Integrated Sustainability | Greta Bologna

greta bologna

Integrated Sustainability Social Co-living in Rotterdam

tesi | architettura design territorio

Il presente volume è la sintesi della tesi di laurea a cui è stata attribuita la dignità di pubblicazione.

“Per l'originalità del tema trattato, per il rigore metodologico adottato nell'affrontarlo, in relazione al percorso formativo fortemente caratterizzato dalle esperienze internazionali condotte dalla candidata che ne hanno permeato i risultati”.

Commissione: Proff. F. Arrigoni, A. Lauria, C. Carletti, P. Gallo, F. Privitera, L. Vessella, R. Romano

Acknowledgments A heartfelt thanks to all those who took part in this thesis, in particular to Professor Paola Gallo and Professor Rosa Romano, who accepted the role of supervisor and co-supervisor of this work and accompanied me with interest and enthusiasm during all phases of the work, finding the most suitable and stimulating path for the development of the project and following me in my interests.

cover image Extract of Noordereiland and Rotterdam’s urban map

progetto grafico

didacommunicationlab Dipartimento di Architettura Università degli Studi di Firenze Susanna Cerri Federica Giulivo

didapress Dipartimento di Architettura Università degli Studi di Firenze via della Mattonaia, 8 Firenze 50121 © 2020 978-88-3338-096-4

Stampato su carta di pura cellulosa Fedrigoni Arcoset

greta bologna

Integrated Sustainability Social Co-living in Rotterdam

Presentation

previous page Extract of Rotterdam urban plan

To achieve a resilient and healthy future we must change our activities, the cities and buildings in which we live, the way we produce goods and services and work in balance with the natural ecosystems on which we depend. Only by bringing together the right relationships between the parties, connecting science and creativity with the needs of humanity in harmony with the environment, we can create a thriving society and design cities and buildings prepared to face the future. A future that, to date, in the construction world, has been entrusted to ‘Sustainability’.

But the word sustainability alone is not enough to achieve this goal: working to give meaning to this term by raising sustainability to new levels and converting ambitions and objectives into feasible projects that work, is the challenge that sees us engaged with a whole new approach that links environmental, physical, social and financial aspects in the awareness of achieving the perfect integration between energy, nature and culture in respect of the individual who will animate the places.

An approach that gives value to the project in an ‘integrated’ way without neglecting the ability to control and manage global architectural production for a correct development of the entire decision-making process that leads from the understanding of "what" to achieve, up to its physical execution. This is because the design is complex, by its nature, and there are numerous interfaces that are determined during the evolution of the activities that contribute to the realization of a built work.

The work presented in this volume proposes all these topics and displays a systematic and attentive research product to the problems of social housing, taking inspiration from the best European experiences. An adaptable and flexible design experience according to the latest dictates of environmentally sustainable design, conducted with creativity and great sensitivity. These qualities have animated the whole path towards the knowledge that the author has only started during this adventure, but which I hope will accompany her on her path towards the future.

Paola Gallo School of Architecture Università degli Studi di Firenze

5

Introduction

previous page Extract of Rotterdam urban plan

A specific combination of interests led me to undertake this particular path for the development of this work: the inclination towards the field of sustainable architecture and the desire to carry out part of the thesis research in the Netherlands, for the aptitude of this country to enthusiastically support the sustainability sector in an innovative way. The aim of the thesis is to investigate the issue of sustainability in its various environmental and social-cultural declinations in the field of co-housing. In particular, the specific objectives were to study typological variations related to new profiles of demand, in a densely populated urban context and in conditions of limited space. The design theme is the development of a housing unit in an urban area of the city of Rotterdam.

In choosing the housing model, the project aims to give particular emphasis to relate the choices of the building system to criteria of economy, adaptability over time and flexibility, in response to the housing needs of a continuously evolving society and the different user profiles which these residences are intended for. Particular attention was paid to the technological resources of the project, of the dry construction system in order to speed up the execution phase, to the materials, and to the energy efficiency of

the building, with the aim of the maximum containment of construction and management costs. The thesis experience starts from an educational activity carried out within the Erasmus + program at the Technical University of Eindhoven in the Netherlands. During the course of the work, a training internship in a professional research group on sustainable project topics made it possible to deepen the methodologies of approach in the thesis proposal. The result of the work consists in defining a guided process for the development of design solutions that integrate environmental and socio-cultural sustainability. It is therefore in this context that the project of a building of social housing in Rotterdam is proposed as an example of integration between social and environmental sustainability, in an urban context that presents the characteristics and typical problems of a western world metropolis that must cope with growing urban population, the integration of different social groups, and the need to address and adapt to climate change. The research and indepth studies that followed the project carried out at TU/e then continued with the workshop I attended at Except Integrated Sustainability, which allowed me to organize the work according to their method and to frame-

work the project in a wider dimension.

Except is a leading research, strategy and design group that operates in the field of sustainable development.

They integrate the knowledge of different professions to face in a holistic way the challenges of the complex sustainability problems in the fields of application ranging from the city to the building, from private companies to governmental ones, up to sustainable sectors of agriculture and the circular economy. To address the issue of sustainability, applied in every kind of field, in a global and interdisciplinary way, Except has developed Symbiosis in Development (SiD), a tool that allows different disciplines to look at integrated sustainability to create tangible results in the resolution of more complex challenges of our time.

previous page Extract of Rotterdam urban plan

Sustainability criteria according to Except Integrated Sustainability

Symbiosis in Development (SiD) “Creating the foundations for a sustainable society�

SiD is a tool created by Except to introduce a global framework that integrates energy, nature, culture and individuals into innovative solutions for resilient, equitable and self-sufficient businesses, cities and industry. The areas of competence of Except range from the city to the building, from private companies to governmental ones, up to sustainable sectors of agriculture and the circular economy; SiD has therefore emerged as a requirement to address the interconnected problems of these different fields and succeeded in creating a single global structure that links all aspects of sustainability and establishes a language to be used in interdisciplinary teamwork. This framework brings structure and intuition to the otherwise confused world of systems analysis, which prevents redundant work between teams and to raise the discussion on sustainability to a new level. Through the holistic process contained within the framework of SiD we are able to make the different disciplines collaborate and evaluate sustainability on a broad spectrum. This leads to new insights into the possibilities of creating more adequate and durable solutions.

SiD deals with complex sustainability problems, from the idea to the vision, through the analysis and mapping of the path, up to the execution. It provides information on how, when and where interventions in complex systems could be implemented to make the system more sustainable. In the SiD approach, we investigate all the factors involved in a problem situation and, more importantly, their internal relationships. By identifying these various aspects and visualizing them system maps, the starting points for innovation are evident. This systemic approach provides an alternative view of our world. By investigating the structures at the base of a system, we come to understand both what happens within the system and why it is happening that way, taking into consideration the dynamism of our society. And rebuilding the system with this information can solve these problems and prevent them from recurring, addressing the root cause of a problem, rather than fighting the symptoms.

SiD as a tool is based on four components that guarantee its applicability at all systemic impact levels: The SiD Theory lays the foundations for its functioning, ethics and reasoned approach deals with tackling system level problems. The SiD Method is based on 5 evaluation criteria of how to deal

with the synthesis, analysis and optimization of a system.

The SiD Process explains in detail how the method is applied over time, to allow efficient implementation of different SiD tools, indicating the actors that take part in the process and the different disciplines that interface with it. The SiD Tools are a collection of tools that can be used in various stages of the process. In fact, the process consists in putting together different tools for the evaluation of the problem at system, network, and object level.

The difficulty in fully understanding the SiD approach also lies in the complexity of the systems. We define a system based on its boundaries, which are an artificial construct that helps us understandof the system without being overwhelmed by its complexity.

The point at which to set the boundaries of a system depends on the purpose of the research in question and greatly defines the speed and depth of a project. A wider boundary of a system can make the project more complex to study, but it translates into more degrees of freedom to find the best solutions. Smaller systems' boudaries are simple and fast, but they often lack solutions to make significant changes.

9

SiD Theory Symbiosis in Development is a method that, like many of the methods previously elaborated, refers to systems theory. Systemic thinking is a holistic approach to analysis that focuses on how the constituent parts of a system interact with each other and how systems work over time and in the context of larger systems. The approach of systemic thinking contrasts with traditional analysis, which studies systems by dividing them into separate elements. Through system thinking we can predict how the parts are connected to each other, what the hierarchies and dynamics of a system are.

At the origin of SiD Theory lays the definition of Sustainability, given by the Except Team: “Sustainability is a state of a complex, dynamic system.

In this state a system can continue to

flourish without leading to its internal collapse or requiring inputs from outside its defined system boundaries.

Applied to our civilization, this state is consistent with an equitable and healthy society, as well as thriving ecosystems and a beautiful planet”.

The SiD theory is the central core of knowledge that underlies all SiD methods, processes and tools. It allows us to understand what the complex systems are, what sustainability really means and how to use this knowledge to move forward in the solutions development phases.

The systems can be seen on different levels ranging from the object, to networks, up to the system as a whole.

When we talk about the impacts of these three levels, we refer to a first direct level (or object), a second indirect level (or network) and a third level,

which we call the system level. When mapping a system, there are two possible approaches: bottom-up (from object to system level) or top-down (system to objecct level).

SiD Method The SiD Method is the practical application of the theory, and it is a tool that allows to get the overall vision of the object of study, of the dynamics of its own system and of the relations with other systems and allows through the 5 phases prescribed by the SiD to formulate intervention strategies to achieve sustainability goals. The method describes an iterative process that can be started starting from any of the five phases foreseen in the method and can have different sequences. The number of iterations or the duration of each iteration

is variable depending on whether the solutions are considered valid or not.

The SiD method consists of five cyclical phases: definition of objectives, mapping of the system, synthesis of knowledge to understand the system, mapping of possible paths to optimize the system and evaluation of results.

Step 1 | Goal Setting In the first step the direction of the project is determined, formulating the objectives by defining: • project’s system levels goals • system limit • object level indicators for object level assessment Step 2 | System Mapping System mapping is one of the fundamental properties of SiD and constitutes one of the main phases of the

PHASE 1 Preparation

PHASE 2 SiD Intelligence

PHASE 3 SiD Method

PHASE 4 Execution

Team Formation

Trend Analysis

Idea Development

Team Formation

Trend Analysis

Idea Development

Trend Analysis

Idea Development

Trend Analysis

SiD method. It is a key approach to understanding a system and working to improve it. Basically it consists in visually representing the objects, relationships and behaviors of a system to establish how the system actually appears in space, how it behaves over time and its structure. Often, it is easier to start mapping at the object level, next to the network layer and ending with the system maps.

Step 4 | Solutions and Road Maps This is the stage at which solutions are perfected both for immediate use and for future development. This is usually done by creating a second set of system maps, with an ideal long-term configuration in mind, and strategies to understand how to get there. These steps are recorded and included in a road map that acts as an action plan for implementing improvements.

