This Open Plan Case Study originates from the 2007 JISC-commissioned study into the Design and Management of Technology-Rich Learning and Teaching Spaces in Further and Higher Education in the UK by Les Watson, Hugh Anderson (Principal, haa design) and Katherine Strachan (Architect, haa design).
Case Study tags: learning spaces, open plan, saltire centre, glasgow caledonian university, new build, scotland, higher education
Opened 2006
Respondent Tom Finnigan, Director of Learner Support
Glasgow Caledonian University's Saltire Centre has been well publicised and has become something of a 'cause celebre' in the discussion of new learning centres. It is physically dramatic with lots of the SCONUL 'oomph' factor, it also stuck its neck out in attempting various new ways of doing things, previously tested on only a much smaller scale. Having been in operation now for over a year and with some of the initial razzamatazz having died down, it is interesting to get an impression of what has and has not worked. In general while there have been some adjustments it would seem that the building is coming into its own, and, of the major new complexes visited and analysed, would seem to be the most successful, not just at the level of having created something seriously different, but having dealt with most of the practical problems of providing workable space at a daily level.
Opinions are inevitably individual but the situation at Caledonian University is a little different in that it is one place where a user survey has been attempted. Thus in a survey of over 3,000 students in 2006, 92% returned a verdict of "good" or better with 32% describing the facility as "exceptional". Thereafter the popularity of the facility amongst students is more than proven by the huge usage that it has attracted. By contrast most criticism has come from staff or from existing year 3 and year 4 students, whom it may be surmised, are more familiar and more comfortable with traditional facilities. The new building deserves therefore to be taken seriously, not necessarily as the exemplar for all new learning centres, but at least as a most interesting testing ground for a series of physical and managerial strategies.
The new facility is bold and makes a strong first impression, but this belies a more subtle building and management strategy not fully appreciated by some critics. The building has big open-plan spaces and gives the impression of being part of a large atrium space, but the different "reading rooms" are in fact separated floor by floor and separated from the atrium. This means that the noise (such as it is) and the air movement (which is key to its passive environmental control system) are independent of the more conventional "library" spaces. In analysing the building therefore one has to distinguish between level '0' which contains the café, the student support spaces, a certain amount of open book stacks and the main entrance (which comes in at level 1, but within the common atrium space), and levels 2, 3 and 4. Unlike some older buildings however where, short of reading the directory board, users are essentially unaware of the rest of the learning facility, in the Saltire Centre the building makes up a single experience with visitors coming and going and sharing the buzz of the social facilities on level '0'.
With regard to noise (which was reported as something of a 'non-issue' and with the few separated work areas being "marginally used") it was considered that the building was still going through something of a transition phase where those used to the study carrels of the old building were not particularly happy, but constituted a 'minority' albeit a vocal one. Furthermore it was also considered the image of the building on the ground floor belied what was happening on the upper floors where the spaces were zoned from "medium social" to "totally quiet" and operated on a much more conventional basis. The fact that there might not always be sufficient seats of choice was the unfortunate result of the building's popularity.
Besides the obvious zoning between floors, the building illustrates various other strategies across its open-plan spaces. On the upper floors the noisy elements - photocopiers and people clustering around printers - are contained within the stylish "printer pods" which serve to partly contain and modulate noise, and, along with the limited number of open bookstacks, to structure the floor as a whole. The same strategy is utilised on the ground floor where the iconic tents and inflatable pods give definition to a floor otherwise rattling with low furniture, and which provide psychological (if not physical) protection from working groups immediately alongside. Separation in the form of balconies projecting into the atrium space similarly removes the famous 'lounging' areas (complete with bean bags) from the 'library' spaces. A possibly less successful experiment comes in the 'separated work areas' on each floor, or more correctly 'alcove spaces' which have in some instances been turned into places for limited teaching. These spaces (fully enclosed on level 1, with modified ventilation to suit) consist of ¾ high 'U' shaped partitions which partially close off the alcove spaces. The idea is that with movable low-level partitioning, relatively self-contained spaces can be immediately formed to suit particular needs. Providing visual screening however, but without acoustic separation, it becomes easy for groups to start making a noise in the mistaken belief that they are in fact separate, and to properly enclose the spaces at this stage is not particularly easy, given the ventilation strategy of the building.
