Contextualizing Co-Working Spaces: User Participatory Approach in Architectural Design Studio

Year 2024, Volume: 6 Issue: 2, 191 - 204, 20.12.2024

Ekrem Bahadır Çalışkan , Çiğdem Koç Aytekin

https://doi.org/10.46474/jds.1526242

Abstract

The evolution in our understanding of the notion of 'working' has evolved into a spatially diverse spectrum over the last decades. The era of increasing new definition of working enabling collaboration, knowledge sharing and socializing among users is worth of attention in terms of contextual use. Since the popularity of coworking spaces has increased over years, the variation of use contexts is gradually increasing. Thus, it becomes clearly important for designers to take the phenomenon of target users in specific co-working places into account throughout the design process. This study explores the effects of user participation and limits of actor diversity, with an approach focusing spesifically on the university campus area within the new emerging contextual diversity. User participation design method has been tested in the bachelor degree architectural design studio in the Department of Architecture in Ankara Yildirim Beyazit University. The purpose of this study is providing the understanding of the relationship between design process and behavioral patterns with the knowledge obtained through data collection based on user preferences and final versions of the projects.

Keywords

User participation, Co-working space, Design studio, Architecture, Campus design

References

• Appel-Meulenbroek, R., Weijs-Perrée, M., Orel, M., Gauger, F., & Pfnür, A. (2021). User preferences for coworking spaces; a comparison between the Netherlands, Germany and the Czech Republic. Review of Managerial Science, 15(7), 2025–2048. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11846-020-00414-Z/TABLES/4
• Bouncken, R. B. (2018). University coworking-spaces: Mechanisms, examples, and suggestions for entrepreneurial universities. International Journal of Technology Management, 77(1–3), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2018.091709
• Fuzi, A. (2015). Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: The case of South Wales. Regional Studies, Regional Science, 2(1), 462–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1072053
• Gandini, A. (2015). The rise of coworking spaces: A literature review. Ephemera Journal, 15(1), 193–205. www.ephemerajournal.org
• Isac, C. (2019). Coworking Spaces: “A Source for Developing Creative Business.” Ovidius University Annals, Economic Sciences Series, XIX(2), 36–41. https://ideas.repec.org/a/ovi/oviste/vxixy2019i2p36-41.html Ivaldi, S., Pais, I., & Scaratti, G. (2018). Coworking(s) in the Plural: Coworking Spaces and New Ways of Managing. In The New Normal of Working Lives (pp. 219–241). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66038-7_11
• Kingma, S. F. (2016). The constitution of ‘third workspaces’ in between the home and the corporate office. New Technology, Work and Employment, 31(2), 176–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/NTWE.12068
• Matthews, K. E., Andrews, V., & Adams, P. (2011). Social learning spaces and student engagement. Higher Education Research & Development, 30(2), 105–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2010.512629
• Salama, A. (1995). New trends in architectural education: Designing the design studio. Tailored Text and Unlimited Potentials, Raleigh, North Carolina
• Shanthi Priya, R., Shabitha, P., & Radhakrishnan, S. (2020). Collaborative and participatory design approach in architectural design studios. Social Sciences & Humanities Open, 2(1), 100033. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SSAHO.2020.100033
• Waters-Lynch, J. M., Potts, J., Butcher, T., Dodson, J., & Hurley, J. (2016). Coworking: A Transdisciplinary Overview. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2712217
• Wulz, F. (1986). The concept of participation. Design Studies, 7(3), 153–162. https://www.academia.edu/52787606/The_concept_of_participation
• Yurtkuran, S., Kırlı, G., & Taneli, Y. (2013). An Innovative Approach in Architectural Education: Designing a Utopia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 89, 821–829. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.939