Step 3 | System understanding This step concerns the understanding and learning of the mapped system and the paths of solutions. This is done by ‘diving’ into the system both individually and as a team. This step often coincides with a pause from data processing and system maps during which ideas for formulating solutions arise.

Step 5 | Evaluation and Iteration This step is reasonably simple: assess the outcome of the process with respect to the established objectives and prepare for a possible subsequent iteration of the cycle.

As mentioned above, the method steps are cyclical and iterative: passages are often repeated as our understanding of the system under ex-

amination increases and the objective or focus of the project moves accordingly. Some passages can also be iterated on their own. In short, there is no finite or linear method to apply SiD to questions about sustainability, but the steps described can serve as a mental framework to understand it for any particular issue. The application of the general method is further improved by using it in a SiD process, in which the method is subjected to a cycle and can be carefully planned.

SiD Process The SiD process is presented as a modular structure that allows the project manager and his team to trace a path to properly execute a project and is therefore susceptible to changes and variations depending on the project that is intended to be carried forward.

Thus the basic design of this process involves passages that are found in many disciplines, some of which are overabundant or inaccurate as far as the architectural project is concerned, or more specific the course of this thesis.

Phase 1 | Preparation This first phase foresees the general preparation for the project and the structuring of its path and procedures.

Through the Formation Team we identify the actors who will take part in the design process, experts are summoned in the subjects that contribute to the project and the roles are defined and the tasks divided. Through the Project Planning, the timings are outlined not only of the design phase but of the SiD process itself. It is ad-

11

visable to schedule meetings with the parties involved, the sessions in which the method will be applied and any sessions in which it could be repeated.

During this phase it is also advisable to set the first general objectives and then be able to continue with the second phase, the one in which the analysis must be aimed at bringing out the most significant aspects relating to the project.

Phase 2 | Intelligence During this phase, which consists of four steps, an analysis is carried out both on the existing and on possible directions of intervention.

• Trend Analysis • Precedent Research • Stakeholders Involvement • Data Collection The trend analysis outlines the boundaries of the cognitive framework that refers to the requirements, new concepts, and trials in the area ofcompetence of the project and in reference to its program. Through Precedent Research, or the analysis of the state of the art, it is investigated how the solutions produced to date respond to the requirements identified by the program, and the resulting results are organized and cataloged to contribute to the database of solutions applicable to the project. The analysis of the parties

involved is very important in the implementation of the project: involving all the actors also in the planning process is of great benefit to the development of the project itself, implementing knowledge, improving collaboration between the different disciplines and creating consensus. The last step of this phase is the collection of data relating to the system in which the project is inserted. The analysis is particularly important in order to understand the nature of the systems being studied and evaluate them in the aspects that are considered functional to the drafting of the objectives and solutions that will take place in the next phase.

Phase 3 | SiD Solution Cycle This is the phase in which the method is applied through the Solution Cycle tool, as previously illustrated. It has an indefinite duration, which depends on setting the congruent objectives and finding the right solutions for the project case. During the application of the method several SiD sessions are organized, to involve all those interested in the project. The following are the five cyclic and interconnected passages of the method: • Goal setting • System mapping • System understanding

• Solutions • Evaluation Phase 4 | Execution In the last phase the process is carried out and the project is executed. Once the process has been completed, the strategic solutions adopted are illustrated, all the necessary documents are produced to expose the path taken, and the indications for the construction are arranged.

SiD Tools Finally, the SiD provides additional tools for dealing with the analysis of the system under consideration, useful for investigating the nature of the object in question, its behaviors, and for arriving at formulating objectives in keeping with the analysis carried out. At each level of the system these indicators are used to discover its performance, dynamics, relationships, characteristics.

Among the list of indicators provided by the SiD for the study at the object, network or system level, it is necessary to know how to choose those that are most suited to the type of investigation to be carried out: it is possible that all the indicators lend themselves to measuring the characteristics of the analyzed object, but some can be misleading because they do not

provide useful parameters. For this reason the indicators have been developed according to the hierarchy of the three levels of impact and according to a well-defined framework that makes them significant and therefore useful.

Object level indicators (ELSIA) To ensure that all the physical aspects of a system and their random relationships are taken into account, SiD has developed the so-called ELSIA tool, short for Energy, Life, Society, Individual and Actions. These four categories in turn contain two indicators for a more in-depth evaluation of the macro-categories.

• Energy and materials (energy and materials) • Life (species and ecosystems) • Society (economy and culture) • Individual (health and happiness) • Actions (referring to and remembering that it is the actions and effects between the categories that are valid indicators for the evaluation of a system) The categories of ELSIA are functionally contained one in the other: all materials are made of energy and all ecosystems are made of materials. The economy is a subset of culture, just as every individual is always a part of society, and so on. The alterations in the lower layers (Energy or Life) automat-

below Symbiosis in Developement (SiD): Object level indicators (ELSIAs) and their hierarchical structure and interactions

ically influence the upper layers of Society and Individual. Influences in the other sense, however, are less immediate, even if they give rise to the intention of great changes in behavior.

Network-level indicators The network layer is the collection of relationships between all objects and agents in the system. At the network level, information can be obtained on important dynamic properties of any system that are indispensable for understanding their complexity. This is the level of impact in which effective solutions can be applied to improve systems. Each of the 10 network indicators can be used to evaluate the case studies and the relationships between objects, in time and space. They are used mainly in a qualitative sense, but if necessary, they can be used to build quantitative simulation models.

System-level indicators System indicators describe the performance of the system as a whole and are the highest order of evaluation that can be performed on a system.

System indicators define the sustainability of a system and include the performance of all networks and object indicators at lower levels. The system indicators are those most influenced by the system dynamics between all

the indicators and, when used on subsystems, affect both the upper and lower levels.

ERA, short for Equity, Autonomy and Resilience are used as a standard tool derived from the SiD sustainability definition. The three system indicators are ‘powered’ by the network and the object indicators below, and are also directly interconnected to one another.

13

paRT i

Application of the SiD Process: Social co-living in Rotterdam

previous page Extract of Noordereiland axonometric view

phase i

Preparation

The first phase of the SiD Process is the preparatory phase. During this organizational and pragmatic phase, the actors involved are defined in the design process, the convocation of experts or technicians outside the design team is evaluated, the program is drawn up and the timing of the process is planned. According to the process defined by Except during this phase the work group is defined and the times and ways of action of the group for the development of the project are established. The Team Formation phase defines the individual responsibilities and areas of competence of each member of the group and also involves those professionals who consider themselves essential to the development of the project throughout the process. Through the Project Planning, the timings are outlined not only of the design phase but for the SiD Process itself. It is advisable to schedule meetings with the various parties involved, the sessions in which the method will be applied and any sessions in which it could be repeated.

During this phase it is also advisable to set the first general goals of the project, to then be able to continue with the following phases.

As part of a thesis project like this, this phase cannot be taken into considera-

tion in its real functionality as it is precisely a thesis research project. This phase does not take on the organizational character that would have instead in a real case where the project is brought up to the state of realization, however the first goals of the project are established, which are those that dictate the direction of the research and analysis that take place in the next phase, the Intelligence phase. Therefore this preparatory phase in the case study in question does not have as much an organizational character as instead planner of the goals to be achieved at the end of the execution of the process.

Project program and context of intervention The aim of the thesis is to investigate the issue of sustainability in its various environmental and social-cultural declinations in the field of dwellings in the form of co-housing. In particular, the specific objectives were to study the typological variations related to new requirements profiles, in a densely populated urban context and in limited space conditions. In order to have a widespread housing model that is not concentrated so as to favor the integration of socially and/or economically disadvantaged social groups, the project is based on the principles

of co-housing as a housing model but also on the opportunity to create a intervention that fits into those areas of the urban context that need to be redeveloped from a social point of view.

Through the repeatability of a single intervention, which brings support and enhances the area in which it is inserted, opportunities are created to form a real network in which a real support structure for the city develops, which constitutes a great opportunity of social enrichment. In choosing the housing model, the project aims to give particular importance to relating the choices of the construction system to criteria of economy, adaptability in time and flexibility, in response to the housing needs of a society in continuous evolution and of the different user profiles to which these residences are intended. Particular attention was paid to the technological resources of the project, to dry construction systems in order to speed up the construction phase, to the materials, and to the energy efficiency of the building, with the aim of maximum containment of construction and management costs.

These criteria are applied in Rotterdam, in an urban context of one of the most dynamic centers in Europe.

17

below Aereal photo of Noordereiland dated back to the first decades of XX century bottom The dynamic harbour of Koningshaven

From a port city and a bustling center of commercial and cultural exchanges, Rotterdam has played a very important role since Middle Ages. But it is because of its recent history that today we see Rotterdam as a modern avant-garde metropolis. Rotterdam is a veritable open-air gallery of modern, post-modern and contemporary construction. It is a remarkable undertaking for a city largely destroyed by the bombings of the World War II. But it is precisely from this starting point that since then the reconstruction has continued unabated with creativity, ingenuity and a modern vision, which increasingly aims at the quality of urban life, linked to the concept of sustainability.

Noordereiland The project takes place in this context of continuous urban development and innovation, in a historic and peculiar district of the city of Rotterdam, the island of Noordereiland, the so-called ‘Northern Island’.

Noordereiland, part of the Fijenoord district, is an artificial island on the Nieuwe Maas, a river that connects the city of Rotterdam with the open sea. It was born in 1872, when the port of Rotterdam grew so fast that it was necessary to provide for an extension of the ports on the south side of the

Nieuwe Maas. Noordereiland takes its name from the port of Noorderhaven (today Koningshaven) which was excavated to accommodate new ships and shipping companies. The island, about 1.3 kilometers long and 100 meters wide, was therefore previously attached to the Fijenoord district: a narrow strip of Rotterdam-South was cut and Noordereiland emerged. It is connected to the city by two bridges, Willemsbrug and Koninginnebrug, and built respectively in 1880 and 1923 to further increase the constantly increasing freight traffic. Koninginnebrug, also known as De Hef (lift), is a small engineering masterpiece: a steel railway bridge that raised hydraulically to allow the passage of ships. Today unused and protected monument, it represents an important historical element of Noordereiland and of all Rotterdam, also giving the island the status of a protected urban landscape.

Since the last years of the twentieth century, the island was characterized by a great deal of activity; it was inhabited by a large population of naval transport workers, mainly middle class workers. But the residential character of the island was enriched by shops and ateliers, which made it particularly active and lively. In 1902 Noordereiland had about 8000 inhabitants and housed numerous offices of different

below Rotterdam's urban map at the end of IXX century bottom Urbanisation of Noordereiland

companies which made planning of roads and buildings on the island indispensable.

The first floors, dating back to 1880, were laid by the same engineers who worked in one of the most important shipping companies, the Rotterdamsche Handelsvereeniging (RHV): Noordereiland was divided with an orthogonal system of roads, and closed building blocks with internal courtyards. Especially along the perimeter of the island, on the fronts of the river, a varied type of two or three-storey houses were built, such as offices and businesses, with a representative charm in various construction styles of the late nineteenth century (eclecticism, neo-Renaissance, liberty style).

