t i n g a n d s t i m u l a t i n g d i s p l a y s o n t h e e x t e r i o r f a c a d e s o f t h e t o w e r s ; f o r e x a m p l e , h e n o t i c e d t h e s i g n s o f t h e c r o s s o n w i n d o w p a n e s ( w h i c h w e r e d e c l a r e d b y t h e d i s p l a y e r s t o b e t h e s y m b o l s o f a f f i l i a t i o n t o s p e c i f i c r e l i g i o u s s e c t s ) a n d s i l v e r p a p e r f o i l s d e s i g n e d t o a r r e s t t h e s u n r a y s a s w e l l a s t o o b t a i n b e t t e r r e c e p t i o n o f t h e T V t r a n s m i s s i o n . T h e h o u s i n g a u t h o r i t y d i s c o u r a g e i n d i v i d u a l r o o m f u r n i s h i n g ( I n f o r -m a t i o n B o o k l e t , p a g e 3 1 ) . T h i s s o r t o f p r o h i b i t o r y m e a s u r e t a k e n o n t h e p a r t o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a u t h o r i t y c o u p l e d w i t h s e v e r e l a c k o f a d e q u a t e d i s p l a y a r e a s i n s u i t a b l e p l a c e s i n s i d e r o o m s , q u a d l o u n g e s , m a i n a r e a , f l o o r , t o w e r l o u n g e s m a y l e a d f r u s t r a t e d r e s i d e n t s t o d e f a c e t h e w a l l s a n d t h e r e b y i n c u r c o s t l y d a m a g e s t o s a t i s f y t h e i r s p o n t a n e o u s a n d c r e a t i v e i m p u l s e t o w a r d s p e r s o n a l i s a t i o n a n d i n d i v i d u a l i s a t i o n . T h e r e s e a r c h e r w i s h e s t o c o n c l u d e b y q u o t i n g S o m m e r : ( 1 9 7 - 2 ) T h e r e i s a l e s s o n t o b e l e a r n e d w h e n . . . c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s h a n g p i c t u r e s o n w a l l s , d r a w g r a f f i t i . . . P e o p l e l i k e s p a c e s t h e y c a n c a l l t h e i r o w n a n d m a k e o v e r ; t h e y r e j e c t a n a l i e n e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t i s b u i l t a c c o r d i n g t o d e t a i l e d s q u a r e f o o t a g e a l l o c a t i o n s f o r a s t a n d a r d m o d e l o f i m p e r s o n a l h u m a n i t y i n t h e m o s t d u r a b l e a n d a n t i s e p t i c 112. c o n d i t i o n . T h e m a n o f t o m o r r o w w h o s e c a p a c i t y t o r e s p o n d t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t i s r e d u c e d , m a y b e e x c u s e d f r o m t h i s l e s s o n , b u t w e a r e n o t . 5. U s e o f M a i n F l o o r L o u n g e s : T h e r e s u l t s d o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e s i d e n t s i n t h e G a g e T o w e r s s p e n d l i t t l e t i m e o u t s i d e t h e i r q u a d s w h i l e i n s i d e _ t h e b u i l d i n g s ( i . e . t h e r e a r e f e w e x t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s i n s i d e t h e b u i l d i n g s ( S e e T a b l e 33a). T h e f o r m a l c o m m o n l o u n g e i n t h e m a i n f l o o r i s t o o f a r o f f , w h i l e t h e q u a d s d o l i t t l e t o d e v e l o p o v e r l a p p i n g o f s o c i o - c u l t u r a l f u n c t i o n s a m o n g t h e G a g e r e s i d e n t s . R e s i d e n t s t h u s h a v e n o r e a s o n t o u s e t h e s e f o r m a l s p a c e s f a r o f f a n d d e t a c h e d f r o m t h e i r q u a d s w h i c h d o n o t p r o v i d e t h e m w i t h t h e k i n d o f i n f o r m a l o c c a s i o n s t o m u t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t e . T h e C o m m o n B l o c k ' s m a i n f l o o r w i t h a l l i t s d e s i g n e d f a c i l i t i e s c o u l d n o t c r e a t e i n t e r e s t a m o n g t h e r e s i d e n t s a n d i t a p p e a r s t o b e s e l d o m u s e d . F u r t h e r , t h e a t t r a c t i v e l y d e s i g n e d a n d l a n d s c a p e d o u t d o o r s p a c e s , e n t r a n c e p l a z a s a n d o p e n t e r r a c e s a r e f o r m a l a n d u n p r o t e c t e d a n d " p u b l i c " a n d s e e m t o b e l i t t l e u s e d a s p l a c e s t o s o c i a l i z e . T h e y a r e n o t e v e n u s e d f o r ' s u n n i n g ' b e c a u s e ( a s s t a t e d b y s e v e r a l s t u d e n t s ) t h e y a r e u n d e r s u r v e i l l a n c e b y s i x t e e n f l o o r s o f " u n s e e n e y e s " a b o v e ( G o f f m a n , 1963,and F r e e d m a n , 1970). F u n c t i o n a l d i s t a n c e , t h a t i s , p r o x i m i t y p l u s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c o n t a c t ( F e s t i n g e r 1950 ) p r o m o t e s s p o n t a n e o u s m e e t i n g s i n t h e q u a d s , h a l l w a y s , o r l o u n g e s . D u e t o t h i s l a r g e f u n c t i o n a l d i s t a n c e f r o m i n d i v i d u a l r o o m t o c o m m o n f a c i l i t i e s i n t h e m a i n f l o o r c o m m o n b l o c k o f t h e t o w e r s , t h e r e s i d e n t s d o n o t f e e l t h e u r g e . t o t a k e t h e t r o u b l e o f c o m i n g d o w n t o t h e c o m m o n b l o c k s o n t h e m a i n f l o o r s t o t a k e f u l l a d v a n t a g e o f t h e o t h e r c o m m o n f a c i l i t i e s , h o w e v e r g l a m o r o u s a n d l a v i s h t h e y m a y b e . T h e r e s i d e n t s s e e m t o l e a s t u t i l i z e t h e s e a n d m a i n t a i n a n o n c h a l a n t a t t i t u d e t o w a r d s t h e 113. common formal amenities and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . The lavishly-designed lounges i n the main f l o o r s might serve as good revenue magnet f o r conventions during summer session, but otherwise t h e i r merit may be questioned. They may appear extravagant, c o s t l y and wasteful as f a r as student's residence a c t i v i t i e s are concerned. The main f l o o r sunken lounge termed 'conversation p i t ' , along with seven seminar/study rooms and b a l l rooms i n the main f l o o r of the common block were observed to be l i t t l e used. The l a v i s h l y designed sunken lounge with f i r e p l a c e on one side o f f e r s a too conspicuous s e t t i n g ("as i f being observed l i k e a g o l d f i s h i n a bowl"); the formal, impersonal layout i s i n h i b i t i n g to casual small group use. I t reminds the author of the observation of Sim Van der Ryn regarding the use of s i m i l a r spaces i n a t y p i c a l student residence: "Some spaces i n v o l v i n g large c a p i t a l outlays are not used e f f e c t i v e l y because of i n c o r r e c t design assumption". The luxurious extravaganza displayed i n main f l o o r lounge i n t h i s residence may serve as t y p i c a l examples of i n e f f e c t i v e or i l l - f u n c t i o n e d design. L a v i s h l y furnished with plush red shag rug and l u x u r i o u s l y decorated with l i g h t i n g f i x t u r e s , f i r e places,comfortable seats, a l l these appear to serve mainly as a s e t t i n g to impress v i s i t i n g f r i e n d s and parents. The lounges can r i g h t l y be r e f e r r e d to as " f u r n i t u r e show rooms". As observed by Van der Ryn, / 1 9 6 7 ^ t n e s e showrooms are characterised by high l i g h t i n g l e v e l s , broad s p a t i a l expanses, a l a r g e , c o l d , formal layout, with f u r n i t u r e arrangement emphasizing neatness. The large lounge i s an example of a space that i s designed to b r i n g people together, but i t seldom meets t h i s purpose. The common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of these "showrooms" i s that they discourage casual and cosy small group use. The survey r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that, p u b l i c areas around lounges i n the m a i n f l o o r o f e a c h t o w e r , s e m i n a r r o o m s a n d l o u n g e s i n m a i n b l o c k a r e l e a s t u s e d f o r s p o n t a n e o u s c a s u a l s m a l l g r o u p c o n v e r s a t i o n . T h e r e s p o n d e n t s h a v e o n l y i n d i c a t e d t h e m a i n f l o o r l o u n g e s a r e r e a s o n a b l y w e l l - u s u s e d f o r b e e r p a r t i e s . T h i s i s a l s o c o n f i r m e d b y t h e a u t h o r ' s o w n o b s e r v a t i o n . ( T a b l e 33b )• T h e a u t h o r o p i n e s t h a t i t m a k e s l i t t l e s e n s e t o d e s i g n a s p a c e j u s t f o r s p o n t a n e o u s s o c i a l i s i n g . S u c h s p a c e s d e s i g n e d t o b r i n g p e o p l e t o g e t h e r a r e s e l d o m e f f e c t i v e u n l e s s t h e r e a r e o t h e r c o m p e l l i n g r e a s o n s t o u s e o r s h a r e t h e s p a c e . C a s u a l m e e t i n g s u s u a l l y o c c u r i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h s o m e o t h e r a c t i v i t y . T h e a u t h o r o b s e r v e d t h a t i n t h e d e s i g n o f t h e m a i n l o u n g e i n t h e c o m m o n b l o c k , a l a r g e a m o u n t o f s p a c e h a s b e e n w a s t e f u l l y d e v o t e d t o c i r c u l a t i o n ; w h i l e t h e m a i n l o u n g e m i g h t a p p e a r t o b e a g l a m o r o u s s e t t i n g f o r c o n v e n t i o n s a n d s e m i n a r s i n s u m m e r s e s s i o n s , t h e d e s i g n h a s f a i l e d t o s e r v e t h e d u a l f u n c t i o n o f s t u d e n t r e s i d e n t a c t i v i t i e s a n d p u b l i c s e m i n a r / c o n v e n t i o n . I t a l s o f a i l s a s w e l l t o s a t i s f y t h e s t u d e n t s ' n e e d s . I t i s a p i t y t h a t i n m a j o r p a r t o f t h e y e a r w h e n m a i n f l o o r s p a c i o u s l o u n g e s ( w i t h h u g e c i r c u l a t i o n a r e a s ) a r e l y i n g v a c a n t a n d u n u t i l i s e d o r a l m o s t r e j e c t e d b y r e s i d e n t s o r w h e n i t s l u x u r i o u s a n d e x t r a v a g a n t l i g h t i n g f i x t u r e s a r e c o n s u m i n g e l e c t r i c e n e r g y i n v a i n , t h e s t u d e n t s a r e p a y i n g r e n t t o s u s t a i n t h e s e u n n e c e s s a r y s p a c e s , w h i l e t h e y t h e m s e l v e s a r e f o r c e d t o s q u e e z e i n c r a m p e d a n d p o o r l y - l i t q u a d k i t c h e n s a n d b e d r o o m s . CHAPTER V 1 1 5 . D I S C U S S I O N S O N P R I M A R Y I N V E S T I G A T I O N S C o m p a r i s o n w i t h B i c k m a n ' s S t u d y P e r c e p t i o n o f a r c h i t e c t u r a l a t m o s p h e r e o f t h e G a g e r e s i d e n t s w a s c o n t r a s t e d w i t h t h e r e s u l t s i n c l u d e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s s t u d y b y B i c k m a n e t a l o n s t u d e n t r e s i d e n c e s w i t h v a r i o u s d e n s i t i e s . T h e r e s e a r c h e r e x p e c t e d t h a t s i n c e t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e c o u l d b e s a i d t o p o s s e s s t h e m e d i u m d e n s i t y a s c o m p a r e d t o d e n s i t y s t a n d a r d d e f i n e d i n B i c k m a n ' s s t u d y t h e G a g e R e s i d e n t ' s r a t i n g s w o u l d c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e r e s u l t s o f m e d i u m d e n s i t y u n i t s a s r e c o r d e d i n t h e p r e v i o u s s t u d y . H o w e v e r , u s e r s r a t i n g s o n m o s t a r c h i t e c t u r a l a t t r i b u t e s f o r G a g e R e s i d e n c e t e n d e d t o b e m o r e l i k e t h e l o w d e n s i t y o r l o w m e d i u m d e n s i t y r e -s u l t s o f B i c k m a n ' s s t u d y . T h e s e w e r e p a r t i c u l a r l y e v i d e n t w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e i r r a t i n g s o n a t m o s p h e r i c a t t r i b u t e s l i k e c h e e r f u l , u n i f y i n g , r e l a x e d , u n r e s t r i c t e d , d i v e r s i f i e d , w a r m a n d f r i e n d l y . T h e m e a n r a t i n g s o f a t m o s p h e r i c a t t r i b u t e s o f t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e c o i n c i d e d w i t h t h a t o f B i c k m a n ' s . h i g h d e n s i t y r e s u l t s - , . w e r e o b s e r v e d t o b e c r a m p e d , c o n v e n i e n t , s a f e a n d w e l l - o r d e r e d . I n s u m m a r y , a l t h o u g h t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e a c h i e v e s t h e m e d i u m d e n s i t y , i n f a c t , i t s r e s i d e n t s p e r c e i v e i t s a r c h i t e c t u r a l a t m o s p h e r e t o b e t h a t o f a l o w o r l o w - m e d i u m d e n s i t y r e s i d e n c e . , . F u r t h e r m o r e , G a g e r e s i d e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n t h a t t h r e e o f t h e m o r e f a v o u r a b l e a t m o s p h e r i c a t t r i b u t e s c o n v e n i e n t , s a f e a n d w e l l - k e p t , c o n f o r m t o h i g h d e n s i t y r e s i d e n c e s . A l l t h e s e a t t r i b u t e s s u g g e s t t h e d e s i g n e x c e l l e n c e o f t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e . T h e s u r v e y r e s u l t s f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e G a g e r e s i d e n t s p o s s e s s e d a d e g r e e o f m u t u a l t r u s t p a r a l l e l w i t h B i c k m a n ' s r e s u l t s o n m e d i u m d e n s i t y . T h e y w e r e a l s o o b s e r v e d t o p o s s e s s h i g h e r d e g r e e o f h e l p i n g b e h a v i o r b u t s t r a n g e l y a l e s s e r d e g r e e o f s o c i a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e b e h a v i o r t o w a r d t h e i r r e s i d e n t i a l l i f e a s c o m p a r e d t o B i c k m a n ' s s t u d y o n e q u i v -a l e n t r e s i d e n t i a l g r o u p d e n s i t y . 