facade re-design a visual experiment arch. francesca riccardo phd tu delft, faculty of architecture,...

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

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 environmental friendly

7

• YES Old buildings

• YES Curved, grooved and decorated surface

• NO atypical - modern style

• NL: bricks - traditional exteriors very appreciated

Facade Preferences from research

(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

9EC, 2007; Cecodhas, 2007; van der Flier and Thomsen, 2006; Koopman, 2007; Brunoro and Andeweg, 2007

For energy efficiency, decay and livability problems NOT ONLY technical aspects

BUT ALSO preferences for architectural aesthetics

10

AIM of this study

recommend housing associations and/or municipalities

how to manage decay - livability problems of postwar neighborhoods

to be renewed

11

1.To what extent are tenants willing to pay higher rent?

2.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

2) QUESTIONS & METHODOLOGY

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

Related to current Dutch renovation practice (NRP)

Are innovative (bio-shading, living walls)

6 are appropriated for visual experiments

5 with combined effectEnergy efficiency & Aesthetics

1 non facade characteristic Willingness pay higher rent

14

Procedure

STEP 1 3 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

16

17

4) RESULTS: EXPECTED vs ACTUAL PREFERENCES

- PREF. for medium to high complexity

YES but pref. medium levels (small difference with high)

YES articulation and sustainable character (50% to 100% moss)

exception window design full 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 no difference 575 and 600, but 550 preferred over 600

18

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)

19

CHALLENGES

TECHNIQUES

• Test challenging simulation techniques (e.g. gyroscopic, virtual reality)

• Test interaction observer – built environment (exploration – change)

www.360cities.net (visited, June, 2010)

20

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION!!

Questions for discussion are very welcomed