During World War II, while Rotterdam was heavily hit by German bombing, Noordereiland remained much better preserved than in other parts of the city, as a German garrison, but the western end was destroyed by British bombing and 600 houses were lost.

During the reconstruction period, according to the original street plan, new residential blocks were built in the western point of the Meeuwenstraat and on the east side of the Maaskade.

Due to housing shortages, many of the larger houses were divided. Noordereiland has lost its dynamic and lively port island character and in 1991 it has only

3,500 inhabitants, but the redevelopment of the island has led it to become an elegant and requested residential neighborhood. Moreover, it has attracted a surprisingly high percentage of people working in the arts field. As a result, the area is known as Montmartre on the Nieuwe Maas, whose riverfront offers a phenomenal view of the famous Erasmus Bridge and the Rotterdam skyline. In this fascinating context, there is the small lot of the project of the building object of this thesis, inserted in the dense residential fabric of this island, according to the traditional Dutch allotment. the site is restricted to a small lot of 4.8m x 14m, very small dimensions even compared to the buildings that are in this area, but has a peculiarity that represents the characteristic point of this site: it is in fact at the foot of the historian Koninginnebrug bridge, right next to one of its stone ramparts. Furthermore, the presence of the Ons Park, beyond the bastion of the bridge, is a panorama that few other buildings in this area can enjoy. In the following chapters, it will be illustrated how the project develops in this context, according to the application of the SiD Process, following the steps defined by the Symbiosis tool in Development.

19

previous page Extract of Noordereiland axonometric view

phase ii

Intelligence Trend Analysis

The second phase of the SiD Process is dedicated to the analysis that precedes the design phase, meant to outline the set of information necessary for an organic and exhaustive evaluation of both the issues that refer to the project program. Through the Trend Analysis it is possible to understand the orientation of the phenomena concerning the project and underline the need to find adequate solutions in this regard.

Given the main goal of this thesis, the analysis that follows focuses on the study of the phenomena that mostly concern the metropolises of the contemporary world, from the social and environmental point of view, with the aim of acquiring the knowledge necessary to advance a proposal project that meets the needs dictated by the city of Rotterdam.

Below are the results of the Trend Analysis of Rotterdam, whose development is influenced not only by a concept of living and a society in continuous evolution, but also by climate change, a topic of current interest for a city that undertakes a path of sustainable development. Finally, particular attention was given to the theme of social housing for two reasons: it is in fact an extremely widespread phenomenon in the Netherlands, and it was also one of the requirements of

the program of the first project conceived during the stay at the Technical University of Eindhoven, which has particularly influenced the formal and typological choices of the project.

The new concept of living When we talk about giving the building a highly sustainable character, the project cannot ignore the implementation of a global approach to this issue, which embraces the fundamental principles of sustainable development that also refer to society.

The issues proposed in the project’s program at Noordereiland refer to the contents promoted by social housing. The urban context, in a situation of limited space and budget, is fertile ground for the application of the concepts of social housing and in particular because the Dutch policy promotes its development and diffusion with specific attention.

The continuous evolution of the demographic composition, lifestyles, the evolution conditioned by the period in which we live determines a residential demand that responds to new and different needs of living: the need for mobility, nomadism linked to job mobility, the scarcity of resources of new households, cultural diversity, racial integration, and the increasingly problematic phenomenon of migration

impose on the market in the first instance to offer new housing solutions.

This new concept of living translates into precise requirements that the living space must fulfill, the requirements of flexibility and adaptability.

Flexibility, the search for a neutral indetermination of spaces and the need to create a form capable of welcoming it, represents a characteristic not only spatial but also temporal; a certain reversibility is therefore also sought in the flexible character of the lodging.

The housing model is transformed, giving importance to the model of open housing, no longer tied to the concept of habitation but also of activity; the quality of the house goes beyond the quality of the accommodation itself. From the need and willingness to share spaces, value is given to the collective space, a space dedicated to interaction and which is therefore enriched by the potential to become an exchange space open to multiculturalism.

Many of these concepts are associated with social housing and it is because of its sustainable environmental, economic and social approach that it seems to provide the best answers to new needs.

21

The social housing sector therefore has potential for a significant impact on the possibility of combining social, economic and environmental objectives.

Housing construction is based on the search for new housing standards and containment of resources that cannot be separated from a model of environmental sustainability: in an urban context of limited space there is an increasing tendency to redevelop urban areas rather than expanding the city and create more soil consumption. We need to support this trend by giving value to the individual building component to rethink and improve the entire urban structure. The housing project is an important area of experimentation, technological innovation and the theme of the sustainable approach to the construction of social housing is a priority in the construction world, affecting policies on intervention programs to combat environmental problems and the growing energy impoverishment of the families most at risk. The improvement and technological evolution of social housing represents an important point in favor of the search for energy and bioclimatic efficiency but also with respect to the issues of economic feasibility in relation to the low construction cost required by such interventions.

Social Housing Despite the absence of an established regulatory framework, trends in social housing in Europe identify common characteristics in the 27 member states, with different definitions at national level, which are found in the models of organizations that provide social housing, the different financing models and beneficiaries of this building.

In general, according to the second biennial report on social services of general interest of the European Commission (2010), the provision of social housing includes “the development, rental/sale and maintenance of affordable housing and their allocation and management� according to criteria of necessity and priority for people and families with low income, immigrants, vulnerable groups and through public and partly private funding. The diffusion and density of social housing varies from country to country, according to their history and legislature, and differs above all in the financing-rent-to-property ratio.

Social housing in the Netherlands The Netherlands is the country with the largest share of social housing in the EU, accounting for about 32% of the total housing stock and some 75% of the rental stock in the country. There is no single definition of So-

Social Hosing in Europe: Among European countries, The Netherlands has the highest percentage of social dwellings on total buildings

cial Housing in the Netherlands, although the Dutch Constitution states (Article 22) that the promotion of adequate housing is the subject of public care and the Dutch Housing Act of 1901 offers a legal framework for the way the provision of social housing is organised. In a 2010 decision by the European Commission on the Dutch social housing system was defined as the provision of housing at below market price to a target group of disadvantaged people or socially less advantaged groups, as well as to certain categories of key workers. The target group as well as the exact modalities of the service are defined by the public authorities. Social housing providers can also provide other related services to the target groups.

Environmental sustainability: 1/3 of the housing corporations has a B level energy classification

Economical sustainability: The average rent is 492€

Social sustainability: Socially/economically disadvantaged groups have access priority to social housing

Organizations Registered social housing organisations in the Netherlands (Woning corporaties) are private non-profit organisations with a legal task to give priority to housing households with lower incomes. They operate on the basis of a registration and are supervised by the national government. Although housing associations work within a legal framework set up by the State, they are independent organisations, setting their own objectives and bearing their own financial responsi-

bilities. Social housing organisations are the most important agents on the Dutch housing market and their task is not only to build, maintain, sell and rent social housing stock but also to provide other kinds of services, directly related to the use of the dwellings, to the occupants. There are currently about 425 such registered social housing organisations.

Loans While maintaining their social commitment, social housing organisations in the Netherlands have been financially independent from the central government since the so-called ‘Brutering’ or ‘balancing-out’ agreement in 1993 between the State and the national federations of social housing organisations. The Dutch financial strategy has been defined as a ‘Revolving Fund Model, where housing associations act as independent bodies in an environment of guaranteed capital market loans and rent-price regulation. More precisely, registered social housing organisations can benefit from a three-level security structure: the first element is the Central Fund of Social Housing (CFV), an independent public body that acts as a supervisor of the organization’s financial

23

situation and intervenes to give support to the organization incurring financial difficulties. The second security instrument is the Guarantuee Fund for Social Housing (WSW), a private organization created by housing organisations themselves that acts as solidarity fund among them. The mutual guarantee this Fund enables social housing organisations to benefit from favourable conditions and interest rates when financing their activities on the open capital market. In case these two instruments are not sufficient to overcome organisations’ economic problems, the State and the local authorities can intervene by acting as a last resort.

Beneficiaries Mechanisms for allocation and criteria vary according to the local/ regional situation. In general, up until recently, access to social housing in the Netherlands was never restricted on the basis of income and was virtually open to all citizens. However the recent decision by the European Commission mentioned above challenged this universal approach by targeting social housing provision to a limited group of people (disadvantaged people or socially less advantaged groups, as well as to certain categories of key workers), primarily defined by terms of income.

Rotterdam Climate Initiative In 2008, the Rotterdam City Council ratified the Rotterdam Climate Proof program. This part of the Rotterdam Climate Initiative consists of three main activities: knowledge development, implementation of adaptation measures to climate change and presenting Rotterdam internationally as an innovative delta city. The development of an adaptation strategy is a fundamental step in the process of creating a climate-proof Rotterdam.

In the context of its sustainable development, Rotterdam is working together with its partners to implement mitigation measures to reduce CO2 emissions. However, these efforts will not prevent the consequences of a changing climate from becoming evident all over the world and in Rotterdam in particular. Rotterdam's climate change adaptation strategy sets the course for a climate-proof city so that by 2025 Rotterdam is well prepared for the consequences of climate change and at the same time reaps maximum benefits.

The consequences of global warming have direct effects on climate change whose effects have enormous influences on urban development. The Netherlands is expected to be subject to increasingly mild winters and warmer summers. It is expected that

below Perspectives for the climate proof delta city

page 26 Rotterdam's river, Nieuwe Maas, Noordereiland and its bridges page 27 top left Flooded neighbourhoods top right Flooded docks caused by the high tide

winters will become wetter and the rains more and more extreme and, especially during the summer, the frequency and gravity of precipitation will increase, although the total number of rainy summer days will decrease and these extreme weather conditions will always become more likely, for example in the form of heat waves.

In the case of Rotterdam, which lies on the delta of the Maas and Rijn rivers, a particularly significant problem is the rising sea level. Rotterdam is a city closely linked to water, for morphological, historical and economic reasons: water comes from the sea, the river Nieuwe Maas, the (frequent) precipitations and from the innumerable layers of underground waters. That makes Rotterdam vulnerable to the consequences of climate change.

Although the system that keeps Rotterdam safe is robust and well maintained, in extreme situations the city is already noticing the consequences of very high water levels, heavy downpours and long periods of drought or high temperatures. While in the past these weather conditions rarely occurred, in recent decades they have become more common and such events show how vulnerable the city is to the changing climate. The problems manifest themselves as floods along the quays and streets during periods of

extreme rain, while when the temperatures are very hot, due to thermal expansion, some bridges do not close properly. Although so far these problems have not caused serious damage, however, it is essential that Rotterdam becomes less vulnerable and more resilient.

