Social Grey Space

Area Ratio Space Analysis Comparison Diagram

In terms of floor area comparison, our analysis revealed remarkable findings. Specifically, when considering the School of Architecture and Design (SoA+D), we observed that the two buildings, ELKU and MUIC, which explicitly incorporated grey spaces, had a higher proportion of circulation areas than their usable spaces. Figure A visually represents the outcomes of our overall floor area comparison. The circulation areas, representing all three types of grey spaces within the building, accounted for a conventional boundary of 30% in SoA+D. In contrast, ELKU had a circulation area of 40.6%, while MUIC had a more significant proportion at 47.4%. This increased circulation area and additional technical areas directly influenced the ratio of usable spaces, which appeared notably lower in these buildings.Another aspect we considered in the floor area analysis was the integration of green spaces within the buildings. Figure B illustrates the comparison results, shedding light on the green areas in each building. SoA+D, situated within a more prominent green campus setting, exhibited limited integration of green spaces within the building, accounting for only 0.4% of its total floor area. MUIC, with a similar green campus context to SoA+D, displayed a slightly higher integration of approximately 0.9% green space within the building. In contrast, ELKU, located in a more urban campus environment, boasted a significantly larger integration of green areas, comprising approximately 5.4% of its total floor area.

Figure A. Floor area distribution within the compared buildings

By conducting this in-depth analysis, we not only gained insights into the specific floor areas of the buildings but also explored the integration of natural elements and the utilization of grey spaces. These findings contribute to understanding how grey spaces are incorporated into building designs and their impact on functionality. Additionally, we have identified differences in the proportion of circulation areas and the integration of green spaces among the buildings, providing valuable information for future design considerations and optimization of grey spaces in various architectural contexts. By categorizing the combined circulation within the buildings into three types of grey spaces—flow, dynamic, and specific—we can better understand their distribution. The distribution of these grey spaces and green spaces, is presented in Figure B, where the normalized graphs reveal the following proportions. In the case of SoA+D, approximately 78.9% of the areas are dedicated to flow, while dynamic and specific spaces constitute around 12.6% and 7.1%, respectively. In comparison, ELKU and MUIC allocate 70.5% and 70.4% to flow spaces, with ELKU designating 5.8% for dynamic areas and 11.9% for specific areas and MUIC assigning 8.0% and 19.6%, respectively. These findings indicate that although ELKU and MUIC have relatively fewer grey flow and dynamic areas in proportion, they offer a higher overall proportion of specific spaces.

Figure B. Normalized Grey and Green area distribution within the compared buildings

This analysis sheds light on the distribution patterns of grey spaces within the buildings under study. While SoA+D predominantly prioritizes flow areas, ELKU and MUIC emphasize specific spaces more. Understanding these variations in grey space distribution is crucial in comprehending how different buildings optimize their layout to accommodate various activities and user needs. By examining these distributions, architects, and designers can make informed decisions about allocating resources to different grey spaces, ensuring that the buildings meet the desired functionality and user experience objectives. Additionally, this analysis prompts further exploration into the effectiveness of specific grey areas and their potential impact on user satisfaction, interaction, and overall building performance.