The Role of Design Characteristics of Building Complexes in Achieving Integration

Universities worldwide are fundamental institutions for societal development, playing a key role in enhancing the environment through teaching, learning, and serving as centers for social interaction [1]. Over time, many university campuses have undergone unplanned expansions, leading to the loss of their original character. This has resulted in significant issues, notably the loss of connectivity, compatibility, and harmony between various campus elements—such as the integration of buildings, spaces, and their relationships with each other—along with the absence of unity in building façades. The concept of "integration" has emerged in architectural discourse as a crucial approach to addressing these challenges. According to the Oxford Dictionary, integration refers to the process of achieving cohesion between two or more related systems at specific levels, ultimately leading to a unified whole. In architectural and urban design, integration is defined as the harmonious merging of different elements within a space [2]. The literature offers various definitions of this concept, particularly in the context of architecture and urban integration, which can be summarized as follows:

1.1 Urban integration

This refers to achieving connectivity and ensuring the continuity of relationships among the elements of the urban structure and its users. It involves linking both material and immaterial components to create a unified pattern, both visually and structurally, through a functional and physical blend [3].

1.2 The integrated addition

This describes an addition that is compatible with the existing architectural structure, ensuring that all elements of the environment are harmonious and proportional [4].

The literature on integration reveals various interpretations of the concept, including harmony, unity, continuity, cohesion, uniformity, regularity, context, and compatibility. Among these, compatibility is particularly significant, as it refers to the ability of an urban form to harmonize with surrounding buildings and open spaces [5]. Context is defined as an interconnected whole, much like words forming a meaningful sentence [6]. In architecture, unity ensures all elements within a building or area work together to create a harmonious and functional environment [7]. Continuity allows for a smooth visual flow from one element to another, enhancing the viewer's experience by maintaining a visual connection across multiple designs [8]. These concepts highlight the interrelationships among system components, aiming for overall harmony. Thus, compatibility in design features indicates how well a system, such as a university campus, integrates.

Therefore, the definition of integration is as follows:

Integration in architecture refers to the compatibility among a group of buildings concerning their shape and spatial arrangement, aiming to achieve optimal harmony and cohesion.

1.3 University campus

The university campus functions like a small city, sharing similarities in planning despite key differences, such as its more limited functional scope and greater adaptability to future changes. Unlike a city, the university campus undergoes more frequent changes due to factors like increasing student numbers, evolving teaching methods, and the establishment of new colleges [9].

1.4 Components of the university campus

The university campus, encompassing all buildings and spaces, creates a unique identity by integrating these physical elements with their functions, making it a central part of the institution's collective memory [10].

1.5 The previous studies

In this paragraph, the researcher reviews the previous literature that tackled the aspects of shape and space on two levels (the urban fabric and the universities levels. In his study, Sternberg addressed the role of the urban designer, focusing on the construction of the material features of human settlements by manipulating tangible elements such as distance, materials, size, landscape, vegetation cover, and land area. The research explored the principles of integrative theory, including spatial relationships (e.g., building proportions, the elevation of buildings relative to the width of spaces, adjacency), the height of buildings in relation to the horizon, spatial floors and stairs, visibility, and liveliness (achieved through mixed-use development), and the meaning as a response to modernization [11]. Moreover, AlFarran [12] discussed the determinants of visual design in public urban spaces within Arab cities, concluding that the formal bases used in their design include the design concept, design determinants, and formation elements such as shapes, spaces, lines, forms, colors, texture, materials, proportion, and cultural identity. The concept of continuity, closely related to integration. The elements and features of the environment that ensure continuity and uniformity were identified based on previous studies and expert opinions from the pilot study. Key elements included bridging urban gaps, achieving containment, and ensuring the proportion of streets and buildings. The research highlighted the disruptive role of gaps in urban form continuity, emphasizing the need to identify and fill these gaps with buildings [13]. Additionally, Al-Hankawi and Hassan's [14] study addressed the concept of continuity, arguing that visual continuity is achieved through elements such as shape, direction, borders, surface arrangement (e.g., skyline, building lines), and the continuity of architectural patterns. However, Elsemary's study examined concepts related to integration, specifically continuity and compatibility, as a visual function of the relationship between old and modern places. This was analyzed through three aspects:

Space: Size and suitability in terms of elevation.

The complex shape: The shape, size and the scale.

Façade features: Surface treatments of the façades, the ornaments, the proportionality of windows openings, materials, colors, the touch, the pattern and the details.