As part of Rotterdam Climate Proof's climate change adaptation program, the Knowledge for Climate program has conducted extensive research on how climate change will affect Rotterdam and what the consequences will be. In the climate change adaptation strategy of Rotterdam, this knowledge is applied to describe the effects of climate change, the consequences that affect Rotterdam and the risks that the city must take into account.

Climate change effects on Rotterdam Higher sea and river levels • increased risk of dike flooding • more frequent closure of the Maeslant storm surge barrier More intensive rainfall • water is less able to drain away • increased risk of disruption and water damage

25

Longer periods of drought • lower water tables • decrease in the water quality • increased likelihood of damage to built-up areas, flora and fauna • low river levels obstruct shipping Longer hotter periods (heat waves) • decrease in the thermal comfort • negative effects on health • increased likelihood of damage to flora and fauna Rotterdam Climate Change Adaptation Strategy “Rotterdam is the city of the future. A city for everyone. The city continually provides new opportunities for the many people of Rotterdam, some of whom are new to the city while oth-

ers have been associated with it for generations. Together, we look to the future and seize opportunities with both hands. We in Rotterdam are proud of our city and its port, active and involved as we are in our neighbourhoods and districts”.

Rotterdam's climate change adaptation strategy outlines the course that will allow Rotterdam to adapt to climate change and discusses the consequences for the city. The primary goal is to create a climate-proof city for the inhabitants of Rotterdam now and for future generations, but also to take advantage of the opportunities offered by adaptation to climate change to strengthen the city's economy, improve the environment, improve natural resources and increase the involve-

ment of the inhabitants of Rotterdam with their city. As such, the Rotterdam Climate Change Adaptation Strategy is in line with the city’s aims as presented in the ‘Stadsvisie Rotterdam’ (Rotterdam urban vision, spatial development strategy) and with the implementation as set out in the Rotterdam implementation strategy. Rotterdam intends to be 100% climate-proof by 2025. This is the goal expressed in the city's climate change adaptation program. This means that by 2025 measures will already have been taken in Rotterdam to ensure that each specific area is minimally destroyed and that it benefits most from climate change both then and during the following decades. Furthermore, all territorial developments in Rotterdam will take into consideration pre-

dictable long-term climate changes, while allowing for uncertain eventualities. The goal of a climate-proof Rotterdam solution is in line with the Rotterdam implementation strategy and is also a prerequisite for achieving the city’s more wide-reaching aims.

Goals • Protect the city and its inhabitants from the river and the sea • Limit the consequences too abundant or too scarce rains on the city and its inhabitants • Ensure that the port of Rotterdam remains safe and accessible • Make Rotterdam’s inhabitants aware of the effects of climate change and aware of what they can do • Ensure that adaptation to climate change contributes to a pleasant

and inviting environment for living and working • Ensure that climate change contributes to Rotterdam's economy and its image Strategies The situation of Rotterdam as a delta city, dominated by large rivers and the sea in particular, makes it vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Furthermore, the region is densely populated and has considerable economic value. When these aspects are combined, it becomes clear that a strategy to make Rotterdam less vulnerable to the effects of climate change is essential. The city is able to count on a robust system, already designed to be resilient, for urban water supply and flood protection. However, in-

action will eventually lead to greater risks and an increase in damage and the cost of adaptation measures that need time to be realized. The approach of a dynamic city like Rotterdam is prevention and protection. A long tradition of integrating urban development with flood prevention measures has brought the city to this point and it mustcontinue in the same way. The measures are not urgent, but must be taken into consideration immediately, in order to be integrated in a city in continuous evolution and to be efficient and functioning as soon as possible. This is at the heart of Rotterdam's climate change adaptation strategy: • Maintain and optimize the existing robust system • Improve its resilience by adopting

adaptive measures throughout the urban environment • Integrate climate change adaptation measures with other changes in the city and involving different parts • Take advantage of the opportunities offered by climate change adaptation to contribute to Rotterdam's economy and its image • Contribute to creating an involved and sensitized society and to improving the ecological value of the city Measures Against the increase in water level Rotterdam river dams do not require urgent attention, but in the long term they will have to be reinforced to cope with rising sea levels. The analysis of the flow rate and positions of future

activities and the way in which they can be combined with the development plans of the area and the existing characteristics can reveal potentially advantageous opportunities for the collaboration of different projects.

The correct maintenance and reinforcement of existing infrastructures, if integrated with an urban development oriented to adaptation to climate change, is able to provide a sufficient degree of protection to the city.

Against excessive rains However it is good to act also in the private sector, through a politic that makes citizens aware of the risks of the effects of climate change, and of what they can put in place for their

27

below City and buildings' adaptive solutions of Rotterdam's Climate change Adaption Strategy

safety and the protection of the city.

Private interventions such as adaptive design buildings that can contribute to the resilience of the city are to be encouraged. Against extreme rains Rotterdam already has experience with green roofs and the so-called ‘blue roofs’ that can be combined with the reuse of rainwater inside the building.

The replacement of flooring in gardens with green gardens and the construction of green facades will also be actively encouraged. In the most vulnerable areas an efficient design must be incorporated for the disposal and recycling of water in buildings and public areas that will need to be adapted so that they can store rainwater, for example using intelligent road profiles.

Against drought To make the city less vulnerable to the effects of drought and low rainfall, Rotterdam is focusing on maintaining rainwater and replenishing water wherever possible. Many of the measures that effectively combat low groundwater levels and drought are part of the standard measures for creating a ‘climate-proof’ city; maintaining the bases — maintaining the current water system in order — combined with adaptive measures to locally conserve and delay rainwater drainage. An effective measure is to create more

water surfaces, such as the expansion of the existing ones or the creation of new lakes, canals, waterways. Adaptive measures that make the system more resilient and less vulnerable to periods of drought include incorporating more flora and less flooring into the city through small-scale projects of buildings, gardens or roads. These projects contribute directly to increasing the infiltration capacity of the land and make the city act like a sponge.

Against rising temperatures The core of the strategy is to incorporate more vegetation into the city, especially in paved and densely populated areas. This is done at all levels, from sidewalks to city parks. Where vegetation cannot be incorporated, other adaptation measures will be included in the design and maintenance plans. At the same time, more parks and gardens create a more attractive environment, a richer urban biodiversity and extra activities in the field of recreation and tourism, benefiting the urban economy. Living and working in buildings that remain fresh, even during a heat wave, is important for health and well-being. Owners are advised and encouraged to invest in making existing buildings more heat resistant. For maintenance investments, energy saving choices have been made that

will ensure that the internal environment remains pleasant despite periods of extreme temperatures. For all new constructions, heat-proof measurements are incorporated from the beginning of the design phase. Meas-

ures to make buildings more resistant to heat include white and green roofs, windows that open, awnings, mosquito nets and make sure the bedrooms are located on the lower floors and the north sides of the buildings.

phase ii

Intelligence Precedent Research

In the previous part of the analysis the limits of the cognitive framework of this thesis were traced, directed towards the integration of social, environmental and economic sustainability of sustainable design. The precise program of the Noordereiland building implies requirements that the project must fulfill through the flexibility and adaptability of the spaces, a cohabitation program in the field of social housing, the containment of costs and energy consumption, the energy efficiency of the building, up to the need to have to fit all this into a very limited space, in a densely populated urban context.

In this phase of the process, the analysis of the state of the art aims to investigate how the solutions produced to date meet the requirements identified by the program. In particular, this analysis aims to identify design solutions for the organization of living spaces, and strategic solutions for the integration of technological and environmental systems able to guarantee the energy efficiency of the building.

Methodology In this preliminary investigation phase, the acquisition of data relating to each case study identified was elaborated according to the cataloging based on their characteristics in rela-

tion to the requirements of the project. For this reason the ten case studies have been grouped into three categories that briefly represent the aspects to be evaluated to meet these requirements. All the case studies taken into consideration have been chosen with particular attention to the aspect of energy efficiency, but some of these also highlight technical-design solutions that more precisely respond to aspects of social sustainability. Since the project is located in an urban context and in an extremely small site and adjacent to a pre-existence, the first four case studies take into consideration small residential buildings that arise in a similar context, and have a plan development that meets the needs of flexibility and adaptability. The second category includes buildings with zero carbon emissions, totally self-sufficient, or built for competitions oriented towards strategic solutions for high energy efficiency residences. The analysis of this category of buildings aims to bring out environmental systems and solutions compatible with the environmental requirements of Noordereiland project where the containment of energy consumption also favors cost containment, thus responding to the need to build on a limited budget. The residential complexes analyzed in the third

part are also highly energy efficient buildings, taken into consideration because social housing buildings in which the concept of co-habitation, collective spaces and sharing of services is better perceived, a very important aspect, even if in small, also in the project in Noordereiland.

29

TEMPLATE A OVERVIEW A | Case study classiďŹ cation Urban dwellings Zero Energy Buildings Residential complexes

A

B B | Project description C | Environmental-climatic overview Climate data Location Altitude Highest annual average temperature Lowest annual average temperature Average temperature Annual average falls

C

TEMPLATE B ENVIRONMENTAL AND TECHNICAL ASPECTS D | Environmental aspects Context Building axis orientation E | Building typology

D

In-line house Complex

E

Row house F | Distribution model Defined spaces

F

Open plan G | Spatial characteristics

G

Flexibility and adaptability Shared areas

H

H | Users Single household

I

Differentiated users I | Dimensional data Functional destination Net surface Gross floor area Floors

31

TEMPLATE C DESIGN TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS L | Building system Description of the technical elements of the structural system

L

M

N

M | Envelope Description of the vertical and horizontal, transparent and opaque closures of the building and their thermal performance N | Materials and techniques Description of the employed materials and reasons for the choices of these materials and the construction techniques used

TEMPLATE D ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS O | Energy Active Systems Heating and Cooling Heat pump Radiant floor heating system Active solar systems Air conditioning Mechanical venitilation

O

Passive Systems Heating and Cooling Thermal inertia Solar greenhouse Passive solar systems Natural ventilation Solar shading

P

P | Renewanle Energy Sources Geothermic plant Biomassenergy PV plant

Q

T

Solar thermal plant Q | Eco-friendly materials R | Land Consumption Surface/Volume ratio

R S

S. Water Management Rain water collection systems T | References

33

Conclusions The evaluations resulting from the three areas of relevance (small urban residences, nZEB buildings, social housing complexes) are shown below with reference to the technical design, technological and energy environmental characteristics. The survey presented a framework of non-homogeneous case studies among them but highlighted the most relevant characteristics of each of these in relation to the requirements of the building program covered by this thesis.

Analytical results of the category of urban residences As for small residential buildings, we find common features that are important to highlight: these buildings, mainly in line, are built to make the most of the small space between the surrounding buildings, with design solutions whose purpose is explicitly to create a flexible and adaptable space. Although these are often single-family residences, the spatial distribution within these small houses shows a free plan that greatly favors the possibility of changing the spatial distribution itself, giving the building a characteristic flexibility that meets the needs of living contemporary. The difficulty with which this type of building has to do is mainly to create a building with high energy efficiency in such

a limited space. This task is therefore mainly entrusted to the envelope, as it is often not possible to act on factors such as the orientation of the building to control the direct and indirect gains of heat or the space available to create particular systems, solutions such as solar greenhouses or thermal masses.

Analytical results of the nZEB building category For this reason, the analysis of the second category of buildings, those of high energy efficiency, is useful to find strategic solutions that also adapt to a typology of small residential buildings. The exploitation of solar thermal and photovoltaic systems in coverage is undoubtedly the most easily adopted solution, this being one of the few surfaces available to host this or other plants.

Analytical results of the category of social housing complexes From the study of the third category of buildings, as well as the analysis of other environmental and energy solutions, it is above all the aspect of social housing that emerges. As one of the requirements of the Noordereiland project is the functional destination for two different households wishing to live independently but sharing some common spaces, the analysis of residential complexes in the case studies also highlights some solutions

for distribution and use of these spaces. In this type of building energy consumption and building emissions are limited even more thanks to the use of shared spaces and services Sustainable housing models The results of the case study analysis provide a wide range of strategic solutions for the energy efficiency of the building and the other important aspects that contribute to providing a specific answer for each requirement imposed by the Noordereiland project program. The design of living spaces in a space-limited situation, the need for the building to respond, in small, to the characteristics of a building of social residence with shared spaces and finally the need to contain construction and management costs of the building, make this small project a stimulating challenge and above all a very current interest.

below Stakeholders Analysis schemes: the output of the four ELSIAs categories and the relations between the parties and their functions

phase ii

Intelligence Stakeholders Analysis

In each project, different types of stakeholders are involved. These can be the people directly involved in the SiD process, including customers, users of the project in question, suppliers, legislators, regulators, sector agencies and so on. The involvement of these parties is a fundamental phase of the process that favors the success of the project in multiple ways. On the one hand, the participation of interested parties in the design phase contributes to the supply of useful information for the development of the project in the preliminary phase, and therefore to the drafting of the objectives, not only through the needs presented by the client and/or by the user, but also through the specific knowledge of each actor. Furthermore, the intervention of the interested parties and their co-presence creates consensus and a sense of belonging to the project that improves performance and makes future collaboration between the different parts easier and more successful.

Similarly to the first phase of the process, the preparatory one, even this phase of analysis and involvement of the project stakeholders cannot be applied in the specific case of this thesis, since there are no real clients, users or financiers; however this participatory process can to be imagined and

analyzed as in a real case. Just think of the useful life cycle of the building, in its production, transport, use, recycling, reuse or disposal phases, to realize that all the parties involved in the construction, management and maintenance, up to the user of the architectural body can collaborate to make informed choices that affect the sustainability of this building.

Making use of the ELSIA indicators for the evaluation of the processes that make the project more sustainable through the involvement of stakeholders, it is possible to identify the connections between these subjects that contribute to the success of the project through the active participation of all the parties. The project is conceived as an expression of the needs of the community of residents, which in effect makes it a participatory process. The design experience must therefore necessarily involve and empower all the actors of the process in order to guarantee a product that responds to the needs of the users, of the bodies that deal with the management of housing, and that can be responsibly managed.

35

previous page Extract of Noordereiland axonometric view

phase ii

Intelligence Data Collection

The last step of the analysis phase is the Data Collection, relatively to the systems in which the project is inserted. The very name of this phase indicates the collection of information on the state of affairs and implies a subsequent re-elaboration of this information for the measure of intervention. This analysis strictly concerns the systems with which the project interacts (society, climate, economy...) and thanks to which it is possible to outline the physical boundaries (project area, neighborhood, city) and regulations within it is possible to operate. Also in this phase the ELSIA indicator tool is used to classify data in the four categories Energy, Life, Society, Individual. It’s particularly important in this phase as it allows a 360° survey of all aspects to be taken into consideration before concluding the analysis phase and moving on to the next phase, the one in which the objectives are established and the solutions are evaluated through the application of the SiD Method.

Energy – European and Dutch Directives The European Directive 2010/31 / EU on energy performance in buildings and the following 2012/27 / EU sanction the fundamental role of energy efficiency as a strategic tool in the

current European scenario in order to face challenges such as the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases, the sustainability of primary energy sources and the containment of climate change, imposing energy savings of 20% on primary energy consumption compared to projections for 2020.

The directive on energy performance of buildings also requires that all new buildings are near zero energy (nZEB) by the end of 2020. All new public buildings must be nZEB by 2018.

According to European directives on the energy efficiency of buildings, “a nearly zero-energy building is a building that has very high energy performance [...]. The almost zero or very low amount of energy required should be covered to a large extent by energy produced from renewable sources, including renewable energies produced locally or nearby”.

Member States have a responsibility to define in their national plans what constitutes nZEB, while considering the possibility of implementing this concept in their national contexts. The Netherlands has followed its long tradition of energy efficiency in the building sector by updating the National Building Regulations in 2012.

Since 2013, however, the Dutch scenario on energy efficiency of buildings has changed its course to better adapt to

European regulations. The Dutch business agency (RVO, Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland) is a government agency operating under the auspices of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy whose activities are commissioned by various ministries and the European Union. With the enactment of the Referentie Gebouwen BENG (Bijna EnergieNeutrale Gebouwen) law on nZEB buildings, the registration of energy performance of buildings no longer takes place through the old EPC but through new indicators, called BENG indicators that determine the energy performance for almost energy buildings zero based on 3 requirements: • Energy requirements • Primary fossil energy consumption • Share of renewable energy Energy requirements The amount of energy needed to heat and cool a building. This indicator concerns the limitation of energy demand and at the same time the maintenance of climatic comfort inside the building.

Prerequisites: up to 25 kWh /m2/year.

37

below Noordereiland climatic data

Primary fossil energy consumption A certain amount of energy from non-renewable sources is needed to meet energy needs. This is closely related to the implants. Through the energy generated in a sustainable way, it is possible to minimize the use of primary fossil energy.

Prerequisites: up to 25 kWh /m2/year Share of renewable energy The percentage of renewable energy in relation to total energy consumption.

The absolute amount is determined, which includes the proceeds from the solar panels, but also, for example, heat pumps and biomass boilers, minus their energy consumption.

Prerequisites: at least 50% For all new buildings, both residential and non-residential, authorization requests must meet the requirements for nearly zero-energy buildings (BENG) from 1 January 2020. In 2018 it will be tested if the requirements are at an optimal level. Final results are expected at the end of December 2018.

On this basis, a legal process will begin which should include requirements established in the summer of 2019.

Life (Ecosystems & Species) – Bioclimatic data The collection of bioclimatic data allows a climatic-environmental frame-

work of the project area. In the preliminary phase of the design process, the analysis of bioclimatic data will allow to make appropriate considerations on the urban microclimate, on the orientation of the building, the surrounding context, on the choice of the materials of the envelope and of the covering, and the choice of appropriate solutions and environmental systems.

Location Prins Hendrikkade 56, Noordereiland, Rotterdam Region: Zuid Holland Coordinates: 51°54'50.0 "N 4°29'51.2"E Altitude: 0 m a.s.l.

Temperature In Rotterdam, the climate is sub-oceanic, wet and rainy, influenced by the North Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, and it is affected by several rainfalls throughout the year. Winters are therefore cold and wet and summers rather cool and humid. The average temperature in January, the coldest month, is 3.5 ° C, while in July, the hottest month, it is 17.5 ° C. Rainfall The precipitations are relatively abundant, around 850mm a year, but above all they are common and distributed during the seasons; however, the

below Noordereiland demographic data

AGE RANGE

DWELLING TYPOLOGY

ETHNIC GROUP

HOUSEHOLD TYPOLOGY

HOUSEHOLD INCOME PROPERTY

BUILDINGS STUDENTS

wettest season is autumn, in October there is an average of 80mm, the least rainy is spring, in April the average rainfall is 40mm. The rains often occur in the form of short showers or drizzle, while during the winter rare snowfalls are not rare.

Wind The wind blows frequently and can be intense, especially from November to March. It comes mainly from the south-west, both in cold and hot seasons. The average wind speed at 100m of altitude is 10 knots.

Solar radiation The amount of sunshine in Rotterdam is not high: May is the month with the most hours of sunshine (200h), with 40% on average in daylight hours, while in December the hours of sunshine amount to just over 30, with 30% of sunshine hours during the day.

Humidity The humidity is very high and is almost constantly around 90%. This heightens the sensation of cold during the winter months and accentuates the heat in the summer months. However, very frequent wind can attenuate the effect of humidity.

Society (Culture & Economy) – Demographic data Thanks to the renowned accessibility of the Dutch databases, it was possible to gather detailed information in the demographic area of Noordereiland through profile drawn up for each district of the city by the municipality of Rotterdam. The analysis of these data was beyond helpful for the goal setting for the social sustainability of the project. The results have in fact highlighted characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of the neighborhood.

Population Today, Noordereiland has about 3,200 inhabitants, which makes it one of the least populated areas of Rotterdam. The history of this neighborhood, however, strongly characterizes its demographic development, making it a purely residential area: the inhabitants of Noordereiland are mainly small families, mainly composed of natives, whose average age is between 15 and 65 years. Noordereiland is an affluent and fairly homogeneous neighborhood. According to data collected by the municipality of Rotterdam, the dwellings are mostly single-family houses, organized according to traditional Dutch distribution on several

39

below Land use of Noordereiland and its surroundings bottom Mobility paths of Noordereiland and its surroundings

floors and without a lift. Despite being an affluent neighborhood, almost half of the inhabitants are in social rent. Only 24% of homes are rented privately and only 29% of the population owns the house in which they live.

The widespread presence of social housing management organizations is certainly a given also in the small neighborhood of Noordereiland. However, the absence of all those collateral activities that usually accompany the management of social housing is evident, perhaps because of the strongly residential character of this neighborhood. This also results in a scarcity of services offered to the community.

Services In contrast to the activity that determined the image of Noordereiland until a few decades ago, this area is now mainly a residential area.

For many services, residents depend on the neighboring districts of Rotterdam Centrum or Kop van Zuid, both of which are within walking distance of the neighborhood. The offer of services on the island is limited to small commercial activities, located on the ground floor of the buildings and fairly decentralized even within the same neighborhood. There are no socio-cultural activities and the public green present, although of a more than sat-

isfactory size for the small island, is concentrated mainly in a single park that is not used much by the population.

Individual (Wellbeing & Health) – Quality of life indexes The ELSIA indicator category which serves to assess the dimension most closely linked to the individual, is used to evaluate the of the single people’s perception of the systems that surround it. This is the result of the phenomena that occur relatively to the previous categories, which therefore influence the individual's state of well-being. The results of the analysis of the previous categories (Energy, Life and Society) have therefore led to define the issues that mostly concern the Noordereiland society.

