Academic literature on the topic 'Outside space'

Social learning theory asserts that learning involves constructing knowledge through dialogue with others. Traditional learning spaces designed with didactic pedagogies in mind are often not flexible enough to cater to the range of social learning activities promoted by educationalists in classrooms today. This thesis investigates the interaction between social constructivist theories of learning and urban design, developing a body of social learning space design theory as well as space design principles which foster social learning in a university setting. The research uses an 'Enquiry by Design' methodology to develop the principles, basing this enquiry on two case studies: (i) a pilot study analysing an existing social learning space; the Simon Williams Undergraduate Centre, and (ii) an ongoing masterplanning project at Oxford Brookes University's Gipsy Lane campus, Space to Think.

We live in a severely unequal world. Pressing questions are, then, what changes the global advantaged should bring about to improve the situation of the global disadvantaged, and why they should do so in the first place. Chapters 1, 2 and 3 answer the latter question whereas chapters 4 and 5 answer the former. Chapter 1 considers Peter Singer’s ‘non-relationist’ and Thomas Pogge’s ‘relationist’ approaches to global justice. The chapter argues that Pogge’s argument is more compelling than Singer’s, but that it is incomplete. To make a relationist argument more plausible, the chapter draws on two critical social theorists: Alf Hornborg and David Harvey. Based on their analyses, and employing the perspectives of ‘human time’ and ‘ecological space’, the chapter concludes that the advantaged are in violation of a stringent negative duty by being complicit in the harmful global system. The chapter also introduces two kinds of debt – ‘temporal debt’ and ‘ecological debt’ – that the advantaged may owe the disadvantaged. Chapter 2 argues that the global system is not only harmful but severely harmful: it is likely to reproduce ‘absolute harm’ (a harm that infringes upon minimum human well-being). Chapter 3 discusses what positive action the advantaged ought to take because of the negative-duty violation and the problem-solving ability they have. Focusing on two kinds of action – reparation and remedy – the chapter argues that achieving reparation may face practical problems, but that the advantaged should act immediately to provide remedy – in particular, institutional remedy – for the disadvantaged. In doing so, the chapter commends the ‘advantaged remedy’ principle. Chapters 4 and 5 consider remedial institutions which the advantaged should strive to create and uphold. Chapter 4 focuses on one which we already have: the UN Global Compact. The chapter argues that this institution is necessary in the light of present global circumstances and also advances a set of principles appropriate to protect minimum human well-being. But it concludes that this reformist institution may turn out to be insufficient. Based on this conclusion, chapter 5 supports a more radical proposal: a market-socialist proposal offered by Leslie Sklair. Sklair’s account, however, does not explain why it is market socialism, rather than a non-market alternative, that should be pursued. Neither does it show how market-socialist institutions would remedy the global-systemic problems that are likely to afflict the disadvantaged. The chapter offers answers to these questions by drawing on David Miller (for the first question) and David Schweickart (for the second question). The chapter then argues that market socialism, if accompanied by an appropriate ethos, would serve to remedy the situation of the global disadvantaged. Meanwhile, the shift to market socialism would, and should, take time. So, this project concludes by considering a supplementary institution that may need to be implemented in the meantime: an ecological space tax.

This study analyzes the life histories and present day experiences of female students from a college located east of Los Angeles with regards to their relationships with nature and outdoor recreation. I use data collected from in-depth interviews with eight women. These interviews illuminated the impacts that their fathers had on their early socialization with nature as well as their perspectives on being women in the outdoors. Furthermore, an analysis of an on-campus club reveals the ways in which outdoor recreation is not accessible for all individuals. These findings add to the existing bodies of literature on public space as well as the formation of early adulthood experiences with the outdoors among women resulting from childhood socialization.

Main aim of the thesis is to create an outdoor living space inside of tradition housing blocks. Principles of placemaking were used during a design process. One of the main ideas is to return a water to the urban courtyard according to its history.

