Development of Phase I of IIMB New Undergraduate Campus
Brief of Proposal
Client: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore (IIMB)
Location: Survey No. 47, Mahanthaligapura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bengaluru Urban District
To create a world-class, future-ready, Net Zero sustainable campus that promotes
academic excellence, holistic student life, and environmental responsibility.
The Institute is designed to accommodate up to 1200 students.
Why a New Campus?
Current Campus Limitations:
The existing IIMB campus at Bannerghatta Road is designed for PG and executive
programs and lacks land for major expansion.
Growing Academic Demand:
To introduce undergraduate programs, requiring new facilities and infrastructure without
compromising the current campus operations.
Location:
Jigani Hobli offers larger land parcels, good connectivity to IT and industrial hubs, making
it ideal for an innovation-driven academic ecosystem.
Sustainability Benchmark:
To set an example as one of India’s first fully Net Zero higher education campuses,
focusing on energy efficiency, water recycling, and carbon neutrality.
Design Justifications
Sustainability Goals:
Net Zero Energy and Water Campus through on-site solar energy generation and water
recycling systems.
Implementation of rainwater harvesting, greywater recycling and waste management
strategies.
Simulation to Achieve GRIHA / LEED Certification.
Academic & Pedagogical Framework:
Flexible learning environments with modular classrooms and collaborative learning zones.
Smart classrooms integrated with advanced digital infrastructure.
Student-Centric Development:
Community focused hostel clusters promoting interaction and inclusivity.
Comprehensive sports and performing arts facilities for holistic development.
Inclusivity & Accessibility:
Design based on Universal Design Principles to ensure accessibility for all.
Emphasis on safe pedestrian circulation and barrier-free mobility.
Architectural Language & Context:
Maintain contextual identity inspired by IIMB’s architectural ethos (B.V. Doshi) while
integrating modern sustainable technologies.
Climate responsive design with optimized building orientation, solar shading devices, and
natural ventilation strategies.
101121030 | Mukilan E V
Development of Phase I of IIMB New Undergraduate Campus
Project Components
Academic Zone - (43.7 % of Area)
Administrative Block
Academic Blocks & Smart Classrooms
Central Library & Learning Resource Center
Performing Arts Center
Residential Zone - (42.9 % of Area)
Student Hostels
Dining Halls and Common Rooms
Staff Quatres (Future Expansion)
Recreation & Cultural Zone - (10.7 % of Area)
Sports Complex (Indoor & Outdoor)
Amphitheatre & Open-Air Learning
Spaces
Cultural Courtyards
Infrastructure & Utilities - (2.7 % of Area)
Internal Roads & Pathways
(Pedestrian priority)
STP & Rainwater Harvesting System
Solar Energy Farms & Substations
Site Development
Landscape
Underpass, Gate Complex.
SITE
77 ACRES
33 ACRES
Topography
Undulating terrain typical of Bangalore outskirts.
Offers scope for creating water-sensitive landscapes and terraced courtyards.
Proximity & Connectivity
Located in the southern periphery of Bangalore.
Close to Jigani Industrial Area and Electronic City, giving access to tech and industrial hubs.
Well connected by major roads linking Bangalore city and surrounding economic zones.
Site Area - Proposed Area was divided
into 2 areas : 77 + 33 Acres
Total : 110 Acres
Site Photos
Total Built-up Area:
Approx 52450 + 6000 (Staff Quaters
- Future Expansion) = 58450 Sqm
(Tentative)
Design Focus
"My vision is to design a campus that bring up dialogue,
discovery, and well-being a campus that does not just
teach, but inspires."
“These spaces invite
students to pause, interact,
and reflect reading under a
tree, sharing ideas in a
corner, or simply sitting with
friends. Here, stress
becomes calm, and
isolation turns into
belonging.”
“An institution is not just
classrooms and corridors it
is a living space where
people connect, pause,
and find inspiration”
“My design focus asks: How
can a campus become
more than buildings a
place where learning and
living flow together, turning
isolation into a vibrant sense
of community?”
“I imagine a campus where
boundaries fade away
academic zones, learning
areas, and public spaces
forming one connected
landscape. Moving from a
classroom to a courtyard or
shaded plaza should feel
effortless, like water flowing
from one pool to another.”
Literature Case Study 01
The Case study has been picked up to
understand the design of a newly built
business school to understand the current
requirements of a business school. The
case study also has shown smart master
planning.
