Research Project ModuleSHU_2016/17

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I thank the Almighty God, for his grace and strength has supported me through my studies So far. I am sincerely grateful to my supervisor, Prof. Julian Marsh, for his patience and guidance in steering this project in the right direction. Thank You. I would like to thank Liane Duxbury for her contribution in the early stages of this research Lastly, would like to thank my Family and colleagues at work (Anne and Ivana) for supporting me with relevant recommendations

IZU CYPRIAN

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION _______________________________________________chapter 1 Research Background: …………………………………………………………….…………..… 1-2 Research Problem: ………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Background to Day-Respite Program ………………………………………………………….. 3 Research Aims ………………………………………………………………………………….…... 4 Research Questions ……………………………………………………………………….……… 5-6 Phenomenology ……………………………………………………………………………………. 7 Genius Loci: Place and Human Experience …………………………………………………... 8 Dementia – The Condition and stages of Dementia ………………………………………… 9 Stages of Dementia ………………………………………………………………………………… 10

LITERATURE REVIEW _________________________________________ chapter 2 Designing Dementia Friendly Spaces: …………………………………..……….……………......11 Emotional needs of people with Dementia: ………………………………………………….… 14

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND METHODOLOGY_________________ chapter 3 Methodology …………………………………………………………………..……….…………...…....18 Schematic of Methodology …………………………………………….……………..…………….… 21 Case-Study Review …………………………………………….………………………..…………….… 23 Case-study 1- Orchard Day and Respite Centre Blackrock, Dublin….……….……….………. 24.

Case-study 2- St. Crispin Retirement Village Duston ….………………………….…………….… 26 Case-study 3- William and Patricia Venton Centre ….………………….……….…………….…. 28 Case-study 4- Turn Furlong Specialist Care Home …………...……………………...……………..30

DESIGN STAGE AND EVALUATION_____________________________ chapter 4 Design Brief …………………………………………………………………..………….…………….….. 33 Outline and Zoning of Program Spaces ………………………….……………..…….………..…..… 34 Design Consideration ……………………………………….………………………..…………..…..… 35 Design Consideration and Design concept development….…….…….………………………. 37 Description of Phenomenology concepts on Design….………………………….…………….… 38 CAD Drawing – Color-coded floor-plan Illustrating Zones and Room Use …..……….…….…. 39 CAD Drawing – Floor Plan showing functions ……………………………………………………….. 40 CAD Drawing – Section Illustrating Zoning of Building ……………………………………………... 41

CONCLUSION____________________________________________________ chapter 5 REFERENCES FIGURE INDEX ii

IZU CYPRIAN This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the Master Degree in Technical Architecture.

SHEFFIELF HALLAM UNIVERSITY

Supervised By: Prof. Julian Marsh

Š Sheffield Hallam University Sheffield, UK 2016

ABSTRACT As humans, we have relationship with our environment and we spend time engaging with the features within our environments, and this includes individuals, the space around us and everyday task. For people with dementia, this relationship deteriorates as a result of low sensory acuity associated with the progression of dementia. Design can compensate for the loss of functional ability associated with dementia; thereby enhancing quality of life. Phenomenology is the philosophy of experience; concerned with the meaning we derive from our everyday life. The aim of this thesis was to combine research methods with architectural design to demonstrate the efficacy of phenomenology in enhancing a dementia friendly environment in a day-respite setting. A review of literature identified the design features related to the topic. Visits and evaluation of case-studies revealed further design attributes for the development of a design brief. Phenomenological and design considerations were outlined and demonstrated using a concise and descriptive design.

iii

DEMONSTRATING PHENOMENOLOGY IN A DAY RESPITE DESIGN FOR PEOPLE WITH DEMENTIA

1

iv 11.01.2016

CHAPTER ONE:

INTRODUCTION

RESEARCH BACKGROUND: Dementia has been recognised as a Major health priority in the UK and worldwide (ADI, 2013).there are currently 820,000 individuals with dementia in the UK and with increased trend in ageing, this figure is expected to rise by 2025 (Alzheimer, 2015).

