Evaluating Adaptability in Architectural Competitions for School Buildings.

Abstract

This thesis analyzes the process of evaluating adaptability in architectural competitions for school buildings and develops a shared adaptability criteria used to evaluate design proposals. By utilizing a mixed-methods research approach, the study first developed a comprehensive framework of adaptability criteria based on an in-depth literature analysis. This framework was then applied to evaluate 28 design proposals across seven different architectural competitions.

A quantitative analysis revealed that in six of the seven competitions, the adaptability evaluations correlated with the jury's decisions, demonstrating the effectiveness of the developed set of adaptability criteria. However, an inconsistency in one case study highlighted the jury's prioritization for other criteria, such as architectural aesthetics. Additionally, the same case study contained proposals that provided less information, which prevented a comprehensive evaluation of adaptability.

The results of the qualitative analysis of the jury reports demonstrated a significant gap between theoretical concepts of adaptability and their practical application in architectural competitions, with architectural competitions often prioritizing other aspects or not providing a clear description to how adaptability is implemented. This suggests that, while adaptability is essential, it competes with other factors that affect the winning decisions in architectural competitions.

The thesis concludes that in order for adaptability to be systematically and effectively evaluated in architectural competitions, it should be required to include standardized adaptability criteria and a more defined framework.