UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report

Fostering Social Interactions within Communal Spaces within High-Rise Residential Buildings on UBC
Campus
Ariel Peixian, Raghav Grover, Sepideh Daneshpanah
University of British Columbia
APSC 598G
April 28, 2015
1176
1763

Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well
as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this
is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these
reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned
in a report or a SEEDS team representative about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 2
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 3
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 4

2 Literature Review ........................................................................................................................ 5

3 Research Approach...................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Methodology and Instrumentation ................................................................................................. 8

4 Building Analysis........................................................................................................................10
4.1 Ponderosa Commons..................................................................................................................... 11
4.1.1 Discussion............................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Marine Drive Residence ................................................................................................................. 16
4.2.1 Discussion............................................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Walter Gage Residence.................................................................................................................. 21
4.3.1 Discussion............................................................................................................................... 25
4.4 Academy Tower ............................................................................................................................. 27
4.4.1 Discussion............................................................................................................................... 30
4.5 Sitka Tower .................................................................................................................................... 31
4.5.1 Discussion............................................................................................................................... 33

5 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................35
5.1 Indoor Air Quality .......................................................................................................................... 35
5.2 Thermal Comfort............................................................................................................................ 37
5.3 Acoustics Comparison.................................................................................................................... 38
5.4 Lighting .......................................................................................................................................... 39
5.5 Layout, Colors and Texture, Cleanliness, Seating and Access ........................................................ 41
5.6 External Factors ............................................................................................................................. 42

6 Recommendations for Developers.......................................................................................44

7 Limitations and Future Work.................................................................................................46
8 References ....................................................................................................................................47
9 Appendix A-­‐ Ponderosa Commons .......................................................................................48
10 Appendix B-­‐Marine Drive....................................................................................................52
11 Appendix C-­‐Gage Towers.....................................................................................................57
12 Appendix D-­‐Academy Towers............................................................................................62
13 Appendix E-­‐Sitka Towers ....................................................................................................65

1
Executive Summary
High-­‐rise residential buildings are becoming more and more common nowadays, be it in the
UBC campus or in many of the cities around the World. Past research suggests that living in
high-­‐rise buildings adversely affects people’s satisfaction level and social relations. High-­‐rise
residences also tend to generate many negative outcomes such as fear, dissatisfaction,
behavioural problems, reduced helpfulness, poor social relations and hindered child
development. The common spaces in these buildings have the potential to address these issues
by creating a feeling of community and bringing people together. These are the spaces which
are open to all building residents and can be used by people to sit, study, have a conversation,
hold events, and for many other social uses. In this project we examined how the design
features and Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ) factors of these spaces affect the social
interactions occurring in these spaces.
In this project the social common space in 5 different high rise buildings were analyzed, 3 of
which are UBC student residences buildings: Marine Drive, Ponderosa Commons and Walter
Gage and the other two are strata owned Academy and Sitka towers. We adopted three
approaches to study these buildings: Observations of design features and physical
measurements of IEQ features, On-­‐site Observations and Interviews and Survey Questionnaires.
The research team spent approximately 8 hours in each of these spaces and observed and
measured its design and Indoor Environmental Quality features such as lighting, thermal
comfort, indoor air quality and acoustics. We also observed the use of the space and
interviewed people. The survey conducted in received a response rate of around 10% from
each building and providing us with some useful insights of occupant’s needs and satisfaction
levels. We conducted a descriptive analysis on our collected data and have been able to find
some interesting conclusions and useful recommendation for the developers of these buildings.
In general, we found that there is not a clear direct correlation between the design features,
IEQ factors and the social interactions that occur in these spaces. However, some
recommendations can be logically deduced from our findings which are applicable to buildings
similar to the buildings studied in this project. These conclusions and recommendations have
been described in detail in the report.
There exists a huge scope for further expanding on this study by studying more number of
buildings and different common spaces in these buildings such as garbage sorting area and
washing rooms. In the last section of the report we have explained the limitations of this study
and some suggestions for future work.

2
Acknowledgements

We would like to thank our course coordinator, Dr. Steven Rogak, for his continuous support
and guidance throughout this project. We also sincerely thank Dr. Karen Bartlett and Dr.
Murray Hodgson, without their instrumentation support and critical feedback this project
couldn’t have been completed. We thank Helen Lui, the client, and Hannah Brash, the project
coordinator from UBC SEEDS for their support. We are also grateful to the building managers in
these 5 buildings, who provided the access, drawings for the buildings and emailed the surveys
to building occupants.

3
1 Introduction
This case study project focuses on the relationship between building design and social
interactions in communal spaces in high-­‐rise residential buildings. The design and indoor
environment quality (IEQ) features of a space may influence the quantity and quality of social
interactions between building residents as well as other users of the space. This research
project will focus on assessing the design and indoor environmental quality features in five
existing high-­‐rise residential buildings on UBC campus: Walter Gage, Ponderosa Commons,
Marine Drive (UBC Student Residences), Academy and Sitka Towers (Strata Owned Condo
Towers). The spaces were selected after meetings with the respective building managers and
discussions on the design ideology behind these spaces. The selected spaces have similar
functions and are common spaces for use by building residents.

1.1 Objectives
The main objectives of this study are:
• To identify and assess the interactions taking place in the communal spaces and
determine if and how the design features of the space affect social interactions.
• To understand the impact of the Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ) factors on the
residents use of the space.
• To provide recommendations for future design of common spaces, in high-­‐rise
residential buildings, aimed at fostering social interactions in common spaces.

