Chapter 5 perception of architectural elements in office spaces

CHAPTER 5: PERCEPTION OF ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS IN
OFFICE SPACES
5.0 Introduction
This chapter describes how users perceive various architectural elements in their building.
The term architectural elements mean architectural features which contribute to the indoor
environment of the office building and comfort to the occupants. The focus is very much on
the six selected buildings and on demonstrating the elegance of their solutions to the issue of
thermal environmental control in functional as well as aesthetic terms. The data presented in
this chapter is derived from the questionnaires distributed to the occupants of the cases study
buildings. Several architectural features and services in both bioclimatic and conventional
building types are observed and evaluated according to how these are perceived by the
occupants. These represent the major part of this thesis in terms of table, text and illustration.
The aim is to determine the key features in design that contributed in providing better
conditions to the building users and test whether building users in the bioclimatic buildings
have a higher level of satisfaction than those in conventional buildings. It was expected that,
in order to gain more comfort in high rise office building, the spaces should be divided into
three activity territories; work zone, communal zone and sustain zone. Since we are dealing
with office buildings, we are more concerned with evaluating key office spaces. However,
other general features are also evaluated. These include the general appearance of the
building, quality of communal spaces and services.
5.1 Description of respondents
All together, 160 members of office staff were involved in the study across the six buildings
and more than half of the total respondents were female. The respondents’ age ranged from
20 to 56 years where almost half of the respondents (46.9%) were between 20 to 29 years old
at the time of the survey. Malay ethnic represented 78.8% of the total respondents, followed
by Indian 10.6% and Chinese 8.8% whereas 1.9% represented other ethnics. Of the total
respondents, 33.8% (1/3) were involved in administrative work; 26.9% (1/4) in technical
work; 23.1% (about 1/4) in secretarial work; 16.3% (4/25) were executive and management.
Executive and Management are positions for key persons in the office based on the nature of
their business (senior officer or the boss who hold higher position in the office). The profiles
of subjects in all buildings are shown in Table 5.1.

The majority of the respondents were female and the ratio by gender in each building was
about 1:1 except for KOMTAR and TIMA (see Table 5.1a). UMNO, MESINIAGA and
TIMA had 1:1 old and young respondent’s ratio whereas IBM, KOMTAR and LUTH had
younger respondents than the others (see Table 5.1b). Most of the respondents were majority
Malay ethnic in each building except in UMNO – Chinese and IBM – Indian (see Table
5.1c). This might be due to the fact that the ethnic majority in Penang is Chinese and most of
the offices visited in UMNO building are owned by the Chinese. In fact all members of staff
in LUTH were Malay ethnics and this might be due to the organization nature of business
that administering the hajj’s journeys for Malaysian Muslim as the majority of Muslims in
Malaysia are the Malays.
Table 5.1: Respondents background: Profile of subjects
a. Gender
BUILDING UMNO MESINIAGA IBM KOMTAR TIMA LUTH TOTAL
male 44.4% 45.8% 55.0% 29.3% 30.3% 41.7% 38.8%
female 55.6% 54.2% 45.0% 70.7% 69.7% 58.3% 61.3%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
b. Age
20-29 years 27.8% 37.5% 55.0% 53.7% 48.5% 50.0% 46.9%
30-39 years 33.3% 37.5% 40.0% 6.1% 12.5% 17.5%
40-49 years 38.9% 20.8% 5.0% 26.8% 39.4% 25.0% 26.9%
> 50 years 4.2% 19.5% 6.1% 12.5% 8.8%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
c. Ethnic group
Malay 38.9% 83.3% 25.0% 95.1% 93.9% 100.0% 78.8%
Chinese 44.4% 4.2% 20.0% 3.0% 8.8%
Indian 11.1% 8.3% 55.0% 4.9% 10.6%
others 5.6% 4.2% 3.0% 1.9%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
d. Job descriptions
administrative 44.4% 29.2% 40.0% 41.5% 18.2% 33.3% 33.8%
management 16.7% 5.0% 12.1% 8.3% 6.9%
executive 16.7% 29.2% 15.0% 2.4% 4.2% 9.4%
secretarial 11.1% 8.3% 5.0% 46.3% 9.1% 41.7% 23.1%
technical 27.8% 16.7% 35.0% 9.8% 60.6% 12.5% 26.9%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
According to the Department of Statistic in Malaysia (2006), there are 104 males for every
100 females in Malaysia. The proportion of Malaysian citizens by gender are; Male (50.9%)
and female (49.1%). Malaysian citizens by ethnic composition are as follows; Malay
(65.1%), Chinese (26.0%), Indian (7.7%) and others (1.2%). It can be said that the samples
in this study as mentioned above, are fairly representing of the population in Malaysia. The

distribution of respondents by job category in total is considered reasonable by the nature of
the office operation in most of the buildings (see Table 5.1d).
5.2 User’s Perception of their Building Design
This section presents respondents perception of the different architectural features of their
office building and their level of satisfaction with them. Users’ Perceptions were measured
using several rating scales as shown in Table 5.2 and 6.3. The following features were
evaluated.
 General Layout
 Adequacy of Space
 Flexibility of Space Use
 Ceiling Height
 Window Size
 Window Position
 Outside View From Working Areas
 Difficulty to close/open window
 Satisfaction with the Availability of Windows
Table 5.2: Rating scales used for the evaluation of design qualities
Description of evaluation elements
(Quality)
negative neutral positive
-2 -1 0 1 2
a. General Layout
Poor
Fair
Adequate
Good
Excellent
b. Adequacy of Space
c. Flexibility of Space Use
d. Ceiling Height in Working Station
e. Window Size
f. Window Position
g. View to outside from working areas
Table 5.3: Rating scales used for condition evaluation
Description of evaluation
elements (Condition)
negative neutral positive
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
a. Difficult/Easy to Close/Open
Windows in Building
Very
difficult
Difficult
Quite
difficult
Normal Quite easy Easy
Very
Easy

