Future Campus: Design Quality in University Buildings
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
by Ian Taylor, ed. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] RIBA Publishing 2016 142 pages ISBN: 9781-85946-610-0 INTRODUCTION IN THIS ARTICLE, we review the book Future Campus: Design Quality in University Buildings. The central argument of this book is that vibrant student- and researcher-oriented university campus requires robust, effective, stimulating, and quality space design. This is conclusion of consequence for campus planners confronting contrary attitudes from university and government decision makers who question the resource intensiveness of the physical plant. This conclusion is significant after over decade of debate regarding the value of this space given the expansion of virtual learning. We recommend Future Campus as primer on the subject; to those tasked with contributing to master planning exercise (particularly anyone new to the endeavor), this book provides insight and encouragement. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS Future Campus explores through practical essays how effective planning and design can be achieved on university campuses and offers valuable introduction to the topic of campus design in an attractive and accessible manner for an array of audiences. The book presents collection of articles intended to inspire and enhance collaboration and conversation around the campus master plan. The anticipated audience is the public, academics, architects, community members, students, professionals, planners, and other university stakeholders. Following from the premise that the university campus matters, the authors contend that the design of the campus first and foremost must derive from the academic priorities (the strategic plan) of the institution. From there, the physical expression of that purpose, pedagogically and socially, will be more readily revealed for each building, the entire campus, and the public areas between buildings. The authors of Future Campus raise questions pertinent to this goal and provide case studies proffering viable solutions. Intersecting perspectives and varied approaches to the study of capital planning in higher education are presented and organized into four sections, each of which is introduced with thought-provoking opinion piece: (1) context and master planning, (2) spaces, (3) briefing, design, and construction, and (4) value and performance. The book concludes with four case studies that illustrate the authors' findings. First, those responsible for university master planning are encouraged in Future Campus to pursue an ethos of flexibility and sustainability in the rapidly changing environment of higher education. Anticipating the future of our campuses may appear to be a mug's game, but failing to participate in the game is perhaps more so. Conversely, campus planners are pressed to maintain stability and consistency as they develop long-term master plans. In order to overcome these challenges, the authors emphasize the need for collaborative planning processes that engage users, builders, funders, designers, and decision makers. The opinion piece entitled Briefing to Occupation: London Centre for Nanotechnology by Gabriel Aeppli makes case for the design process itself benefiting from an interdisciplinary approach accomplished through the involvement of end users. Next, Future Campus ponders the relationship of universities to their neighboring communities, the context for capital planning. The master planner attempts to understand the spatial typologies needed to facilitate innovative teaching goals, the degree of flexibility needed in those typologies, and how an attitude of sustainability might be imbued in master plan. Most campuses in the United States, Canada, and the European Union concede an abundance of mid-century infrastructure that creates significant challenges for technical planning and in funding plans. Developing master plans that breathe new life into old facilities while balancing tight budgets and myriad standards of environmental performance can be elusive. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle