濟州地域 靑少年 修練施設의 空間 構成에 관한 硏究

Abstract

In recent years, many municipal governments have planned and developed welfare programs for their communities. Many of these plans have included youth development facilities. However, many of these facilities have had problems keeping up with the rapidly changing tastes of young people. They have limited themselves from their full potential as appropriate youth development facilities by implementing the space ratio of bigger state facilites for their layout. This type of design leads these facilities to serve only short-term purpose. The following study will suggest much a more suitable space ratio for local youth development facilities, for middle to small-sized communities, as well as facilities that can adapt to the rapidly changing tastes of our youth. For this evaluation, we have examined key component of layout within these facilities, as well as their purpose through previous studies. We have assessed component elements, component areas, and component ratios within these facilities through case studies. We also have interviewed two different groups, a managing party and a using party to determine the usage and popularity of different areas in the facility. Lastly, we have gathered all of this information and present our findings below. First of all, we have divided our findings into two different scenarios according to limited space and local characteristics. The component ratios are as follows. First, the results of investigating reasonable ration of spatial composition upon designing youth centers in living sphere showed that the facilities for social/physical education comprised the most part of total samples(30%). followed by the facilites for education/orientation or workshop(20%), cultural facilities(10%), public facilites(7%), the facilities for office work and management(4%), the facilities related to traffic line(18%) and those related to installation(11%). In view of comparison by type. hilly type center comprised a little more part in cultural and socio-phisical education facilites than urban type one. In other facilities, urban type center comprised a little more part than hilly type one. Secondly, it is necessary to set up a plan for arragement and traffic line to maximize the spatial accessibility of each subsidiary facility upon the placement of youth center. Urban youth centers need vertical zoning based on a hall behind their main entrance, while hilly youth centers need their subsidiary facilities as arranged according to horizonal mass arrangement. In conclusion, this study presented only the area ratio of spatial composition required for designing and planning youth center and its subsidiary facilities a the scale of 5,300㎡(average total area). Accordingly, it has inevitable limitations in suggesting any alternative solutions for reasonable spatial volume and flexible spatial composition. Thus, it is recommended that follow-up studies should focus on versatile and flexible spatial composition to meet functional requirement.