Area - 300 Acres
OG.C. (phase -1) - 15.5 Acres (5.3%)
Total No. of Students - 900
Total Built-up (phase -1) - 155000 sqm
Architect - B. V. Doshi
IIM Udaipur
Master Plan
Campus master plan is sustainably
planned.
Drainage pattern of the site marked first.
Lowest points identified.
Circulation laid out next.
Buildings planned on highlands.
Orientation optimized for the built form.
Concept - Self-Sustaining Campus
Micro Level
Provision for future expansion
with space for ~2 more
campuses.
Single site entry for campus
access.
Internal vehicular roads spread
in various directions.
Academic block, MDC center,
auditorium, and sports center
located far apart.
Series of dams in the western part form cascading lakes.
Eastern part preserved as a buffer zone and campus
resource.
Dense orchards and fields planned supports food
security and self-sustaining campus life.
Academic buildings arranged around water bodies
helps cool temperature and harvest rainwater.
Sustainability features:
Solar farm for renewable energy.
Zero-waste facility, waste treated as a resource.
DEWATS (Decentralized Wastewater Treatment
Systems) for water recycling.
Literature Case Study 01
IIM Udaipur
Massing
Massing of Mixed typology with
the hierarchy of massing as we
move vertically upwards. The
Plaza created looks upon the
main water body.
Campus Circulation
LIBRARY
CLASSROOM
Academic Block
CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM
CLASSROOM
Students Housing and Faculty Residences
Students’ Housing
Low-rise courtyard clusters using local materials, inspired by
Rajasthani villages.
Units house 20–28 students, each in single rooms, arranged
around courts/verandahs.
Cool microclimate with shaded spaces for recreation.
Clusters of 10–15 units linked to shared open space, canteen,
sports fields, amphitheater.
High density achieved despite low-rise design.
Faculty Residences
Learning extends beyond classrooms through informal
encounters and discussions.
Master Plan encourages interactions via movement routes and
discussion spaces.
Central lakes are the focus of the Academic Block.
Buildings clustered around lakes for visual and climatic benefits.
Cooled breeze from water flows through classrooms and
offices.
Two bridge-buildings connect across the valley.
Bridges act as active hubs with library and common facilities.
Bridge to student housing leads to a chowk with dining hall,
shops, and amphitheater.
Amphitheater steps down to water, integrating landscape and
social space.
Low-rise clusters with single-storey and duplex units.
Arranged around private courts and shared squares.
30–36 family units per cluster, sizes 100–225 sqm.
Academic Block
A mini auditorium with 8 fullyequipped main classrooms that
provides seating of 77 each
with the large noise-proof
arena: Along with that, there is
sufficient number of faculty
chambers
Placements
and
Administrative Offices, Library,
Canteen, Gym.
Literature Case Study 02
IIM Ahmedabad
Area - 106 Acres
Climate Zone - Hot and Dry Climate
Architect - Louis Kahn and B. V. Doshi
Total No. of Students - 1020
Total Builtup - 76000 + 55000 = 131000 sqm
The campus is in Vastrapur, Ahmedabad,
Gujarat, set on a 106-acre site comprising
the original 40-acre old campus and a 66acre new campus, situated to the west of
the city near ATIRA.
The open space is relatedly smaller than the built-up area. Its nearly 3:1 ratio.
Circulation
Spatial Distribution
Institutional
and
residential zones have
separate entries, with an
additional
separate
service
entry;
the
auditorium is placed near
the main entrance for
visitor
access
and
parking convenience.
New elevators were added, including Orientation
at the underpass linking old and new
A diagonal planning logic
campuses; ramps lead directly into
aligns buildings to capture
classrooms, improving barrier-free
prevailing
south‑west
to
access.
north‑east winds, cutting west
sun
and
glare
while
benefiting from SW breezes.
Materials
Exposed brick (walls, columns,
arches); exposed concrete
(foundations, slabs); minimal
glare-controlled glazing.
Square arches, circular voids,
geometric cuts create porous
façades, light modulation,
and
informal
gathering
edges.
The Diagonal Layout has the advantage of
the building being oriented towards the south
westerly breeze helping in the ventilation. The
orientation also helps to cut out the west sun
reducing glare.
Zoning has been spread out the site. The
academic block comprising the library,
administrative
block,
faculty
offices,
classrooms, seminar halls is located near the
main/ important edge of the site.