5.3 Office Spaces
All respondents were asked to rate the quality of several architectural features related to the
office spaces that influence the indoor environmental conditions of the building. This
includes ceiling height, window size and position, outside view from working station as well
as how difficult windows were open or close. They were then asked to rate their satisfaction
towards the overall conditions of those elements.
5.3.1 General Layout
MESINIAGA, LUTH and KOMTAR have a circular layout whereas UNMO and TIMA
have basic rectangular forms. The IBM building has square basic form. The general layout of
all case study building is shown in Figure 5.1. The term layout in this study refers to the
compactness of the building plan. Other terms describing these features are the shape, or
configuration of the building.
(61% good to excellent)
Average Office Floor Area
412 m2
≈ 4433 ft2
476 m2
≈ 5124 ft2
(70% good to excellent)Average
Office Floor Area
625 m2
≈ 6727 ft2
UMNO MESINIAGA IBM
9011 m2
≈ 96997 ft2
1344 m2
≈ 14470 ft2
911 m2
≈ 9807 ft2
KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Figure 5.1: Typical layout plan for all building
MESINIAGA is famous with it spiral shape which has been widely publicised as an
environmentally conscious design. Based on the rating in the survey, this building is the
highest rated building in terms of general layout as 76% of the respondents rated the general

layout as good and excellent (see Table 5.4). The circular spiral form layout with the service
core at one side of the spiral shape is much preferable than the others. It describes that the
relationship between circulation routes, core positions and the plan shape of the building can
have very definite consequences for the types of space. It is a very distinctive design
compared to the other case studies. Unlike MESINIAGA, UMNO has an elongated layout
with natural ventilation through the lobby area (in between service core area and office area).
Although this shape is good for cross ventilation, this building has scored the lowest rates
among the others in the same category. Among all buildings, the lowest rated building is
LUTH where there is a 21% rating for ‘fair’ (see Table 5.4).
Table 5.4: General layout
Poor 3.0% 0.6%
Fair 22.2% 4.2% 25.0% 14.6% 12.1% 20.8% 15.6%
Adequate 16.7% 20.8% 5.0% 56.1% 42.4% 50.0% 36.3%
Good 61.1% 45.8% 70.0% 26.8% 42.4% 20.8% 41.3%
Excellent 29.2% 2.4% 8.3% 6.3%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
BIOCLIMATIC BUILDINGS CONVENTIONAL BUILDINGS
UMNO
Positive ratings higher than negative ratings by
38.9%.
KOMTAR
14.6%.
MESINIAGA
70.8%.
TIMA
27.3%.
IBM
45.0%.
LUTH
Positive ratings higher than negative ratings by 8.4%.
Rating for the general layout of the building
Rating Bioclimatic Conventional Total
Poor 1.0% 0.6%
Fair 16.1% 15.3% 15.6%
Adequate 14.5% 50.0% 36.3%
Good 58.1% 30.6% 41.3%
Excellent 11.3% 3.1% 6.3%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean = 3.65
Std. Dev = 0.889
N = 62
Mean = 3.19
Std. Dev = 0.769
N = 98
Remarks:
The bioclimatic building type has a rating mean 3.65 and SD, 0.889 whereas the rating mean for conventional
building type is 3.19 and SD, 0.769. The peak curve for bioclimatic type skews to the right and further than that of
conventional ones.
Figure 5.2: Histogram and normal curve for the general layout

The highest rated for conventional type is TIMA where about 42% of the respondents rated
its design as good. In the comparison for two different types of building, shows almost 70%
of the respondents in all bioclimatic buildings rated the general layout as good to excellent
whereas only about 33% of respondents in conventional buildings rated the same (see Figure
5.2). The peak curve for bioclimatic type skews to the right and further than that of
conventional ones.
5.3.2 Adequacy of space
According to Stephen Bailey (1990) the approximate estimate of the floor area required for
office space are based on 9.3-11.6 m2
per person. The more precise space standards as an
expression of status and functions are shown in Table 5.5. That standard, in all cases,
however is most useful for initial determination, planning and allocation of space. Detail
dimensions are based on the principle of who will be occupying and using the environment
with consideration to the roles and activities they must undertake. Nevertheless, in more
enlightened organisations the use of space standards as an expression of status is becoming
less of a determining factor, as it is recognised that space requirements do not necessarily
increase with seniority, and indeed might, in certain instances, decrease. Although the desire
for outward manifestation of status is often strong, the cost-effectiveness of satisfying this
through space allocation should be the priority.
Table 5.5: Typical space standard for various office functions
(Areas given include local access around workplaces)
Type of office Function Area per person
Private office Senior manager/director 20-30 m2
Private office Manager/department head 15-20 m2
Private office Manager/professional 10-15 m2
Private office Manager/professional 10-15 m2
Small group room Professional 10 m2
Large group room Professional 9 m2
Open plan Professional 9 m2
Open plan Secretarial/administration 9 m2
Open plan Clerical 7-9 m2
Group room/open plan Dealer 6-9 m2
On the other hand, according to guidelines and regulations for building planning developed
by the National Development Committee in Malaysia (Economic Planning Unit), the
requirement for individual working space in office building should be 8 square meters per
person (EPU-PMD, 2005). Other spaces (inside the office areas) such as meeting room,
prayer room, pantry, computer room, store room and guest room should be allocated 2.5
square meters per person. Another 2.5 square meter per person should be allocated for room
outside the office area such as seminar room, library, toilet, canteen and etc.

Figure 5.3: Effect of plan form, core positions and circulation, routes on possible space
arrangements for shallow, medium-depth and deep space.
(Source: Stephen Bailey, 1990:69-70)

The precise relationship between circulation routes, core positions and the plan shape of the
building can have very definite consequences for the types of space which can affect the
qualities of the spaces such as cellular offices, group rooms and open-plan space. Figure 5.3
shows the implications of typical approaches of space arrangement in office building. The
reflection of the success of the office space design is it ability to assist the users to perform
their jobs with greater satisfaction, efficiency, comfort, safety or pleasure. It is therefore
essential that the designer achieves an understanding of their needs.
The floor depth for all cases study buildings are as follows: UMNO: 18 m (from window to
core), MESINIAGA: 30m (from window to window) 23 m (from window to core), IBM:
26.6m (Window to window NS and EW), KOMTAR: 60m (Window to window) and 16m
(from window to core), TIMA: 42.5m (EW window to window) 42.1m (NS window to
window) and 33.6m (NS from window to core) and LUTH: 55.5m (window to window) and
20m (window to core). In IBM, the service core is dividing into two side cores at end
positions of the main geometry of the building, one for lifts and staircases and the other for
toilets and other services (see Figure 5.4). In MESINIAGA and UMNO the core is located at
one side of the building together with the lift lobby area. In all bioclimatic buildings the lift
lobby areas have natural sunlight and ventilation but not in conventional buildings.
UMNO MESINIAGA IBM
KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Figure 5.4: Service core where the lift lobby area is located in all building

1200mm (4ft) high screens
separating two desk to give privacy when seated without
restricting view when standing
UMNO
1000mm, 1200mm
and 1500mm (3ft 4in, 4ft and 5ft) screen providing graded
separations to avoid over-restricted view when standing
MESINIAGA
No screen
separating two desk and without restricting view when
sitting or standing
KOMTAR
1500mm (5ft)
high solid or glazed screen providing a degree of privacy to
large workstations
TIMA
1500mm (5ft)
high solid or glazed screen providing a very high degree of
privacy to large workstations
LUTH
Figure 5.5: Typical office space (working station) in all buildings