4
2 Literature Review
The history of high-­‐rises may be traced back to the pyramids of Egypt (48 storey high) and the
tower of Babel. However, people did not build any tall structures until the late 1600s.
Therefore, living more than a few storeys up is a recent phenomenon. The social science
approach to architecture can be dated to middle 1960s. Also the perception of beauty can be
traced to 2500 years ago (Gifford 2007).
Gifford in his review in 2007 states that living in high-­‐rises have many negative outcomes such
as fear, dissatisfaction, behavioural problems, reduced helpfulness, poor social relations and
hindered child development. On the other hand, tall buildings have smaller footprints leaving
more room for parks and green spaces. However, these green spaces are under-­‐controlled.
High-­‐rises have easier access to transportation, are less noisy on the upper levels, have
controlled entrances and have access to cleaner air in the higher levels. He mentions that the
outcomes of living in a high-­‐rise depend on various non-­‐building related factors, named
“moderating factors”. These factors can be either associated with residents or context
(environmental and neighbourhood).
So far, five general methodological approaches have been used in research:
1) Case study of one high-­‐rise (satisfaction or helping behaviour)
2) Comparing high-­‐rises with low-­‐rise without considering moderating factors
3) Comparing numerous high-­‐rises with numerous low-­‐rises considering at least some
potential moderators
4) Comparing numerous high-­‐rises with numerous low-­‐rises considering many potential
moderators
5) Longitudinal design, assessing changes in the same group of residents over time (Gifford
2007)
Gifford believes that no study of high-­‐rises have met all the requirements of a true experiment,
therefore no certain conclusions may be drawn. He thinks that to carry out such investigation is
very difficult and often researchers are forced to use non-­‐optimal research designs.
Gifford in 2007 concludes that the literature suggests that living in high-­‐rise buildings adversely
affects people’s satisfaction level and social relations. It is also found that it is not optimal for
children, and the crime and fear of crime is higher. It is also probable that living in such
buildings account for some of the suicides. He studied the influence of high-­‐rise buildings
satisfaction, preferences, social behavior, crime and fear of crime, children, mental health and
suicide. In his review, he accounted for moderating factors such as the socioeconomic status of
the residents, their ability to choose a housing form, their stage of life, parenting, gender,
neighbours and indoor intensity. He also concludes that living in high-­‐rises have different
consequences, a few may be caused by the building itself and many are moderated by non-­‐

5
architectural factors. He also suggests that no solid conclusions can be drawn from the
literature as true experiments are impossible in housing research and are determined by
multiple factors. He stated that many but not all of the residents are more satisfied by low-­‐rises
than high-­‐rise buildings. High-­‐rises are found to be more pleasant for residents when they are
more expensive, located in better neighborhoods, and residents chose to live in them.
Children’s outdoor activities are restricted in high-­‐rises or leaving them unsupervised causing
behavioural issues. Residents in high-­‐rises have fewer friendships and help each other less.
Crime and fear of crime is higher and a small number of suicides may be associated with living
in tall buildings.
In 2008, Amole conducted a study on residential satisfaction in students’ housing in Nigeria. He
specifically examined the morphological configurations of the halls of residence and how it
affects residential satisfaction. He obtained the data from a closed-­‐ended self-­‐administered
questionnaire distributed to a sample of 1124 respondents from all the halls of residences in
four residential universities in South-­‐western Nigeria. The data included the objective and
subjective measures of the physical, social and management attributes of the halls of
residences. The objective variables included the configuration of the halls, number of persons in
the bedroom, presence or absence of reading room, common room, kitchenette and a balcony.
The subjective variables that Amole considered were comfort, bedroom furnishing, privacy in
bedroom, the sanitary facilities, kitchenette, design and the location of the hall. Attitudes were
measured on a scale from very poor to very good. The demographic variables were also
included in the data obtained through the questionnaire. The variables were sex, age, level of
study, length of stay, and economic status. The data were analyzed using frequencies, factor
analysis and categorical regression. He found more than half (53%) of the respondents
dissatisfied with their residences in terms of their social qualities of the residences, especially,
the social densities, the kitchenette, bathroom and storage facilities and some demographic
characteristics of the students. On the other hand, the length of the hall was found to be a
predictor of satisfaction (Amole 2009).
Holahan in 1976 measured and compared the social behaviour in three contrasting sites in a
low-­‐income neighborhood. The three sites were: old neighborhood of low-­‐rise tenant houses, a
traditional high-­‐rise housing project, and an innovatively designed high-­‐rise housing project. All
the three sites were comparable in age, size, socio-­‐economic status and racial background of
residents. He found the old neighborhood to have the highest levels of outdoor socializing. He
used behavioural mapping to conduct this study, and collected data in each site on three
Saturday afternoons during summer. He measured 5 min time-­‐sample of the social behavior of
a sample of individuals outdoors, and also did a profile of the range of activities based on a
single observation of each individual. The behavioral mapping method that was used in this
study consisted of recording the number of individuals engaged in each of the behaviour types