Alzheimer’s disease accounts for 60-80% of all cases of dementia (Alzheimer, 2015).

Dementia is progressive and there is presently no cure; (Habel, 2013) argued that the designed environment can act as a therapeutic tool to offset the effect of the condition.

The National institute of Neurological Disorder and stroke (2011) discussed that “People with dementia have significantly impaired intellectual functioning that interfere with normal activities and relationships (what is dementia section, para. 1). this impaired relationship, causes them to ascribe various meaning to their environment. The progression of the disease causes a decline in perceptive, cognitive and functional mapping skills; this results in alienation from their surrounding environment (Blackman et al, 2011).

To ensure functionality of people with dementia, a therapeutic design should consider their physical and psychological needs (Worpole, 2009). This enhances quality of life and wellbeing (Cooksey, 2009). A dementia friendly design as discussed by Davis et al (2009) - is “A cohesive system of support that recognises the experiences of the person with dementia and best provides assistance for person to remain engaged in everyday life in meaningful way”. The everyday experience conveys meaning and restores self to a person with dementia.

Phenomenology

is the philosophy of the ‘phenomena of experience’ (Dourish, 2001). It

attempts to create an intimate dialogue between design and a user’s experience using defined concepts. Adopting a phenomenological approach, design can create opportunities for the experiential in care setting for people with dementia and support their functional ability - improving the quality of life.

Conducting an integrated secondary research, this research will adopt an appropriate program from existing studies to design a dementia day respite setting.

12

Secondly, it will provide a brief definition of phenomenology and environmental phenomenological concepts from related authors and how it relates to human experience. Finally, the design element of the research; uses a concise analytical proposal to demonstrate how these concepts of phenomenology relate to influence the physical and psychological needs related of adults with dementia in a day-respite setting.

The following section will discuss current knowledge on the research area and outline research aims and research questions.

23

RESEARCH PROBLEM: Dementia represents a significant public health and care challenge and is a main cause of disability and high cost-care in older people (WHO, 2012). The immediate priority, identified in the National dementia strategy (DoH, 2009) is helping people live well with dementia, ameliorating difficulties and enhancing wellbeing.

Dealing with the diagnosis of dementia is difficult to handle; as it affects the person as well as his or her relative. A day respite is a vital is a vital component in the support for people with dementia (DSDC, 2007). AgeUK (2014) advised that – to maintain good well-being during early-stage dementia; it is vital to keep in touch with the community, age groups and like-minded people within individual locale.

BACKGROUND TO DAY-RESPITE PROGRAM. According to Wicht (2013), there are currently four (4) primary architectural and service models available for people with dementia. These are senior care home, adult Respite centres, assisted or supported living and nursing or memory care settings. For the purpose of this study, a respite care centre will be considered. The term “respite care” is used to cover a diverse range of services; however, this involves the temporary provision of care during daytime hours (Monday -Friday) for a person with dementia by individuals other than the primary caregiver in a day-care centre (WHO, 2012).

“An Adult day care is a planned program of activities designed to promote wellbeing through social and health-related services in a safe and supportive environment”. (NADSA, 2002). Although, evidence regarding the effectiveness of respite care is limited, high quality respite should offer opportunities for engagement, security and socializing (WHO, 2012, Moore, 2005). The primary aim of respite care is: 

To provide respite to primary care-givers and enable them attend to their personal needs.



The provision of mental and social stimulation for guest beyond the precincts of their traditional home.

The following section will discuss the research aims and research questions.

34

RESEARCH AIMS

Aims:  To adopt an appropriate day-respite program in creating a physical environment that meets the psychological and emotional needs of adults with dementia.  To demonstrate a phenomenological approach in enhancing a dementia friendly environments in a day-respite setting using research and analytical design.  To offset the Cognitive difficulties related to dementia using models from phenomenological approach to ensure a dementia friendly design.  To evaluate the completed design project using relevant outcomes from secondary research to highlight the adopted phenomenological strategy.