The office space areas in all the case study buildings are based on an open plan and workers
are clustered into small groups separated by partitions with the exception of LUTH building
(see Figure 5.5). In most cases, there are between 2 to 6 people working in the same cluster
i.e. UMNO (2+2), MESINIAGA (3+3), TIMA (4+4) and KOMTAR (6+6). In the case study
of LUTH building, the office area consists of a large space that is subdivided into individual
cubicles. The office area is rather large (911m2
average floor areas) and there are too many
people stationed in the same area, about 20 to 25 person and maybe more (see table 6.6).
Table 5.6: Number of colleagues working in the same area/space/room
no info 11.1% 8.3% 5.0% 4.9% 4.2% 15.2% 8.1%
0-5 5.6% 8.3% 15.0% 22.0% 29.2% 9.1% 15.6%
6-10 44.4% 37.5% 60.0% 31.7% 33.3% 3.0% 31.9%
11-15 38.9% 25.0% 5.0% 9.8% 12.5% 6.1% 14.4%
16-20 4.2% 5.0% 4.9% 4.2% 6.1% 4.4%
21-25 5.0% 4.9% 4.2% 12.1% 5.0%
>25 16.7% 5.0% 22.0% 12.5% 48.5% 20.6%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 5.7: Adequacy of space
Poor 2.4% 3.0% 8.3% 2.5%
Fair 16.7% 8.3% 25.0% 24.4% 15.2% 29.2% 20.0%
Adequate 33.3% 12.5% 35.0% 58.5% 39.4% 50.0% 40.6%
Good 50.0% 50.0% 40.0% 7.3% 33.3% 8.3% 28.1%
Excellent 29.2% 7.3% 9.1% 4.2% 8.8%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMNO
33.3%.
KOMTAR
Negative ratings higher than positive ratings by
14.4%.
MESINIAGA
70.8%.
TIMA
24.2%.
IBM
15.0%.
LUTH
24.0%.
UMNO MESINIAGA IBM KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Table 5.6 shows that LUTH has the highest number of colleagues working in the same area.
It might be due to the large space area occupied by the same employee as the whole building
is owned by the same employer. This condition might be one of the reasons why most of the
respondents gave a low rating for adequacy of space in LUTH as shown in Table 5.7. The
highest and lowest rated for bioclimatic type are MESINIAGA and IBM whereas for

conventional type they are TIMA and LUTH respectively. Among all building types, the
highest rated is MESINIAGA where almost 80% of the respondents rate the space as good to
excellent. LUTH is the lowest rated building where more than 40% of the respondents rate
the space as fair to poor. The statistics indicate that bioclimatic buildings are highly rated
compared to the rating obtained in the conventional type (see Figure 5.6). The peak curve for
bioclimatic type skews to the right whereas that of conventional ones is exactly on the
centre. It gives a clear indication that bioclimatic buildings are more highly rated by their
occupants than the conventional ones.
Rating for adequacy of space
Poor 4.1% 2.5%
Fair 16.1% 22.4% 20.0%
Adequate 25.8% 50.0% 40.6%
Good 46.8% 16.3% 28.1%
Excellent 11.3% 7.1% 8.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean = 3.53
Std. Dev = 0.900
N = 62
Mean = 3.00
Std. Dev = 0.919
N = 98
Remarks:
The bioclimatic building type has rating mean 3.53 and SD, 0.900 whereas the rating mean for conventional
building type is 3.00 and SD, 0.919. The peak curve for bioclimatic type skews to the right whereas that of
conventional ones is exactly on the centre.
Figure 5.6: Histogram and normal curve for adequacy of space
Table 5.8: Cross tabulation between number of colleagues working in the same area and
adequacy of space
Poor Fair Adequate Good Excellent TOTAL
no info 7.7% 53.8% 30.8% 7.7% 100.0%
0-5 12.0% 60.0% 20.0% 8.0% 100.0%
6-10 5.9% 23.5% 31.4% 31.4% 7.8% 100.0%
11-15 26.1% 26.1% 34.8% 13.0% 100.0%
16-20 14.3% 57.1% 28.6% 100.0%
21-25 37.5% 25.0% 25.0% 12.5% 100.0%
>25 3.0% 18.2% 45.5% 24.2% 9.1% 100.0%
Total 2.5% 20.0% 40.6% 28.1% 8.8% 100.0%
Table 5.9: Chi-square tests for number of colleagues working in the same area and adequacy
of space cross tabulation
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 17.163(a) 24 .842
Likelihood Ratio 19.069 24 .748
Linear-by-Linear Association .128 1 .721
N of Valid Cases 160
a 23 cells (65.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .18.

Figure 5.7: Dimension of typical desks and areas required for several office activities.
(Source: Stephen Bailey, 1990:72-70)

Table 5.8 shows there is no major difference in perception towards adequacy of space
between respondents with fewer colleagues working in the same area and those with a higher
number of colleagues working in the same area. The rating are scattered over all categories
and there is no clear pattern. The chi-square value and asymptotic significance (2-sided) for
cross tabulation between adequacy of space and number of colleagues working at the same
area is (χ2
= 17.163, p = 0.842). The two variables have no association as (p > 0.05). It is
statistically not significant which means it just happens by chance (see table 5.9).
5.3.3 Flexibility of space use
Ideally the layout should be a reflection of the patterns of work flow, communications and
interactions. Flexibility of space use is closely related to the layout design which was
developed in the first place to meet the site condition, circulation, constructional,
environmental, servicing, statutory and economic requirements. The integrity of the scheme
may be established by governing the specific relationship of workstations from the outside
access to the service grid, or to the window; or concerning the use of different height of
screen or partitions. Individuals should have enough space to work around their own desk
with reasonable privacy level without jeopardising the freedom to interact with other
colleagues. Flexibility of space use involves the work space arrangement to minimise
disruption of normal work. Space use varies according to the type of work being performed.
Figure 5.7 shows the diagram that might explain the flexibility of space use at the
workstation.
The dimension of typical desks and areas required for a particular office activity should be
based on the task characteristic and in line with the office operation need. The open plan
office spaces should not be diminished by the full-height partitions or office furniture. A
well-planned layout will balance the needs for interaction and privacy whilst creating a
harmonious environment to enhance employee productivity and motivation. The aim is to
provide for maximum flexibility whilst adhering to workplace legislation.
The members of office staff in MESINIAGA are more flexible to work around their working
group areas as well as among other working groups (see again Figure 5.5). With low
partitions, the occupants can feel the open space layout. The individual working spaces in
LUTH are more concealed by high partitions separating people from each other and
providing tight enclosure. This may easily cause tension and stress. This might be another
reason why the office space in LUTH received lower rates from their users. The rating