6
on each site. A list of behavioral categories was selected through initial observations. The
youth, below age 20, and adults were studied separately. Interactions were categorized as
verbal and nonverbal (Holahan 1976).
A study of informal learning space measured acoustical characteristics and architectural
features that may influence people’s satisfaction of the space, which was captured from a
survey of 850 students (Scannell et al. 2014). It was found that more vegetation, the presence
of soft furnishings, and lower seating density increased some components of perceived
suitability and well-­‐being. We will investigate these design features in our study.
Another study done in high-­‐rise housing in Taiwan investigated the relation between the
courtyard design of high-­‐rise housing complexes and the social interactions (Huang 2006). An
on-­‐site observation approach was used in this study on three high-­‐rise residential buildings. The
data collected through observations included the number of users, gender, age range,
movement flow, location of activity and the type of activity (social or non-­‐social). To identify
social activities, the researchers referred to the observable interactions amongst residents
including nodding, talking and friendly physical contact. The results indicated that the scenic
and activity spaces had the highest percentage of social interactions.
Some of the past studies done to study social interactions in cohousing units provide some
useful insights into the communal spaces. In terms of their position in the layout of the
community, facilities need to be central (Fromm 1991; McCamant and Durrett 1994)and
accessible (Fromm 1991; Hazzeh 1999; McCamant and Durrett 1994). As key activity sites,
communal facilities should be placed on shared pathways within residential areas to maximize
social interactions (McCamant and Durrett 1994). Visibility of communal facilities is also
important to increase opportunities for surveillance, thus increasing use and opportunities for
social interaction (Fromm 1991; Hazzeh 1999; McCamant and Durrett 1994).

7
3 Research Approach
On the basis of the literature review, it was concluded that some of the methods that can be
adopted to study the social interactions are on-­‐site observations, survey questionnaires and
interviews. The important design features and IEQ factors for study were also developed
through the literature review and discussion with Dr. Karen Bartlett who is a professor at the
School of Population and Public Health at UBC and with Dr. Murray Hodgson who is a professor
in the department of mechanical engineering at UBC. The following design features were
selected:
• Lighting (natural and artificial)
• Indoor air quality (CO2, Ultrafine particulate matter)
• Background noise level
• Thermal comfort (Wet and dry bulb temperatures, head vs. foot temperature, Relative
humidity, Radiant temperature)

3.1 Methodology and Instrumentation

This research project has been divided into three different phases:
1) Design and IEQ Feature Assessment: Initially the design features of the space and IEQ
factors such as lighting, acoustic, indoor air quality, layout and thermal comfort were
measured both quantitatively and qualitatively through real-­‐time measurements. To
measure the indoor environmental quality of the spaces, the following devices were
used:
• Lighting: Lux meter to measure average lighting level in the space
• Indoor air quality: Q-­‐track to measure CO2 levels and P-­‐track to measure ultrafine
particulate matter
• Background noise level: Noise level meter to measure the background noise level
when the space is occupied
• Thermal comfort: Questemp to measure wet and dry bulb temperature, globe
temperature and relative humidity
2) On-­‐site observation and interviews: During this phase each of the spaces was observed
over a few hours distributed between weekday/weekend and day/night to identify the
quantity and quality of the social interactions taking place in the space. In addition,
short interviews with more open-­‐ended questions were asked during observation
periods.

8
 3) Survey Questionnaire: A survey questionnaire was developed with the objective of
capturing occupants’ opinions on the Indoor Environment Quality (IEQ) of these
common spaces and their user of this space. Most of the questions in the survey were
structured asking about the occupants rating on the various IEQ factors based on a
Likert scale (1-­‐7) where 1 represents Highly Dissatisfied and 7 represents Highly
Satisfied. These questions were taken from the Occupant IEQ Survey developed at the
Centre of Built Environment at UC Berkley (Zagreus et al. 2004)In addition to questions
on IEQ, the survey had questions related to occupant’s use of the space for social
interactions and also had some open ended questions asking people’s opinions on what
they would like to change about the space. The survey was prepared in Google Forms
and sent out via email to all the occupants. It was open for one week and a reminder
was sent out in the middle of the week.
Once the data collection was complete, the on-­‐site measurements and observations data was
compared with the data obtained from the surveys and interviews. A descriptive analysis
approach was used to co-­‐relate the data and arrive at logical deductions.

9
4.1 Ponderosa Commons
Ponderosa Commons phase 1 consists of 3 buildings, while not all of them are UBC Residence
owned. Phase 2, where the common spaces are supposed to be, is under construction. So there
is no specifically designed social space in existing Ponderosa buildings. The space that was
studies is the lobby in Arbutus Lounge in Ponderosa Buildings, which includes a casual sitting
area and a study area, as showed in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.2 shows the plan of the lobby, where
pink arrows indicate natural movement of people in the space. All the measurements and
observation data are illustrated in Appendix A.

11
Figure 4.1. Common spaces in Ponderosa

Figure 4.2. Arbutus lobby Plan

12
In the evening, the lighting is a big issue in Ponderosa. On the first day of measurement, the
artificial lighting was below 100 lux on average. Although it was brighter on the second day, but
still it was not suitable for study. And some of the lights were not on, making the lobby dim.
th
Figure 4.3 is the picture taken on March 16 .

Figure 4.3. Lightings in Arbutus lobby

In the day, the curtain walls allow much sunlight in. The illuminance level is not even distributed
throughout the space. The good thing is that the blinds on the south façade are controllable to
avoid straight sunshine. Other observations of the internal and external factors are attached in
Appendix A.
During our on-­‐site observations, very little interactions and group studying were observed in
this space as can be concluded from Table 4.1. During the observation period, two people were
studying and four groups of people had short (under 10 minutes) conversations. The
interactions were mostly casual talking. As can be observed from Table 4.1, a total of 5
interactions were observed during approximately 6 hours of observation. The average time for
each conversation was around 12 minutes. The on-­‐site social interactions observation data has
been attached in Appendix A.
According to interviews with people, it was found that people like the windows and openness
of the space as well as its quietness. However, they were dissatisfied with the small number of
tables and outlets, poor lighting, dark colors, size of the space being too small, no close access
to food or drinks, and access to the space (two key cards are needed which makes it hard to
enter if you have your hand full). Interviews show that people use this space for studying during
exams; also some social gatherings are organized in this space.
The total number of responses for this survey was 29. The results indicated residents use this
space mostly for general discussion and rarely for academic discussions. The average time spent
by occupant in this space per day is around 10.46 minutes. As per the survey most of the
occupants have their conversations at the couches, chairs, near the elevator and the table area.
The occupants in this building were not very satisfied with the air quality and seating in this