116, With regards to these measures suggesting high t r u s t and/or low anxiety about s e c u r i t y i n Gage Residence i t may be an a r t i f a c t of c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s between the sets of respondents of two countries compared ( S e g a l l , Campbell and J e s k o v i t s , 1966). As regards the apparent d i f f e r e n c e i n r e s u l t s on S o c i a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y and Helping Behavior these may r e l a t e not to s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y as much as to conformity of behavior and anxiety about s e c u r i t y . , However, the author maintains that perception of density and i t s influences on residents i s i n v e r s e l y p r o p o r t i o n a l to the length of residence. The longer the period of residence, the more one adapts to the r e s i d e n t i a l environment; The freshmen l i v i n g here l e s s than four months . were exposed to immediate adaptation to the density of the residence, while the older and senior residents were subject to a longer period of environmental adaptation, who might not perceive any adverse e f f e c t of i t (Rosenberg, 1968). Comparison With the Study of Gerst and Sweetwood The URES (quadrant) subscale scores generated by Gage respondents were transformed and compared with those reported by Gerst and Sweetwood (1973) described e a r l i e r , to determine whether s o c i a l climate d i f f e r e n c e s , might be a t t r i b u t a b l e to design c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the Gage Residence. URES scores were dichotomized as previously described. Turning to Table 14 i t can be seen that the same pattern of s o c i a l climate dimensions are operative here as with s a t i s f a c t i o n scores. Most subjects are generally s a t i s f i e d with l i v i n g i n Gage Residence. They see t h e i r quadrant climate as high on involvement, emotional support, innovation 117. a n d s t u d e n t i n f l u e n c e , i n t e l l e c t u a l i t y a n d a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t a n d l o w o n c o m p e t i t i o n a n d t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n ; t h e y a l s o e v a l u a t e i t s a r c h i t e c t u r e a t m o s p h e r e p o s i t i v e l y a s c h e e r f u l , s a t i s f y i n g , w a r m , f r i e n d l y , c o n v e n i e n t , s a f e , w e l l - k e p t . C o n v e r s e l y r e s i d e n t s w h o g e n e r a l l y d e s c r i b e t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l a t m o s p h e r e a s m o r e u g l y , s t a t i c , i n c o n v e n i e n t , f r u s t r a t i n g , s e p a r a t i n g , c o l d , u n f r i e n d l y o r t e n s e t e n d t o — p e r c e i v e t h e i r s u i t e c l i m a t e a s l o w o n i n v o l v e m e n t , s u p p o r t , i n t e l l e c t u a l i t y , t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i a l o r i e n t a t i o n a n d o r d e r a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n : I n t e r e s t i n g l y , a n i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p i s f o u n d t o e x i s t b e t w e e n r e s i d e n t i a l s a t i s f a c t i o n a s c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e p e r c e i v e d c l i m a t e o f a c a d e m i c a c h i e v e m e n t a n d i n d e p e n d e n c e . T h e m e a n s c o r e s o n t h e s e t w o s u b s c a l e s o f r e s i d e n t s w h o a r e n o t s a t i s f i e d w i t h l i v i n g i n i t ( o r n o t s u r e ) a r e f o u n d t o b e h i g h e r t h a n t h o s e w h o a r e s a t i s f i e d . T h i s i s n o t i c e d t o b e o p p o s i t e f r o m t h e r e s u l t s o f s t u d y b y G e r s t a n d S w e e t w o o d w h e r e s t u d e n t s s a t i s f i e d w i t h l i v i n g i n a r e s i d e n c e ( s u i t e ) h a v e s c o r e d h i g h e r i n t h e s e t w o s u b s c a l e s . . . . I n s u m m a r y , t h e c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s b e t w e e n t h e r e s i d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f s o c i a l c l i m a t e a n d a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n q u a l i t i e s o f t h e i r r e s i d e n c e i s m u c h i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h G e r s t ' s s t u d y . S t u d e n t s w h o l i v e w i t h i n t h e s a m e p h y s i c a l s p a c e s e v a l u a t e t h e m d i f f e r e n t l y d e p e n d i n g o n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e s u r r o u n d i n g s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t T h e a u t h o r f u l l y a g r e e s w i t h t h e o b s e r v a t i o n b y G e r s t a n d S w e e t w o o d -t h a t a t o n e l e v e l a s t u d e n t d o r m i t o r y i s c o m p o s e d o f i n d i v i d u a l s w h o i n t e r a c t w i t h i n a n e n v i r o n m e n t t h a t h a s a v a r y i n g i m p a c t o n t h e i r i n t e r -p e r s o n a l b e h a v i o r a n d i n t r a p s y c h i c s t a t e s , a n d w h i c h c h a n n e l s a n d f o r c e s t h e i r b e h a v i o r a n d a t t i t u d e s . O n a n o t h e r l e v e l , a d o r m i s a s e m i -i n d e p e n d e n t s o c i a l s y s t e m w i t h m o r e n o r m a t i v e b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s a n d r u l e s f o r a c c e p t a b l e a n d p r e s c r i b e d c o n d u c t . T h i s s y s t e m i s b o u n d e d p h y s i c a l l y b u t m a i n t a i n s v a r y i n g l i n k a g e s t o t h e l a r g e r c o l l e g e s o c i a l s y s t e m . O n a t h i r d l e v e l , a d o r m i t o r y i s a p h y s i c a l s p a c e , i n w h i c h a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n t e r a c t w i t h a n d i m p o s e r e s t r a i n t s o n , - i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r a n d t h e s o c i a l s y s t e m . C i r c u l a t i o n f l o w p a t t e r n , g r o u p s i z e a n d s o c i a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y , ^ a n d p e r c e p t i o n o f p h y s i c a l a e s t h e t i c s a l l i n f l u e n c e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n v a r i a b l e s . T h e p a t t e r n w h i c h e m e r g e s f r o m t h e r e s u l t s c l e a r l y h i g h l i g h t s t h e i m p o r t a n t r o l e p l a y e d b y t h e d e s i g n i n c r e a t i n g t h e s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t . A s t r o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p h a s b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y b e t w e e n s a t i s f a c t i o n , f r i e n d s h i p p a t t e r n s , a n d a r c h i t e c t u r a l p e r c e p t i o n o n o n e h a n d , a n d t h e p s y c h o l o g i c a l c l i m a t e o f q u a d r a n t a s m e a s u r e d b y t h e U R E S o n t h e o t h e r . I t d e p i c t s t h e p o w e r f u l a n d i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e o f s u i t e c l i m a t e o n r e s i d e n t s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p a n d p e r s o n a l g r o w t h d i m e n s i o n s , w h e r e t h e l i v i n g u n i t i s c o m p a r a t i v e l y s m a l l e r a n d a s s u c h , t h e m o r e i n f l u e n c e m e m b e r s e x e r t o n o n e a n o t h e r w i t h a m o r e t o t a l i n v o l v e m e n t d e m a n d e d o f e a c h m e m b e r . T h e i m p a c t o f s u i t e e n v i r o n m e n t a p p e a r s t o b e m o r e p e r v a s i v e ( t o t a l ) w i t h m e m b e r s h a v i n g l e s s o p p o r t u n i t y o f o v e r r i d i n g i t a s i s p o s s i b l e i n l e s s c o m p a c t a n d m o r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d m i l i e u i n o t h e r t r a d i t i o n a l l y d e s i g n e d d o r m i t o r i e s . I n c o n c l u s i o n , s u b j e c t s ' s c o r e s o n U R E S c l e a r l y exemplifies that students who l i v e i n environments which are supportive, i n v o l v i n g , innovative and so on, f e e l more complacent and perceive some segments of l i f e i n a more p o s i t i v e way. I t also i n d i c a t e s that desirable s o c i a l environment could be b u i l t by taking proper care i n design program on a r a t i o n a l b a s i s . This might increase those q u a l i t i e s i n design and minimise the more discordant elements. Impact of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Design on I n d i v i d u a l Behavior and S o c i a l Network With regard to the o b j e c t i v e and desirable r o l e the design of student residence should play, a reference i s made to the observation by Sim Van der Ryn et a l (1967). They stated that: Each student belongs to many groups, each f u n c t i o n i n g d i f f e r e n t l y , and changing i n s t r u c t u r e , numbers and s t y l e . The formation of such groups may be f a c i l i t a t e d by design through proximity, and sharing c i r c u l a t i o n and other spaces. But design should allow residents options as to which groups they would l i k e to belong. The a c t i v i t i e s that generate groups tend to overlap and u s u a l l y are not connected with a s i n g l e space. Space f o r people to get together i n must be integrated with reasons f o r people being there. Casual or routine a c t i v i t i e s are b e t t e r s o c i a l integrators than formal lounges which people seldom use. Doing laundry, having coffee, p a r t i c u l a r l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n work p a r t i e s provide the kind of informal occasions i n which people can get to know one another (p. 42). In the s p a t i a l context, a r c h i t e c t u r a l design and layout can f o s t e r or impose r e s t r a i n t s on i n d i v i d u a l behavior and s o c i a l system networks w i t h i n the residence. The design layout can, with i t s c i r c u l a t i o n pattern group s i z e , s o c i a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y and perception of design aesthetics influence s o c i a l v a r i a b l e s , encourage frequent involuntary, personal, face-to-face contacts and can become a most important f a c t o r i n the formation-of groups and informal f r i e n d s h i p s . However, f o r community l i v i n g to be successful when people reside 1 2 0 . c l o s e l y t o g e t h e r , c e r t a i n s i m i l a r i t i e s o f b e h a v i o r a r e a l s o r e q u i r e d . I t c a n n o t b e a s s u m e d t h a t p u t t i n g t o g e t h e r i n r e s i d e n c e a m i s c e l l a n e o u s c o l l e c t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l s - e v e n i f t h e y h a v e s o m e c o m m o n a i m s - w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y b e t o t h e i r m u t u a l b e n e f i t . C e r t a i n p e r s o n a l i t y q u a l i t i e s a r e r e q u i r e d t o p r o d u c e b e n e f i c i a l c o n s e q u e n c e s . F r i e n d s h i p P a t t e r n W h i c h t h e D e s i g n h a s F o s t e r e d W i t h i n i t R o b e r t G e d d e s a n d H . O s m o n d ( 1 9 6 5 ) h a v e o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e l a y o u t h a s d i r e c t b e a r i n g o n t h e f o r m a t i o n a n d m a i n t e n a n c e o f i n f o r m a l f r i e n d s h i p a n d s o c i a l g r o u p A g a i n , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t u d y o f F e s t i n g e r ( 1 9 5 0 ) i t s e e m s l i k e l y , t h a t t h e f r e q u e n c y o f i n v o l u n t a r y f a c e - t o - f a c e c o n t a c t i s o n e o f t h e m o s t i m p -o r t a n t f a c t o r s i n t h e f o r m a t i o n o f g r o u p s a n d i n f o r m a l f r i e n d s h i p i n a b u i l d i n g . I n d i v i d u a l s r e s i d i n g i n a d j a c e n t r o o m s a r e m o r e l i k e l y t o b e f r i e n d l y m e r e l y o n t h e b a s i s o f p r o x i m i t y a s i t a f f e c t s o p p o r t u n i t y f o r e n c o u n t e r s . F a c e - t o - f a c e m e e t i n g s o c c u r , t h r o u g h r e g u l a r m o v e m e n t s i n a n d o u t o f t h e b u i l d i n g a n d t h r o u g h u s e o f c o m m u n a l f a c i l i t i e s , o r b y s o m e c h a n c e i n c i d e n t o r a t t r a c t i o n , o r s h a r i n g o f c o m m o n f a c i l i t i e s , i n g a m e s o r w o r k o r s t r u c t u r e d s o c i a l p r o g r a m s . T h e G a g e r e s i d e n t s u n d o u b t e d l y , a l s o m e e t o n e a n o t h e r i n c l a s s r o o m s , l i b r a r i e s , a u d i t o r i u m s , g y m n a s i u m , s p o r t s c e n t r e s , i n p a r t i e s a n d i n s e v e r a l o t h e r c a m p u s a c t i v i t i e s . H o w e v e r , a s i o b s e r v e d i n t h e s u r v e y r e s u l t s ( T a b l e 2 8 ) t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n e c o l o g i c a l a n d s o c i a l n e t w o r k w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l q u a d s i s s o v e r y m a r k e d t h a t t h e r e c a n b e l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t w i t h i n t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e p a s s i v e c o n t a c t s a r e a m a j o r d e t e r m i n a n t o f f r i e n d s h i p a n d g r o u p f o r m a t i o n . G a g e r e s i d e n t s h a v e b e e n o b s e r v e d t o b e m o r e f r i e n d l y a n d c l o s e l y r e l a t e d a m o n g t h e i r o w n q u a d m a t e s t h a n w i t h o t h e r s l i v i n g i n d i f f e r e n t ' q u a d s i n t h e s a m e f l o o r . 121. S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n among the Gage Residents r e s t r i c t e d i n In d i v i d u a l  Quads As H e i l w e i l (1973) has Observed, The tendency to suites with common areas, b u i l t around a common house lounge i s a new and needed intermediate step i n s o c i a l r e l a t e d -ness. The su i t e allows f o r a two stage process of meeting new people and c o n t r o l l i n g the degree of s o c i a l expectation and demand. A gradualness i n in c r e a s i n g the i n t e n s i t y of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s i s surely one part of the needs of people i n the f i r s t stages of belonging. The trend to sui t e s also allows f o r d i f f e r e n t tasks which must be done, various forms of maintenance, with d i f f e r i n g degrees of cooperation required, with room-mates, and then floor-mates. Inclusions of baths and kitchens increases the areas for maintenance and increase the areas i n which the student can work to be h i s own master (p. 408). In terms of on-floor informal s o c i a l networks which may be the d i r e c t outcome of the p h y s i c a l design, the i n d i v i d u a l quads dominate the major portions of the s o c i a l l i v e s of the Gage residents. The basic and primary s o c i a l unit i n t h i s student h a b i t a t i s the "quadrant", not the " f l o o r " or the "house". In t h i s regard i t d i f f e r s from other older, on- , campus dorm i t o r i e s . The f u n c t i o n a l l y w ell-defined, s e l f - - s u f f i c i e n t quads each containing s i x rooms c l u s t e r i n g around a common lounge area form the smallest communal l i v i n g u n i t . Each quad provides demarcation of the t e r r i t o r y of each group and possesses a strong i n t e r n a l cohesiveness. I t also gives them a d i s t i n c t i d e n t i t y as organised s o c i a l l i v i n g u n i t s . The s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t design of each quad gives the s i x residents sharing each quad the opportunity of frequent face-to-face i n t e r a c t i o n , intense s o c i a l involvement and emotional support among themselves. I t appears that they s t i c k together f o r the mutual interdependence i f not through the "imprisoned brotherhood" necessary f o r cooperative l i v i n g . The i n d i v i d u a l resident i s o l a t e s or withdraws himself i n h i s own quad. The quad serves as a pro t e c t i v e device and induces inter-group i s o l a t i o n 1 2 2 . i n s t e a d o f t h e i n v o l v e m e n t s w i t h i n t h e e n t i r e b u i l d i n g c o m p l e x . T h e s t u d e n t s w i t h i n e a c h q u a d h a v e t h e i r i n e v i t a b l e a n d m o s t n a t u r a l d e s t i n a t i o n c e n t e r e d a r o u n d t h e l o u n g e / k i t c h e n e t t e , w h e r e t h e m e m b e r s c o n g r e g a t e t o m a k e b r e a k f a s t , t o m a k e c o f f e e o r t e a , a n d t o p r e p a r e t h e i r o w n s n a c k s o r m e a l s . T h e c o m m o n k i t c h e n / l o u n g e t h u s p r o v i d e s 6 m e m b e r s w i t h a c o m m o n f o r u m o r l o c u s o f t h e i r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a n d s e r v e s a s . , t h e ' n u c l e u s ' f o r c a s u a l m e e t i n g , d i n i n g a n d m u t u a l l y e n t e r t a i n i n g s m a l l g r o u p s o f f r i e n d s . A m a j o r i t y o f s u b j e c t s h a v e p e r c e i v e d i t a s a s e m i -p u b l i c s p a c e a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e i r o w n r o o m o r m a i n f l o o r l o u n g e s . ( S e e T a b l e 3 5 ) . I t i s n o t e d t h a t e a c h q u a d i s p o p u l a t e d b y s t u d e n t r e s i -d e n t s w h o h a v e m o s t o f t h e i r f r i e n d s i n t h e s a m e l i v i n g u n i t . T h u s i n e a c h q u a d , s t u d e n t s l i v e a n d w o r k c l o s e t o g e t h e r a n d i n g e n e r a l s e e m o r e o f e a c h o t h e r t h a n o f a n y . o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l s l i v i n g i n o t h e r q u a d s . T h e s m a l l e r l i v i n g u n i t s t h u s e x e r t o n o n e a n o t h e r w i t h a m o r e t o t a l i n v o l v e m e n t a n d g r e a t e r i m p a c t . B e l o n g i n g n e s s a n d i d e n t i t y , o f t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e i s c e n t e r e d o n l y a r o u n d t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e q u a d s . I t a p p e a r s , , a s i f , - , r e s i d e n t s b e l o n g f i r s t a n d l a s t t o t h e i r q u a d s a n d n e i t h e r t o t h e f l o o r n o r t h e o t h e r a s a w h o l e . A p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s m a y b e d r a w n o n t h e b a s i s o f F e s t i n g e r ' s ( 1 9 5 0 ) c o n c e p t o f t h e e c o l o g i c a l . b a s i s f o r f o r m a t i o n o f g r o u p s . B o t h p h y s i c a l a n d f u n c t i o n a l d i s t a n c e a f f e c t t h e p a t t e r n a n d n u m b e r o f p a s s i v e c o n t a c t s . I n a n y c o m m u n i t y , t h e f o r m a t i o n o f f r i e n d s h i p s d e p e n d s u p o n t h e e x t e n t o f c o n t a c t s . A c c o r d i n g t o C h r i s t o p h e r A l e x a n d e r ( 1 9 6 7 ) a n i n d i v i d u a l r e q u i r e s t h r e e t o f o u r d a i l y i n t i m a t e c o n t a c t s t o s t i m u l a t e m e n t a l h e a l t h . U r b a n l i f e i n m o d e r n t e c h n o l o g i c a l s o c i e t i e s t e n d t o i n c r e a s e t h e n u m b e r o f s e c o n d a r y 1 2 3 , c o n t a c t s . O n t h e o t h e r h a n d , m o s t p r i m a r y c o n t a c t s o f a G a g e r e s i d e n t ' s l i f e a r e r e s t r i c t e d a m o n g h i s o w n q u a d m e m b e r s . M e e t i n g o t h e r m e m b e r s r e s i d i n g i n o t h e r q u a d s e i t h e r i n s a m e f l o o r o r e l s e w h e r e i n t h e r e s i d e n c e s a r e t y p i c a l e x a m p l e s o f s e c o n d a r y c o n t a c t s . T h e d e s i g n h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e n c o u r a g e a d e q u a t e n u m b e r s o f p a s s i v e c o n t a c t s b e t w e e n t h e m e m b e r s o f o t h e r q u a d s . T h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f p r i m a r y c o n t a c t s a m o n g t h e r e s i d e n t s a n d m o r e i n t e n s e p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h i n l a r g e r a n d d i v e r s e g r o u p s c o u l d b e g r e a t l y e n h a n c e d h a d t h e r e b e e n c o m m o n a r e a s e i t h e r i n e a c h f l o o r ( t o b e s h a r e d b y a l l t h e f o u r q u a d s ) o r b y o t h e r c o n v e n i e n t m a n n e r o f l a y o u t . L a c k o f I n t r a - q u a d I n t e r a c t i o n : D u e e i t h e r t o t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f h i g h d e n s i t y o r d u e t o t h e l a c k o f p r o v i s i o n o f a d e q u a t e i n t e r m e d i a t e f a c i l i t i e s , r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g w i t h i n r e s p e c t i v e q u a d s s e e m u n i n t e r e s t e d i n e s t a b l i s h i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s w i t h r e s i d e n t s o f o t h e r q u a d s o n t h e s a m e f l o o r . T h e i n f o r m a l s o c i a l e n c o u n t e r s t h a t w o u l d p r o v i d e s o c i a l s u p p o r t , p r o t e c t i o n a n d c o n t r o l o n a f l o o r o r i n t h e e n t i r e c o m p l e x n e v e r h a d a c h a n c e t o d e v e l o p . P h y s i c a l l y , t h e p r o v i s i o n o f a c o m m o n f l o o r l o u n g e o f s e m i - p u b l i c s p a c e s w i t h a d e q u a t e f a c i l i t i e s w o u l d p r o b a b l y r e t a r d o r d i m i n i s h t h e e x i s t i n g a t o m i z a t i o n o f t h e q u a d r e s i d e n t s . E v e r y f l o o r i n t h e t o w e r s o f t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e a c c o m m o d a t e s 2 4 p e r s o n s ( i n m o s t c a s e s t w o o f t h e s e a r e a l l o t e d t o m e n a n d o t h e r t w o t o w o m e n ) . I n o t h e r s t u d e n t r e s i d e n c e s , o n c a m p u s , t h e r e a r e 3 4 p e r s o n s t o a f l o o r i n T o t e m P a r k a n d i n P l a c e V a n i e r t h e r e a r e 2 5 . T h i s ' 1 2 4 . c o m p a r a t i v e l y l o w f l o o r - d e n s i t y c o u p l e d w i t h l i v i n g i n m o r e c o m p a c t f l o o r p l a n i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y w i t h i n t h i s r e s i d e n c e s h o u l d m a k e i t e a s i e r f o r r e s i d e n t s t o g e t t o k n o w e a c h o t h e r o n t h e f l o o r . I t s h o u l d a l s o g i v e r e s i d e n t s t h e c h a n c e t o k e e p t h e m s e l v e s a w a r e o f w h a t i s h a p p e n i n g o n t h e i r f l o o r . H o w e v e r , i n r e a l i t y t h i s d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o o c c u r . A l t h o u g h t h e m a j o r i t y o f s u b j e c t s s a i d t h a t a l l o r t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e i r q u a d m e m b e r s h a v e g o o d f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s , t h e d e g r e e o f i n t i m a c y o r a c q u a i n t a n c e d r o p s a l a r m i n g l y o u t s i d e i n d i v i d u a l q u a d s . ( P a g e 6 8 ) . A n a n a l o g y i s d r a w n t o H u m p h r e y O s m o n d ' s . ( 1 9 6 7 ) a n i n d i v i d u a l r e q u i r e s t h r e e t o q u a l i t i e s o f t h e t e r m s " S o c i o f u g a l " a n d " S o c i o p e t e l " . T h e s o c i o f u g a l i t y a p p e a r s t o e x i s t i n t h e d e s i g n o f t h e f l o o r s w i t h t h e i r f o u r q u a d r a n t s d i s c o u r a g i n g t h e f o r m a t i o n o f s t a b l e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , w h e r e a s w i t h i n e a c h q u a d r a n t e x i s t s a s o c i o p e t a l i t y , a q u a l i t y t h & t f o s t e r s a n d e v e n e n f o r c e s t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f s t a b l e i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . P o s s i b l y t h e d i v e r s i t y o f s e x a m o n g t h e m e m b e r s r e s i d i n g i n o t h e r q u a d s i n t h e s a m e f l o o r a n d s o m e k i n d o f i m p l i c i t d e f e n c e m e c h a n i s m o n t h e p a r t o f m e m b e r s o f t h e f e m a l e q u a d s i n h i b i t s m o r e i n t e n s e i n t r a - q u a d s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . A s e c o n d p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n t o t h i s i s t h a t p r o b a b l y t h e r e a r e l i m i t s o f s i z e f o r e v e r y g r o u p ( O s m o n d , 1 9 6 5 ) w h e t h e r t h e y a r e s h a r i n g a f l o o r l o u n g e , k i t c h e n e t t e , w a s h r o o m , e l e v a t o r o r a n y c o m m o n f a c i l i t i e s e t c . b e y o n d w h i c h f r i e n d s h i p s d o h o t f o r m ( H e i l w e i l , 1 9 7 3 ) . T h i r d , t h e c o m m o n f a c i l i t i e s s h a r e d i n t h e i n d i v i d u a l q u a d m a y h a v e b e e n d e s i g n e d a n d d e v e l o p e d s o e f f i c i e n t l y a n d a d e q u a t e l y t h a t t h e r e s i d e n t s f e e l s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t a n d t h e r e f o r e i n d e p e n d e n t o f n e e d f o r s o c i a l s u p p o r t ' f r o m m e m b e r s o f o t h e r q u a d s . I t i s a l s o t r u e t h a t a h i g h l y i n d e p e n d e n t s u i t e e n v i r o n m e n t e n c o u r a g e s r e s i d e n t s t o r e m a i n u n a w a r e , u n c o n c e r n e d , u n i n v o l v e d , a n d s o c ; p ; w h a t c a l l o u s o f t h e f e e l i n g s o f o t h e r s . T h e c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e d e s i g n o f t h e t y p i c a l s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t q u a d i n t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e i s t h a t i t m a k e s t h e r e s i d e n t s l o o k i n w a r d . A l t h o u g h a t y p i c a l G a g e r e s i d e n t i s s h a r i n g w i t h a s m a n y a s 1200 i n t h i s e n t i r e r e s i d e n c e , h e i s a c t u a l l y l i v i n g i n a s m a l l g r o u p s e t t i n g r e s t r i c t e d o n l y t o s i x m e m b e r s . A l t h o u g h t h e G a g e r e s i d e n t s h a v e s c o r e d h i g h o n i n v o l v e m e n t a n d e m o t i o n a l s u p p o r t , t h e d e s i g n o f t h e q u a d r a n t o r f l o o r i n t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e d o e s n o t p r o v i d e r e s i d e n t s e i t h e r o p p o r t u n i t y o r m o t i v a t i o n t o p a r t i c i p a t e o r s o c i a l l y i n v o l v e t h e m s e l v e s s o c i a l l y w i t h n e i g h b o u r s o u t s i d e h i s o w n q u a d , w h o m h e a p p a r e n t l y s e e s a n d t r e a t s a s m e r e s t r a n g e r s . T h i s i s a t y p i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f o u n d i n a p a r t m e n t l i f e s t y l e s . I t m a y t h u s b e s a i d t h a t t h e d e s i g n h a s g r e a t l y i n h i b i t e d t h e d e s i r a b l e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a m o n g t h e r e s i d e n t s . L a c k o f O p p o r t u n i t y o f L a r g e G r o u p I n t e r a c t i o n T h e r e s p o n d a n t s h a v e f u r t h e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t a m o n g t h e t h i n g s m o s t m i s s e d i n t h e G a g e R e s i d e n e e a r e t h e l a r g e c e n t r a l . d i n i n g h a l l s a n d c a n t e e n s w h i c h p r o v i d e t h e m w i t h l a r g e r g r o u p s e t t i n g s a n d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o e n a b l e t h e m t o m e e t n e w f a c e s a n d m a k e n e w f r i e n d s f r o m o t h e r q u a d s o r f l o o r s , . M a n y G a g e r e s i d e n t s w o u l d b e h a p p y t o f i n d a n a l t e r n a t i v e t o t h e i r p r e s e n t m o n o t o n o u s l i f e w i t h t h e s a m e g r o u p o f p e o p l e , i n t h e i r q u a d s d a y - i n d a y - o u t f o r o n e w h o l e y e a r . T h i s c o n f i r m s t h e . e a r l y p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e q u a d r e s i d e n t s b a d l y m i s s a c o m m o n a r e a o f i n t e r m e d -i a t e ( m e d i u m o r l a r g e ) s i z e , w i t h o v e r l a p p i n g f u n c t i o n s a n d a c h o i c e o f 126 amenities to provide them a forum of a l t e r n a t i v e s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n supplemaitory to t h e i r own quads. The unfortunate closure of the c o f f e e shop at the common block (which was once the only venue f o r large group or mass i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the residence) has severely emphasized the need of some such f a c i l i t i e s . The author was reminded of the huge t r a f f i c that i t used to generate around the presently quiet and l i f e l e s s main lobby and how j o y f u l , busy and l i v e l y atmosphere used to p r e v a i l when the coffee shop remained open. The students who l a s t l i v e d i n other on-campus residences mentioned i n t h e i r responses how much they were missing the pleasurable experiences of common dining h a l l s , f l o o r hockey and the k i n d of s o c i a l climate favourable to g e t t i n g to know more pe.ople. Design and Student Organisation: The high structure-density and the design layout of v e r t i c a l l y s t r a t -i f i e d structures have i t s i m p l i c a t i o n f o r the Residence A s s o c i a t i o n or student org a n i s a t i o n i t s e l f , which i s d i s t i n c t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from other on campus student accommodations. In other student residences on campus, student associations are governed by Main Student Council, I n d i v i d u a l Council F l o o r representatives. In Gage Residence although each f l o o r i s considered as a separate administrative unit under the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of one f l o o r representative, students form 4 d i s t i n c t independent non-cohesive groups or c l u s t e r s on each f l o o r . No t r a d -i t i o n a l student c o u n c i l l i k e other student residences has developed i n t h i s group of residences except a Student L i a i s o n Committee who are entrusted with some administrative r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s . I t i s composed of two e l e c t e d representatives from each tower, one from low-rise and 4 members at large. I t s function i s to serve as a l i a i s o n between the 127. administration and the students. Apart from i t , there i s a S o c i a l and Sports Committee which organises a l l the r e c r e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s . Leadership and h e l p f u l assistance are provided by s i x appointed s i n g l e 'dons' or house advisors (one male and one female residence s t a f f to each tower, working d i r e c t l y under t h e i r s i n g l e Area-Coordinator, a l l appointed by the D i r e c t o r of Residences. A l l representative groups functioning i n residence meet on a s i n g l e student residence advisory committee to discuss the p a r t i c u l a r problems encountered i n an area. E f f e c t of Structure Density: Although the population on each f l o o r i s quite low (N=24) the o v e r a l l population i s as high as 388 (on an average) per tower s t r u c t u r e . This i s much higher than the other residences on campus ( i n Totem Park i t i s 200 and i n Place Vanier 100). T h i s makes i t v i r t u a l l y impossible f o r any Gage resident to recognise everyone l i v i n g i n the same tower, not to speak of maintaining f r i e n d s h i p with everyone. I t i s p o s s i b l e that the l a r g e r capacity^scale of the p r o j e c t , may create a f e e l i n g of crowdedness among the residents and consequently severely l i m i t t h e i r urge or motivation of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n or i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The researcher draws an analogy to Milgram's concept of s t i m u l a t i o n overload (1970) i n s t i g a t i n g people to withdraw during high-density urban l i v i n g . This i s also analogous to William Whyte's d i s cussion(1950) o f ' t e t r e a t i s t privatism' as a response to mass and a l i e n a t i n g s o c i e t y . In such a r e a c t i o n , s u r v i v a l depends not upon commitment to s o c i a l : involvement.inside residence but avoidance-of i t altogether. However, residents have scored high on involvement and emotional support subscales (or) URES). They have a l s o perceived a l l 128 the a r c h i t e c t u r a l a t t r i b u t e s s i m i l a r to the other studies on low density student residences i n USA, with higher degree of mutual t r u s t and helping behavior. As such, density does not seem to play any r o l e . Rather, the design could be s a i d to i n h i b i t the d e s i r a b l e degree of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n among the residents. The o v e r a l l v e r t i c a l s t r u c t u r e - with seventeen f l o o r s , each phys-i c a l l y separated, stacked one over the other, (connected only by two windowless s t a i r w e l l s and two elevators) — f u r t h e r imposes severe l i m i t -ations on i n t r a - f l o o r s o c i a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y or i n t e r a c t i o n . The author's informal observation i n t h i s residence conforms with that of Sim Van der Ryn and S i l v e r s t e i n (1967) that the f l o o r d i v i s i o n s of the Gage Residence have influenced i t s residents to maintain a nod l i n e beyond which residents do not f e e l obliged to exchange greetings or get to know each other. In h i s book }"Defensible Space", (1972), Oscar Newman exhibited a dramatic and p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the height of the p u b l i c housing projects and crime. According to him, persons i n low-density housing can observe and f e e l more p r o t e c t i v e of t h e i r property. P o s s i b l y , the lack of desirable i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s among Gage residents may i n d i r e c t l y help f o s t e r i n g increased crime i n future. The U n i v e r s i t y housing authority declines to assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e c u r i t y beyond normal provisions and expects students to assume part r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s e c u r i t y . As noted i n the " r e s u l t s " , Gage residents reportedly would not a l e r t a u t h o r i t i e s i f they observed an instance of vandalism-or def i c i e n c y needing c o r r e c t i o n . Conceivably the design i t s e l f might be held responsible f o r such consequences that may emerge i n future. 