The indicators of quality of life realized by the municipality of Rotterdam, from the objective, subjective and general point of view, analyze the judgment of the inhabitants of Noordereiland in terms of perception of the quality of the physical environment, the feeling of safety, security and the development of life social district. The inhabitants of Noordereiland are generally satisfied with the environmental conditions of the neighborhood and have a positive perception of their safety. However, on the basis of these

LAND USE Residential function

Commercial activities

Residential+commercial

Administration activities

Socio-cultural

Public green

MOBILITY Vehicle accessible

Bike paths

below Building year of construction Noordereiland and its surroundings bottom Life quality index

indicators and the analysis of the data of the previous categories, the most evident problems concern above all the scarcity of services and activities offered within the island, and the relative lack of integration of the inhabitants.

BUILDINGS 1800-1850 1850-1900

KEY Neutral perception Positive perception Strenght point Negative perception Weak point

1900-1950 1950-1970

1970-1990 > 1990

Conclusions At the completion of the analysis phase, the SiD process is in a state of progress which makes it possible to draw the first conclusions with respect to what has been analyzed. We have seen how the analysis of trends has highlighted two main guidelines towards which the project extends, the one that derives from the needs of contemporary living, which find an answer in the phenomenon of social housing, and the one which refers to the need for adaptation to climate change. These guidelines will define, in the next phase, the general goals of the project: to design a building that meets the needs of social and environmental sustainability. On the other hand, through the study of the state of the art, we investigated how the solutions produced to date respond to the requirements identified by the program: the classification of the case studies according to evaluation criteria that refer to these needs, allowed identifying the strategic solutions that

best fit the case of this thesis. Consequently, through the phase of data collection according to the classification dictated by the instrument of the ELSIA, knowledge was acquired concerning the system in which the Noordereiland project is inserted, necessary for the formulation of the specific objectives and, subsequently, of the intervention solutions.

41

previous page Extract of Noordereiland axonometric view

phase iii

SiD Solution Cycle

In the light of the analysis carried out in the previous phase, the third macro phase of the SiD process allows to obtain a clear view of the current situation, understand the dynamics of the system and implement an action plan to intervene in the system examined.

In this is the phase the method is applied through the Solution Cycle tool, an iterative process that aims to formulate the objectives of the project and find sustainable solutions for the execution of the project. This tool can be implemented at different scales of intervention, it is subject to a variable number of iterations and each of its five phases can have different sequences; the steps are often repeated as our understanding of the system increases and the objective of the project shifts accordingly. The following are the steps in the method which will then be explained in detail: • Goal setting • System mapping • System understanding • Solutions • Evaluation In the case study of this thesis, the phase III of the SiD process contains the applications of the SiD method carried out at different depth levels, at the neighborhood scale and at the building scale. The process, which follows the five cyclical phases defined

by the method, was performed at the neighborhood scale to contextualize the intervention of this small project in the system in which it is inserted to better meet the needs that were analyzed in the previous phase. Consequently the formulation of the objectives and solutions at the neighborhood level are functional to a better understanding of the context, to the identification of the issues that must be resolved on this scale and to which the building can then contribute specific objectives that will be the result, in addition to the previous analysis phase, also the solutions produced by the application of the method tool, SiD Solution Cycle.

Goal Setting In consideration of the results produced by the analysis phase, we can state that Noordereiland is a typical district of the city of Rotterdam, whose problems mainly refer to the social and adaptation areas to climate change. To take into account all the aspects that contribute to the general goal of the sustainability of this system, however, the formulation of the specific goals was done through the ELSIA tool to assess the sustainability conditions according to the four categories. At the individual level, the objectives to improve the cur-

rent condition are to achieve a condition of well-being within the neighborhood, which passes through the social integration of the inhabitants, their involvement and awareness towards the adaptive development of the neighborhood. This category offers a fairly general evaluation but the objectives that derive from it are those that mostly concern the individual and his well-being. The objectives of socio-economic and socio-cultural sustainability concern the sphere of society in the broad sense and in the Noordereiland district they mainly address the offer of services which, given the highly residential nature of this area, are scarce both in terms of offer of commercial activities that support residents. As far as the Life category is concerned, the objectives are in line with those set by the Rotterdam Climate Initiative on climate change adaptation for the prevention of consequences and the protection of residents, as well as the objectives concerning the field of energy are oriented towards environmental sustainability by proposing the production of energy from renewable sources, recycling of waste, recycling of rainwater and ensuring the energy efficiency of buildings.

43

SERVICES Promote commercial activities and temporary stores, organize periodic markets Neighborhood activities for the active participation of the community

Goals Individual (Wellbeing & Health) • Wellness conditions • Social sustainability • Integration • Involvement of residents • Initiatives to raise public awareness • Public green Society (Culture & Economy) • Socio-economic and socio-cultural sustainability • Offer of support services for the community • Diversified functions within the neighborhood • Sharing • Contribute to the city's economy by adapting to climate change

Life (Ecosystems & Soecies) • Limit the consequences of climate change • Ensure neighborhood resilience • Preserve and enrich biodiversity • Limit pollution Energy (Energy & Materials) • Produce energy from renewable sources • Guarantee the energy efficiency of buildings • Waste recycling • Recycling of rainwater System Mapping and System understanding This step is one of the fundamental properties of Symbiosys in Developement, which concerns the understanding of the analyzed system and the paths of the solutions. The rep-

resentation of objects, the relationships and behavior of a system helps us to establish how the system actually appears in space, how it behaves over time and what its structure is.

The logical step following the mapping of the system is the identification of the solutions and their implementation in space, thanks to the results produced by the study of the system through the mapping.

In the case study object of this thesis the system of which behaviors and relationships are analyzed for the formulation of the objectives has well defined borders and for this reference is made to the same island as system, clearly connected with the rest of the city, but that we can consider in this case as a neighborhood whose strength is to guarantee its residents a certain level of autonomy.

After formulating the objectives that aim to improve the sustainability of this neighborhood, from the analysis of the system of the island Noordereiland it is easy to identify not only the strategies to be adopted to achieve the objectives, but also where to implement the strategies in space for these to be efficient. Although Noordereiland, given its particular history of artificial island, has been urbanistically well structured, the climate changes have a strong influence and it is not difficult to identify its weak or strategic points to put the solutions into practice.

Solutions The solutions proposed below respond directly to the objectives formulated above and concern, again according to the ELSIA classification, the four cate-

SOCIAL INTEGRATION Neighborhood activities for the active participation of the community

Open pedestrian connection with the next district across the bridge

Public spaces as places of inclusion and aggregation

Equipped public parks

gories of evaluation of the system. At the individual level, the solutions are directed towards the redevelopment and creation of public green areas and activities that support residents and promote integration between the different social groups, while to favor the aspect of socio-economic and member sustainability-cultural aims to create an attractive environment for the city and its inhabitants by increasing both community support services and the organization of commercial activities and periodic markets for the supply of material goods. The solutions that meet the objectives of adapting to climate change concern above all prevention and flood prevention strategies and management of rainwater through measures such as garden roofs, green facades, draining gardens and floodable docks.

Individual (Wellbeing & Health) • Neighborhood activities for the active participation of the community • Public spaces as places of inclusion and aggregation • Co-working and co-living spaces for integration Society (Culture & Economy) • Community support services • Social Housing • Co-working for space sharing • Organize periodic activities and markets • Create an attractive environment for the city Life (Ecosystems & Species) • Preserve and expand urban green areas • Introducing plant species for ecosystem services

• Create draining gardens for rainwater • Flood-proof flood-proof benches Energy (Energy & Materials) • Design adaptive solutions for buildings: vegetated façades, garden roofs, rainwater collection tanks • Use of environmentally friendly materials • Generate energy from renewable energy sources Evaluation and Iteration This step is reasonably simple: assess the outcome of the process with respect to the established objectives and prepare for a possible following cycle’s iteration. The solutions proposed at the neighbourhood level aim to improve the layout of this area through specific small-scale interven-

tions: given the nature of the context in which we find ourselves, an urban context characterized by a dense residential fabric, interventions they were not designed to revolutionize and upset the Noordereiland environment but to create a sort of connective tissue between the areas of the neighborhood and redevelop existing spaces with a view to social sustainability and adaptation to climate change. Solutions such as providing a greater range of services, even in the form of periodic events, or adaptive solutions for buildings and public parks are interventions that, despite their limitations, contribute to the well-being of the residents of the neighborhood and also represent an added value for the city.

45

climate change adaption strategies Anti-floods walls and floodable docks

Preserve and expand urban green

Waterproof buildings

Adaptive solutions for buildings

The goals and solutions proposed in this first phase of application of the method are functional to the specific goal setting for the project of the building which will then be translated into strategic solutions for the intervention proposals. In the following paragraph these goals are exposed, while the next chapter, that displays the execution of the results produced up to this point, will illustrate in detail the solutions adopted in the project of the building in Noordereiland, which aims to take into consideration all of these aspects and integrate them in the design. Following the methodology learnt through the SiD Method, the process of goal setting, system mapping and understanding and solution proposal has been reiterated a number of times, in order for the most suitable solutions to be found and applyed.

Project goals and program Considering the results produced at the end of the application of the SiD method in the third phase of the process, the specific goals of the building are logically in line with those defined at the neighborhood scale and refer mainly to the achievement of social and environmental sustainability, such as already defined by the general goals of the project. The whole part of the analysis carried out previously focused on these two guidelines through the analysis of the trends and the analysis of the state of the art, and to define the specific goals of the project the application of the method at the level of the district has product of the results that represent fundamental salient points also in the project.

We have seen how to obtain well-being conditions in a healthy and stim-

ulating environment, the principles of Social Housing and Co-living represent a valid solution, to encourage social integration refer to a greater offer of support services to community and on the other hand, as the needs dictated by adaptation to climate change produce adaptive solutions that not only prevent damage from floods but also favor the development of an attractive and stimulating neighborhood.

The project’s goals reproduce these themes, adapted to the scale of the building. The numerous goals set so far for the whole island of Noordereiland are to be condensed in one small building; this is not just an abitious intent, but a challenge to undertake by any kind of building to really create a positive impact on the environment in which it lives. The integration of strategic solutions that target the envi-

ronmental, social and economical aspects of a building is the main goal of this project. The specific objectives of the project are listed below, classified according to the ELSIA indicators.