The student housing is kept closer to the academic
block then comes the faculty housing and then
the staff housing. Entry to staff housing is different.
The MDP, incubation centers have a different
drop-out differently but near the academic block.
Open Spaces
To facilitate interaction between students and faculty, the
main academic block developed around the plaza. The
four wings faculty and administration block, library and
classroom define the edge of the plaza and is maintained
by the sparsely punctured walls.
It also acts as a transition space between classrooms and
administration.
Landscaping is integral
to the campus, with
Louis Kahn Plaza as a
central
gathering
space, garden courts
between faculty blocks,
and
raised
lawns
enhancing
visual
quality.
Problems Facing
Lack
of
connectivity
between Old and New
Campus.
Inaccessible Courtyards.
Waterlogging issues.
Special Study
Public Space Realm
What is “public space realm” in an institutional campus?
Each institutional public space has its own unique character
and identity, which shapes the experience of students,
faculty, and visitors. Various factors such as spatial design,
accessibility, visual aesthetics, and social interactions
influence how users perceive and utilize these spaces.
In this context, Institutional public space refers to the
process of designing and managing shared campus spaces
to foster social engagement, learning opportunities, and
cultural exchange. It goes beyond physical planning to
create vibrant, inclusive, and people centric environments.
The primary aim of public space in institutions is to develop
human-focused
spaces
that
enhance
well-being,
collaboration, and overall quality of campus life. This often
involves engaging the academic community students,
faculty, and staff in creating dynamic, interactive spaces
that support education, creativity, and personal growth.
The term “realm” emphasizes the idea of an
interconnected network of spaces, rather than isolated
pockets.
Ideology
Beyond Movement – Spaces with Meaning
Institutional public spaces are not just circulation corridors or
leftover open areas; they are places of identity and memory,
where students:
Form social bonds through informal conversations.
Engage in cultural and creative activities beyond
academics.
Participate in collaborative learning, project discussions, or
even individual reflection.
Thus, these spaces act as the third place (after home and
classroom) in the academic ecosystem, making them essential
for holistic student development.
What Makes a Good Public Space in Institutions
People + Programming
Institutional public spaces thrive when they support academic and social life.
Regular student driven activities like exhibitions, performances, and workshops
activate these spaces beyond classroom hours. Programming ensures the
campus remains lively and engaging, reinforcing community identity.
Lush Landscaping
The plans to create or enhance public spaces have always integrating native
vegetation, shaded courtyards, and water features to enhance comfort and
aesthetics. These elements create informal learning zones and encourage
outdoor interaction.
Access
A successful campus public realm is easily accessible from academic blocks,
hostels, and key circulation paths. Pedestrian-friendly spines, car-free zones,
and universal design promote inclusivity. Connectivity to transit points ensures
the campus functions as an open, walkable environment.
Comfort
Institutional spaces should offer shade, ample seating, and all-weather
usability for lingering and studying. Lighting, visibility. Climate-responsive
design enhances thermal comfort, making spaces functional year-round.
Excellence in Design + Eye for Detail + Engagement
Campus spaces need a clear identity through thoughtful materiality,
signage, and interactive installations. Movable furniture allows flexibility
for group work and events. Attention to small details like charging points,
shaded benches, and wayfinding graphics turns ordinary spaces into
engaging hubs.
Sense of Delight + Sharing of Spaces
Institutional public spaces should inspire joy and curiosity, whether through
art installations, seasonal landscaping, or framed views of campus
landmarks. These spaces encourage collaboration, social interaction, and
shared experiences, fostering a strong sense of belonging among
students.
Research Paper - 01
The assessment of the quality of campus public spaces as key parts of the learning landscape: experience from a crowdsensing study on the
Third Campus of Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland
Study Findings
Locations where the crowdsensing study
participants spent free time
S1
S2
S5
A
S3
S4
G1
G2
Presence and activity of people observed during the crowdsensing
study
Introduction
Public spaces in university campuses aim to foster creativity
and trans-disciplinary networking.
Spatial configurations of these spaces remain underresearched despite their importance.
The study assesses the quality of public spaces on campus
using crowdsensing survey results.
Case study: The Third Campus of Jagiellonian University in
Krakow, one of the largest projects in Poland after the 1989
political and economic transformation.
User behavior indicates generally low quality of public
spaces, even though the campus has an advantageous
urban layout.
The paper proposes recommendations to improve spatial
organization and move closer to a fully-fledged learning
landscape.