129. I n s u m m a r y , t h e d r a b o v e r a l l m o n o t o n y o f s t e r o t y p e d d e s i g n o f i n d i v i d u a l q u a d s , w h i c h f o s t e r t h e i d e n t i c a l l i f e s t y l e w i t h i n i t , h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v i d e r e s i d e n t s w i t h w a r m t h , c o m p l e x i t y a n d v a r i e t y o f s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t , ( S e a t o n , 1973). I t a l s o d o e s n o t e n c o u r a g e t h e d i v e r s i t y o f g r o u p - e n c o u n t e r s n o r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f ^ u n p l a n n e d b u t m e a n i n g f u l e n c o u n t e r s w i t h e a c h o t h e r . T h e ~ d e s i g n d o e s n o t p r o v i d e a n y s p e c i f i c a l l y d e f i n e d s p a c e f o r r e s i d e n t s t o f a c i l i t a t e s o c i a l g e t t o g e t h e r o r a c c o m m o d a t e s i m i l a r o v e r l a p p i n g o f i n f o r m a l s o c i a l o c c a s i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s i n t e r g r a t e d w i t h i n d i v i d u a l q u a d s . A l t h o u g h s t u d e n t s a r e c o m p l a c e n t w i t h t h e i r q u a d s ' p h y s i c a l d e s i g n o f c o m f o r t a n d c o n v e n i e n c e , t h e a b s e n c e o f a n y a l t e r n a t i v e m e e t i n g a r e a s w i t h i n e a c h f l o o r o r b e t w e e n t h e m e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e b y a l l t h e q u a d s ' m e m b e r s s e e m s t o g e n e r a t e i n t h e G a g e c o m p l e x a s t e r i l e a n d f o r m a l s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t c o n s i s t i n g o f i n n u m e r a b l e s e l f - o r i e n t e d , c l o s e d c o m m u n i t i t e s w i t h i n i n d i v i d u a l q u a d s ' i s o l a t e d f r o m e a c h o t h e r : T h i s i s v e r y s i m i l a r t o a p a r t m e n t s t y l e l i v i n g . F i n d i n g s i n t h e s t u d y o f t h i s - r e s i d e n c e g i v e s u b s t a n c e t o c r i t i c i s m o f t h e w e a k n e s s i n t h e s o c i a l g r o u p i n g c o n c e p t , a s p r o n o u n c e d i n t h e h i e r a r c h y o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n m a i n t a i n e d i n t h e e n t i r e d e s i g n o f t h i s r e s i d e n c e . A s r e g a r d s t h e t y p i c a l a p a r t m e n t s t y l e o f i n d i v i d u a l ^ s e l f -o r i e n t e d l i v i n g w h i c h t h e d e s i g n h a s f o s t e r e d n o o n e w i l l a r g u e a b o u t i t s f u n c t i o n a l c o n v e n i e n c e o r t h e p h y s i o l o g i c a l s a t i s f a c t i o n . - . . ^ - B u t i f t h e o b j e c t i v e o f J t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l d e s i g n w a s t o c r e a t e a s o c i a l e n v i r o n -m e n t t o a c c o m m o d a t e a h a p p y , h o m o g e n e o u s s t u d e n t c o m m u n i t y w i t h i n t h e e n t i r e c o m p l e x , t h e n t h e d e s i g n m a y b e c a s t i g a t e d a s f a r f r o m s u c c e s s f u l . W i t h r e g a r d t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e s i z e o f t h e q u a d ( i . e . n o . o f r o o m s p e r q u a d ) t h e a u t h o r m a i n t a i n s t h a t t h e u n i t s i z e w a s the outcome of economic compromise between the four roomed s u i t e (most ideal) and the eight roomed one (most economic). Probably i t was determined with the o b j e c t i v e to minimize the c a p i t a l cost as w e l l as the operational cost. Hence i n reply to the user's complaints to the inadequacies of the f i x t u r e s , i n k i t c h e n , lounge or washrooms i t could be s a i d that a l l these were determined as a matter of p o l i c y d e c i s i o n and that the a r c h i t e c t alone was not to b e c r i t i c i s e d i ^ B u t s p e c i f i c a l l y , a key d e f i c i e n c y of the design of the f l o o r s i s the encapsulation of the f l o o r lobby i n a windowless space r e l i e v e d only by the e l e v a t o r aperture. Aside from being a staging area,the lobby on each f l o o r has no f u n c t i o n . I t forces residents from the four quads i n t o uncomfortably loud encounters j u s t as elevators usually do. On contrast, the lobby serving the quads on each f l o o r could have been designed as f u n c t i o n a l space i n a number of ways; f o r instance, by allowing f o r quiet study niches, by allowing f o r a r e f r i g e r a t o r and sinks f o r beverage s e r v i c e or (perhaps) by allowing f o r a small games area and/or a'sunning'or porch area. These and other devices could have created a second l e v e l of organisation to complement the quad, to a l l e v i a t e the monopoly of the quad over the students' access to support f a c i l i t i e s and to provide a b i t of common ground f o r exchange and cooper-a t i o n between quads and i n t e r a c t i o n between f l o o r s . This argument would suggest that rather than a quadrangle, a pentagon might be a more reasonable format f o r a four-quad, h i g h - r i s e tower, where the f i f t h s i d e i s reserved f o r a t t r a c t i v e floor-common space. 131. SATISFACTION t • Homogeneity of Subjects: . I f c l a s s , economic s t a t u s , age, occupation, education, f a m i l y back-ground, stage of l i f e c y c l e and m a r i t a l s t a t u s are commonly accepted t o be the s o c i a l o g i c a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n s , then from the l i m i t e d data on j h a n d . i t appears t o e x i s t a marked homogeneity among the Gage r e s i d e n t s . They i n general a l s o are h i g h l y homogeneous along the dimensions of .. i n t e r e s t s , academic a s p i r a t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s towards the community i n which they l i v e d . As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , they are a l l of l e g a l age, mature and s e n i o r students than general run of s t u d e n t s . l i v i n g i n other t r a d i t i o n a l l y designed student residences on campus. T h i s h i g h degree of homogeneity among the Gage r e s i d e n t s c o n t r i b u t i n g the p a t t e r n of l i f e w i t h i n the residence has helped t o promote a more or l e s s s a t i s f i e d s o c i a l atmosphere of c o n j e n i a l community. The o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t o r y s o c i a l - l i f e w i t h i n t h i s residence i s expected to be mainly due to t h i s o v e r a l l homogeneity among i t s student p o p u l a t i o n . However, s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h l i v i n g seems to a l a r g e extent a r e f l e c t i o n of one's socio-economic/ c u l t u r a l background, one's b e l i e f , v a l u e s , and sentiments, one's l e v e l of a s p i r a t i o n , and one's environmental d i s p o s i t i o n (McKenzie, 1970). I t has to withlone's degree of involvement w i t h l a r g e r social-'order, system w i t h normative b e h a v i o r p a t t e r n s and r u l e s f o r acceptable and p r e s c r i b e d conduct l a i d out by the A u t h o r i t y of the U n i v e r s i t y . According to W i l l i a m Michelson (1970) people evaluate housing w i t h d i f f e r e n t y a r d s t i c k s a c c o r d i n g to the type I of housing, whereas according t o Y i - F u Tuan (1973);the way.a person evaluates j h i s p h y s i c a l environment i s determines by the socioeconomic and p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s and formal education ( a l s o Rapoport, 1969). The survey r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that student s a t i s f a c t i o n or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n -132. with any p a r t i c u l a r aspect of a r c h i t e c t u r a l design of t h i s student residence d i d not a f f e c t t h e . o v e r a l l s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i v i n g i n t h i s residence. Although crampedness was i d e n t i f i e d as the most-often quoted negative aspect as i d e n t i f i e d by a majority of re s i d e n t s , no s i n g l e a r c h i t e c t u r a l aspect or group of v a r i a b l e s stood out as the p a r t i c u l a r cause of residents' s a t i s f a c t i o n or source of discontent with ~ l i v i n g i n th i s residence. The respondents of t h i s survey seem to maintain mixed f e e l i n g s with regard to l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n with l i v i n g i n Gage Residence. Although a majority of the subjects are s a t i s f i e d with i t , they expressed many complaints through t h e i r responses. A majority of respondents seem to have made a kin d of trade o f f with many factors of consideration before moving in t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r residence. They seem to have welcomed many odds i n return of proximity to U n i v e r s i t y , convenience and economy. They were also required to undergo a s u b s t a n t i a l degree of environmental adaptation a f t e r they a r r i v e d . A remark by one female respondent c l e a r l y exemplified i t . She wrote: The trend here I f e e l i s toward shallow r e l a t i o n s h i p s where most people are t r y i n g to impress others and win arguments rather than to care about other people's f e e l i n g s and respect t h e i r d i f f e r e n t opinions. I t seems impossible to grow any strong f r i e n d s h i p s between people (who weren't f r i e n d s to begin with). In s p i t e of a l l t h i s she concluded by saying that, "although some people around here may appear to be a l i t t l e cold and u n f r i e n d l y and inconsiderate at times, I'd rather l i v e here, close to f a c i l i t i e s and people, than l i v e off-campus i n an apartment away from other students and where I'd have to r e l y on buses f o r trans p o r t a t i o n . " • The author maintains that the q u a l i t y of the a r c h i t e c t u r a l designed e n v i r o n m e n t c a n n o t b e t h e s o l e b a s i s o f u s e r s ' s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h l i v i n g i n i t . T h e s e n e e d s m u s t b e i n c o r p o r a t e d w i t h . o t h e r v a r i a b l e s , l i k e f a v o u r a b l e s o c i a l a n d c u l t u r a l s y s t e m n e t w o r k p r e v a i l i n g w i t h i n t h e b u i l d i n g . H e r b e r t G a n s ( 1 9 6 8 ) h a s a r g u e d t h a t : T h e p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t i s r e l e v a n t t o b e h a v i o r i n s o f a r a s t h i s e n v i r o n m e n t a f f e c t s t h e s o c i a l s y s t e m a n d c u l t u r e o f t h e p e o p l e i n v o l v e d o r a s i t i s t a k e n u p i n t o t h e i r s o c i a l s y s t e m . B e t w e e n — t h e p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t a n d e m p i r i c a l l y o b s e r v a b l e h u m a n b e h a v i o r , t h e r e e x i s t s a s o c i a l s y s t e m a n d a s e t o f c u l t u r a l n o r m s w h i c h d e f i n e a n d e v a l u a t e p o r t i o n s o f t h e p h y s i c a l e n v i r o n m e n t r e l e v a n t t o l i v e s o f p e o p l e i n v o l v e d a n d s t r u c t u r e . T h e w a y p e o p l e w i l l u s e ( a n d ' r e a c t t o ) t h i s e n v i r o n m e n t i n t h e i r d a i l y l i v e s . W i l l i a m H a y t h o r n ( 1 9 7 0 ) o b s e r v e d t h a t " h a b i t a b i l i t y " i s c o n s i d e r e d t o b e a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h a n e n v i r o n m e n t f a c i l i t a t e s o r a v o i d s f r u s t r a t i n g , t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f i t s o c c u p a n t s n e e d s , w h e t h e r t h e s e n e e d s a r e b i o l o g i c a l , p s y c h o l o g i c a l o r s o c i a l i n n a t u r e . H e i d e n t i f i e d t h a t i f n e e d s a t i s f a c t i o n i s a n i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r i n a s s e s s i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l h a b i t a b i l i t y , a l o g i c a l q u e s t i o n t o a s k i s w h a t a r e i t h e n e e d s o f m a n ? A h i e r a r c h i c a l f r a m e w o r k f o r v i e w i n g n e e d - s a t i s f a c t i o n h a s b e e n o f f e r e d b y A b r a h a m M a s l o w ( 1 9 4 3 ) w h i c h i s m o s t - c o m p r e h e n s i v e a n d o r d e r e d t o . d a t e . H e s u g g e s t s t h a t a h i e r a r c h y o f h u m a n n e e d s e x i s t s a n d t h a t p e o p l e a r e m o t i v a t e d t o f u l f i l l o w e r l e v e l n e e d s ( i . e . b a s i c a n d s t r o n g e r n e e d s ) t h a t p r e c e d e s n e e d s o f h i g h e r l e v e l o n e . I n o t h e r w o r d s t h e f r u s t r a t i o n o f f u l f i l l i n g p h y s i o l o g i c a l n e e d s r e d u c e s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f s u c h h i g h l e v e l n e e d s . a s a e s t h e t i c o r i n t e l l e c t u a l c u r i o -s i t y . H a s l o w ' s h i e r a r c h y i n d e s c e n d i n g o r d e r i s a s f o l l o w s : 1 . P h y s i o l o g i c a l n e e d s a r e l i k e h u n g e r , f a t i g u e , t h i r s t a n d s e x . 2 . S a f e t y a n d S e c u r i t y n e e d s , a r e l i k e s e c u r i t y a n d p r o t e c t i o n f r o m p h y s i c a l a n d p h y s i o l o g i c a l h a r m . 3 . A f f i l i a t i o n a n d B e l o n g i n g n e e d s , s u c h a s a f f e c t i o n a n d b e l o n g i n g n e s s . T h o s e w h i c h c o n c e r n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f r e s p o n s i v e o r l o v e , a f f e c t i o n a t e and authoritive needs. 4. Esteem needs, or those desires of an individual to be held i n high evaluation by self and others. 5. Self-actualisation needs, representing the desire to f u l f i l l one's total capacities. 