13
space. In comparison to other buildings, the occupants were least satisfied with the various
design features and IEQ factors of this space as can be seen from Table 4.2. The other findings
from the survey are summarized in Appendix A.
Some of the insightful comments in the survey from residents are mentioned below:
“I would like the study space to be separate from the couches and the couch/ tv area to be more
interesting and comfortable. It would be nice for that space to make me want to spend time
there. The study space is the only time I am downstairs.”
“Open the stairs so that people can walk upstairs. Have floor lounges on every floor like in first
year residences or else we don't even see anyone.”
“Add more chairs! Also increase lighting level, as at the evening you literally can't stay there
because your eyes hurt from the dim light. Also way too often there is some vent turned on, it
makes too much of nice [sic] and the space is too cold (windy??) because of it, makes it
unpleasant to stay there :(“
“It is unfortunate that I have to walk to Marine Drive Commons to study, socialize, recharge my
laundry card, pick up mail, etc. etc. Also, there is a lingering garbage room scent more than 50%
of the time due to bad ventilation and close proximity to the garbage room”
“Having a lounge beside a study space is not a good idea. I don't feel comfortable having
conversations when people are trying to study!”
“There have been weeks at a time where it smells for days, not just one hour out of one day.
When it's like this, I barely want to be in that space, let alone socialize in it. Also, the acoustics
are a bit loud, so if I want to have a private conversation, I obviously wouldn't do it there. If
there's lots of people studying, it can also get a bit noisy.”
“During the winter when I was seating in the desk area behind the elevators, it was too cold to
study even with all the windows closed.”

4.1.1 Discussion
a) Space Conflict
There is a conflict in this space between the lounge and the study space, both of which
are combined into one. As suggested by the survey the satisfaction of the residents of
the residents with the general layout is 4.17 and the comments state that people are
generally do not feel comfortable in having a conversation here when people are
studying. As a result even though the lounge is beautifully designed with comfortable
couches and a TV, it is rarely used by the residents for social interactions. This is
supported by our observation data where the space was mostly being used as a study
space.

14
b) Air Quality
The ventilation system in this space was not very effective as during our observations
we noticed a bad smell in the space. As indicated by the feedback of the residents, the
poor air quality of this space is one the most interfering factor with their use of the
space and it has a rating of 3.79, which is the lowest amongst the other factors. The
residents have also complained about this “garbage” smell in their comments about this
space.
c) Seating Area
As per our observation this area had comfortable couches and seating, but the total
number of seating was 18 which is low considering the number of residents who live in
this building (605) The seating area in this space got a rating of 3.9 and this is mainly
because the residents need more seating in this space especially for study purposes.
Overall, the seating area in this space is one of the most enhancing design features of
this space which encourages use of this space for social interactions.
d) Thermal Comfort
The observations indicate a temperature of 20.5 degrees in late summer evenings,
which is inside the thermal comfort zone of people. However in winter it is anticipates
that the place gets cold due to its low wall/window ratio. This can also be ascertained
from the survey results, as thermal comfort is one of the important factors that
interfere with residents’ use of this space, which has also been mentioned by the
residents in their comments.
e) Lighting
This space has poor lighting especially during the night, and the dark wall colors further
reduces the light in this space. The satisfaction rating of the lighting is 4.62 and the
comments of the residents suggest that the low lighting in this space interferes with
their use of this space for academic purposes.
f) Acoustics
The acoustics of this space has also been voted as an interfering factor for the use of this
space, the satisfaction level for noise is 4.03. However, the observed noise level of 56.3
dBA is low because during our observations there were not many people using the
space. The low ratings for the noise level are probably due to lack of sound absorbing
surfaces in this area and also there are some construction sites very near to this space.
The low wall/window ratio also results in less sound absorption.
g) Natural Daylighting
The abundance of natural daylighting and the large windows in this space were some of
the good design features in this space. As per the survey results natural daylighting was
one of the important encouraging factors for the use of this space.

15
This space was found to be mostly used as an individual casual study area and not as a social
space, and was used mostly during the late night hours. The first few people in the space
studying quietly were giving the others the impression that this space is a quiet study area.
However, some interactions were observed mostly in the hallway and at the vending machine.
The duration of the interactions was quite long (about 30 minutes) and the interactions were
mostly casual talking. As can be observed from Table 4.1 the total interactions were 6 during 8
hours of observation period and the average duration of the interactions were around 14.5
minutes. The on-­‐site social interactions observation data has been attached in Appendix B.
The total number of responses for this survey was 177. The residents use this space mostly for
general discussion and academic discussions. The average time spent by occupant in this space
per day is around 37.8 minutes. As per the survey most of the occupants have their
conversations at the couches, study rooms, near the fireplace, and the table area. The
occupants of this building were mostly satisfied with the various design features and IEQ factors
of this space. In comparison to the spaces in other buildings they were less satisfied with the
lighting, seating, colors and cleanliness in this space as can be seen from Table 4.2. The other
findings from the survey are summarized in Appendix B.
Some of the insightful comments from residents are mentioned below:
“Vary the furniture-­‐ add larger tables but keep the couches next to the fire place. Make it more
like a living room.”
“I think there needs to be more outlets around if possible. Also the small rooms smell bad
sometimes.”
“Nothing much. I love that they have comfy sofas for me to just sit down next to my friends and
talk about intimate conversations. The worst place to talk are the tall seats across the
ballroom.”
“If it had a restaurant connected to it -­‐ ie: if the Point Grill was attached to it instead of in
another building. I use it most frequently for the services and amenities provided there -­‐ fitness
room, study room -­‐ which tend to be solo activities.”
“The meeting rooms don't have good acoustics (noises bounce off walls a lot) and makes it hard
to study when people are socializing in these areas. The atmosphere of the meeting rooms
aren't that conducive to studying/hanging out in (possibly because of the acoustics and also
maybe because of the SUPER squeaky chairs).”
“I would make the comfortable seating area closer to the door because having to walk all the
way to the back of the building makes me not want to sit there”