The results revealed that façade features, particularly openings and detailed elements, are most effective in achieving visual compatibility, while space and complex shape, along with their secondary elements, are less impactful [15]. The relationship between a building and its complex can be established through either similarity, contradiction, or varying degrees in between. Their research focused on the principles of contextual architecture, which include space arrangement and hierarchy, building shape (roofs, surfaces, mass formation, and architectural elements), skyline organization, construction materials and systems, and the use of local patterns. The study concluded that it is possible to add new, modern buildings next to older ones by carefully considering these factors [16]. Furthermore, Ibrahim et al.'s [5] study identified eight indicators for analyzing and evaluating urban forms and patterns in the context of sustainability. Among these, the compatibility indicator reflects the potential of urban forms to harmonize with surrounding buildings and open spaces, while the nodality and containment indicator is crucial for fostering urban growth by organizing buildings around nodes (such as masses and open spaces between groups of buildings) to achieve spatial containment. The study also highlighted the importance of the density indicator in achieving cohesion. The research, which examined two residential areas in Sweden and Germany, concluded that compatibility and harmony were successfully achieved between the masses, spaces, façade design, local context, and human scale [5]. According to Hasan [17], unity and similarity in formal and visual features are essential for achieving harmony and integration. The formal characteristics of complex shapes unify buildings within an urban context, creating coherence through the alignment of façades and visual sequence. The visual features include the building line, elevation and skyline, unit width, quality of details and materials, ratio of openings to solid surfaces, and containment. The study regarded these formal and visual features as key indicators for establishing identity [17]. Indicators of visual integration can be assessed at both the part and whole levels. For individual parts, these indicators include mass size, vertical and perpendicular lines, direction, geometric shape, finishing materials, details, façade color and texture, and outer borders of the mass. At the whole level, indicators include human scale, façade proportions, skyline, building line and repetition, dominance, balance, and arrangement, AlQaisi's study particularly emphasized the integration of building blocks [3]. Farhan [18] focused on the relationship between mass and space, examining the causes of visual pollution in urban scenes, the study identified several contributing factors, including defects in context, mass (block scale and dimension proportions), urban space (space-to-mass ratio), texture and finishing material dissonance, floor neglect, inappropriate afforestation, chaotic street furniture, infrastructure services, and varied land use. On the other hand, Sanghvi's study explored innovative design methods that respect the surrounding context. It analyzed important historical buildings based on indicators such as proportion and scale, colors, materials, texture, similarity, symmetry, repetition, and details. The study found that building cohesion is achieved through compatible heights, sizes, proportions, and the use of existing colors and local materials. Additionally, repeating details or incorporating new ones can enhance harmony [6]. Moreover, Sari and Alhamdani [19] focused on unity, a concept related to integration, across three pathways in Malaysia. The study aimed to identify physical properties that enhance the visual quality of these pathways, based on spatial quality elements such as shape, size, continuity, floor formation, surrounding architectural properties, and ornamentation. Data were analyzed by:

-Identifying the identity elements that enhances the visual aspect on the basis of the design unit from the previous studies, which are: (rhythm – sequence – proportionality – unity – similarity – symmetry).

-Analyzing the quality of vision of the pathways in question, which is the design of guidance that supports the vision unity in the three streets.

The researcher concluded that it is necessary to make certain arrangements in accordance with the aesthetic principles that form the image of the building which are the formation unity (unity – balance – rhythm) – sequence – uniqueness – variety – visual continuity.

Al-Abide et al. [20] concluded that recognizing suitable mechanisms for architectural additions is essential for integrating traditional buildings within an urban context that combines classic and modern elements. The research categorized urban additions into three types: tight connection, non-literal connection, and contrast with the context. It focused on visual integration at two levels: the urban scene and the street level. The study found that architectural additions can bridge the gap between classic and modern styles, emphasizing the need for variety in elements and relationships to create a materially coherent visual structure that aligns with both individual parts and the whole.

According to Ismail et al. [21] key physical properties to consider when designing streets include attraction, vision, human scale, and street elements such as building design, building horizon, continuity and harmony of buildings, and vertical elements. Additionally, factors contributing to the appearance of buildings in the city include location, function, age, size, height, shape, ceiling shape, building length, openings, architectural patterns, and street width. Concerning the university, AlKurukchi [22] investigated the space and properties of Mosul University campus components. The research applied the methodology of the space syntax, and results showed the nature of the structural relationships of the space and vision organization properties of Mosul University campus components on the comprehensive level (the university level as a whole) [22]. While AlTalib and Zaman [23] discussed the effect of the thought and executive policy on achieving the connectivity and the functional and space organization of the urban university environment elements. The research concluded that the organizational levels of the university urban shape include:

-The level of thought and design and planning philosophy of the university campus that include the inclusive planning level and the level of the future expansions.