obtained for flexibility of space use is quite similar to the rating obtained for adequacy of
spaces where MESINIAGA and TIMA are the highest rated building in both bioclimatic and
conventional type respectively (see Table 5.10). All bioclimatic buildings obtained higher
ratings than all of the conventional ones (see Figure 5.8). The peak curve for bioclimatic type
skews to the right whereas that of conventional skews slightly to the left.
Table 5.10: Flexibility of space use
Poor 5.6% 3.0% 1.3%
Fair 11.1% 8.3% 25.0% 19.5% 24.2% 25.0% 19.4%
Adequate 38.9% 12.5% 25.0% 68.3% 42.4% 66.7% 45.6%
Good 44.4% 66.7% 50.0% 9.8% 27.3% 8.3% 30.6%
Excellent 12.5% 2.4% 3.0% 3.1%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMNO
27.7%.
KOMTAR
Negative ratings higher than positive ratings by 7.3%.
MESINIAGA
70.8%.
TIMA
IBM
25.0%.
LUTH
16.7%.
Rating for flexibility use of space
Poor 1.6% 1.0% 1.3%
Fair 14.5% 22.4% 19.4%
Adequate 24.2% 59.2% 45.6%
Good 54.8% 15.3% 30.6%
Excellent 4.8% 2.0% 3.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean = 3.47
Std. Dev = 0.863
N = 62
Mean = 2.95
Std. Dev = 0.709
N = 98
Remarks:
The bioclimatic type has rating mean 3.47 and SD, 0.863 whereas the rating mean for conventional type is 2.95
and SD, 0.709. The histogram and normal curve for the rating are shown in Figure 5. 8. The peak curve for
bioclimatic type skews to the right whereas that of conventional skews slightly to the left.
Figure 5.8: Histogram and normal curve for flexibility use of space

Table 5.11: Flexibility of space use based on job categories
administrative management executive secretarial technical Total
Poor 9.1% 6.7% 1.3%
Fair 14.8% 9.1% 26.7% 16.2% 27.9% 19.4%
Adequate 40.7% 54.5% 20.0% 67.6% 39.5% 45.6%
Good 42.6% 27.3% 40.0% 10.8% 30.2% 30.6%
Excellent 1.9% 6.7% 5.4% 2.3% 3.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 5.12: Chi-square tests for flexibility of space use and job categories cross tabulation
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.472 1 .116
a 14 cells (56.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .14.
Table 5.11 shows that administrative and executive staff (respondents) rated the flexibility of
space use better than the other respondents (job categories). The chi-square value and
asymptotic significance (2-sided) for cross tabulation between flexibility of space use and
the job categories is (χ2
= 30.56, p = 0.015). There is an association between the overall
appearance of the building and the building type as (p < 0.05). The relationship between the
two variables (flexibility of space use and the job categories) is statistically significant which
means it is not happen by chance and therefore the null hypothesis is rejected (see table
5.12).
5.3.4 Ceiling Height
The average ceiling height derived from available detail drawing section for all building is
shown in Figure 5.9. MESINIAGA has the floor to ceiling height in average of 3.90m and is
the highest of all, whereas KOMTAR has the lowest (3.50m). The ceiling height really has
an effect on workers’ feelings of comfort as rating made by all respondents in all buildings
shows a very significant result. However the other two bioclimatic buildings IBM and
UMNO have average ceiling height of 3.75m slightly lower than that of the other
conventional buildings TIMA and LUTH (3.85m) and yet still have better rating.
The ratings in Table 5.13 present the perception of the respondents towards the ceiling height
at their working station. The highest rated among all buildings is MESINIAGA where more
than 80% (4/5) of the respondents rate the ceiling height at their working station as good to

excellent. KOMTAR is the lowest rated building where about 7% of the respondents rate the
ceiling height at their working station as fair. Figure 5.10 shows the histogram and normal
curve for the cumulative rating for both types of buildings. The voting pattern in all
buildings is skew towards the positives categories. The bioclimatic buildings have better
quality of ceiling height at user’s working station than conventional ones.
21 Floors (94m or 307ft)
Average Floor Height: 3750mm
UMNO MESINIAGA IBM
Average Floor Height: 3.5m/11.5ft
Average Floor Height: 3.85m
KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Figure 5.9: Building height and average floor height
Table 5.13: Ceiling height at the office
fair 7.3% 6.1% 4.2% 3.8%
adequate 27.8% 16.7% 35.0% 51.2% 24.2% 54.2% 36.3%
good 66.7% 54.2% 50.0% 39.0% 60.6% 33.3% 49.4%
excellent 5.6% 29.2% 15.0% 2.4% 9.1% 8.3% 10.6%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMNO
72.3%.
KOMTAR
34.1%.
MESINIAGA
83.3%.
TIMA
63.6%.
IBM
65.0%.
LUTH
37.5%.

Rating for ceiling height in working station
fair 6.1% 3.8%
adequate 25.8% 42.9% 36.3%
good 56.5% 44.9% 49.4%
excellent 17.7% 6.1% 10.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean = 3.92
Std. Dev = 0.660
N = 62
Mean = 3.51
Std. Dev = 0.707
N = 98
Remarks:
building type is 3.51 and SD, 0.707. The peak curve for bioclimatic type skews to the right further than that of
conventional type.
Figure 5.10: Histogram and normal curve for ceiling height at user’s working station
UMNO Section MESINIAGA Section IBM Section
KOMTAR Section TIMA Section LUTH Section
Figure 5.11: Facade description for all building (cross section)

5.3.5 Window Size
It can be said that all bioclimatic buildings have larger sized windows (glazing) compared to
conventional buildings as shown in Figure 5.11 and 6.12. The typical building layouts are
pre orientated towards the north-south axis in relation to the sun path and the service cores
where lifts, stairs and toilets are located on the hot sides of the tower (the east). The large
glazed areas allow receiving natural light and ventilation. The direct impact of sun heat into
the buildings is minimized by shading devices that respond to the orientation of the building.
The conventional buildings were designed without external shading devices and therefore
have comparatively smaller windows installed to minimise direct heat from the sun. A
respondent who feel affection for an outside view and natural ventilation may prefer a larger
window and significantly may judge the window size in his/her office as small. On the
contrary, respondents who feel warm most of the time may prefer a smaller sized window
that absorbs less heat from the sun and may feel the window in his/her office is too large.
However, as a user, the concern on how large the size of window is different from an
individual to another as it depends on their need of natural lighting, ventilation and outside
view. They are free to control the amount they need by adjusting the blinds available
indoors.
Distribution of ratings that represent the perception of the respondents of the size of the
window or glazed area at their working station is shown in Table 5.14. The highest and
lowest rated for bioclimatic type are MESINIAGA and IBM whereas for conventional type
they are LUTH and KOMTAR (see Table 5.14). The highest rated among all is
MESINIAGA where 75% (3/4) of the respondents rated the window size at their working
station as good to excellent. KOMTAR and IBM are among the lowest rated where about
60% of the respondents rate the window size at their working station as adequate to fair.
Figure 5.13 shows that the voting pattern in both type of buildings are skewed towards the
positive categories. The distribution peak for bioclimatic buildings type skews to the right
further than that of conventional ones.