6. Cognitive and Aesthetic needs, such as the thirst for knowledge or the desire for beauty. While this classification i s a very simplified modification which may vary considerably, according to individual person, or class i n a same community or country, i t does provide a basis for the sequence of need satisfaction. It i s clear from Mas low's model that a l l people are motivated to f u l f i l l a l l these needs, but i n real world, different people's needs at any particular time are focused at different levels i n a hierarchy. Substitution may occur i n the middle level as people sac r i f i c i n g i n one domain in order to excel i n another but not at the lower level. It i s aJso, clear from this model that i t i s impossible to state that a particular design meets a particular client group's needs, because as soon as one level of needs is f u l f i l l e d , the perception of needs shifts to a higher level. However, i n view of the apparent homogeniety of student population residing i n this residence the author realises that Maslow's theory could be tested i n this research. From an architect's point-of-view, i t i s highly suggestive as to what variables might be particularly important to a certain client group, as a l l of these levels of motivation have some correlates i n terms of environmental needs. Maslow's hierarchy may be applied to identify potential measures of need frustration and sources of frustration among the Gage residents. The individual i s the smallest identifiable unit related to need sat i s -faction. The physiological and psychological characteristics of the i n d i v i d u a l s e l f w i l l d e t e r m i n e i n p a r t t h e s t r e n g t h o f d i f f e r e n t n e e d s a n d n a t u r e o f t h e r e q u i r e d s a t i s f i e d . N e x t l e v e l o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f s a t i s f a c t i o n i s t h a t o f t h e i m m e d i a t e l a r g e r g r o u p w i t h i n w h i c h a n i n d i v i d u a l l i v e s . T o i m p l y M a s l o w ' s c o n c e p t i n a r c h i t e c t u r e , p r e s u m a b l y , 1 . P h y s i o l o g i c a l n e e d s m a y b e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h n e e d s f o r b a s i c c o m f o r t a n d c o n v e n i e n c e i n a - s h e l t e r . 2 . S a f e t y n e e d s m a y b e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h s u c h t h i n g s a s t h e a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t o n e s e l f , r e t a i n s t a b i l i t y / m o b i l i t y t o r e d u c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t h r e a t e n i n g b e h a v i o r f r o m o t h e r s . 3 . A f f i l i a t i o n a n d B e l o n g i n g n e e d s a r e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e t y p e s o f s p a t i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n t h a t f o s t e r s p o s i t i v e i n t e r a c t i o n ( l o v e , a c c e p t a n c e a n d s e l f - i d e n t i t y ) a m o n g m e m b e r s o f a g r o u p . 4 . E s t e e m n e e d s a r e c o r r e l a t e d w i t h t h e t y p e s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l i m a g e r y t h a t e x p r e s s o n e ' s i d e n t i t y a n d s o c i a l p o s i t i o n ( s t a t u s ) a m o n g o t h e r m e m b e r s . 5 . S e l f - A c t u a l i s a t i o n n e e d s c o r r e l a t e w i t h o n e ' s f e e l i n g o f u s e f u l n e s s , m o t i v a t i o n , n e e d , a b i l i t i e s a n d i n t e r e s t s ; i t i s a l s o r e l a t e d t o r o l e , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h t h e g r o u p m e m b e r s . 6 . A e s t h e t i c n e e d s , c o r r e l a t e w i t h t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o l e a r n a n d t h e e n j o y m e n t o f s u c h t h i n g s a s e d u c a t i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n o r i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r i t s o w n s a k e . I t c a n b e a r g u e d t h a t t h e g o a l o f d e s i g n i s t o m e e t t h e s e n e e d s t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e i r b e h a v i o r a l m a n i f e s t a t i o n s a r e a f f e c t e d b y t h e l a y o u t o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a n d i t s s y m b o l i s m . T h e r e a s o n i s s i m p l y t h a t i f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t i s u n r e s p o n s i v e t o h u m a n n e e d s , t h e n i t w i l l b e u n u s e d i f p o t e n t i a l u s e r s h a v e a c h o i c e . I f n o c h o i c e i s a v a i l a b l e , t h e n a s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n w i l l b e c r e a t e d . T h i s s t r e s s c a n b e e i t h e r p h y s i o l o g i c a l o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l , d e p e n d i n g o n t h e n e e d b e i n g f r u s t r a t e d . C a n a d i a n p h y s i o l o g i s t D r . H a n s S c l y e ( 1 9 5 6 ) s u g g e s t s t h a t there are three stages i n an organism's response to s t r e s s - the alarm r e a c t i o n , r e s i s t a n c e and exhaustion. . The psy c h o l o g i c a l manifestations of alarm are anger and fea r , of re s i s t a n c e i s coping procedures and of exhaustion, i s psychosis. While there i s l i t t l e evidence that the a r c h i t e c t u r a l environment of the Gage Residence i n i t s e l f has ever created such a s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n that residents have reached the exhaustion stage, manifestations of the f i r s t two types of response are observed r e l a t i v e l y more prevalent. Students' p h y s i o l o g i c a l , s o c i a l and psy c h o l o g i c a l needs are not, of course, confined only to residence l i f e , since they can be s a t i s f i e d e l s e -where; but residences provide a s p e c i a l s e t t i n g f o r t h e i r expression. Some of these needs are met by the design and equipment of the b u i l d i n g , others are met through the str u c t u r e of s o c i a l o r g a n i s a t i o n . In pr a c t i c e , the two structures a f f e c t one another and are impossible to separate. The main l i m i t a t i o n to the design of the Gage Residence l i e s i n i t s i n a b i l i t y to provide i t s occupants with d i v e r s i t y of residence form and a t t r a c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s e t t i n g of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n outside the quads. Also the design program has not recognised the aspect of major i n d i v i d u a l d i fferences•. i n the way d i f f e r e n t student residents perceive, symbolically think about and s p a t i a l l y behave or react i n a p h y s i c a l environment. The motivational aspect of human behavior i s a complex f u n c t i o n of man's in t e n t i o n s . This outcome i s l i k e l y due to over emphasis on g e n e r a l i s a t i o n of users' standardization of the s u i t e concept r e s u l t i n g i n a monotonous and s o c i a l l y s t e r i l e environment. This has f u r t h e r r e s u l t e d i n an extraordinary lack of i n d i v i d u a l choice f o r the res i d e n t s , and severely l i m i t e d students' d i g n i t y and personal i d e n t i t y . Thus the author doubts i f the design of t h i s Gage Residence has been able to r e s o l v e s u c c e s s f u l l y t h e c o n f l i c t b e t w e e n t h e u n i f o r m i t y , c o n s e q u e n t i n m a s s h o u s i n g , a n d t h e s t u d e n t r e s i d e n t s ' n e e d f o r v a r i a t i o n a n d o p t i o n s . I m p l i c i t i n t h e p h y s i c a l s t a n d a r d i s a t i o n i s t h e h u m a n s t a n d a r d i s -a t i o n . . T h e n o t i o n t h a t a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d i n t h e d e s i g n p r o g r a m m e t h a t e v e r y s t u d e n t i s a t y p i c a l s t u d e n t c a n n o t b e s u p p o r t e d e i t h e r . C o n s e q u e n t l y , e v e r y o n e g e t s t h e i d e n t i c a l l y d e s i g n e d r o o m , q u a d l o u n g e / k i t c h e n e t t e , f u r n i s h i n g s , d e s i g n a n d c o l o u r o f l i n e n , b e d d i n g s , r u g s a n d c u r t a i n s , f u r n i t u r e , l i g h t i n g f i x t u r e s , i n a l l 1 2 0 0 r o o m s u n d e r t h e a p p a r e n t a s s u m p t i o n t h a t a l l s t u d e n t s a n d s t u d e n t a c t i v i t i e s a r e t h e s a m e o r t h a t s t u d e n t s c a n s u c c e s s f u l l y a d a p t t h e i r d i v e r s i t y t o a s t e r e o -t y p e d d e s i g n s o l u t i o n . M o d e r n i t y a n d m a s s t r e a t m e n t i n t h e d e s i g n h a s a l s o b r o u g h t r i g i d i t y t o t h e r e g u l a t i o n o f a c t i v i t i e s a s w e l l a s s o c i a l b e h a v i o r , o n e o f t h e d i l e m m a s o f m o d e r n l i f e a r e e x a m p l i f i e d i n t h i s d e s i g n . T h e d i s c u s s i o n c a n b e a p t l y c o n c l u d e d b y q u o t i n g R e n e D u b o s ' ( 1 9 6 5 ) p r o p h e t i c w a r n i n g a g a i n s t t h e l o n g t e r m a d v e r s e e f f e c t o f s t a n d a r d i s a t i o n a n d u n i f o r m i t y i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e s i g n . A c c o r d i n g t o h i m : C u l t u r a l h o m o g e n i s a t i o n a n d s o c i a l r e g i m e n t a t i o n r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e c r e e p i n g m o n o t o n y o f t e c h n o l o g i c a l c u l t u r e , s t a n d a r i s e d p a t t e r n s o f e d u c a t i o n a n d m a s s c o m m u n i c a t i o n w i l l m a k e i t p r o g r e s s i v e l y m o r e d i f f i c u l t t o e x p l o i t f u l l y t h e b i o l o g i c a l r i c h n e s s o f o u r s p e c i e s a n d m a y c o n s t i t u t e a t h r e a t t o t h e s u r v i v a l o f c i v i l i s a t i o n . W e m u s t s h u n u n i f o r m i t y o f s u r r o u n d i n g s a s m u c h a s a b s o l u t e c o n f o r m i t y o f b e h a v i o r a n d t a s k s s t r i v e t o c r e a t e d i v e r s i f i e d e n v i r o n m e n t s R i c h n e s s a n d d i v e r s i t y o f s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t c o n s t i t u t e s a n e s s e n t i a l c r i t e r i o n o f f u n c t i o n a l i s m , w h e t h e r i n t h e p l a n n i n g o f c i t i e s , t h e d e s i g n o f d w e l l i n g s , o r t h e m a n a g e m e n t o f i n d i v i d u a l l i f e . . . Y o u n g p e o p l e r a i s e d i n a f e a t u r e l e s s e n v i r o n m e n t a n d l i m i t e d t o a n a r r o w r a n g e o f l i v i n g e x p e r i e n c e s , a r e l i k e l y t o s u f f e r f r o m a k i n d o f d e p r i v a t i o n t h a t w i l l c r i p p l e t h e m i n t e l l e c t u a l l y a n d e m o t i o n a l l y . 138. Student Residence Designed with Suites i s not the Ultimate S o l u t i o n : There i s no one kind of s o l u t i o n to student housing, because there i s no one k i n d of student. There can be no s i n g l e i d e a l design f o r housing generated to please everyone. There can be no such design panacea f o r an optimal study and l i v i n g environment to s u i t a l l students. D i f f e r e n t kinds of students have d i f f e r e n t needs, values, and a s p i r a t i o n s . — (Mullians and Allen 1; 1971). The f a c t o r of i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s , between occupants must be -, given prime consideration i n the design of dormitory. For example, graduate students tend to be "loners" i n t h e i r study patterns and work ha b i t s . The same i s the case with f o r e i g n students. Conversely, students i n the j u n i o r years tend to be more gregarious as to them, emergence of f r i e n d s h i p or comradeship i s more important. Because of t h i s , the same f a c i l i t i e s can not s a t i s f y everyone. This becomes p a r t i c u l a r l y relevant when the accommodation i s o f f e r e d to students of various kinds belonging to a v a r i e t y of academic d i s c i p l i n e s and s e n i o r i t y . The student should be given the chance to meet h i s i n d i v i d u a l needs through a combination of s e l e c t i o n and adaptation. The students want the chance to choose from a v a r i e t y of p o s s i b l e options. The a r c h i t e c t should provide a range of a l t e r n a t i v e s i n the program and the design of student housing. • The system of s u i t e s provided i n the Walter Gage Residences has many p o t e n t i a l advantages to o f f e r to students. However, t h i s survey shows that t h i s i s not a s o l u t i o n to every student's s o c i a l and r e s i d e n t i a l problems. While the suites a f f o r d t h e i r residents more small group s e t t i n g , privacy and independence than t r a d i t i o n a l l y - d e s i g n e d dormitories, they also i n t e n s i f y the problems of coordination w i t h i n the s u i t e group. The successful suite-living requires close cooperation, communication and consideration. A most frequently mentioned problem i n l i v i n g i n suites i s the d i f f i c u l t y of adjusting to five different personalities (Corbet 1973). Several complaints have been received from the respondents that they had gotten in with the wrong set of quad-mates or that they did not get along at a l l with the other five quad-mates and because of this, were, of course, feeling very unhappy. It can well be imagined how oppresive one might feel i f he or she was having some problems of adjustment with his or her quad mates. In the Gage Residence i f one really faces trouble with adjustment, feels bored or i s fed up with seeing and co-living with the same five faces within a quad,day-in and day-out for one academic year, one is l e f t with no other alternative, except withdrawing altogether from the residences. As Corbett observed: It takes only one un-cooperative individual to make suite-living less than pleasant. If one is messy, (five) others must l i v e with the mess. If one has a stereo and ten boisterous friends, a l l (five) w i l l be subjected to the noise, interruption and confusion, and ... they are intensified i n a suite where residents are l i v i n g i n closer proximity ... The degree of privacy achieved w i l l depend upon the kinds of customs that are established for use of the space. Some groups of students w i l l have success i n making a suite livable, others w i l l not (p. 416). Data on the present study supports the conclusion that i f students are l i v i n g in a suite because they chose that alternative or came to l i v e with mutually chosen suite mates, or have succeeded in adjusting with a majority of suite mates, the chances of their satisfaction is l i k e l y to be high. It can also be concluded that while this type of student residence may be the desirable housing alternative for some, suites are not the only answer to every students' housing need but should be an option available only to those who desire i t . Suites can bring the best and worst of apartment l i v i n g . CHAPTER VI 140. EPILOGUE The researcher has made an e f f o r t to i d e n t i f y the major p i t f a l l s that beset the design p r o f e s s i o n a l ; the most common one i s properly i d e n t i f i e d by Sim Van der Ryne and M. S i l v e r s t e i n (1967): There i s no feedback channel between planning assumptions and b u i l d -ing use. E x i s t i n g f a c i l i t i e s have not yet been systematically evaluated to determine whether they are e f f e c t i v e l y the kind of environment students want and need. Few a r c h i t e c t s have attempted to understand