A1 (South) – Starts from planned (unbuilt) square; poor connection; café Main Findings
Behavior Observations
Square Analysis
potential wasted.
Students use few campus
A2 & A3 see more pedestrian
S3: Most attractive – fountain, shade, benches in semicircle, good
A2 (Middle) – Faculty buildings; passive façades; monotony; few
spaces: mostly stay in S1 (their
flow (towards tram stops) than
connectivity, encourages people to stop.
interactions.
institute courtyard) and A1
A1.
S4: Paved, no trees/shade
only transit space.
A3 (North) – Similar to A2; ends near G2.
(near tram stop).
Optional activities (socializing,
S5: Slightly better than S4 but separated by road/water ditch, lacks
S1 & S2 – Internal courtyards; intended hub; poor link to A1; divided by
Attractive spaces: S3 (square
resting) mostly occur in S3 and
shade, dominated by vehicles
not inviting.
utility buildings.
with fountain and shade), G2
G2.
S1: Has sundial, greenery, benches; lacks shade, feels exposed,
S3 – Central square; fountain and old trees; more attractive.
(northern green area).
Avenue:
mainly used for crossing; poor connection to A1.
S4 & S5 – Entrance squares; under-activated.
Other spaces (A1, S1, S2, S4,
A1
mainly walking.
S2: Poor layout, dominated by car parks; chaotic routes; no active
G1 (South) – Green area; poor access; used by locals, not campus.
S5, G1) are underused
A2 & A3
some social
functions; some greenery and benches; potential due to Nature
G2 (North) – Green area; old trees, terrain variation; attractive and active.
campus exploration is poor.
interaction.
Education Centre.
→
→
→
→
→
Research Design
Method Used: Mobile crowdsensing approach through a
mobile application (mobile participatory sensing).
Platform: Epicollect5 by Imperial College London, supports
text, geolocated images, audio, and video collection.
Questionnaire Focus:
Comfort when walking or stationary (pedestrian
perspective).
Personal experience of location.
Observed behavior of others.
Sample Size: 60 students participated.
Key Analyzed Zones:
Central pedestrian avenue (divided into three sections:
A1 – south, A2 – middle, A3 – north).
Five squares/courtyards: Two internal (S1, S2) and three
at main entrances (S3, S4, S5).
Two green areas: G1 (south) and G2 (north).
Overall Assessment of Public Spaces
Most squares, courtyards, paths, and green areas
fail to serve as modern public spaces
do not
encourage staying or social interaction.
Only S3 (square) and G2 (park) function well:
S3: clear enclosure, water, shade, inclusive
seating
good for socializing.
G2: old trees, varied layout
good for
relaxation.
→
→
→
Campus Public Space Recommendation
Recommendations
Research Paper - 02
Exploring the ways in which campus open space design influences students learning experiences
Methodological Framework
It poses two exploratory and one quasi-experimental
question.
Exploratory questions: Understand experiences and
spatial attributes enabling informal learning.
Quasi-experimental question: Test validity of design
attributes from study and indoor learning literature.
Introduction
Research focuses on campus open spaces as alternative
learning settings.
Main research questions:
1) How is learning experienced in campus open spaces
2) What are the design attributes of learning in campus
open spaces?
3) Do design attributes significantly affect learning in
campus open spaces?
Study conducted with 60 students at Middle East Technical
University, Turkey.
Used qualitative and quantitative techniques.
The paper is composed of
Five Sections
Perceived Design Attributes
Presence of nature – 28%
Emotional
appraisals
(ease,
tranquility,
pleasantness, relaxation) – 24%
Easy movement – 16%
Fresh air – 16%
Quietness – 8%
Natural lighting – 4%
Social diversity – 3%
Urban furniture – 1%
Desired Design Attributes
Comfortable
&
flexible
furniture
(cushions,
hammocks, pergolas) – 37%
Key Insight
Presence of natural elements – 27%
Emotional appraisals linked to learning:
Shade – 16%
Relaxation, pleasantness, safety, comfort.
Artificial lighting – 10%
Often associated with lying down, sitting, and
Facilities for basic needs (food, toilet) –4%
gathering.
Quiet place away from traffic – 4%
Comfort factors:
Quiet open spaces, shade, flexible furniture, Design Recommendations for learning in campus open
spaces
grass.
Define open spaces with surrounding buildings and
Issues:
landscape elements.