UMNO MESINIAGA IBM
KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Figure 5.12: Typical window size at all buildings

Table 5.14: Perception of window size in office spaces by respondents
fair 11.1% 5.0% 1.9%
adequate 33.3% 25.0% 55.0% 63.4% 54.5% 50.0% 49.4%
good 50.0% 45.8% 35.0% 34.1% 39.4% 45.8% 40.6%
excellent 5.6% 29.2% 5.0% 2.4% 6.1% 4.2% 8.1%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMNO
44.5%.
KOMTAR
36.5%.
MESINIAGA
75.0%.
TIMA
45.5%.
IBM
40.0%.
LUTH
50.0%.
Rating for the window size at working station
fair 4.8% 1.9%
adequate 37.1% 57.1% 49.4%
good 43.5% 38.8% 40.6%
excellent 14.5% 4.1% 8.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean = 3.68
Std. Dev = 0.785
N = 62
Mean = 3.47
Std. Dev = 0.578
N = 98
Remarks:
building type is 3.47 and SD, 0.578. The distribution peak for bioclimatic buildings type skews to the right further
than that of conventional ones.
Figure 5.13: Histogram and normal curve for window size at working station
5.3.6 Window Position
The windows in KOMTAR are located for the most part in the polygon shape of its façade
which faces towards the panoramic views of the island, whereas in LUTH the windows are
located for the most part in the circular shape of the building façade which faces toward the
surrounding view of the city. Both buildings’ windows are exposed directly to the full impact
of external temperatures and radiant heat especially on the east and west sides. Slightly
different in MESINIAGA, where most of the full height window over the spiral shapes
facade is layered by external cladding and the placement of the service core on the hottest
(east) side of the tower shields the building from radiant heat. Most windows in UMNO are
located at the west and south façade of the building with a variety of sun shading devices to

control sunlight penetration at various times of the year. Most windows in TIMA are on the
north, east and south façades of the building whereas in IBM they are on the north and south
façades (see Figure 5.14).
UMNO MESINIAGA IBM
KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Figure 5.14: Window position in all buildings
Table 5.15: The position of the respondent’s desk in relation to the window
poor 2.4% 0.6%
fair 11.1% 5.0% 2.4% 6.1% 4.2% 4.4%
adequate 38.9% 33.3% 40.0% 53.7% 45.5% 45.8% 44.4%
good 38.9% 45.8% 50.0% 39.0% 42.4% 50.0% 43.8%
excellent 11.1% 20.8% 5.0% 2.4% 6.1% 6.9%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMNO
38.9%.
KOMTAR
37.4%.
MESINIAGA
66.7%.
TIMA
42.4%.
IBM
50.0%.
LUTH
45.8%.

Distribution of rating frequency for quality of the window position in both buildings is
shown in Table 5.15. The highest and lowest rated for bioclimatic type are MESINIAGA and
UMNO whereas for the conventional type they are TIMA and KOMTAR (see Table 5.15).
MESINIAGA, the highest rated among all buildings has more than 65% (3/5) of the
respondents who rate the window position in the building as good to excellent. KOMTAR,
the lowest rated building has around 5% of the respondents rating for fair to poor. The rating
patterns in all buildings skew towards the positives categories (see Figure 5.15). The statistic
indicates bioclimatic buildings have better window position at respondent's working station
than conventional ones. The distribution peak for bioclimatic type skews to the right a little
bit further than that of conventional ones.
Rating for window position at working station
poor 1.0% 0.6%
fair 4.8% 4.1% 4.4%
adequate 37.1% 49.0% 44.4%
good 45.2% 42.9% 43.8%
excellent 12.9% 3.1% 6.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean = 3.66
Std. Dev = 0.767
N = 62
Mean = 3.43
Std. Dev = 0.674
N = 98
Remarks:
building type is 3.43 and SD, 0.674 (see Figure 5.20). The distribution peak for bioclimatic type skews to the right a
little bit further than that of conventional ones.
Figure 5.15: Histogram and normal curve for window position at working station
Table 5.16: Window position and location in the buildings
a. Respondents’ working station position towards the window
no info 4.2% 0.6%
facing the window 22.2% 12.5% 5.0% 7.3% 18.2% 8.3% 11.9%
side to the window 16.7% 12.5% 50.0% 24.4% 15.2% 16.7% 21.9%
backing the window 27.8% 45.8% 51.2% 24.2% 54.2% 36.3%
no window around 33.3% 25.0% 45.0% 17.1% 42.4% 20.8% 29.4%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
b. Window in the office faces towards (N-E-W-S)
no info 11.1% 12.5% 22.0% 12.1% 20.8% 14.4%
north 16.7% 20.8% 15.0% 14.6% 18.2% 12.5% 16.3%
east 11.1% 16.7% 20.0% 19.5% 27.3% 20.8% 20.0%
south 22.2% 16.7% 35.0% 24.4% 12.1% 25.0% 21.9%
west 11.1% 16.7% 5.0% 14.6% 9.1% 12.5% 11.9%
no window 27.8% 16.7% 25.0% 4.9% 21.2% 8.3% 15.6%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

About 30% of the total respondents in the case study buildings have no window around their
working station but most of them have their working station either, facing to the window, by
the side of the window or the window behind them. TIMA and IBM have a higher number of
respondents without window near to their working station. Most of those who have window
around their working station are sitting with their back to the window (see Table 5.16a) and
the windows are oriented to the east and south (see Table 5.16b).
Table 5.17: Cross tabulation the position of the respondent’s desk in relation to the window
and the quality of window position in the office spaces
a) User’s working station is: Total
no info facing the
window
side to the
window
backing the
window
no window
around
b) the quality
of window
position in
user’s work
station
poor 2.1% 0.6%
fair 5.3% 5.7% 1.7% 6.4% 4.4%
adequate 42.1% 42.9% 50.0% 40.4% 44.4%
good 100.0% 36.8% 48.6% 44.8% 40.4% 43.8%
excellent 15.8% 2.9% 3.4% 10.6% 6.9%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Table 5.18: Chi-square tests for the quality of the window in relation to the position of user’s
desk
Linear-by-Linear Association .295 1 .587
17 cells (68.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .01.
UMNO MESINIAGA
KOMTAR TIMA LUTH
Figure 5.16: Outside view from working station in all buildings