and i n t e r p r e t the p h y s i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s of changing patterns of student l i v i n g (p. 6). This study i s a preliminary attempt to f u l f i l the need of design evalu-a t i o n on the basis of users' response and s e l f assessment. Hopefully, others w i l l recognize and respond to the urgent need for such evaluation studies. At l e a s t the research should make design p r o f e s s i o n a l s aware about the importance of preparing design programs t a i l o r e d to users' needs and preferences. Administrators, users' committee and design p r o f e s s i o n a l s also might b e n e f i t from the lessons learned through hind-s i g h t , when c l a r i f y i n g any future design program on student housing. A f a i r l y comprehensive review of the Univ e r s i t y ' s housing goals and objectives needs to be undertaken p e r i o d i c a l l y , and t h i s can only occur against a background of systematic evaluation of the e f f i c a c y of past housing p r o j e c t s and p o l i c i e s . An e s t a b l i s h e d feed-back channel between design assumptions and b u i l d i n g use i s imperative. In that respect t h i s study on design evaluation i s a humble beginning. Implication f o r Design on A r c h i t e c t u r a l Education: I f a r c h i t e c t u r a l design of student housing i s to be e f f e c t i v e , i t i s 141. essential that design goals should stem f i r s t from identifying the poten-t i a l users, then ascertain their needs, desires, and specific sets of behavior. It i s those who are affected by the buildings who should be given saliency in design programs. Given their present training and education, architects are the best professionals available to design the perceived portion of most of our built environment (Izumi, 1965). The remaining years of this century w i l l see more new construction than that existing on this planet ir. 1975. In order to f u l f i l their responsibility, architects must be well-acquainted with behavioral research methods, to develop sensitivity to users and be able to communicate in the language of the users rather than in the pro-fessionals' jargon. To quote John Collins (1969): No j u s t i f i c a t i o n exists for the designer to discard his professional jargon, but certainly the need does exist for the designer to main-tain familiarity with the vocabulary of the user. What does the user seek as the standards for the building? How should i t function? How shall i t s function improve on existing structure . . .? There is thus need to modify architectural education to f a c i l i t a t e the future architects' understanding of users' knowledge and perception of the designed environment. This has been urged by Robert Hershberger (EDRA 1, 1970 If architects hope to u t i l i s e their media (architecture) to communicate intentions to laymen, they must . . . reorient the architectural education such that the architect i s taught how forms, spaces and the like are interpreted by laymen, as well as by architects so that he can consciously manipulate them in such a way as to successfully communicate with both groups (P- 97)• The combination of architecture and behavioral science allows architectural design solutions that are responsive to behavior. The architect controls some of the environmental factors which affect the human behavior; the behavioral scientist can help architects understand the psychological and sociological impacts of buildings on the people who use them. 1 4 2 . T h e r e i s a n u r g e n t n e e d f o r e i t h e r r e s e a r c h - o r i e n t e d d e s i g n e r s o r a r c h i t e c t u r a l p s y c h o l o g i s t s t o t a k e t h e r o l e o f m i d d l e m a n i n . o r d e r t o b r i d g e t h e g a p b e t w e e n t h e t w o d i s c i p l i n e s . F i r s t , t h e r e s e a r c h e r s h o u l d a c q u a i n t h i m s e l f w i t h t h e b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h m e t h o d s u s e d b y t h e s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s . T h e n h e s h o u l d e x t r a c t d a t a s c i e n t i f i c a l l y a n d l o g i c a l l y a n a l y s e i t i n d e s i g n t e r m s . ( L a n g , B u r n e t t , M o l e s k i & V a c h o n , 1 9 7 4 ) T h u s i f b e h a v i o r a l r e s e a r c h i s t o h a v e a n y i m p a c t o n b u i l t f o r m , t h e n i t s f i n d i n g s m u s t b e o r g a n i z e d i n t h e f o r m t h a t i p r o f e s s i o n a l s c a n r e a d i l y u n d e r s t a n d a n d u s e . T h i s w i l l t a k e t h e f o r m o f a n e x t e n s i o n o f t h e u s e f u l r e s e a r c h d a t a t o t h e d e s i g n e r s , w h o w i l l i n t u r n t r a n s l a t e t h e s e r e s u l t s i n t o t h e m e a n i n g f u l t e r m s o f t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l d e s i g n . 143. LIMITATION OF THE STUDY: This s i n g l e study does not claim to embrace a l l the pos s i b l e aspects of problems remaining wi t h i n t h i s s p e c i f i c example of student residence. In s p i t e of care and precaution, the study suffered from se v e r a l l i m i t -a tions. F i r s t l y , as a foreigner, the researcher faced some communication b a r r i e r . Although generous cooperation was received from the majority of respondents, the author f e l t that some degree of discriminatory bias might have been introduced i n t o the r e s u l t . Success of surveys i s dependent on the cooperation of the respondents. Although the percentage of response was high, some responses were found to be purposely i n s i n c e r e ; some refused to pay due regard to the seriousness of t h i s academic exercise. In some cases, the u n s o l i c i t e d comments were proved to be u s e f u l and encouraging; others were derogatory and malicious. A degree of carelessness and psychological fatigue among respondents might have also been introduced due to the length of the questionnaire (although i t would not have taken more than 15 minutes of time to f i l l o ut). This could have biased the answers as w e l l , p a r t i c u l a r l y during the period pre-ceding December examinations i n t h i s u n i v e r s i t y . The wording and the format of the questionnaire were developed and re f i n e d through " p r e t e s t i n g " as w e l l as approved by the Research Advisor. However, some respondents complained about the anonymity and ambiguity of some questions and sometimes f a i l e d to provide sensible answers. This r e s u l t e d i n some loss of information. I 1 4 4 . T h e s h o r t a n d m o d i f i e d f o r m o f U n i v e r s i t y R e s i d e n c e E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c a l e u s e d t o m e a s u r e s u b j e c t s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e i r s o c i a l c l i m a t e w a s n o t p e r c e i v e d b y e v e r y r e s p o n d e n t u n i f o r m l y . . S o m e r e s p o n d e n t s a n s w e r e d t o i t o n t h e b a s i s o f p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e i r o w n q u a d s o c i a l c l i m a t e x j h i l e o t h e r s r e s p o n d e d o n t h e i r f l o o r a s a w h o l e . T h e r e m i g h t a l s o h a v e b e e n i n -c o n s i s t e n c y i n u s e r s ' s e l f - r a t i n g ( o n t h e s e m a n t i c d i f f e r e n t i a l s c a l e ) o f t h e a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s o f t h e i r r e s i d e n c e e n v i r o n m e n t . T h e s e r a t i n g s w e r e d e p e n d e n t o n h o w o n e i n t e r p r e t e d t h e m e a n i n g o f t h e a r c h i -t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s . I t w o u l d h a v e b e e n d e s i r a b l e t o h a v e h a d s o m e o p p o r t u n i t y t o g i v e i n s t r u c t i o n s b e f o r e h a n d a b o u t t h e e x a c t p r o c e d u r e o f f i l l i n g i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s w e l l a s a b o u t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f e a c h q u e s t i o n . I n f o r m a t i o n o b t a i n e d f r o m a s i n g l e s u r v e y i s l e s s r e l i a b l e t h a n t r e n d d a t a d e r i v e d f r o m t w o o r m o r e s u r v e y s m a d e b y t h e s a m e m e t h o d s . M o r e r e s e a r c h i s n e e d e d t o c l a r i f y h o w u s e r s ' p e r c e p t i o n o f a r c h i t e c t u r a l a n d s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t a f f e c t s b e h a v i o r a s w e l l a s s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n o f a r c h i t e c t u r a l q u a l i t i e s o f h i s r e s i d e n t i a l e n v i r o n m e n t . S i m i l a r s t u d i e s o n o t h e r t r a d i t i o n a l l y - d e s i g n e d s t u d e n t r e s i d e n c e s o n c a m p u s w o u l d h a v e p r o v e d h i g h l y r e w a r d i n g a n d u s e f u l . H o w e v e r , a g e n e r o u s a m o u n t o f d a t a h a s b e e n c o l l e c t e d f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t . T h e d a t a h a s n o t b e e n a n a l y s e d b y a l l a v a i l a b l e t e c h n i q u e s , n o r h a v e a l l p o s s i b l e h y p o t h e s e s b e e n s t a t i s t i c a l l y t e s t e d , d u e t o t h e o b v i o u s l i m i t a t i o n o f t i m e a n d i n t e r e s t s o f t h e a u t h o r . P e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d t o f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h o n t h i s s u b j e c t m i g h t w i s h t o t r e a t t h i s s t u d y a s t h e g r o u n d w o r k . ...j r , 145 REFERENCES Adelman, Howard, The Beds of Academe: A Study of the R e l a t i o n of Student Residences and the U n i v e r s i t y , Toronto: J . Lewis, Samuel, 1969 Barker, Roger. E c o l o g i c a l Psychology, Stanford: Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1968. Backstrom, Charles H, and Hursh, Gerald, D. Survey Research, Evanstan, 111: North Western U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1963 B e l l , Gwen, Randall, E. and Roeder, J u d i t h , E.R. Urban Environment and Human Behavior: an annotated b i b l i o g r a p h y , Dowden, Hutchinson & Rosstue, Pennsylvania 1973. Broady, Maurice, Planning f o r People: Essays on the S o c i a l Context of Planning, London, Bedford Square Press of the. National Council of S o c i a l Services, 1968. Dubos, Rene, Man Adapting, New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y , 1965 So Human an Animal, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1968 Festinger, Leon, Schachter, Stanley and Back, Kurt. S o c i a l Pressures i n Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors i n Housing, Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press, Stanford, C a l i f o r -n i a , 1963 (Reissued), f i r s t published 1950. Freedman, J. The E f f e c t s of Crowding on Human Behavior, Department of Psychology, Columbia U n i v e r s i t y , 1970. F u l l e r , R. Buckminster Lecture on "Education f o r C h r i s t i a n i t y - published i n Approaching the Benign Environment. The F r a n k l i n Lectures i n the Science and Humanities^ U n i v e r s i t y of Alabama Prass, Alabama 1970. Gerson, Wolfgang Patterns of Urban L i v i n g Toronto, U n i v e r s i t y Press ' 1970 Goffman, Erving. Behavior i n P u b l i c Spaces New York: Free Press of Glencoe, 1963. Gutman, Robert (ed.). People and B u i l d i n g s , New York: Basic>Books 1972. H a l l , Edward. The Hidden Dimension, Garden City,^New York: Doubleday, 1966 The S i l e n t Language, Garden C i t y , New York: Doubleday, 1959 Heimstra, Norman and McFarling, L e s l i e , . Environmental Psychology, Wordsworth Pub. Col, Belmont, C a l i f . USA, 1974 K e l l e r , Suzanne, The Urban Neighbourhood: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Perspective, New York, Random House, 1968 146 K i r a , Alexander. The Bathroom: C r i t e r i a f o r Design, Ithaca, New York, Centre f o r Housing and Environmental Studies, C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y 1966. K l e i n , Jack and Sears, Henry. Room to Learn: A Study on Housing f o r the Canadian Student, Ottawa, Assoc. of U n i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges of Canada, 1969. Lang, John', Burnett j Charles'Moleski, ^ Walter^ and Vachon, David (ed) . Designing f o r Human Behavior: A r c h i t e c t u r e and the  Behavioral Sciences, Stroudsburg, Pa: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross Inc., 1974.. Michelson, William. Man and His Urban Environments: A S o c i o l o g i c a l Approach „ Reading, Mass. Addison-Wesley, 1970. Moose, Rudolph, and Gerst, Mervin. Mannual for the U n i v e r s i t y Residence Environmental Scale, Palo A l t o . , C a l i f . Consulting Psychologists Press, 1974. Mul l i a n s , William and A l l e n , P h y l l i s . Student Housing: A r c h i t e c t u r a l and S o c i a l Aspects, Crosby Lockwood and Sons Ltd. London, 1971. Mumford, Lewis. The Culture of C i t i e s , Harcourt, Bruce. & Co. New York 1938.p. 403. Newman, 0scar a Defensible Space, MacMillan, New York, 1972. Oppenheim, A.N. Questionnaire Design and A t t i t u d e Measurement, Ba s i c Books Inc. P u b l i s h e r s , New York 1966. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H. The Measurement of Meaning, Urbana U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press. 1957 Pe r i n , Constance. With Man i n Mind: I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Prospectus f o r Environmental Design, Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1970 P r e i s e r , Wolfgang, F.E., (ed.) Environmental Design Perspective, College of A r c h i t e c t u r e , V i r g i n i a Polytechnique I n s t i t u t e and State U n i v e r s i t y 1972. Proshansky, Harold M., I t t l e s o n , William H., and R i v l i n , Leanne G. Environmental Psychology: Man i n His P h y s i c a l S e t t i n g , New York,Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1970. Rapoport, Amos. House Form and Culture, Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1969. Sanoff, Henry. Techniques of Evaluation f o r Designers,.Design Research Laboratory, School of Design, North Carolina..State U n i v e r s i t y , Raleigh, N.C. May 1968. 147 S e g a l l , Marshall, Campbell, Donald, and J e s k o v i t s , Metvik, J . Influence of Culture on V i s u a l Perception, I n d i a n a p o l i s , Bob M e r r i l l Co. 1966. Selye, Hans. The Stress Without D i s t r e s s , Toronto, McClelland and Stewart Ltd. (1st. ed. '74) The Stress of L i f e , New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956. Sommer, Robert. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design, Englewood C l i f f s , New Jersey, P r e n t i c e - H a l l s , 1969. . Design Awareness, Rinehart Press, San Fra n s i s c o , 19 72. T o f f l e r , A l v i n . Future Shock, New York, Random House, 1970. Van der Ryn, Sim and S i l v e r s t e i n , Murray. Dorms at Berkeley: An Environmental A n a l y s i s , New York: Educational F a c i l i t i e s Laboratory. 1967. Walker, E.H. Student Housing Consultant, Student Housing Study, Guelph, Ontario: U n i v e r s i t y of Guelph. 1968. Whyte, William H. J r . The Organisation Man New York: Simon and Schuster, 1956. ARTICLES Alexander, C. "The C i t y as a Mechanism f o r su s t a i n i n g Human Contact." Environment f o r Man,ed. William R. Ewald, Bloomington; Indiana U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1967. pp. 60-102. A r c h i t e c t u r a l Record (1965) "College Dormitories" 138 (August): 113-135 Brawne, M. "Student L i v i n g " , A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, 1963. 