Lack of lighting and accessibility
safety
Integrate public art (sculptures, fountains) for a
concerns
reduced use for learning.
refreshing effect.
Pleasantness triggers:
Separate outdoor study areas from main paths using
Visual beauty, flowers, sculptures.
distance, planting, and level changes.
Design natural/man-made elements for informal
sitting, eating, and socializing; add clean grassy
areas, small tables, and benches.
Include flexible urban furniture for easy movement
and adaptability.
Provide sufficient lighting for evening study and
shady elements (vegetation, slopes, bowers,
awnings) for sun protection.
→
Participants: 60 students (18–22), equal gender
distribution.
Zones & Sites:
Central Zone – 1 site (20 students)
Academic Zone – 2 sites (20 students)
Dormitory Zone – 2 sites (20 students)
Interviews (20 min each) + Semi-structured observations
(30 min per site).
Interview Timing:
Central/Academic: 12:00–13:30 & 15:00–17:00
Dormitory: After 17:00
Literature review on campus
learning settings and space
design.
Methodological framework of the
inquiry.
Empirical findings on:
Students’ learning experiences
Current and desired design
attributes of open spaces
Qualitative
approach
-Exploring
learning
Relationships between them
Site analysis of selected open experiences and design attributes
spaces in relation to findings.
Final remarks with macro and
Table 2 shows the analysis of responses to the question
micro design recommendations
referring to students learning experiences in sample
for campus open spaces.
sites. Tables 3 and 4 present meaningful .
→
Research Paper - 03
The utilization and accessibility of campus open space: Case study of the west campus of CAU
Methods
Purpose:
Questionnaire Survey
Promote student mental health and well-being
Target: campus population
Optimize utilization and layout of campus open spaces
Collected:
Methods:
Respondent details (identity, grade, affiliation)
Field research
General usage: frequency, time, duration
Questionnaire survey
Specific usage: choice of space, activity type,
Space syntax analysis - this is employed to quantify and describe
demands, problems
the accessibility of campus open space at varying levels.
Measures for reliability: one response per IP, fixed response
The relationship between accessibility and space utilization is
period, included images & locations of 14 open spaces
discussed.
The aim is to ascertain the reasons behind observed differences in Space Syntax Analysis
space utilization and provide a basis for the efficient utilization and
Innovation in this study: Integration value applied at three
layout optimization of campus open space.
levels for campus open spaces:
All adjacent external road axes (Accessibility 1)
Study Area
External road axes adjacent to entrances (Accessibility
For this study, a total of 14 open spaces within the campus were
2)
selected for analysis based on the campus map and field research.
Internal road axes within the space (Accessibility 3)
Characteristics of the Spaces
Location & Area:
A1–A8: Living area – surrounded by dormitories, canteens,
and residential facilities
A9–A13: Teaching area – near libraries and teaching
buildings
A14: Experimental area – relatively isolated
Size: Most spaces 0.2–0.6 ha; A12 largest at 1.08 ha
Landscape & Features:
Predominantly green spaces with trees, shrubs, grass, and
some walkways
A6 & A12: Large hard-surfaced playing field and square,
respectively
A13: Historic sculpture (Old School Gate)
A14: Water bodies, rockeries, viewing pavilions suitable for
crowd visits
Majority of other open spaces have moderate landscape
quality and lack distinctiveness
Spatial Layout
Introduction
Field Research
Conducted on 14 open spaces
Methods: overall tour, fixed-point observation, interviews
Factors analyzed:
Basic space characteristics
Surrounding environment and layout
Plant configuration and service facilities
Research Paper - 03
The utilization and accessibility of campus open space: Case study of the west campus of CAU
Space Utilization
Spatial Accessibility Analysis
A4
A8
A12
A13
A14
245 valid responses collected; excluded invalid/incomplete responses
Participants: students, teaching staff, families, support personnel
representative of typical campus open space users.