The position of the window in the office has been rated by the respondents in all cases study
buildings. Table 5.17 shows that, most respondents whose desks face the window, rated the
quality of the window position in the office higher than that of the other positions. However,
the chi-square value and asymptotic significance (2-sided) for cross tabulation between the
respondent’s desk in relation to the window and quality of the window position in the office
is (χ2
= 11.35, p = 0.787). There is no association between the two variables since (p > 0.05).
It is statistically not significant which means it is happening by chance (see Table 5.18).
5.3.7 View to Outside from Working Areas
Outside views from office working station areas are important for short term breaks as
working in front of computer screens is exhausting. One of the main reasons for eyestrain is
the closeness of the monitor. One of the solutions to reduce this stress is to look farther
away. The best in the office is to look towards the outside view regularly (Ankrum, 1996;
Fisher 1977). The availability of outside views in office spaces is therefore important. The
outside view in all bioclimatic buildings is easily available as most of the windows are
transparent whereas in conventional buildings the view is obstructed by the blinds that are
used as a shading device to control glare and heat form the sun (see Figure 5.16).
Table 5.19: The outside view from their working areas
poor 5.0% 0.6%
fair 4.2% 4.9% 3.0% 8.3% 3.8%
adequate 16.7% 29.2% 25.0% 26.8% 48.5% 20.8% 29.4%
good 66.7% 33.3% 60.0% 53.7% 42.4% 54.2% 50.6%
excellent 16.7% 33.3% 10.0% 14.6% 6.1% 16.7% 15.6%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMNO
83.4%.
KOMTAR
63.4%.
MESINIAGA
62.5%.
TIMA
45.5%.
IBM
65.0%.
LUTH
62.5%.

Table 5.19 shows the rating for outside view from working area. The highest and lowest
rated for bioclimatic type are UMNO and IBM whereas for conventional type they are
LUTH and TIMA. UMNO is the highest rated where more than 80% (4/5) of the respondents
rated the outside view from the working station as good to excellent. TIMA is the lowest
rated building where about 50% (1/2) of the respondent rated it as adequate to poor. The
statistics indicate that bioclimatic buildings have better outside views at respondent's
working station than conventional ones. The distribution peak for bioclimatic type skews to
the right a little bit further than that of conventional ones (see Figure 5.17).
Rating for outside view from working areas
poor 1.6% 0.6%
fair 1.6% 5.1% 3.8%
adequate 24.2% 32.7% 29.4%
good 51.6% 50.0% 50.6%
excellent 21.0% 12.2% 15.6%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean = 3.89
Std. Dev = 0.812
N = 62
Mean = 3.69
Std. Dev = 0.752
N = 98
Remarks:
building type is 3.69 and SD, 0.752 (see Figure 5.22). The distribution peak for bioclimatic type skews to the right a
little bit further than that of conventional ones.
Figure 5.17: Histogram and normal curve for outside view from working area
 Openable windows at glazed
façade of UMNO building.
Separated by a distance from
each others.
 Openable windows at glazed
façade of KOMTAR building.
Separated by a distance from
each others.
Figure 5.18: Openable windows at the glazing façade in UMNO building

5.3.8 Difficulty to Open/Close Window
The primary function of a window is to provide the building occupants with ventilation, light
and view, and openable window may allow them to control the quantity of air, light and view
adjusted to their need. However, windows in high-rise office buildings will not necessarily
be openable simply to provide adequate ventilation and for safety reasons, most high-rise
building has limited openable windows rather than fixed. Personal controls in conventional
buildings are only for day lighting and sun radiation whereas in bioclimatic buildings,
additional control for natural ventilation is partially legitimate and most likely limited for
communal areas only (see Figure 5.18).
Table 5.20 shows the rating frequency for how difficult or easy it is to close or open
windows in all buildings. Most respondents in all buildings rated the windows as normal to
open/close them except in KOMTAR and TIMA where more than 30% of the respondents
rated it as very difficult (see Table 5.20). KOMTAR is the lowest rated among all buildings
where about 70% rate it as quite difficult to very difficult. The highest rated is MESINIAGA
where more than 30% rated it as easy to very easy. One of the reasons might be due to the
glazed façade of bioclimatic buildings which are provided with openable windows for every
certain distance. Figure 5.19 shows a very clear indication that bioclimatic buildings type has
better rating compared to the rating obtained from conventional buildings type in terms of
difficulty to open/close the window in the building. The mean difference is comparatively
wide. The curve peak for conventional type skews to the left whereas that of bioclimatic type
skew to the other side (right).
Table 5.20: Difficult/easy to open/close the window at workstation and common room
no info 8.3% 2.4% 9.1% 3.8%
very difficult 36.6% 33.3% 20.8% 19.4%
difficult 5.6% 5.0% 14.6% 18.2% 8.3% 10.0%
quite difficult 16.7% 4.2% 19.5% 9.1% 25.0% 13.1%
normal 50.0% 37.5% 60.0% 22.0% 30.3% 37.5% 36.3%
quite easy 11.1% 16.7% 5.0% 4.4%
easy 16.7% 20.8% 15.0% 4.9% 8.3% 9.4%
very easy 12.5% 15.0% 3.8%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMNO
KOMTAR
67.5%.
MESINIAGA
50.0%.
TIMA
66.7%.
IBM
30.0%.
LUTH
45.8%.

Mean = 4.50
Std. Dev = 1.479
N = 62
Rating for difficult/easy to opening/closing window
no info 3.2% 4.1% 3.8%
very difficult 31.6% 19.4%
difficult 3.2% 14.3% 10.0%
quite difficult 6.5% 17.3% 13.1%
normal 48.4% 28.6% 36.3%
quite easy 11.3% 4.4%
easy 17.7% 4.1% 9.4%
very easy 9.7% 3.8%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Mean = 2.51
Std. Dev = 1.487
N = 98
Remarks:
The bioclimatic type has rating mean 4.50 and SD, 1.479 whereas conventional building type has rating mean
2.51 and SD, 1.487. The curve peak for conventional type skews to the left whereas that of bioclimatic type
skew to the other side (right).
Figure 5.19: Histogram and normal curve for how difficult/easy to close/open the window
5.3.9 Satisfaction towards the Availability of Windows
As discussed earlier, windows play a very important function to the user when comfort is
considered. The size and location of windows directly affects the thermal, visual and sound
comfort to the occupants. Accessibility to control windows may assist users to determine the
best condition against those comfort parameters which is difficult to achieve as sensitivity
towards those parameters varies from one individual to another. This might be a reason why
the rating pattern is scattered over all categories.
Satisfaction towards the availability of a window in the office for all buildings is shown in
Table 5.21. The highest and lowest rated for bioclimatic type are MESINIAGA and UMNO
whereas for conventional type they are LUTH and TIMA (see Table 5.21). Among all
buildings, the highest rated is MESINIAGA where 25% (1/4) of the respondents rated the
overall satisfaction towards the availability of window as very satisfied to highly satisfied.
UMNO is the lowest rated building where more than 25% (1/4) of the respondents rated it as
dissatisfied to very dissatisfied.