134 (October) pp. 289-301. Bickman, Leonard, et a l . "Dormitory Density and Helping Behavior", Environment and Behavior, V o l . 5 No. 4 Dec. 1973 pp. 465-90. Blumenfled, Hans. " C r i t e r i a f o r Judging the Qua l i t y of the Urban Environment i n Urban Studies (Louis K. Loewenstein. ed.) The Free Press, New York 1971 p. 505. • -Corbet, J u d i t h . "Are the Suites the Answer?", Environment and Behavior v o l . 5 No. 4, Dec. 1973 pp. 413-419. ' Craik, Kenneth, "Environmental Psychology," New D i r e c t i o n i n Psychology Holt and Rinehart and Winston, Vol. 4.New York 1971 pp. 112. Crean, D. "The Student i n Residence", A r c h i t e c t u r a l Review, 147 ( A p r i l (1970): pp. 286-291. 148 Gans, Herbert^ "Environment and Behavior, People and Plans": Essays on Urban Problems and Solutions, New York: Basic Books 1968 part 1, pp. 1-52. Gutman, Robert, and Westergard, Barbara. " B u i l d i n g E v a l u a t i o n , User S a t i s f a c t i o n and Design". Design f o r Human Behavior, John Lang, Charles Burnett, Walter Moleski and David Vachon (ed.) D.H. and Ross, 1974 pp. 320-30.'. Gerst, Marvin and Sweetwood, Henry. "Correlates of Dormitory S o c i a l Climate". Environment and Behavior, V o l . 5. No.4 _ Dec. 1973 pp. 440-464. Haythorn, W i l l i a m . "Needs by Sources of S a t i s f a c t i o n A n a l y s i s " E k i s t i c s . V o l . 30. Sept. 1970. pp. 200-202 H e i l w e i l , Martin. "The Influence of Dormitory A r c h i t e c t u r e on Resident Behavior", Environment and Behavior. V o l . 5.No. 4 Dec. 1973, pp. 377-412. Hershberger, Robert. "Toward a Set of Semantic Seales to Measure the Meaning of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Environments". EDRA Pro- ceedings/3 January 1972 One-6-4.1 Izumi, K i y o s h i "Psychological Phenomena and B u i l d i n g Design". B u i l d i n g Research.1965, 2, pp. 9-12. Lee, Terence. "The Psychology of S p a t i a l O r i e n t a t i o n " , A r c h i t e c t u r a l A s s o c i a t i o n Quarterly J u l y 1969, 1, p.p. 11-15. . "The E f f e c t of the Bu i l t - u p Environment on Human Behavior" I n t e r n a t i o n a l Journal of Environmental Studies, May 1971 Lipman, Alan. B u i l d i n g and S o c i a l I n t e r a c t i o n , A r c h i t e c t s J ournal pp. 23-30 Lowenthal, David (Ed.). "Environmental Perception and Behavior" Chicago, U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago. Dept. of Geography Research  Paper 109, pp. 67. Maslow, Abraham, H. "A Theory of Human Motivation", P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, . 50 (May 1943) pp. 370-397. McKechnie, George. "Measuring Environmental D i s p o s i t i o n with Environmental Response Inventory", EDRA 2 1970. Milgran, Stan. "The Experience of L i v i n g i n C i t i e s " , Science 167: 1461 - 1468 (1970). M i l l e r , E. "Put a Behavioral S c i e n t i s t on the Dormitory Design Team". College of U n i v e r s i t y Business, 44 (February 1968): 68-71. Osmond, Humphrey. "The Psychological Dimension of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Space" Progressive Architecture.1965 A p r i l , p. 159. 149 Rosenberg, Gerhardt. "High Population Density i n R e l a t i o n to S o c i a l Behavior" E k i s t i c s , June 1968, 25, pp. 425-428. "College Students L i v e Here": A Study of College Housing. New York, Educational F a c i l i t i e s L a b o r a t r i e s , 1961 Sanoff, Henry. " V i s u a l A t t r i b u t e s of the P h y s i c a l Environment". Research Report, Design Research Laboratory, School of Design, North C a r o l i n a State U n i v e r s i t y 1969. Seaton, Richar W. "Psychological Aspects of the Urban Region - Beauty, Noise and Crowding," Habitat (CMHC Newsletter), Vol.16 No. 5-6 19 73. ;., Stea, David. " T e r r i t o r i a l i t y , the I n t e r i o r Aspect: Space, T e r r i t o r y and Human Movements", Landscape, Autumn, 1965, 15 pp. 13-17. Studer, Raymond and Stea David. " A r c h i t e c t u r a l Programming and Human Behavior", Journal of S o c i a l Issues, V o l . 22, No. 127 4 October 1966. Tuan, Y i - F u . " V i s u a l Blight:. Exercise i n I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " , V i s u a l B l i g h t i n America: A s s o c i a t i o n of American  Geographers, Resource Paper No. 23 Washington, B.C. . 1973, pp. 23-27. REPORTS, INFORMATION BOOKLET, ; NEWSLETTERS , Alma Mater Society, Housing Survey A Report Prepared by the "AMS, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , Vancouver, Nov. 4 1968. The Ubyssey L e t t e r s to the E d i t o r , issues dated Jan 28, 1972 and Nov. 5 1972. Charles, D. and Chen R.A. (ed.) "Sex on Campus", A Report.Proceeding of a Symposium held on Dec. 1967, Boston U n i v e r s i t y Law School Auditorium, : Boston, Mass. 1969. Educational F a c i l i t i e s Laboratories, Student Housing New York 1972. The Environment A n a l y s i s Group; (TEAG) A r c h i t e c t u r a l Determinants of Student S a t i s f a c t i o n i n College Residence H a l l . U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , San Diego, La J o l l a , C a l i f . , F i n a l report, U.S. Dept. of Health Service and Welfare P r o j e c t 7-1-075. Heavy Construction Newsletter, HCN Report, Jan. 3 1972. Patterns of Human Behavior and A r c h i t e c t u r a l Environment; A Report: Proceedings of the Tenth conference of American Assoc. of Housing Educators. Urbana, I l l i n o i s : Univ. of I l l i n o i s , Oct. 1966. 150 U n i v e r s i t y of B.C. Student Housing: Residence Information Booklet and A p p l i c a t i o n Form, UBC, issues of 1973-4, 1974-5 and 19 75-6. NEWSPAPER ARTICLES The Province (Vancouver) "Campus Residences w i l l be co-ed" by John G r i f f i t h s A p r i l 5, 1972. The Vancouver Sun, " P r e d i c t i o n of doom misGaged" by Peter Wilson, A p r i l 20, 1972. "Fewer r u l e s the best r u l e f o r students" by Evan Atkinson, Oct. 18, 1972. UNPUBLISHED REPORTS, MONOGRAPHS C o l l i n s , John Bunting. "Perceptional Dimensions of A r c h i t e c t u r a l Space Validated against Behavioral C r i t e r i a " Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Salt Lake C i t y , U n i v e r s i t y of Utah, 1969 Hsia, V i c t o r W. "Residence H a l l Environment: A comparative study i n a r c h i t e c t u r a l psychology." (unpublished Master's D i s s e r t a t i o n , A r c h i t e c t u r a l Psychology, Univ. of Utah, S a l t Lake C i t y , USA). OTHER SOURCES M/S Reno C. Negrin,Architects and Associates, Vancouver, Personal Interview with Mr. Wally Moroz,Associate Architect(in-Charge of the Design of Walter Gage Residences UBC). Oct. 1974. O f f i c e of the D i r e c t o r of Residence UBC Personal Interview with Mrs. Mario Seto, Student Advis or October, Nov. 1974. House staff-on-duty w i t h i n the Gage Residence. Personal Interviews with House Advisors (Dons) and Resident attendent at the Reception Counter, Walter Gage Residence. O f f i c e of the P h y s i c a l Plant, UBC. Personal Interview with Mr. Franz Conrad UBC. O f f i c e of Totem Park Convention Centre, UBC. Personal Interview with Mr. Craik, Convention Manager. 151. APPENDIX A. Desc r i p t i o n of the Walter H. Gage Residence The Walter H. Gage Residence i s i n the north c e n t r a l part of the U.B.C. campus near the L i b r a r y and the Student Union B u i l d i n g , and provides room only f o r 1274 students. The residence consists of three e s s e n t i a l l y look-a l i k e 17 storey h i g h - r i s e towers accommodating 1166 senior s i n g l e students and one low-rise b u i l d i n g of 3 f l o o r s f o r 108 students (54 married couples i n double rooms) and a Common Block, but there i s no common di n i n g h a l l . Each h i g h - r i s e tower accommodates 388 students on an average, i n si n g l e rooms only. Each f l o o r (excepting the main f l o o r ) houses 24 students i n s i n g l e rooms and i s divided i n t o four "quadrants", s i x men or s i x women share each quadrant. The f l o o r s are co-educational, but each quadrant i s a l l o c a t e d to students of own sex only. The main f l o o r of each tower contains two separate s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t executive s u i t e s f o r two senior house advisors or dons (one male and one female), tower lounge and small study room. In ad d i t i o n , one of the towers contain two separate s u i t e s f o r student residents (4 male and 4 female) each containing 4 s i n g l e rooms but a l l sharing a common kitchen/dining lounge. Each quadrant has s i x s i n g l e bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen/lounge 1 5 2 a n d a b a l c o n y . T h e b e d r o o m s a r e c a r p e t e d a n d h a v e m o v a b l e f u r n i t u r e w h i c h i n c l u d e s a b e d , d e s k ( a d j u s t a b l e f o r r i g h t - o r l e f t - h a n d e d s t u d e n t s ) , l a m p , c h a i r , c h e s t o f d r a w e r s , a d j u s t a b l e b o o k s h e l v e s a n d a w a s t e b a s k e t . T h e c l o t h e s c l o s e t i s b u i l t i n . T h e b e d d i n g i n c l u d e s 2 s h e e t s , 1 p i l l o w a n d p i l l o w s l i p , 1 b e d s p r e a d a n d 2 b l a n k e t s . T h e k i t c h e n h a s a s m a l l r e f r i g e r a t o r , s i n k , s t o v e , s o m e c u p b o a r d s , b u t n o u t e n s i l s . T h e l o u n g e c o n d u c i v e ' t o s m a l l i n f o r m a l g a t h e r i n g a n d e n t e r t a i n i n g c o n t a i n s a s o f a , t w o a r m s - c h a i r s - , a c o f f e e t a b l e , a d i n i n g t a b l e a n d t h r e e c h a i r s . T h e l o w - r i s e b u i l d i n g m e a n t f o r m a r r i e d c o u p l e s h a s 5 4 f u r n i s h e d o n e b e d r o o m d e l u x e s u i t e s . T h e b e d r o o m c o n t a i n s t w i n b e d s , t w o c l o s e t s , t w o d e s k s , c h a i r s , l a m p s a n d t w o s e t s o f b o o k s h e l v e s . T h e l o u n g e h a s a s o f a , c o f f e e t a b l e , t w o a r m c h a i r s , a d i n i n g t a b l e a n d t w o c h a i r s , a n d a b a l c o n y . T h e k i t c h e n i s e q u i p p e d w i t h a s t o v e , s i n k , r e f r i g e r a t o r , c u p -b o a r d s , b u t n o u t e n s i l s . T h e r e i s a l s o a b a t h r o o m a n d a h a l l c l o s e t . T h e g l a m o r o u s C o m m o n B l o c k ( n a m e d a s a S t u d e n t U n i o n B u i l d i n g ) w h i c h i s l o c a t e d a t t h e c e n t r e o f t h r e e t o w e r s h a s s e v e n s e m i n a r / s t u d y r o o m s , c o n v e n t i o n l o u n g e s , a s m a l l b a l l r o o m , a s h a g c o v e r e d c e n t r a l s u n k e n l o u n g e d e c o r a t e d w i t h a f i r e p l a c e , a n d o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s . M u s i c a l p r o g r a m m e s f r o m l o c a l r a d i o c h a n n e l s a r e - . c o n s t a n t l y b r o a d c a s t e d a l l a r o u n d t h e c o m m o n a r e a t h r o u g h c o n c e a l e d s p e a k e r s . T h e l a u n d r y a n d g a m e s r o o m s a r e i n t h e b a s e m e n t f l o o r o f e a c h t o w e r . T h e c a r p a r k i s a t t h e b a s e m e n t o f t h e C o m m o n B l o c k a n d a c c o m m o d a t e s a b o u t 8 0 c a r s . Food Services: Residents may cook t h e i r own meals i n the k i t c h e n of t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l quadrant. A l i m i t e d number of meal passes are a v a i l a b l e i n the other residence dining areas from the Food Services A d m i n i s t r a t i o n O f f i c e . A delicatessen, or a mini shop i s located i n the Common Block and a v a r i e t y of prepared foods may be purchased. A student patronised Coffee shop ( c a f e t e r i a - s t y l e ) i n the Common Block which used to o f f e r residents the f a c i l i t i e s of short-order meals with cash/counter s e r v i c e i s presently closed, sine die. Presently there are no canteen-style f a c i l i t i e s at t h i s residence comparable to those at other o l d e r residences Food vending machines s i t u a t e d i n Common Block and each Tower Lounge main f l o o r s serve packaged food and drinks. Such are a c c e s s i b l e f o r 24 hours a day to student residents. They also dispense t o i l e t r i e s , laundry goods and other non-ffod items.. F a c i l i t i e s and Services. A Residence Attendant i s on duty throughout the day at the Reception Desk located i n the Common Block to provide information, process admissions, departures and perform other administra-t i v e duties w i t h i n the residence area. The reception desk i s equipped with a t e l e x machine to increase the speed of communication with other s e r v i c e arms of the department. J a n i t o r i a l Services. In Walter Gage h i g h - r i s e the cleaning s t a f f w i l l clean only the i n t e r n a l lobby of the quadrant, bathroom and lounge on a r o t a t i n g schedule but w i l l not clean the stove and r e f r i g e r a t o r o r enter the students' rooms. The Christmas break cleaning includes stoves and r e f r i g e r a t o r s which are not excessively d i r t y . T h e c l e a n i n g o f t h e s t u d e n t ' s r o o m , d a i l y m a i n t e n a n c e o f t h e b a t h r o o m , t h e s t o v e a n d t h e r e f r i g e r a t o r a r e t h e s t u d e n t s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Students are usu a l l y advised beforehand when the cleaning s t a f f w i l l be entering t h e i r quadrant. To provide students with equipment, each f l o o r has a u t i l i t y room where such equipment i s located. Vacuum cleaners.mya be checked out from the Reception Desk. Telephones. Pay telephones are located i n the Common Block of the residences. At Walter H. Gage each student's Enterphone can be adapted as a telephone a l s o . A l l negotiations f o r telephones are to be made d i r e c t l y with B.C. Telephone Company. Enterphone. At Walter H. Gage only an Enterphone i s provided as the doors are locked 24 hours a day. Guests can only be admitted by using the Eriterphone. T e l e v i s i o n s and Antennae. One cable colour t e l e v i s i o n i s provided f o r the Common Block by Housing, each house has an a d d i t i o n a l o u t l e t should the Student Councils wish to provide a t e l e v i s i o n . Radios, t e l e v i s i o n s and stereos are allowed i n i n d i v i d u a l rooms, provided no e l e c t r i c a l over-load occurs. Residents are requested to consider fellow r e s i d e n t s when they s e l e c t t h e i r l i s t e n i n g volume; earphones are recommended. I n d i v i d -u a l rooms are not'supplied with c a b l e v i s i o n o u t l e t s , since the extra cost to a l l students would be high. No outside t e l e v i s i o n or r a d i o antennae are permitted. . F i r s t Aid Boxes. These are a v a i l a b l e i n each Don's s u i t e and at the Reception Desk. Sports F a c i l i t i e s . The residence has a v a r i e t y of f a c i l i t i e s such as games room, weight room, pool t a b l e s , tennis courts and p l a y i n g " f i e l d s . Games equipment i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the Residence A s s o c i a t i o n i n each area, and i s a v a i l a b l e from the Reception Desk only to those who have p a i d t