Space-specific utilization:
High frequency: A4, A8, A12, A13, A14
selected by >32.7% of respondents
A4 most popular: 199 times (81.2%)
Moderate frequency: A5, A6, A7, A9, A10, A11
selected 43–55 times
Low frequency: A1, A2, A3
selected 10–25 times (<10.2% of users)
Activity types:
Most common: Walk-through
213 instances (86.9%)
accessibility is key
Other frequent activities:
Walking: 190 instances (77.6%)
Enjoying scenery: 187 instances (76.3%)
Chatting/dating: 104 instances (42.4%)
Insight:
Accessibility and connectivity drive usage more than other functions of
campus open spaces
→
→
→
→
→
Layout Optimization for Accessibility
High accessibility spaces: A4, A7, A8, A9, A11
A4: highest max & mean (Accessibility 1)
3.152 &
2.350
A7, A8, A11: high mean at Accessibility 1 & 2
2.123–2.239
A9: high maximum at all levels
3.152, 3.152, 1.829;
mean
1.974, 2.313, 1.829 Located near highintegration roads and core areas (academic
buildings, libraries, canteens)
easy public access
→
→
→
→
→
Low accessibility spaces: A14, A1, A2, A3, A6
A14: isolated from living & teaching areas; max
integration values
1.933, 1.933, 1.322
A1, A2, A3, A6: entrances on lower-grade roads
lowest values at Accessibility 2 & 3
→
→
Establish differentiated, continuous walking systems for
functional areas (teaching, living, sports)
Plan internal road system uniformly
strengthen connectivity
between spaces
Open/semi-open spaces: weaken boundaries with peripheral
roads
enhance interaction and landscape integration.
Entrances/exits on nearby high-accessibility roads
access
from multiple directions.
Fast lanes: linear design for efficient movement.
Private spaces:
Use landscape walls, vines to block visual access.
Entrances on lower-accessibility roads.
Internal roads arranged in small circulation patterns.
Insight:
Combination of traffic efficiency, accessibility, and userspecific needs improves utilization and experience
→
→
→
Literature Case Study
Inference
IIM Udaipur
Doshi’s master plan integrates natural contours, drainage, and
cascading lakes, rooting the campus in ecological intelligence.
Orientation, highland placement, and buffer zones embed
sustainability directly into form.
Student and faculty housing in low-rise courtyard clusters foster
community, shade, and microclimatic comfort.
Bridges, plazas, and amphitheaters transform circulation into
active hubs of informal learning and social life.
Integration of solar farms, zero-waste systems, and orchards
ensures a self-sustaining campus ecosystem.
Key Takeaway:
The campus demonstrates how ecology-driven planning and
social spatiality can produce a self-sufficient, interactive, and
future-ready academic environment.
IIM Ahmedabad
Louis Kahn’s exposed brick forms and geometric voids give the
campus a distinct global identity rooted in simplicity.
Diagonal planning addresses ventilation, daylighting, and glare
control, embedding environmental performance into form.
The Louis Kahn Plaza acts as the heart of community life,
surrounded by key academic functions.
Use of arches, squares, and circles creates a symbolic, almost
timeless order.
Disconnect between old and new campus, inaccessible courts,
and waterlogging highlight risks of fragmented growth.
Key Takeaway:
Ahmedabad shows how monumentality and climatic intelligence
can define campus identity, but also warns about the importance
of integration in long-term development.
Research Papar
Key Insights
Campus Public Spaces Quality | Jagiellonian University
Users prioritize accessible, direct, pedestrian friendly routes, spaces
along main axes have higher usage.
Most spaces fail to support activities beyond transit, select spaces
succeed due to shade, seating, greenery.
Current spaces are monotonous and hierarchical, limited user
choice.
Successful spaces combine landscape quality, art, water, shade, and
human scale details.
Spaces are inward focused, excluding external users.
Spaces are static, unsuitable for temporary uses.
Poor materials reduce appeal.
Spaces are disconnected from surrounding urban fabric.
Campus Open Space & Student Learning | Middle East
Technical University
Enclosure by buildings and landscape elements provides privacy for
effective learning.
Public art such as sculptures and fountains creates a refreshing and
relaxing effect.
Outdoor study areas separated from pedestrian paths and traffic
ensure quietness and concentration.
Sub-spaces for discussion groups eliminate disturbance and noise.
Natural and man-made elements (clean grassy areas, tables,
benches) support informal sitting, eating, and socializing.
Flexible urban furniture allows movement and modification by users.
Lighting for reading and studying in evenings, and shade elements
(vegetation, slopes, bowers, awnings) prevent sun effects.
Open Space Utilization | West Campus CAU
86.9% of users prioritize accessibility, spaces near main axes are
highly used.
Spaces supporting multiple activities see higher utilization.
Proximity to entrances and road class affects utilization.
Some spaces underused despite availability.
Aesthetics, cultural context, and natural elements improve
engagement.
Combining accessibility, diversity, aesthetics, and culture enhances
vibrancy.