-The level of the executive policy of the design thought on the reality. The inclusive planning level includes the space and mass arrangement, organizing the external environment, the movement and visual organization. As for the level of expansions that represents the relationship between the existing entity and the additions and it includes: balance in scale and the proportion of the parts with the whole, the suitable location of the building, depending on a planning unit that accepts the addition, interference and connection, harmony and formal unity with the fabric.

According to Gandawijaya [24] the Bandung Institute of Technology features a division pattern consisting of heritage areas, transitional areas, and modern areas. Gandawijaya [24] studied a new building in the university campus center, situated between the heritage and transitional areas. This analysis focused on two adjacent buildings—one in the heritage area and the other in the transitional area—using context theory to examine both material and immaterial aspects. The material aspects included shape, mass, pattern, rhythm, and ornamentation. The contextual analysis incorporated these aspects along with design principles such as ratio, harmony, unity, variety, and rhythm. The results revealed a common orientation among the three buildings, including similarities in roofs, columns, and pathways. The researchers concluded that the study addressed two aspects: complex shape and space layout, each comprising various variables and features.

1.6 The theoretical framework

The two aspects of the phenomenon (Complex shape, Space layout).

Here, the research submits some questions: What are the most important characteristics that designers focus on at the level of a single complex that achieve integration in university sites in terms of both the form of the complex shape and the space layout Which aspect is given more emphasis: the characteristics of the complex shape or the characteristics of the space layout And what is the sequence of characteristics from the most influential to the least influential in achieving homogeneity at the level of a single complex

The aim of the research was to identify the characteristics that designers focus on at the level of a single complex, in terms of both the complex shape and space layout, and to determine which aspect receives more emphasis. Additionally, the research sought to uncover the sequence of these characteristics from the most influential to the least in achieving homogeneity within a single complex. Furthermore, a comparison was made among the four tested complexes.

The total indicators: The total variables of complex shape and the space layout of the four complexes from the highest harmonious to the lest harmonious Figures 4-7.

4.png

Figure 4. Arrangement of the variables from the left to the right, from the highest in harmony to the lest harmonious at engineering complex

5.png

Figure 5. Arrangement of the variables from the left to the right, from the highest in harmony to the lest harmonious at arts complex

6.png

Figure 6. Arrangement of the variables from the left to the right, from the highest in harmony to the lest harmonious at science complex

7.png

Figure 7. Arrangement of the variables from the most harmonious to the lest harmonious from left to right at medicine complex

The results indicated that the most prominent variables in the top four ranks across the four complexes are: adjacency between components, compatibility in building heights, area proportion and compactness, and the ratio of the single mass area to the space. These four out of five variables at the plan level suggest that designers prioritize the 2-dimensional aspects over the 3-dimensional ones when adding new buildings. There is a strong emphasis on containment, reflected in the adjacency between components, compatibility in building heights, and compactness, which rank highest as in Table 4. This is followed by area proportionality and the ratio of single mass area to space. The least prominent variables, appearing in the last four ranks, are related to the space layout, including visual integration, connectivity, visual control, and visual depth. It is also noticeable in the results that the four complexes do not consistently agree on the variables that achieve the highest coherence, except in a few cases, such as. adjacency between the components Instead, there is variation among them, indicating that when adding a new building to a certain complex, the designer did not take the other complexes into consideration, but rather worked in isolation from them, without a general strategy for the entire university campus.

Table 4. Arrangement of the variables from the most harmonious to the lest harmonious according to the results in the four complexes

Studying the possibility of cumulative addition according to the movement pattern within the complex: for a longitudinal pattern, attention should be focused on the characteristics of the complex shape, while a grid or multi-core pattern requires attention to the properties of space layout.

To improve existing complexes, focus on the weaker characteristics within the same complex that have the potential for improvement and have shown relatively high (f) values, such as containment (the ratio of building height to space width). To enhance containment, it is possible to study the sections of spaces and then add fences, small buildings, or a series of trees. For the human scale, attention should be given to entrances by highlighting them or adding canopies, columns, or stairs that define and determine their human scale. These same design treatments can be used to improve the characteristic of (building line organization).