h e i r R e s i d e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n f e e s . R e s i d e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n o r g a n i s e o t h e r o u t d o o r g a m e s f a c i l i t i e s . . . • C h a n g e a n d S t a m p V e n d i n g M a c h i n e s . T h e s e a r e l o c a t e d n e a r t h e R e c e p t i o n D e s k i n t h e C o m m o n B l o c k o f t h e r e s i d e n c e . O t h e r S e r v i c e s I n c l u d e : M a i l s e r v i c e , l i n e n a n d l a u n d r y , r e f e r e n c e l i b r a r y a n d l i b r a r y b o o k p i c k - u p . P a r k i n g . W a l t e r H . G a g e h a s a l i m i t e d n u m b e r o f r e s e r v e d p a r k i n g s p a c e s , a b o u t 8 0 u n d e r g r o u n d b e n e a t h t h e c o m m o n b l o c k b u i l d i n g a n d a b o u t 2 6 0 s p a c e s o n t h e s u r f a c e . T h e r e i s a n e x t r a c h a r g e , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e n o r m a l U n i v e r s i t y P a r k i n g F e e , f o r s p a c e s a t t h e G a g e R e s i d e n c e . R e s i d e n c e O r g a n i z a t i o n I n s t u d e n t r e s i d e n c e s t h e r e a r e t w o t y p e s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n s w h i c h w o r k t o g e t h e r c l o s e l y t o a c h i e v e t h e b e s t r e s u l t s f o r t h e r e s i d e n t s t u d e n t s t h e e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , a n d t h e a p p o i n t e d r e s i d e n c e s t a f f . A t W a l t e r H . G a g e , t h e S t u d e n t L i a i s o n C o m m i t t e e i s c o m p o s e d o f t w o e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s f r o m e a c h t o w e r , o n e f r o m t h e l o w - r i s e , a n d f o u r m e m b e r s a t l a r g e . I t s f u n c t i o n i s t o s e r v e a s a l i a i s o n b e t w e e n t h e A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a n d t h e s t u d e n t s . T h e r e i s a l s o a S o c i a l a n d S p o r t s C o m m i t t e e w h i c h o r g a n i z e s r e c r e a t i o n a l f u n c t i o n s f o r t h e a r e a . T h e L i a i s o n C o m m i t t e e a l s o a c t s a s t h e S t a n d a r d s C o m m i t t e e . A p p o i n t e d R e s i d e n c e S t a f f I n e a c h a r e a t h e r e i s a n A r e a C o - o r d i n a t o r a p p o i n t e d b y t h e D i r e c t o r o f R e s i d e n c e s x r i i o i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o - o r d i n a t i o n , s u p e r v i s i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o f t h e a r e a , a n d a s s i s t s t h e s t u d e n t s i n r e s i d e n c e t o d e v e l o p t h e k i n d o f c o m m u n i t y e s s e n t i a l i n a n a c a d e m i c s e t t i n g . I n a l l r e s i d e n c e s t h e r e a r e D o n s i n e a c h h o u s e o r t o w e r w h o a r e a p p o i n t e d b y t h e D i r e c t o r 156 o f R e s i d e n c e s a s p a r t o f t h e A r e a C o - o r d i n a t o r ' s s t a f f . T h r o u g h o u t t h e y e a r a r e s i d e n t m a y f i n d t h e i r a s s i s t a n c e h e l p f u l . R e s i d e n c e A t t e n d a n t s a r e o n d u t y t h r o u g h o u t t h e d a y i n a l l a r e a s a t t h e R e c e p t i o n D e s k . T h e y h a n d l e a l l r o u t i n e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e m a t t e r s w i t h i n t h e r e s i d e n c e a r e a , l i k e p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , p r o c e s s a d m i s s i o n s , d e p a r t u r e a n d h a n d l e s e r v i c e s l i k e m a i l , l u g g a g e , r e f e r e n c e l i b r a r y , b o o k p i c k - u p s , l i n e n , j a n i t o r i a l s e r v i c e s e t c . 162. r 1 1—T 1 » f < _ _ _ UL CT H I I ii 01 51 i r it II , i r a P o LU ' » z U s - , , i, I. 14 >-APPENDIX B UNIVERSITY RESIDENCE ENVIRONMENT SCALE: SUBSCALE DEFINITIONS Interpersonal Relationships: the emphasis on interpersonal relationships in the house. (1) Involvement (10)a-degree of commitment to the house and residents; amount of social interaction and feeling of friendship in the house. (2) Emotional Support (10)-extent of manifest concern for others in the house; efforts to aid one another with academic and personal problems; emphasis on open and honest communication. Personal Growth: social pressure dimensions related to the psychosocial development of residents. (3) Independence (10)-diversity of residents' behaviors allowed without social sanctions, versus socially proper and conformist behavior. (4) Traditional Social Orientation (9)—stress on dating, going to parties, and other traditional heterosexual interactions. (5) Competition (9)—(this subscale is a bridge between the Personal Growth and Intellectual Growth areas). The degree to which a wide variety of activities such as dating and grades are cast into a competitive framework. Intellectual Growth: the emphasis placed on academic and intellectual activities re-lated to cognitive development of residents. (5) Competition—as above. (6) Academic Achievement (9)—extent to which strictly classroom accomplish-ments and concerns are prominent in the house. (7| Intellectuality (91— emphasis on cultural, artistic, and other scholarly intel-lectual activities in the house, as distinguished from strictly classroom achievement. ' , System Change and Maintenance: the degree of stability versus the possibility for change.of the house environment from a system perspective. (8) Order and Organization (10)—amount of formal structure or organization (e.g., rules, schedules, and following established procedures) in the house; neatness. , (9) Innovation (10)—organizational and individual spontaneity of behaviors and ideas; number and variety of activities; new activities. (10) Student Influence (10)—extent to which student residents (not staff or admin-istration) perceive they control the running of the house; formulate and enforce the rules; control use of the money, selection of staff, food, room-mates, and policies; and so forth. a. Number of Items in each subscale. Source: A r t i c l e by Gerst & Sweetwood, Vide Reference) SAMPLE QOESTIOHHAIRB - 1 r - « iTower !: Floor <2u<*4 Date of Distribution Time & Date F i l l e d In 168 Collected On 1. SEX M F." 2. AGE (Approx.) . 3. Academic Year (circle) 1 2 3 A 5 •. •- • • •'''' .'• •' Grad. 4. Faculty (o* School) , 5. Place of birth (Country) 6. Your permanent home address (sfeJX fvoyt'nce a'ci'fc/fot^ ar-l-Tl ; 7. Did you crow tip on a Farm _ , Small Town ' , Small City , Large City (or adjacent suburb) (please check). .... . . 8. Please check^type of house you lived ln during childhood. Single family, home , Town House Apartr.ent , Duplex High Rise Apt. , Mobile iiome , Cottage .. .9. Did you have your own room as a.child? Yes. No. 10(a)Hhere did you'live just before moving to Gane Residence: On Campus , Area ; Off Campus _••, 62~nft. * (b) If Off Campus, had you been living with: Parents ' , Relatives , Friends , Alone ? 11. How long have you been living in Gage. Residence . Months Years? 12(eJ Would you like to live i n this residence next year? Yes, Ho, Hot Sure. (fe) If "yes", would you like to live In the same tower , 3ane floor , same quad. i : , sace room ? 13. Do you like living ; in Gage residence fcore' thah: the place you last lived ln? Yes, llo, Hot sure. 14. Can you think of any advantages your previous residence had which you miss here? 15. Please check i f you rent,or own a car , motor bike , bike , TV , Stereo system , telephone i n your room - > •' 16. Degree to which you have to depend on public transport:• Always , Frequently , Rarely , Kever ' 17. In selecting your present housing, how important were each of these following considerations: 4 3 5> 1 O - C r i t i c a l Very L i t t l e Hot . . Import-. Import- Import-.._lEport-_ Appli-.. ance ant ant ance able -": a. Co-ed floor living b. High-rise apartment living \ _ c. Proximity to University/Library - • | d. Being close to action _• ______ e. Unconventional l i f e style " " ; , .. f. Condition of residence • • ______ g. . Rent or charges • • '•': "•_ "•' l?-h. Extent of furnishing "__ __• "• '•"  1. Layout-'of residence __" ______' • • ' J . Amenities (self-cooking,etc.) : • " • • ______ : V . • k. Privacy . . __ _ 1. Restrictions on^age • m. Self-chosen room o t e s n. Freedota of some use. and activities O. Enjoyable natural setting p. Others ( i f any) 18. How would you classify: (circle)(l means personal space or private territory; ) (2 means semi-public spacej 3_ means public space.) a. Your own room 1 2 .3 b. Quad'Com—on Room .'• 1 • 2' . 3 c. Washrooms' ' . ,' 1 2 3 d. Floor space . 1 ' } . • X 3 .. . •• 19. libw" much time (hours) per week on an ^ f j 1 ] : ^ 2^tk7,°y spend in (i) studies inside your room , (jj) average daily time-'l!nsJ2egy6ur room • '•- ,(iii)average daily time in kitchen/lounge ,(iv) average daily tire outside your quadrant but within • residence , (v) average daily time outside your residence ? [summoXlon ej i i , i(J iii.V sWouU n»f «xe«tl <24 W J continued - 2 -20. Kow would you rate the overall architectural(designed)environnent of your r e s i -dence on a seven point scale on the following aspects: [e.g. l-Extreiaely i cheerful; 2-quite cheerful; 3-little cheerful; 4-neutral, not sure, or not appli-cable; 5 - l i t t l e depressing; 6-quite depressinp; 7-extremely depressing]. V. 169. i . CHEERFUL. •. - 1 -i i . Ui!IQU£ i i i . EEIJ^tDD/PEACEFI^ ' : X i v . TjiliFOkM/IiOMOGENEOUS V. DYNAtECC vi.- IKIIFYIMG ... W i i . UnRESTRICTIVE V i i i . BEAUTIFUL i x . SIMPLE '• x. SPACIOUS x i . CLARITY x i i . COiTVEIIEUT • X i i i , SAFE xiv. ORDERED xv. FRIENDLY x v i . •T'ABM / IliTIl'ATE . xvii;. SATISFYING DEPRESSING COlttSOW TENSE/DISRUPTIVE DIVERSE STATIC SEPARATING -LIMITIIIC,, UGLY. ..'COMPLEX .,. 'CRAMPED' . AbOJlGUITY INCOHVEKIENt DANGEROUS DISORDERED UNFRIENDLY COLD / DISTANT : y FRUSTRATING 21. Please check how' many times in this term you residence public areas: have used or visited the Gage B ra g* a t o a U *H o -u o o I • r l N M O 3 | KJ 19 . *3 to | O I ^ . i r , n) r - l U 3 u o « v l U T l I HI HI 1) H u CO > « a •«-! I 0) q p. & 4-1 > -a to •ri a a <U <D K) c o to O a). -Ha ) u c •H "4-1 o o )-j 1 JJ CJ o ' H i (3 p, (-1 ! 6 I CO j o <u I o. r l 01 X. a) Tower Lounge on main floor b) Seminar Rooms (at Common blocks) • ' I c) Lounges or Conversation Pit 22(5)How many (out of five) current quad-mates did you mutually choose Are most o| your friends living inside this building_ (a) How many of your best friends are men _or outside this building women ,(d) casually acquainted How many of five. f a i r l y good friends others sharing your quad are: very good friends (fi) now nany of 16 others in other quads on your floor are: - unfamiliar , casually acquainted , fa i r l y familiar •.- •. good friends , very cood friends ? your guests from Gage or froc outside? When you have a floor party, are mostiof ge , Outside , Uo 23. (a) -Do you usually lock the door to your bedroom? Yes (b) Is tile door to your quadrant generally locked? Yes , Ho (c) nas there ever been any theft, intrusion or .physical violence committed on ,. . your floor to your knowledge? "Yes,' "., Eo :j' (£)tio you feel that security measures need to be intensified? Yes , Ko 24(«> If you noticed a stranger wandering through you.qiexC- lounge, would you ignore^, hin/her , .lclp hin/her^ , report broken window- in your tower, (but not, ln your quae), would you ignore or report_ . ... .., ..; .... \ c l i n a t e , . 25. Judging from a l l the available 'facilities, arcnitectural-enyirorJE^rit, s o c i a l ^ l l f e • ( style and the rent paid, you ard well satisfied living i n residence. True , T' ! j -False , iiot Sure . f ' '':' : '' : .'v' : .... ... - !"". ..' THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPEPATIOII Following are a number of statements about,Gage residence. I t w i l l take only between 5 and 10 minutes to conplete. Please answer every statetaent; do not leave any blank. Please use a pencil for your responses and erase completely any changed responses. Please decide for each item whether the statement l a mostly True or mostly False (circle T or F) for your house. _ . • • • • . I I I - . . i , i . . i I H O 1. People here are concerned with helping and supporting one another. 1 • p 2. The staff here decide whether and when the residents can have visitors of the opposite sex in their rooms. 2 F 3. Mew approaches to things are often tried here. 3 x F 4. People around here talk a lot about p o l i t i c a l and social Issues. 4 I F 5. Innovation ± 8 not considered inportant here. 5 X F 6. There Is a good deal of concern about intellectual awareness In this house. " 6 X F 7. People don't try to impress each other here. 7 X F 8. People around here hardly ever seen to be studying. 8 X F 9. The StudentLlalaon Conaaittee function In a soiaewhat haphazard manner. 9 X F 10. 'There Is a feeling of unity and cohesion here. " 10 T F 11. Around here people tend to hide their feelings from one another. 11 T F 12. The jobs of the Student Liaison Committee are not clearly defined. 12 X F 13. In this residence dating i s not important. 13 X F 14. Trying to understand the feelings of others i s considered Important by most people i n this house. 14 X F 15. The staff here have the last say about student discipline. 15 X F 16. Very few things around here arouse much «xcitement or interest. 16 T F 17. People here tend to check on whether their behavior i s acceptable to others i n the house. 17 X F 18. Some people here spend a lot of tine preparing for dates. 18 X F 19. People here pretty much act and think freely without too much regard for social opinion. 19 I • F 20. Around here discussions frequently turn into verbal duels. 20 X F 21. The students formulate almost a l l the rules here. 21 X F 22. Around here people are not interested In up-holding social . • • .. conventions. 22 X '"' F 23. Around here studies are secondary to roost activities. 23 I F 24. Behaving correctly in public i s pretty unimportant i n this house. 24 I F 25. People here consider other t ype3 of social activities to be score important than dating. 25 X F 25. In this residence there i s a strong feeling of belongingness. 26 X F 27. People here work hard to get top grades. 27 X F 28. People here very rarely discuss intellectual matters. 28 X F 29. Dating is a recurring topic of conversation around here. 29 X F 30. Residence finances are handled exclusively by students here. 30 X F 31. Residence procedures here are well established.: 31 X ' '" F 32. Most people here have a strong sense of loyalty toward the house. 32 X F 33. In this residence people tend not to compete with each other. 33 X F 34. In this residence people often do unusual things. 34 X F 35. People around here are always trying to win an argument. 35 X F 36. Most people here consider studies as very inportant i n college. 36 X F 37. People here try to make others feel secure. 37 X F 38. There i s not much appreciation here for classical music, art, literature, etc. 38 I F 39. Doing things In a different way is valued around here. 39 X F 40. Residence activities are pretty carefully planned here. 40 X F SOURCE: (Fona-S), university Residence Environment Scale (URES) Manual by R. Ii. Moos and H. S. Gerat, Social Ecological Laboratory,at Stanford University, U.S.A., (July, 1973). 

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.831.1-0093382/manifest

Comment

Related Items