18
“WATER FOUNTAINS! It's hard to fit a waterbottle under the tap in the bathroom, and you can't
control the temperature of the water. This is irritating if I'm studying late at night and don't
want to lose time running back to my room.”
“Two problems: 1)It is a far too open, dark, uninteresting room with the atmosphere of a school
cafeteria after everyone has left. 2) it is in no proximity whatsoever to anything of interest.
There's is [sic] two vending machines and these cold, un-­‐welcoming study rooms, and that's it.
Social interactions are not a planned event for the purpose of interacting. People meet for
something. For a coffee, for a stretch out in the sun, for a beer, to be away from something. The
only comparative advantage the commonsblock could have is I offer a cozy, nice space where
people feel welcome and well. But instead of using it's proximity to nature, the feeling of space
in the room is that of being separated of said nature. The room is a big, long, tunnel connecting
the seating area with an empty hallway instead of opening space into nature.”
“Although I do not personally use this space often, I feel that it is absolutely perfect for social
interactions, and would not change anything “
“It needs a more inviting, warm environment. A more modern, welcoming vicinity with more
comfortable chairs and an area to purchase food/drinks. A lot of people will meet over a coffee
or lunch; however, since neither of these things are available there, they will more more likely to
go to the Point or the Sub.”
“In winter, the big study room and the red couch area can be a bit cold since air from the
outside goes in frequently.”
“It might be nicer if there was some sort of separation between a quiet and non-­‐quiet area, so
that I don't feel bad talking around people that seem to be studying.”
“1. Need a water fountain or water cooler. 2. Better table layout. 3. Semi-­‐organized events. 4.
Usually hard to find a spot”

4.2.1 Discussion
a) Location
This space is not connected to any of the buildings and is located at the far end of
Commonsblock. This inconvenient location has been a major factor that interferes with
the use of this space.
b) Café
This space just has 2 vending machines and doesn’t have any water fountains. As
suggested by the comments of the residents, the space should have water fountains and
a café.
c) User Control

19
 As per the observations, the furniture in the space was adjustable and space users had a
control on the temperature of this space. The survey results also show the same
opinion; the residents are generally satisfied with the thermal comfort (5.17/7) and the
general layout (5.75/7) of this space. These two factors have also been rated as the
space enhancing factors for social interactions.
d) Natural daylighting
The space was observed to have good natural daylighting and furnishings. This
observation is supported by the survey results as well since the natural daylighting and
furnishings have been voted as one of the space enhancing design features.
e) Use of space
It was observed that the space was mostly being used as a study space and was
generally very quiet. As a result the residents perceived this space as a study space and
felt uncomfortable to have conversations in this space.
f) Seating Area
As per our observation this area had comfortable couches and seating, but the total
number of seating was 30 which is low considering the number of residents who live in
this building (1634). The seating area in this space got a rating of 4.19 and this is mainly
because the residents need more seating in this space especially for study purposes.
Overall, the seating area has been rated as both an enhancing design feature because
it’s comfortable and most interfering design feature due to its low number.
g) Acoustics
The acoustics in this space has been rated as an interfering factor for social interactions
and has received a satisfaction rating of 4.42. These results conflict with the measured
value of acoustics (48 dBA) which is really low and should not interfere with people’s
interactions.

20
4.3 Walter Gage Residence
There are 3 towers in Walter Gage residence, connected with each other by a common space in
the middle. The researched space is the connection area (Figure 4.7). Two night measurements
and a day lighting measurement were conducted. The measured IEQ factors and the
observation data for other internal and external factors are in Appendix C.

21
Figure 4.7. Common space in Walter Gage

22
 Figure 4.8. Gage lobby Plan

The light mainly comes from artificial lighting, even in the day. The only source of natural
lighting is the skylights (Figure 4.9). There is a TV, which is usually on in the evening. A small
shop is just a few steps away from the seating area (Figure 4.11).

Figure 4.9. Natural lighting in Gage Figure 4.10. TV in the area

23
 Figure 4.11. Shop

Other issues are noted down in Error! Reference source not found..
The Walter Gage residence was found to have the most number of interactions among the
three student residences. This common space is connecting the three Walter Gage towers with
over 1300 student residents. This area has plenty of space for group meetings and is mostly
used for group and individual studying.
According to the interviews, residents like the different kinds of seating available, noisiness
(they are more comfortable studying in noise), soft couches, ventilation and close distance to
the exterior door. They are willing to have more outlets for laptops and more tables. They
usually use the space for casual talks, watching movies group and individual studying. The total
number of interactions observed in this space during approximately 8 hour of observation was
29 and the average duration of the interactions were 56 minutes. This space had the most
number and type of interactions in comparison to other spaces. The on-­‐site social interactions
observation data has been attached in Appendix C.
The total number of responses for this survey was 151. The residents use this space mostly for
general discussion and academic discussions. The average time spent by occupant in this space
per day is around 42.8 minutes. As per survey most of the occupants have their conversations
at the couches, lounge, near the fireside and the table area. The occupants of this building were
mostly satisfied with the various design features and IEQ factors of this space. In comparison to

