1 / 20

FACADE RE-DESIGN A VISUAL EXPERIMENT

FACADE RE-DESIGN A VISUAL EXPERIMENT. Arch. Francesca RICCARDO PhD TU Delft, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Real Estate & Housing. Dr. Clarine VAN OEL Department of Real Estate & Housing, Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft

gambhiri-naveen
Download Presentation

FACADE RE-DESIGN A VISUAL EXPERIMENT

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. FACADE RE-DESIGN A VISUAL EXPERIMENT Arch. Francesca RICCARDO PhD TU Delft, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Real Estate & Housing Dr. Clarine VAN OEL Department of Real Estate & Housing, Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft Ing. Peter DE JONG Department of Real Estate & Housing, Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft In cooperation with Ir. Paul DE RUITER Department of Building Technology - Design Informatics, Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft

  2. CONTENT 1) Introduction 2) Questions and methodology 3) Facade characteristics tested & simulations 4) Results: expected vs. actual preferences 5) Next steps & challenges

  3. 1) INTRODUCTION

  4. Would you say the open sewer is more beautiful than the wild river?* Wohlwill in ‘What belongs where’, 1979

  5. Theory of aesthetics of the built environment • We judge sharing common structures • Beauty is (NOT) in the eye of the beholder • Aesthetics is NOT a matter of personal taste/data driven • Aesthetic preferences of buildings can be predicted Bottino et al., 2009; Gifford, 2000, Stamps, 1999 and 2000; Groat, 1988

  6. If high aesthetics, demolition is no option • If no demolition, longer life and less waste • buildings more environmentalfriendly

  7. Facade Preferences from research • YESOld buildings • YESCurved, grooved and decorated surface • NOatypical - modern style • NL: bricks - traditional exteriors very appreciated (van den Berkhof, 2008; Thissen, 2007; Herzog and Shier, 2000; Gifford, 2002; Stamps and Nasar, 1997; Stamps, 1999,)

  8. WHY FACADES REDESIGN? • - Postwar Housing: poor energy efficiency • e.g. insulation (27% EU energy consumption - EU targets 2020 < 20%) • - Postwar Housing: poor aesthetics, livability • (no identity, dissatisfaction, vandalism) • - Envelopes 80% of European building decay EC, 2007; Cecodhas, 2007; van der Flier and Thomsen, 2006; Koopman, 2007; Brunoro and Andeweg, 2007

  9. For energy efficiency, decay and livability problems NOT ONLY technical aspects BUT ALSO preferences for architectural aesthetics EC, 2007; Cecodhas, 2007; van der Flier and Thomsen, 2006; Koopman, 2007; Brunoro and Andeweg, 2007

  10. AIM of this study recommend housing associations and/or municipalities how to manage decay-livability problems of postwar neighborhoods to be renewed

  11. 2) QUESTIONS & METHODOLOGY • To what extent are tenants willing to pay higher rent? • To what extent willingness of people to pay higher rent depends on characteristics of facade with combined effect on the energy efficiency and aesthetics for building? van Eck et.al., 2008

  12. Methodology WHAT: post-war multifamily blocks (47% EU) hallway-access flats HOW: Discrete Choice Method by on-line questionnaire Tenants express preference for hypothetical buildings differing on facade characteristics National Board of Housing Sweden, 2005; Bogerd et al., 2009

  13. 3) FACADE CHARACTERISTICS TESTED and SIMULATIONS 6 are appropriated for visual experiments 5 with combined effect Energy efficiency & Aesthetics Related to current Dutch renovation practice (NRP) Are innovative (bio-shading, living walls) 1 non facade characteristic Willingness pay higher rent

  14. Procedure STEP 13 levels per characteristic STEP 2 receipt for combination of characteristics (SAS) STEP 3 3D imaging techniques to simulate characteristics STEP 4 production 36 paired simulations - questionnaire structure

  15. 4) RESULTS: EXPECTED vs ACTUAL PREFERENCES • - PREF. for medium to high complexity • YESbut pref. medium levels (small difference with high) • YES articulation and sustainable character (50% to 100% moss) • exception window designfull size window • - PREF. for traditional solutions • NO pref. 50% moss tiles over no tiles • NO pref. bio-shading over venetians (small diff. venetians, screens) • - PREF. for complexity in colors • NO pref.1 very dark color (small difference 2 colors medium-dark) • - Willingness to pay a higher rent • YES nodifference 575 and 600, but 550 preferred over 600

  16. 5) NEXT STEPS & CHALLENGES • SHORT RUN STEPS • Run Dutch housing associations • Recommendations • LONG RUN STEPS • Run Italian housing associations • international research cooperation • Other countries (e.g. Japan) • demographic and cultural stability • Other facade characteristics • (e.g. random design, green)

  17. CHALLENGES • TECHNIQUES • Test challenging simulation techniques (e.g. gyroscopic, virtual reality) • Test interaction observer – built environment (exploration – change) www.360cities.net (visited, June, 2010)

  18. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION!! Questions for discussion are very welcomed

More Related