Table 5.21: Satisfaction towards the availability of window in their office
highly dissatisfied 5.0% 2.4% 1.3%
very dissatisfied 5.6% 4.2% 7.3% 8.3% 4.4%
dissatisfied 22.2% 5.0% 4.9% 21.2% 4.2% 9.4%
neutral 38.9% 29.2% 35.0% 34.1% 45.5% 33.3% 36.3%
satisfied 27.8% 41.7% 40.0% 46.3% 27.3% 45.8% 38.8%
very satisfied 5.6% 8.3% 10.0% 2.4% 3.0% 8.3% 5.6%
highly satisfied 16.7% 5.0% 2.4% 3.0% 4.4%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMNO
KOMTAR
36.5%.
MESINIAGA
62.5%.
TIMA
12.1%.
IBM
45.0%.
LUTH
41.7%.
Mean = 4.58
Std. Dev = 1.209
N = 62
Satisfaction towards the window available in the office
very dissatisfied 3.2% 5.1% 4.4%
dissatisfied 8.1% 10.2% 9.4%
neutral 33.9% 37.8% 36.3%
satisfied 37.1% 39.8% 38.8%
very satisfied 8.1% 4.1% 5.6%
highly satisfied 8.1% 2.0% 4.4%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(χ2
= 5.048, p = 0.538)
Mean = 4.31
Std. Dev = 1.030
N = 98
Remarks:
The peak distribution curve for both types of building are about at the same position. However the bioclimatic
building type has rating mean 4.58 and standard deviation (SD) 1.209 whereas conventional building type
rating mean is 4.31 and SD 1.030. This means that the peak curve for bioclimatic type is skew to the right
further than that of conventional type.
Figure 5.20: Histogram and normal curve for satisfaction toward available of window

Although the voting patterns in both types of buildings skew towards a positive level of
satisfaction, the statistics indicate that the bioclimatic type has better rating than
conventional type (see Figure 5.20). This means that the peak curve for bioclimatic type is
skewed to the right further than that of conventional type. However the chi-square value and
asymptotic significance (2-sided) for cross tabulation between satisfaction with the
availability of window in the office and building type is (χ2
= 5.048, p = 0.538). The two
variables have no association as (p > 0.05). It is statistically not significant which means it
just happens by chance (see table 5.22).
Table 5.22: Chi-square tests for satisfaction toward available of window
a7 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .78.
5.3.10 Satisfaction towards the overall appearance of the office building
The rating distribution of satisfaction towards overall building appearance for all buildings is
shown in Table 5.23. The highest and lowest rated for bioclimatic type are MESINIAGA and
IBM whereas for conventional type they are LUTH and KOMTAR (see Table 5.23). Among
all building types, the highest rated is MESINIAGA where all respondents (100%) rate the
overall building appearance as satisfied to highly satisfied. KOMTAR is the lowest rated
building where more than 10% of the respondents rated it as dissatisfied to highly
dissatisfied.
Table 5.23: Level of satisfaction towards the overall appearance of the office building
highly dissatisfied 5.0% 2.4% 4.2% 1.9%
very dissatisfied 7.3% 4.2% 2.5%
dissatisfied 2.4% 6.1% 1.9%
neutral 33.3% 30.0% 51.2% 39.4% 50.0% 36.3%
satisfied 55.6% 50.0% 50.0% 24.4% 36.4% 20.8% 36.9%
very satisfied 11.1% 41.7% 15.0% 9.8% 15.2% 16.7% 17.5%
highly satisfied 8.3% 2.4% 3.0% 4.2% 3.1%
TOTAL 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
UMNO
66.7%.
KOMTAR
24.5%.
MESINIAGA
100.0%.
TIMA
48.4%.
IBM
60.0%.
LUTH
33.3%.

UMNO, MESINIAGA, IBM and LUTH are examples of office buildings that were designed
in an attractive and interesting manner to define the corporate image of the company. The
appearances of the structures are compatible when considered in the context of the
surrounding area and relate in scale and proportion to other buildings in their area. All sides
of the building are equally attractive and clearly represent the characteristics of the building
owner’s nature of business. KOMTAR and TIMA however do not appear to show this kind
of feeling to the people who see them. It might be due to its design point of interest not being
based on the company image or prestige but more towards other value that was unidentified.
However, such buildings with any point of interest can be made architecturally compatible
through careful and skilful design. The bioclimatic building in this sample has clear design
concept starting from the beginning of the design stage towards the end of the construction
phase. Furthermore, the concept and approaches of these bioclimatic buildings were well
published by the designer himself and other writers in local and global contexts through
many publications.
Mean = 5.05
Std. Dev = 0.913
N = 62
Satisfaction towards the overall appearance of the building
very dissatisfied 4.1% 2.5%
dissatisfied 3.1% 1.9%
neutral 19.4% 46.9% 36.3%
satisfied 51.6% 27.6% 36.9%
very satisfied 24.2% 13.3% 17.5%
highly satisfied 3.2% 3.1% 3.1%
Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
(χ2
= 20.99, p = 0.002)
Mean = 4.46
Std. Dev = 1.123
N = 98
Remarks:
The bioclimatic building type has rating mean 5.05 and SD, 0.913 whereas conventional building type has rating
mean 4.46 and SD, 1.123. The distribution peak for bioclimatic buildings type skews to the right further than
conventional ones.
Figure 5.21: Histogram and normal curve for overall appearance of the building