24
the spaces in other buildings they were less satisfied with the seating and noise level in this
space as can be seen from Table 4.2. The other findings from the survey are summarized in
Appendix C. Some of the insightful comments from residents are mentioned below:
“I very much like and enjoy the common area. It is an excellent place to socialize, but not exactly
an ideal location to study. This is due to the abundance of distractions (noise, people to talk to,
etc.), however the quiet areas nearby fulfill this need.”
“I would prefer to not have study tables in Fireside Lounge as to increase its use for
conversations or general hangout space as I feel uncomfortable socializing in a space where I
am surrounded by people studying.”
“Some of the seats don't have backs which is awkward for studying or just sitting for long
periods of time. Sometimes the smell of smoke drifts in from outside. Not always free seats or
tables”
“Most people use it for studying so there is hardly any social interaction happening. This applies
to me as well. If it was less deemed as a studying area and more of a hangout area, playing
some soft music would be nice for a change.”
“The lounge has limited space to study. There's rooms to seat but not enough tables”
“More seating space, tables for studying, noise reduction”
“Firstly, it looks too hotel. Like boring cheap hotel. Can't they get different colored couches or
something? Secondly, there's never enough space/seating. Often I just wont go down because I
don't think I'll be able to get seats”

4.3.1 Discussion
a) Acoustics
Again, the acoustics issue here is tricky. All the students that we interviewed like the
noise in the space, which they think is necessary for their study. However, as per the
result of survey, acoustics turns to be the second worst feature in this space. This is
because the tolerance of noise level differs from person to person. The people we
interviewed were using that space at that time, which is a result of loving the space,
while the students who filled out the survey may not use the space at all. That’s why we
received conflicting feedbacks in interviews and surveys.
b) Seating
i) General Liking
The interesting thing is that seating became the feature that people like most, as
well as the one people dislike most. For example, one student mentioned in the
interview that she likes the variety of types of seats in the space while one student
in survey complained about the seats without backs, as they are not comfortable for

25
 study. The perceived reason for this contradicting finding may be two-­‐fold. First, the
flavour of seating really depends on people. Second, different interpretation of the
function of the space somehow determines people’s favour of seating. To those who
use the space for study, some of the seats are not suitable, but to those who regard
this space as a hangout space, the seats are well-­‐designed in terms of flexibility and
sense of variety.
ii) Available Space
Most of students think there should be more seating. Given the fact that no Wi-­‐Fi
exists in students’ rooms except the common space on the ground floor, 68 seats
with over 1300 residents are not enough at all.
c) Layout and furnishings
Despite some feedbacks on “boring cheap hotel” type of furnishing, most of the people
find the space attractive because of the layout and furnishing. The space creates a sense
of openness and inviting.
d) Not clear function of space
The designed function of this common space is not clear. There are study rooms around
this central area however people don’t go to the quiet study rooms often. There is also a
lounge nearby, however the table and chairs in the lounge tend to make it a study
space. The researched space should serve as a hangout area for social interactions, but
most of students regard it as another study area (according to observations and survey).
The ambiguity of the function of the space does create conflicts. The students who have
talks in this space feel uncomfortable socializing when surrounded by people studying.
Meanwhile, the studying students feel distracted by the noise and people walking by.
e) Food service
More than one person mentioned the good to have the shop besides the common
space. According to our interviews and observations, students tend to buy some snacks
as a break of study. Proximity to shop and vending machine increases the time that
people spend in this space (42.8 minutes, which is the highest among all the five
buildings).
f) Access to the space
Last but not least, the most influential factor that contributes to the highly used
common space in Walter Gage is that the common space is the connection of the three
towers. Everyone must walk though this space to get into and out of their homes. The
easy access, or let’s say, the required access to this space increases the usage of the
common space.

26
4.4 Academy Tower
Academy Tower is a Polygon high-­‐rise residential development which is owned by Strata. This
building has 132 residents. Due to some security and privacy issues, the research team had
limited access to the building. Therefore, only two day measurements were done in Academy.
The measured IEQ factors and the observation data for other internal and external factors are
in Appendix D.

Figure 4.12. Academy Lobby

27
 Figure 4.13. Academy lobby plan

On the second measurement day, the team noticed new signs in the space which limited the
use of the space by the residents. The signs state the space is “for meeting only” and “It is not
to be used as a personal study/work/play area” on the table. (Figure 4.14)

Figure 4.14. Signs on the Table

28
Another interesting finding is that there is no mailbox or unit number with “4” which is a bad
number in the Chinese culture due to its same pronunciation of the character “death”. (Figure
4.15). Also, all the signs and notices were written in English and Chinese. This implies that the
majority of the residents are Chinese.

