RENOVATION AND ADAPTIVE REUSE OF ALEJANDRO COLLEGE INCORPORATED INTO BESTLINK COLLEGE OF THE PHILIPPINES STUDENT’S DORMITORY

Abstract

Alejandro College Inc., founded in 2009 in Novaliches, Quezon City, is a private institution formerly offering programs in business, computer science, and nursing. Located on a one-hectare lot, the five-story structure comprises 35 rooms. Now under the ownership of the San Agustin councilor and managed by Mr. Joseph “Joe” Visaya, the building is currently being repurposed as a dormitory for students of Bestlink College of the Philippines.

An initial structural assessment indicates that the building remains in satisfactory condition, with no apparent damage. This study aims to evaluate the renovation needs of the facility to ensure it meets updated safety and sustainability standards. As defined by Rob P. (2024), renovation refers to the process of upgrading a property to conform to current functional and regulatory requirements. The study examines the building's present condition and offers targeted recommendations to convert it into a safe, sustainable, and student-friendly residential space. This study adopted a quantitative-descriptive research design using purposive sampling. To analyze the data, F-tests and T-tests were employed. The F-test determined the variance differences between responses, while the T-test identified significant differences in the mean ratings provided by two respondent groups—five architects and five civil engineers. The assessment focused on key areas such as material selection, structural design, floor plan efficiency, structural stability, and overall presentation. A structured questionnaire served as the primary data-gathering instrument to evaluate the acceptability of the building's renovation and its proposed adaptive reuse as a dormitory. Findings reveal that both architects and civil engineers rated the building’s material usage, structural design, floor plan efficiency, structural integrity, and overall presentation as highly acceptable. The mean rating from architects was 3.53, while civil engineers gave a mean score of 3.56. The variances were calculated at 0.062 for architects and 0.026 for civil engineers. Based on the computed t-value of 0.241, which is lower than the critical value of 2.306 at a 0.05 significance level (df = 8), the null hypothesis is retained. This indicates that there is no significant difference between the evaluations of the two respondent groups. To improve the project, respondents recommended providing greater access to materials such as cardboard and templates to enhance model accuracy. They also proposed organizing training workshops to develop participants' skills in model construction. Additional suggestions included the installation of solar panels for improved energy efficiency, an external fire exit to enhance building safety, and a rooftop water tank to ensure a better water supply to upper levels.

a