La donation fait de l’espace une spatialité (extériorité, altérité). Tomber dans le où ? est avoir le sentiment de l’espace qui n’est pas la spatialité. Nous ne sommes plus un corps dans l’espace mais un corps-espace (pas de place pour le là). Le où ? n’est pas un dans absolu mais l’impossibilité du dans et l’impossibilité de l’événement d’être (pas d’ouverture). Il y a une immobilité où tout se meut à vide. Le où ? n’a même pas le où de la question comme réponse. Son point d’interrogation est son impossible repos. Que reste-t-il à l’artiste à donner ? Ne fait-il pas justement autre chose que donner ? L’artiste dé-crée et son œuvre pose alors cette question : où cela ne se passe-t-il pas ?. Tomber dans le où ? c’est tomber dans l’étrangeté de l’autre de l’événement. C’est accueillir l’autre, l’étranger, sans lui ôter son étrangeté. L’impossibilité d’avoir lieu s’in-crée. Le sentiment de l’espace est l’autre de la sensibilité et non pas une autre sensibilité à. Il est l’autre de la rencontre. Le sentir est pris par le corps. Tomber dans le où ? est une désinsertion de l’espace où le déjà vouloir de la donation n’a pas lieu. Accueillir l’autre c’est perdre sa demeure avec soi, c’est accueillir dehors. La désinsertion de l’espace est l’autre du départ. Le venir du dehors est l’appel du dehors, l’appel de l’il y a, mon appel. Dans l’esthétique du où ? nous ne sommes pas dans cet appel du dehors. La relation avec l’Autre sera son exhibition, son débordement, sa profanation, profanation du Tout, de l’Un. L’homme fait autre chose que vouloir, il danse. Tomber dans le où ? c’est sortir du pouvoir pour tomber dans la jouissance tragique de l’éternel retour. C’est penser où ?<br>Donation turns space into spatiality (outwardness, otherness). Falling in the 'where ?' is having the feeling of space, which isn't spatiality. We are not a body in space anymore, but a space-body (no place for the here). The where ? is not an absolute into but the impossibility of an into and the impossibility of the event of being (no opening). There is an immobility in which everything runs, but idle. The where ? doesn't even have the where of the question as an answer. It's question mark is it's impossible rest. What is left for the artist to give ? Isn't he precisely doing something else than giving ? The artist de-creates and his work asks the question : where doesn't it flow ? Falling in the 'where ?' is falling in the strangeness of the other of the event. It's welcoming the other, the strange(r), with no lessening of strangeness. The impossibility of taking place un-creates itself. The feeling of space is the other of sensitivity and not another sensitivity to. It is the other of the encounter. The feeling is taken by the body. Falling in the 'where ?' is a dis-insertion from space where the already willing of the donation does not take place. Welcoming the other is losing one's abode with oneself, it is welcoming outside. The dis-insertion from space is the other of departing. The calling from outside is the calling of the outside, the calling of there is, my calling. In the aesthetics of the where ? we are not in the calling from the outside. The relationship with the Other will be it's exhibition, it's overflowing, it's profanation, the profanation of the Whole and the One. Man does something else than willing, he dances. Falling in the 'where ?' is exiting from might into the tragic enjoyment of the eternal return. It is thinking where ?

This thesis concentrates on problematic field of architectural education and practice related to window role. Phenomena of window loosing it’s primary functional purpose [inside-outside connection in terms of view and daylight] and becoming more decorative element of the facade. This paper content consists of analysis of case studies by evaluating window provided light and view qualities using qualitative and quantitative methods in chosen office buildings. Analysis and results are followed by the discussion of window role oppositions between architect’s and user’s perspective together with secondary topics coming out of it. As the result of analysis and discussion - guidelines for window design are suggested and conclusive experiment of their customization is demonstrated. This thesis  concentrates on awareness of window identity crisis as well as examine and provide simple manners, which can increase quality of daylight and view through the openings in architectural planning.

I started the project by doing a workshop with aclassmate using a derivative of the german officeBaupiloten’s methods. The goal of the workshop was toextract their actual needs and wishes.Traditionally when asking a client “What do you want?”,they’ll be constricted by their own reality and context.Taking children as an example they would ask for moreslides or a trampoline. By using an seemingly nonconnectedand abstract task the children can expresstheir actuals needs and wishes for their enviroment.We had a group of 8, 5 year old children that we showed 9pictures of natural phenomena while telling the childrenabout the pictures to spark their imagination. Afterwardwe asked each child to pick the pictures they liked. Withthem and other material we then instructed them to“construct worlds” inside A4-boxes. During the wholeprocess speaking to the children to extract their thoughtprocess as thoroughly as possible.On top of this the concept was based on the ongoingdebate regarding the lack of outdoor areas for childrenin Stockholm as well as the pedagogies of Reggio Emiliaand Montessori. From this I derived four key points.Exploration and independence, denuded architecture,free play outside and children’s inherent creativity.<br>Jag startade projektet genom att göra en workshop med en klasskamrat med hjälp av ett derivat från tyska arkitekturkontoret Baupilotens metoder. Målet med workshoppen var att extrahera deras faktiska behov och önskemål. Traditionellt när man frågar en klient "Vad vill du ha?", kommer de att vara begränsade av sin egen verklighet och kontext. Ta ett barn som exempel. De skulle be om mer rutschkanor eller en studsmatta. Genom att använda en till synes icke-kopplad och abstrakt uppgift barnen kan uttrycka deras faktiska behov och önskemål för deras omgivningar. Vi hade en grupp av åtta stycken, fem år gamla barn som vi visade nio bilder av naturfenomen samtidigt som vi berättade om bilderna för att tända barnens fantasi. Efteråt bad vi varje barn att välja bilderna som de tyckte mest om. Vi instruerade dem sedan till "Konstruera världar" i A4-lådor. Under hela processen talade vi med barnen för att extrahera deras tankeprocess så noggrant som möjligt. Utöver detta var konceptet baserat på den pågående debatten om bristen på utomhusområden för barn i Stockholm samt pedagogiken i Reggio Emilia och Montessori. Från detta härledde jag fyra huvudpunkter. Utforskning och självständighet, redovisande arkitektur, fri lek utomhus och barns inneboende kreativitet.