Figure 4.15. Mail boxes without number “4”

Very little social interactions were observed in the lobby area of Academy tower. People were
mostly passing by to reach the elevator. When people were together, they had short talks while
waiting for the elevator. The space was full of signs that discourage social interactions. The
signs require people not to make noise in the lobby to avoid disturbance for ground floor
residents, also the table was said to be used only for building meetings and not for study
purposes. The bench in the lobby seats at most 4 people and is very uncomfortable. The
amount of natural lighting and views are very pleasant, but people do not use the space for any
purposes other than waiting for a few minutes. As can be seen from Table 4.1, the total number
of interactions observed in this space during approximately 8 hour of observation were only 4
and the average duration of the interactions were 4 minutes.
The total numbers of responses for Academy survey were 16. The residents normally used this
space sometimes for general discussions and never for academic discussions. The average time
spent by occupant in this space per day is around 13.3 minutes. As per the survey most of the
occupants have their conversations at the conference table and on the bench. The occupants of
this building were mostly satisfied with the various design features and IEQ factors of this
space. In comparison to the spaces in other buildings they were less satisfied with the layout,

29
thermal comfort, access and cleanliness. Other findings from the survey are summarized in
Appendix D. Some of the insightful comments from residents are as follows:
“Try not to impose unreasonable rules on using communal space, such as forbidding individual
private study by tenants”.
“Try to have similar layout as in the neighboring Sage and Wesbrook which appear to make
much better use of communal space”.
“Providing some magazines or newspapers to make better use of the decorating bookself, and
hence to motivate tenants to take a relaxing brief stay there.”
“For more social interaction, add something fun. A foosball table or pool table. Maybe a
watercooler. The one large table can be intimidating to sit at if there are already 2+ people
sitting there. Especially how it's tucked in the corner like that. People will first sit at the
outermost, closest seats. As a stranger, it's awkward to slip in behind them and sit on the other
side of the table.”
“More separation from the adjacent living spaces -­‐ the noise travels quite easily and disturbs
residents -­‐ the space that was supposed to be a gathering place had been restricted and and
basically decoration -­‐ it would be nice if the doors to the pond opened for air”

4.4.1 Discussion
a) Layout
Although the table in the lobby is a nice place to sit, the first people usually sit on the
outermost chairs, limiting the use of the other chairs at the corner by the other
occupants. The table is confined at the corner and there is not enough space around it.
b) Seating
The seating in this space consists of a bench and a table with eight chairs. The bench is
very uncomfortable, however the table is a nice place to sit and study or read. According
to survey, the residents would like to have magazines and newspapers in the bookshelf
to be able to sit at the table and read. However, the signs on the table limit the use of it
to meetings only.
c) Acoustic
To make the best use of the space, the lobby area is very close to the ground floor units.
There is no acoustic separation and the noise travels in the lobby, which is found very
disturbing by the residents. The signs in the lobby that limit the use of the space are
aimed to minimize the noise travelling to the units. It is recommended to allow for
adequate distance between the common areas and the residential units as well as
separating these areas acoustically, so the residents can use the common areas freely at
any time.

30
4.5 Sitka Tower
Sitka tower with 68 residents was also studied. Same as Academy building limited access
allowed for only two day measurements in this building. Same as Academy building limited
access allowed for only two day measurements in Sitka. The common space that was studied is
the lobby area (Figure 4.16). Figure 4.17 shows a layout and location numbers in this space. The
measured IEQ factors and the observation data for other internal and external factors are in
Appendix E.

31
 Figure 4.16. Sitka lobby

Figure 4.17. Layout of Sitka lobby

32
This space was found to be mostly used as a waiting area. A few interactions were observed
during the observation periods. They were mostly short talks while people were waiting for a
cab or a friend. According to interviews with people, they use the space to catch up with a
friend or wait for a cab. The space is not very often used, but the sofas are found to be
comfortable. The openness of the space was found to make a seated person uncomfortable
when others pass by. As can be seen from Table 4.1, the total number of interactions observed
in this space during approximately 8 hour of observation were only 4 and the average duration
of the interactions were 4 minutes.
The total number of responses for this survey was only 9. The weighted average of the
satisfaction levels (1-­‐7 as Highly dissatisfied to Highly Satisfied) for different design features is
shown in Figure 13.1. The space is rarely used by the residents. The average time spent by
occupant in this space per day is around 7.35 minutes. As per the survey, most of the occupants
have their conversations at the lobby couches and some even use the outdoor space for their
conversations. The occupants of this building were mostly satisfied with the various design
features and IEQ factors of this space. In comparison to the spaces in other buildings they were
less satisfied with the cleanliness and maintenance as can be seen from Table 4.2. The other
findings from the survey are summarized in Appendix E.
Some of the insightful comments from residents are as follows:
“I don't use this space, and don't have the need or desire to. However, I do like the garden space
outside”
“The color in the lobby area is cool. I cannot imagine to seat there just to enjoy my time! Also
there is a small lobby for this big building. The second lobby (In front of post boxes) is just waste
of space. Nobody can feel comfortable to seat because of layout.”
“I would make one part more private, they are too open to everyone walking by for an actual
conversation. A workout space would be amazing.”
“I think it's really beneficial in terms of having a physical space in the building that is prioritized
for socializing because does it not only make things convenient but also is comforting knowing
that there is a space available if I ever needed one for whatever reason.”

4.5.1 Discussion
a) Layout and size
The lobby area at Sitka consists of two sections. The first section is by the entrance and
another section is located in front of mailroom. The first section is thought to be too open
for people to feel comfortable to sit down and talk. The second space is not a desirable
space for residents to use as it is located in front of mail boxes and elevators where people
do not feel comfortable seating there. Also, the lobby area is thought to be very small

33
compare to the building. However, the garden, which has benches and is accessible from
the lobby, is sometimes used for socializing. Surveys show that people like the garden more
than the lobby itself.
b) Furnishings
Although the couches in the lobby are comfortable, the colors used in the space are not
inviting, as they are mostly cool colors.
c) Benefits of having a space for social interactions
People in this building are interested in having a space dedicate for social interactions. They
also think that a workout space might serve both functions: exercising and socializing.