Individual (Wellbeing & Health) • Wellness conditions in a healthy and stimulating environment • Social cohesion Society (Culture & Economy) • Social integration • Integration of community support activities • Social Housing • Co-housing • Participatory planning • Sharing • Flexibility and adaptability of living spaces • Economic accessibility

Adaptive solutions for buildings: • green façades • green roofs • rainwater collection tanks

Life (Ecosystems & Species) • Adaptation to climate change • Ecosystem services • Enrichment of biodiversity Energy (Energy & Materials) • nZeb building • Generate energy from renewable energy sources • Use of environmentally friendly materials The project aims at these goals, compatibly with the limited space that this small lot offers. The challenge therefore also turns out to be to integrate in the most efficient way the functions that are intended for the building, in the limited space that it offers. How to attribute to a single building the responsibility to fulfill both the needs of integration, to offer a support service

Preserve and expand urban green Draining gardens

for residents, and to promote social cohesion? The perspective of this project is in fact to create an intervention that works both in the most restricted area of the neighborhood and in wider urban contexts. The repeatability of an intervention like this, if seen in a broader vision, creates a potential grid of units that work together with the sustainable objective of integrating those functions that are scarce in the urban fabric, that of creating support for existing structures, to constitute a plus value in the context in which they are inserted. Furthermore, designing in a context of limited space, such as the project lot in Noordereiland, represents the challenge of the ever-expanding contemporary cities: going to attribute special support functions to the units inserted in the free spaces of the urban fabric, which often result to

Co-housing Social housing

Supporting community systems

Floodable docks

Neighborhood activities for the active participation of the community

be of limited dimensions. The project of the building intends to present just one of these opportunities, constituting itself as a piece of a possible sustainable network.

The concept on which the project is based is that the building must be self sufficient as well as part of a network.

This is achieved on two levels: since it's a social housing unit, it must provide all the facilities to its residents, included the possibility to adapt to different situations responding to the social renting needs. On the other hand, it offers an extra space which can be used as a community centre by the residents of the neighbourhood of Noordereiland, as well as the residents of the building itself. As a result of the precedent analysis this function represents a point of strenght of the building since it provides a solution to the

lack of community services in the area.

On another level, the building is energetically self-sufficient, with all the benefits for the residents who take advantage of renewable energy sources, but also contributing to the measures for the climate change adaption strategy of Rotterdam, and in particularly of Noordereiland as a high risk area. By using adaptive solutions, the building brings safety firstly to its residents, but it constitutes a strategic element for the whole neighbourhood as well,. If inserted in a well structured network, this kind of intervention can contribute to the social and economicl developement and efficiency of the city.

47

paRT ii

Project

previous page Perspective view of the building

Co-housing as a response to housing models of social sustainability

In response to the goals formulated at the end of the phase of the SiD method application, the project proposes strategies that focus mainly on the typological study of this building, in line with the principles of the housing model of cohabitation, entrusted to management of social housing organizations. The intervention must represent an integrated place in the surrounding environment, in which the needs of the inhabitants interpenetrate with the equally strong need for socialization and mutual collaboration, for the achievement of a quality of high life, organic, natural, and sustainable.

In conditions in which the proposed residential model in the cities is often inadequate because made up of non-organic aggregations of housing units, where it is often difficult to socialize and share due to the absence of meeting spaces, the co-housing system proposes homes as organisms that live in all their parts, in which collective spaces and private spaces are intertwined and relate, maintaining however its connotation clear.

The design process is therefore conceived as the expression of the needs of the community of cohabiting, which makes it a participatory process: the design experience must therefore necessarily involve and empower all the

actors in the process. The spaces are designed in relation to the individual needs, according to well-defined housing units, in which private property will be guaranteed, but, on the other hand, the spaces are divided respecting the overall composition of the housing body, including any spaces to the open, the necessary common areas, the service areas, etc.

The presence of closed or open common spaces will guarantee the aggregation of the inhabitants and at the same time make sure that the single houses are emptied of normally useless and little exploited environments: every square meter removed from the private accommodation, goes to improve the quality of common spaces.

Co-housing is a participatory and sustainable social model, which proposes housing realities in which people have common goals, help each other, attend each other, organize meetings aimed also outside, while maintaining the absolute independence of their private living space. The collaborative dwelling is a model of living that allows you to rediscover the sociality and cooperation between residents, which also stands as one of the answers to the need to live in a less individualistic and more social, less consumistic and more creative way, less expensive and more serene, facilitating access to the

house. The principles of collaborative residence are also based on the opportunity to create a real network through research and identification of free areas or disused building plots, in which to develop, with appropriate conventions or other instruments of agreement, the realization of new constructive interventions or the restoration of existing buildings, where cohabitation is implemented in all its possible expressions. The creation of new residential places within the cities, in central areas or in suburban areas or even in former industrial buildings, barracks or other buildings of public property not used, where cohabitation takes place and is experienced, constitutes for the city a great opportunity for social enrichment, re-evaluation and revitalization of depressed areas of the city. It is the set of all these factors that constitutes the plus value of the project, as each specific characteristic contributes to multiplying the overall effectiveness of the cohousing model for the benefit of the quality of life of the residents.

In choosing the housing model, the project aims to give particular emphasis to the urban context in which it is inserted, as follows from the analysis carried out in the context:

51

Elevation of the main façade and the surroundings

• Social and economic: evaluating the social and economic situation of the neighborhood with which the community of cohabitants will have to confront. The cohabitation nucleus, in fact, constitutes a collector of activities that are also open to the outside, offering the possibility to make the most of the quarters; • Environmental and climate: the strong interest in environmental sustainability and renewable energy leads to a careful study of the environmental conditions of the intervention site and of the needs dictated by the climate change adaptation initiative The choice of this housing model for the Noordereiland residential building project represents the first solution in response to the objectives set for social sustainability and the need

for this area to promote social integration and finally, gives rise to a study of the housing typologies, based on the concept of private spaces and shared spaces and characterized by a flexibility that responds to the housing needs of a society in continuous evolution and of the different user profiles to which these residences are destined.

User profiles Given the objective of the project to promote social integration in the Noordereiland district and given the principles on which the housing model of co-housing is based, there are multiple user profiles and multiple needs according to each category. Users to whom social housing refers the most are mainly part of the socially and/or economically disadvantaged groups, who most benefit from a housing

model that promotes a collective life in the building, and mutual collaboration and an economic accessibility that derives from the sharing of resources and the consequent energy savings. From the need and willingness to share spaces, value is given to the collective space, dedicated to interaction and which is therefore enriched by the potential to become an exchange space open to multiculturalism. The profiles that are part of socially disadvantaged groups thanks to co-housing can benefit from greater integration, as in the case of immigrants, solidarity among residents, which can be of greater interest to the elderly category, and to affordability, sought after by young people couples or students. The diversified typology of users of this building involves a series of requirements for the formal develop-

ment of the project dictated by the different needs of contemporary society that are addressed in the project with a search for flexibility and adaptability of the space, through a study of the housing typologies.

Study of the typological system

Having established the co-housing model as a response to the requirements for social sustainability of the project, the next step is the study of the morphological and functional typology that best fits the development of the shared housing model, in an area of the city where the typology of the single-family house has a strong prevalence and the morphology of the urban fabric leaves little room for larger residential complexes of the traditional Dutch lot with narrow and long proportions. The starting structure is based on a subdivision of the spaces between private and shared, according to proportions that guarantee individual privacy and a high level of participation in the collective life. The areas used for strictly private activities (sleeping, personal hygiene) are reduced to a minimum and are designed as minimal residential cells, equipped with the minimum necessary for the individual user or couple, while the common areas are exploited to the maximum to accommodate shared activities: the various patterns of space between residential units create a place for social communication. The small size of the individual units, in fact, while offering the user the necessary comfort, lead to a greater exploitation of the shared structures that compensate the spa-

tial constraints of the single units, providing the communication fabric that motivates the residents to choose this model in the first place.

The distribution of the living units within the perimeter of the building is done by trying to make the most of the available space and the conditions that the lot offers: the shared spaces are in a central position, to physically and conceptually connect the private units at the end of the building, where they open on the street front and on the rear garden to take light. To enhance the characteristic of this building which, unlike the other adjacent buildings, has a free side, the shared spaces in the central part have an entire glass wall, not only to draw on indirect light (this side is exposed to the north), but also to open up to the panorama of the nearby park. In the perspective of social sustainability and maximum usability extended to all users, the residence was made accessible to people with disabilities also through the adaptability of the accommodation spaces with limited economically inexpensive interventions.

Private spaces As mentioned above, these living units are reduced to the bare minimum for functions strictly related to the individual: the elementary ac-

tivities that take place in the private space are sleeping (bed), personal hygiene (bathroom) and in addition there is a small kitchenette for and a work area with desk, for occasional occasions. These areas guarantee the personal space of the user, necessary for a good quality of life in a co-living context, however their small size leads to a greater exploitation of the common spaces where the activities of eating, working and relax. The dimensional standards of these spaces are reduced compared to those of traditional residential buildings, but rather refer to student-type typologies, where the choice of this model of minimum spaces also entails a reduction in costs.

Common spaces The common areas are the maximum expression of the social function and of sharing the building interventions of cohabitation. There, the residents cultivate many of their own interests, individually or in groups, give rise to shared activities, use common service places like the laundry.

Common technical and service equipment also constitutes an indisputable economic advantage for residents,making it possible to reduce the size of private accommodation, rationalizing single internal spaces, and the

53

below Matrix of the typoological plan's different combinations

relative cost of construction. Furthermore, with the same technical equipment, common use and utilities, with appropriate individual accounting, allow the use of high quality products, distributing purchasing and management costs to the community.

The common areas within the building contain the spaces dedicated to the kitchen, the dining room, the living room and leisure area and other collective activities, distributed on the three levels on which this residence is developed. The common areas therefore include the vertical connections that connect the different areas of the collective spaces and at the same time allow access to the private accommodation on the upper floors and also to the winter garden on the top floor of the building: this small glazed room is available to the whole building, whether it is entirely dedicated to co-housing, or whether there are private accommodation.

To meet the social sustainability requirements that relate to social integration within the Noordereiland neighborhood and at the same time providing a greater range of services to support the community, the ground floor of the building, already designated as a shared area of the residences, offers a public area, available to residents of Noordereiland.

Flexibility and adaptability These requirements have been a fundamental point in the development of the project since they satisfy the different needs of the users of these residences and of the management companies, and more generally of the contemporary urban society. The need for new concepts of living impose on the project to offer new housing solutions.

Flexibility is a search for a neutral indetermination of spaces and the need to create a form capable of welcoming it and represents a characteristic not only spatial but also temporal; a certain reversibility is therefore also sought in the flexible character of the lodging, reachable through its capacity of changing its form with a minimum intervention.