Although the voting patterns in both types of buildings skew toward positive levels of
satisfaction (see Figure 5.21), the statistic indicates bioclimatic buildings have better rating
than conventional buildings. The distribution peak for bioclimatic buildings type skews to
the right further than that of conventional ones. The chi-square value and asymptotic
significance (2-sided) for cross tabulation between satisfaction towards the overall
appearance of the building and the building type is (χ2
= 20.99, p = 0.002). There is a strong
association between the overall appearance of the building and the building type as (p <
0.05). The relationship between the two variables (building type and satisfaction towards the
overall building appearance) is statistically significant which means it does not happen by
chance and therefore the null hypothesis is rejected (see table 5.24).
Table 5.24: Chi-square tests for satisfaction towards the overall appearance of the building
a 8 cells (57.1%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.16.
5.3.11 Discussion
A special feature of the bioclimatic building’s layout is the terrace, or a courtyard,
surrounded by walls and thus partially isolated from the full impact of the outdoor
environment. It has an effect on the building’s potential for natural ventilation and for natural
illumination. The layout in bioclimatic buildings allows natural ventilation through most of
the buildings’ common areas to minimize the load on the air conditioning. Bioclimatic
buildings are considered compact where the surface areas of its envelope are minimized by
the openings at balconies and sky court. These openings relatively reduce the exposure of the
building to solar radiation and consequently increase the rate of heat exchange of the
building with the outdoors.
The main impact of layout, from the indoor climate point of view is its effect on the
envelope’s surface area, relative to the floor area (space volume). The architectural depth,
form, and other exterior and interior design elements can all play their part in contact of
daylight. A deep floor plate will keep more occupants away from the window than shallow
ones. This consequently will avoid them from the benefit of the available natural ventilation
and lighting.

Most of the organisations in the cases study buildings have developed space standards
allocated to each individual grade or staff functions within the company. These will have
been developed after consideration of position status of an individual in the company or
organisation. However, based on observation and user’s perceptions, the office space should
be separated into smaller areas with a smaller number of colleagues working in the same
space rather than individual cubicles partition in a very big working area. Furthermore the
definition of individual working space and group working area should be separated visually
by certain boundaries such as desks and partitions. Spaces for short discussion and work
presentation among the staff or meeting room should be available around the public working
area. This kind of meeting room was found available in MESINIAGA and LUTH whereas in
UMNO there are spaces provided for the staff to display their work as shown in Figure 5.22.
a. Work presentation area in UMNO b. Meeting spaces in LUTH
Figure 5.22: Spaces for short discussion and work presentation
Figure 5.23: Typical ceiling height recommended in most high rise office building.
(Source: Baker, 2004:8)

The squashed ceiling heights found in older buildings (i.e KOMTAR & LUTH), make it
very hard to achieve the feelings of space. Low ceilings make the spaces uninviting and the
building occupants feel cramped. Many architects are now more aware of the effects of
ceiling height (i.e. TIMA), ventilation and distance from windows upon output of workers
and shallower floor plates. A high rise building can have fewer constraints on floor height
and a narrower floor plate than a low-rise office block which can lead to an increased
rentable value. The minimum allowable floor to ceiling height in most Building Codes is
generally 2.4m (8’), to which floor thicknesses of 300mm to 600mm feet must be added (see
Figure 5.23). A minimum floor to ceiling height of 3.0m (10’) is recommended for high rise
office building but on the ground floor this should be more (David, 2004).
Window size and position are key elements of the success of the bioclimatic approach. In
general, windows in size and location that open the correspondence between interior and
outdoor space, provide lateral day lighting for best visual perception, and by arrangement
against interior partitions can optimize interior space use and functional. More attention
should be given when designing the window in order to decrease the comfort range variation.
If possible, occupants should be given a further opportunity to control the window opening
without jeopardising their safety and the building cooling load. Windows without overhang
or shades therefore need blinds for privacy or direct sunlight control.

5.4 Summary and Conclusion
In this chapter we have analysed the data related to the respondents’ perception of various
architectural features specific to their office space. These features include; general layout,
adequacy of space, flexibility of space use, ceiling height, window size, window position,
outside view from working areas, difficulty to close/open window and satisfaction with the
windows available in the office. These features were investigated through observation and
data analysed from the questionnaires. Table 5.25 shows the ranking of all buildings for each
evaluated elements in the office space. The rank was derived from the rating obtained from
the respondents.
Table 5.25: Building rank by architectural features (office space)
FEATURESBUILDING
Best Worst
1 6
BIOCLIMATIC CONVENTIONAL
Office Space
General Layout 3 1 2 5 4 6
Adequacy of Space 2 1 4 5 3 6
Flexibility of Space Use 3 1 2 5 4 6
Ceiling Height 3 1 2 6 4 5
Window Size 4 1 5 6 3 2
Window Position 3 1 2 6 4 5
Outside View from Working Areas 1 2 5 4 6 3
Difficulty to close/open window 3 1 2 6 5 4
Satisfaction with the Windows 6 1 2 4 5 3
Point 28 10 26 47 38 40
Ranking 3 1 2 6 4 5
Building ranking:
1. MESINIAGA
2. IBM
3. UMNO
4. TIMA
5. LUTH
6. KOMTAR
The analysis shows that all bioclimatic buildings are better rated than all the conventional
ones in terms of the general layout, flexibility of space use and ceiling height. MESINIAGA
is the most highly rated building followed by IBM, UMNO and then the conventional
buildings (see table 5.25). These might have connection with the size of the building and the
floor depth of the case study buildings. From our observation, we found that all bioclimatic
buildings are comparatively smaller than that of the conventional ones in term of building
size. Furthermore the floor depths (window to window or window to service core) of all
bioclimatic buildings are shallower than that of conventional ones (see section 5.3.2). Due to

these conditions, occupants in bioclimatic building are closer to the façade and might have a
better feeling of space and are closer to the outside environments.
Other than that, the rating for window position in relation to the user’s desk and difficulty to
close/open windows also shows all bioclimatic buildings are better rated than all the
conventional ones (see table 5.25). Several reasons might influence this result such as the
large glazed areas in most bioclimatic buildings with appropriate openable segments
allowing natural light and ventilation into the office area. Furthermore, available external
shading devices that control glare and direct heat radiation make the user more comfortable.
Such features are not available in conventional buildings where occupants are totally relying
on the internal blind or screen to control direct heat radiation and glare. These consequently
block the outside view and diminish natural light.
The architectural elements tested in this study show an advantage to the users in bioclimatic
building types. Although in most cases, such as the general layout and flexibility of space
use, present evidence, that bioclimatic building provides a better quality than conventional
ones, there are few features that are not substantiated to certain bioclimatic building (i.e.
adequacy of space use and window size) as shown in table 5.25.
The previous chapter shows MESINIAGA to be the highest energy consumer among all
cases study buildings. In this chapter MESINIAGA is shown to be the best ranked building
followed by IBM, UMNO, TIMA, LUTH and KOMTAR in terms of users’ perception
towards architectural feature in office spaces. In the next chapter we will see how users in
these buildings evaluate several architectural features in communal areas.

Chapter 5 perception of architectural elements in office spaces

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Chapter 5 perception of architectural elements in office spaces

Similar to Chapter 5 perception of architectural elements in office spaces (20)

More from Lokman Hakim Ismail

More from Lokman Hakim Ismail (12)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Chapter 5 perception of architectural elements in office spaces