34
6 Recommendations for Developers
From this study, we concluded that there is not a clear direct correlation between the design
features, IEQ factors and the social interactions that occur in these spaces. However, some
recommendations can be logically deduced from our findings which are applicable to buildings
similar to the buildings studied in this project. One of the most important recommendations is
that the function of the space should be clearly defined so people perceive it as a social space.
To foster the interactions, there should be a medium in the space which encourages people to
interact and use the space; this can talk the form of a small café, gym or children’s playroom
etc. The space should be centrally located, have adequate lighting and ventilation. In addition
to this, the residents should be able to control the space by adjusting their thermal comfort or
rearranging the layout of the furniture. It would be better if the designer could have an idea of
the target residents’ needs before designing the common spaces in residential buildings.
The detailed recommendations are explained below:
• Clearly define the function of the common space
The function of a common space should be clearly defined whether it’s for study or social
interactions. In case a common space has multiple purposes the different spaces should be
separated from each other to provide acoustical privacy and to provide appropriate type of
furnishings (fewer seats for a social space, more seats for study area). Holding more social
events in these spaces or having some board games attached to the table can make the
function of these social spaces more clear.
• The size of the common space
Design larger communal spaces so people feel comfortable to sit down and use the space
while others are using it.
• Provide a medium for social interaction in the space
People are encouraged to meet and interact over something be it for a coffee, for a snack,
going to a gym, studying together or taking their child out. Having an add-­‐on to a common
space like a café, games room, gym or children’s playroom may increase the social
interactions in that space.
• Resident control over the space
The users of the space are more satisfied with their space when they have some degree of
control over it. Some examples are as follows:
Ø Different types of furniture which residents can move according to their needs
Ø Control over the temperature and their thermal comfort such as being able to
open the windows or open/close shades
Ø The power to control the lighting according to their activity in the space. Having
local lighting as well as adequate background lighting
Ø Control over ventilation such as having operable windows in the common spaces

44
• Location of the common space
The space should be centrally located so that it is easily visible and accessible to all the
residents, and they do not have to make an “effort” to go there.
• Provide acoustical privacy in the space
Separate the communal spaces acoustically from the residential units so that residents can
freely use the space.
• Outdoor common spaces
Having outdoor spaces is appreciated by residents, however will interfere with the use of
the indoor common space.
• Ventilation
People do care about ventilation according to comments from the survey. Good ventilation
will increase the usage of a common space.
• Sufficient Lighting
The lighting in the space should be appropriate and as per the requirements for the space,
they may exceed the requirements but should not be below it. Lighting should be given
special consideration especially if a study space is being designed in the common space.
However, the presence of natural daylighting seems to have no correlation with the use of
the space.
• Design for target residents
Target residents should be defined and analyzed before design the common space in
residential buildings, since the culture among residents influence the usage of a common
space. In general, students require more space for study, while families and professional
workers don’t need study spaces. The buildings for undergraduate students should have
more social space compared to those for graduate students.

45
7 Limitations and Future Work
The study on environmental psychology has many limitations. In this study, limitations were as
follows:
1) Limited access to the spaces in Condo towers
2) Time distribution of measurements
3) Limited measurement period
4) Non-­‐building related factors affecting the results
5) Limited number of studied buildings, especially for condo towers.
In addition to the design and IEQ features, there are many other factors that may also influence
social interactions, including personal and cultural factors, social factors, and time period the
community has been in existence (Clitheroe et al. 1998). These factors have not been taken into
account in our study due to time limitation.
In order to ensure the well-­‐being of communities, the designers need more certain answer to
the question ‘what enhances social interactions in a space’ to be able to design spaces that
foster social interactions and consequently the mental well-­‐being of the human being. More in-­‐
depth study in environmental psychology will help answer this question. A more detailed
analysis of the culture of these buildings can be included as a part of future research. It is
suggested that future research be done in this area with a larger number of high-­‐rises and for a
longer period of time. Some other common areas such as garbage sorting areas and washing
areas should also be explored. It will be beneficial to have a large sample of buildings and
observations so that the results with statistical power can be obtained. In this study, it was also
found that interviewing residents as well as the survey questionnaire could be very helpful in
giving the researchers some insight about the needs of the residents.

46
8 References

Amole, D. (2009). “Residential Satisfaction in Students’ Housing.” Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 29, 76–85.

Clitheroe, H. C., Stokols, D., and Zmuidzinas, M. (1998). “Conceptualizing the context of
environment and behaviour.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 18, 103–112.

Fromm, D. (1991). Collaborative Communities: Co-housing, Central Living, and Other New
Forms of Housing with Shared Facilities. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Gifford, R. (2007). “The Consequences of Living in High-Rise Buildings.” Architectural Science

Review, 50(1).

Hazzeh, T. A. M. A. B. U. (1999). “Housing Layout , Social Interaction , And The Place Of

Contact In Abu-Nuseir , Jordan.” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(1), 41–73.

Holahan, C. J. (1976). “Environmental Effects on Outdoor Social Behavior in a Low-Income

Urban Neighborhood: A Naturalistic Investigation.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
6(1), 48–63.

Huang, S.-C. L. (2006). “A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing.”

Landscape and Urban Planning, 78(3), 193–204.

McCamant, K., and Durrett, C. (1994). Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing

Ourselves. Ten Speed Press, CA.

Scannell, L., Hodgson, M., Villarreal, J. G. M., and Gifford, R. (2014). “The Role of Acoustics
in the Perceived Suitability of , and Well-Being in , Informal Learning Spaces.” Building &
Environment.

Zagreus, L., Huizenga, C., Arens, E., and Lehrer, D. (2004). “Listening to the occupants : a Web-
based indoor environmental quality survey.” Indoor Air: International Journal of Indoor
Environment and Health, 14(Suppl 8), 65–74.

47