Presentation on theme: "My Home or My Shared House : The Housing Preferences of Students Who Share Their Houses with Roommate(s) paper presentation EVALUATION in PROGRESS iaps."— Presentation transcript:
My Home or My Shared House : The Housing Preferences of Students Who Share Their Houses with Roommate(s) paper presentation EVALUATION in PROGRESS iaps 2004 Evrim Demir (M.Arch, B.Arch) PhD Student in Community & Environmental Design, NCSU Orcun Kepez (M.Sc, B.Sc in Arch.) PhD Student in Community & Environmental Design,NCSU &
Introduction: Sharing a house with one or more roommates is very common in college life. Roommates are generally neither friends nor family, but strangers matched to share the rent. Housing complexes close to universities generally act as a magnet for students and serve as student housing neighborhoods. Apartments are designed in a way they are expected to be shared and generally offer equal outdoor spaces. The rents of the units are parallel indicating the similarity of the housing quality.
Discussion: Privacy needs of a house shared with a roommate are different from a house shared with friends or family. Moreover, the territorial behaviors that roommates can demonstrate in a shared house are distinct from the territorial behaviors of students who share rooms in resident halls.
Background: According to Altman (1975), privacy is an interpersonal boundary-control process, which paces and regulates interactions with others. The balance and equation of desired and achieved privacy can be maintained by territorial behaviors an individual perform in space. Altman, I. (1975). The Environment and Social Behavior. Monterey, CA: Brooks/ Cole.
Aim and Significance of the Study: Aim of this study is to investigate the effect of privacy needs on housing preferences of college students living with roommates. Although, starting from 80s, there is a growing literature on territorial behavior and privacy needs of college students who live in shared spaces in university residence halls (Mercer & Benjamin, 1980; Kaplan, 1982; Kastenbaum, 1984); house as a shared space for students is quite untouched phenomenon. Mercer, G. W. & Benjamin, M.L. (1980). Spatial Behavior of University Undergraduates in Double Occupancy Residence Rooms: An Inventory of Effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 10, Kaplan, M.M. (1982). Effects of Adolescent Space Sharing Experience in Privacy-related Dormitory Behaviors (Doctoral Dissertation, Boston University Graduate School). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43A,1. Kastenbaum, D.R. (1984). Territorial Behavior and Interpersonal Relations in a University Residential Environment (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44B, 11.
Methodology: The subjects of this study are 60 student residents who are living in the houses that are distributed along the schools busline. All houses can be described as row houses however some of the houses offer one, and some of them offer double story apartments. This study utilizes correlational research as methodology with the use simulation in the tactical level. A visual data set is designed and the respondents were asked to prefer among each set of visuals with the reasons behind their choice.
Preparation of Visual Sets: Collect plans classify redraw Take photos find similar types take photos edit photos classify Photo set 1: apartments Photo set 2: town houses Photo set 3: entrances drawing main set 1: Axonometric drawing main set 2: plans style Spatial Conf.
Application of Visual Sets: apartment information Photo set 2: town houses-6 Photo set 3: entrances-8 drawing main set 1: axonometric (3x3) drawing main set 2: plans (3x3) All houses are in same size, have same rent and utilities and outdoor facilities…etc. Supposing that you will have one roommate would you prefer a town house or an apartment? Eligibility 1-Graduate/ Undergraduate Student Status 2- Have/ had experience of sharing a house with one or more roommate during the educational life in college town house Photo set 1: apartments-6 Photo set 3: entrances-8 drawing main set 1: axonometric (3x3) drawing main set 2: plans (3x3) Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
Which type of housing preferred? Apartments or town houses? Two story types were preferred more than one story apartments. General aims of selecting two story types were explained as having two different environments for different functions. Some respondents defined this as separation of the entertainment part from living part. Bedrooms described as living part.
Which type of plans preferred? Closed, semi-open or open plans? The open plans that combined kitchen, dining and living spaces were criticized for not giving any opportunity to feel alone Totally closed plans were not liked as well, in terms of providing inflexible space for gatherings and having potential of dorm-like living The highly preferred type of plans were the ones neither open or closed but the ones that had continuity of space that gave enough privacy for each function without isolation in the spatial configuration.
What about photos? The results from entrance preferences showed that there was a strong desire for home like appearance even though it was to be shared. Thus, two- story types were selected for their individual unit entrances and facade organizations Apartments that were highly preferred look like town houses. preferred entrances preferred apartments preferred town houses
Conclusion The room that a student occupied in a house was perceived as the most private part in the whole. However, the other parts were not totally perceived as semi- private. Current or previous experience of having (a) good or bad roommate(s) has an effect on students evaluation of drawings (2d &3d). People who strongly insist on open plans describe their roommates as their friends. The general behavior of the respondents showed that the spatial configuration of the parts, except the bedrooms occupied, had great impact on housing preferences of individuals.
implications and further studies Findings are expected to enrich design guidelines for future projects. The methodology followed is appropriate for participatory design process. Study can serve as a pilot for a further study that will take cultural comparisons into consideration. A real life environment study can be done as a follow up.