The ‘basic’ functional distribution of this building consists of six residential units with their shared spaces distributed on three levels, connected by a staircase, and proportionally designed for a quantity of 12 users. In a perspective of a society in continuous evolution, of a management entrusted to social housing organizations, of a different market destinations (a private buyer for example) or different living needs of different families as well as to the single individual or couple, the housing typology developed in this project has a certain degree of

below Bioclimatic sections of the building with its related energy systems and grids

space flexibility. The distribution, conceived to host the co-housing model can be divided between private and shared spaces which, in the case of an adaptation of a building's floor to a private apartment, marks the division between the sleeping area and the living area. The environmental units of the basic typology are not subject to variations, but there is the possibility of adapting their function within the complex and/or the individual apartment that determines the adaptability of the spaces. In the typological configurations of the private apartment the spaces are subject to further variations, which take place in this case according to the user's satisfaction: the central space, which was previously the common space of the cohabitation residence, can now accommodate a living area with kitchen, a dining and living area or just a living room if the kitchen takes the place of the room located in one of the spaces at the end of the building. The assignment of these functions to the environmental units depends on the number of users of this private residence and, in some configurations where there is sufficient space, there is also the possibility of receiving guests. The entrance and the staircase remain a shared element in all the configurations: if the building is entirely dedicated to co-hous-

ing the staircase is part of the shared spaces, while in the case where one or more floors are used as apartments private, this becomes a condominium staircase. The numerous possible combinations and variations of the basic functional distribution constitute another added value of this small building, representing a valid solution in response to the aforementioned requirements. The building is conceived in the context of co-housing, but the coexistence of both the cohabitative model and the private accommodation is envisaged: the division between the two models is well defined, the collective spaces of the co-housing residences are proportionate to the number of lodgings, and it remains a common space to be shared by both the users of the cohabitative housing and of the private ones.

55

previous page Exploded axonometry of the building constructive system and its parts

Constructive system

Below Construction phases

Structure Given the nature of the terrain, the foundations consist of poles joined at the head by a single reinforced concrete platform. The elevation structure consists of beams and pillars made of heavy-duty double T steel sections with bolted joints and connected to the floor by means of plates fixed to the floor itself. The floors are grafted onto a corrugated sheet fixed to the upper beam of the secondary beams, on which two OSB panels, soundproof insulation and the dry radiant floor heating system, composed of an thermal insulation layer integrated with the panels, covered by a sheet of galvanized steel to distribute heat evenly over the entire floor.

57

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Mixture of sedum and grasses Lightened substrate Geotextile - Needlepunched propylene Drainage - Expanded polystyrene panel Waterproof anti-root coat OSB panel Thermal insulation panel - Cellular glass Steam barrier OSB panel Corrugated metal sheet Secondary steel beam Coated plaster slab

1. Flooring – Pre-finished two-layer parquet 2. Galvanized steel sheet 3. Dry radiant floor heating system – Dry screed, Steel plate, Self-levelling screed 4. Impact insulation – Expanded polystyrene 5. OSB panel – Oriented Strand Board 6. OSB panel – Oriented Strand Board 7. Corrugated metal sheet 8. Secondary steel beam 9. Coated plaster slab

1. Flooring – Pre-finished two-layer parquet 2. Galvanized steel sheet 3. Dry radiant floor heating system – Dry screed, Steel plate, Self-levelling screed 4. Vapour barrier 5. OSB panel – Oriented Strand Board 6. Cellular glass insulation panel [180 mm] 7. Reinforced concrete slab [200 mm]

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

2x Coated plaster plate Steam barrier Reinforced concrete panel Rigid thermal insulating panel - Mineral wool Reinforced concrete panel Rigid thermal insulating panel - Mineral wool 2x Reinforced concrete panel Rigid thermal insulating panel - Mineral wool Bracket and upright Galvanized steel coating - Zinc sheets

Envelope and energy efďŹ ciency simulations

previous page Envelope layer structure and materials

The envelope is the architectural element of the building that delimits and closes the constructive and structural organism. Its function is to mediate, separate and connect the interior with the exterior, but it is also an environmental element, which defines and identifies the surrounding outdoor spaces. The building envelope must meet different energy standards in order to ensure living comfort and guarantee a saving of resources in meeting energy needs, therefore in the project the envelope, designed as a dry construction system, consists of light steel frame panels preassembled with infill dry multilayer, it presents the integration of a photovoltaic system and the green roof, which contributes to the thermal resistance of the casing.

In the project the envelope is partly glazed, the central space of the building, the one that hosts the collective activities of the co-housing residences, a completely glazed wall. This formal choice comes from the need to bring indirect natural light to this environment but also from the desire to open the view of these spaces to the

adjacent park, an advantage that only this building in the entire block can enjoy. The envelope in this central part highlights its volume with the progressive overhang of the floors of each floor, creating more space for shared spaces. However, the proximity of the stone rampart of the bridge adjacent to the lot, which rises up to the height of the first floor, forces a minor overhanging this floor, thus generating the inclination of this vertical external closure. The northern exposure of this wall is however a disadvantage in terms of envelope energy efficiency, therefore this transparent closure must be well optimized for the transparent materials used and for the thicknesses, the fixtures and the frames. To avoid excessive heat dispersion of this environment, a system of thermal break panels has been designed that can be packaged on the sides of the wall to be closed at night, possibly with an automation system.

Another glazed area of the building is the winter garden, whose casing is in continuity with the shared rooms on the lower floors, but since it is an unheated room it does not need the

same solutions to improve the envelope efficiency. The coverage of this environment integrates the system of photovoltaic panels for the production of electricity.

Vertical external cladding It consists of pre-assembled light steel frame panels with dry multilayer infill composed of reinforced concrete panels interposed with two layers of mineral wool insulation. Two high density coated plaster slabs are placed in the internal layer to improve the internal hygrometric comfort. The external titanium zinc coating is crimped to a support structure connected to the two external reinforced concrete panels by means of brackets and uprights.

Slab on grade It consists of a suspended reinforced concrete slab on which the upper layers rest with a dry stratigraphy similar to that of the floor slabs: a layer of cellular glass insulation, OSB panel, vapor barrier, the panels for the dry radiant heating system with integrated insulation, the sheet of galvanized steel to diffuse the heat and the flooring.

Green roof The green roof is grafted on the same stratigraphy as the inter-floor slab, the insulation is a more solid and denser cellular glass panel, with another layer of OSB and the root-proof waterproof covering under the sintered expanded polystyrene panel for water drainage and water storage. The geotextile layer made with needle punched and thermostabilized polypropylene fibers is used as a separation layer and filter.

The substrate is a mixture of mineral materials of volcanic origin and organic substances characterized by a particle size and specific techniques ideal for the planting of sedum.

59

References

previous page Wall section of the whole building, extract of plan and elevation

Bokalders V. Block M. 2010, The Whole Building Handbook, How to Design Healthy, Efficient and Sustainable Buildings, Earthscan, Londra.

Lewis J. O., Brophy V. et al. 1999, A Green Vitruvius – Principles and Practice of Sustainable Architectural Design, Earthscan, London.

Bosschaert T. 2009, Symbiosis in Development (SiD), in Sustainability innovation framework, Rotterdam, <http:// www.except.nl/en/articles/148-symbiosis-in-development-sid> (05/2018).

Monti C., Lucchini A. et al. 2009, Una nuova stagione per l'housing, Low cost, low energy, quality architecture, BE-MA Editrice, Bologna

Bosschaert T., van Zuthem H. 2009, SiD Quick Guide, Rotterdam, <http://thinksid.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/ SiD-quick-guide_v010.61_web.pdf > (05/2018).

Campioli A., Lavagna M. 2013, Tecniche e Architettura, Città Studi Editore, Novara.

Costa Duran S. 2008, Case ecologiche, Logos, Modena.

Curtis A. All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace, BBC television documentary (05/2018).

Dierna S., Orlandi F. 2005, Buone pratiche per il quartiere ecologico: linee guida di progettazione sostenibile nella città della trasformazione, Alinea, Firenze.

H. Meadows D. 2008, Thinking in System: A Primer, Earthscan, Sterling.

Hardin G. 1968, Tragedy of the Commons, in Science Magazine, Cambrigde (05/2018).

, Progettare con il clima, Franco Muzzio Editore, Roma Piano R., Piano C. 2012, Almanacco dell’architetto, Proctor, Bologna Rotterdam C. 2013, Rotterdam Climate Change Adaption Strategy, Rotterdam

«Arketipo» n. 108/2017 - Costruire a secco n. 91/2015 - Energia n. 97/2015 - Involucri n. 86/2014 - Residenze speciali n.78/2013 - Low cost «Detail» n. 05/2018 n. 09/2012 «Detail Green» n. 02/2015 «TECHNE - Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment» n. 04/2012 – Housing Sociale.

Rotterdam C. 2015, Making sustainability a way of life for Rotterdam. Rotterdam Programme on Sustainability and Climate Change 2015-2018, Rotterdam Salina I. 2008, Flow: For the Love of Water, documentary (05/2018) Schulitz H. C., Sobek W., Habermann K. J. 1999, Atlante dell’acciaio, UTET, Torino Segantini M. A. 2008, Atlante dell’abitare contemporaneo, Skira editore, Milano Serrats M. 2012, Prefab, sostenibili, economici, all’avanguardia, Logos, Modena Tucci F. 2014, Involucro, Clima, Energia, Altralinea Edizioni, Firenze

Knaack U., Chung-Klatte S., Hasselbach R. 2012, Prefabricated Systems, Principles of Construction, Birkhauser, Basel.

61

Index

previous page Perspective view of the building

Presentation Paola Gallo

5

Introduction

7

Sustaunability criteria according to Except Integrated Sustainability

9

Part I | Application of the SiD Process: Social co-living in Rotterdam

15

Phase I - Preparation

17

Phase II - Intelligence Trend Analysis

21

Phase II - Intelligence Precedent Research

29

Phase II - Intelligence Stakeholders Analysis

35

Phase II - Intelligence Data Colletction

37

Phase III - SiD Solution Cycle

43

Part II | Project

49

Co-housing as a response to housing models of social sustainability

51

Study of the typological system

53

Constructive system

57

Envelope and energy efficiency simulations

59

References

61

Finito di stampare per conto di didapress Dipartimento di Architettura UniversitĂ degli Studi di Firenze Marzo 2020

greta bologna

Integrated Sustainability Social Co-living in Rotterdam

This thesis work proposes a project to investigate the issue of sustainability in its various environmental and social-cultural declinations in the field of co-housing. By studying the typological variations related to new profiles of demand, in a densely populated urban context and in conditions of limited space, the design theme is the development of a housing unit in an urban area of â&#x20AC;&#x2039;â&#x20AC;&#x2039;the city of Rotterdam.

In choosing the housing model, the project aims to give particular emphasis to relate the choices of the building system to criteria of economy, adaptability over time and flexibility, in response to the housing needs of a continuously evolving society and the different user profiles which these residences are intended for. Particular attention was paid to the technological resources of the project, such as a dry construction system in order to speed up the execution phase, to the materials, and to the energy efficiency of the building, with the aim of the maximum containment of construction and management costs.

The result of the work consists in defining a guided process for the development of design solutions that integrate environmental and socio-cultural sustainability.

Greta Bologna is an architect. She graduated with honours from the University of Florenceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s School of Architecture after a training course strongly characterized by international experiences which formed and enhanced her interest in the world of sustainability. Since 2018 she collaborates with prof. Rosa Romano at the Architecture Technology Studio of the School of Architecture of Florence, while working in an international environment and pursuing the investigation of sustainable processes applied to architecture.

ISBN 978-88-3338-096-4

ISBN 978-88-3338-096-4

9 788833 380964