65

4

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:

WITH EFFORTS ON INTERVENTIONS TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT FOR ADULTS WITH DEMENTIA,

CAN A PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH ENHANCE THEIR EXPERIENCE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL NEEDS?

AS ALZHEIMER’S PATIENTS BECOME ALIENATED FROM THEIR SURROUNDINGS DUE TO COGNITIVE DECLINE,

CAN A PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH IN DESIGN SUPPORT AN IMPROVED FAMILIARITY WITH THEIR ENVIRONMENT?

6

5

“A moving piece of Architecture relates to the people, Air, Noises, Sound, Colours, Materials, textures and Forms�

Peter Zumthor (2006)

7

6

PHENOMENOLOGY Phenomenology tends to find an alternative to the scientific method of things (Thompson, 2007). Similar to ordinary scientific method; it also aims to avoid biased and subjective accounts. It was originally developed by mathematician Edmund Husserl in 1906. Husserl’s maxim for phenomenology was, ‘Back to the things’ themselves (Husserl’s, 1950). He was concerned with an observed crisis in science, in which it was becoming increasingly detached from practical human concerns. The scientific field was too abstract and Husserl envisioned a science that was focused on the ‘phenomena of Experience’.

This philosophy of the

phenomena of experience was Phenomenology (Dourish, 2001) Phenomenology sets out to explore how people experience the world and how we progress from sense-impressions of the world to identifications (understanding) and meanings. Phenomenology has diverse approaches and has been extended from its original meaning at Husserl by philosophical thinkers such as: Martin Heidegger, Sartre and Merleau-Ponty (Gallagher and Zahavi, 2008). Heidegger a major figure associated with 20th century phenomenology, discussed the ‘inner-mental phenomena’ by which sensory impressions could be interpreted and meanings assigned to them. He suggested that rather than assigning meaning to the world as we perceive it, we act in a world that is already filled with meanings which enables us to dwell. He quoted “The world has meaning in how it is physically organised in relationship to our physical abilities, and in how it reflects a history of social practice”. (Dourish, 2001) Merleau-Ponty emphasised on the Phenomenology of perception (The primacy of Perception); stating that the body is essential for the perception of what we see and experience (Gallagher and Zahavi, 2008; Merleau-Ponty, 2002).

The phenomenological dictum “to the things themselves” can be seen as a call for a return to the perceptual world that is prior to and a prerequisite for any scientific conceptualization and articulation. Phenomenology is concerned to understand the perception in terms of the meaning it has for the subject (Gallagher and Zahavi, 2008).

78

GENIUS LOCI: PLACE AND HUMAN EXPERIENCE. The concrete term for ‘environment’ is place. Place is evidently a fundamental part of existence. It is a totality, made up of concrete things having material substance, shape, texture and colour. Collectively, these things determine an “environmental character”, which is the essence of place (Larice and McDonald, 2013). Norberg Schulz (1980) discussed Genius loci (the Spirit of a place) and explains how this is associated with the Architectural experience of a Place. He stated that the “phenomena of place” are evidently an integral measure of human existence. Furthermore, he considers ‘place’ (space) as a unique concept which had identity, character, cultural context and are directly related to human experience.

It is sufficed to highlight that man experienced his environment as consisting of definite characters; the man-made environment where he lives is not a mere practical tool or the result of arbitrary happenings; it has structure (atmospheres) and embodies Meanings”.

“Meaning” is a psychic function which implies

“belonging” (a basis for dwelling). Man is an integral part of the environment and evidently interacts with these meanings, he uses them and he has to know them.

Norberg-schulz (1980) discussed that Man is related to the character of things and For man to dwell (belong to a place) and avoid alienation from the environment, he must derive an existential foothold, man has to be able to orientate himself; he has to know where he is, but he also has to identify himself with the environment.

In the context of environmental phenomenology, Norberg-Schulz (1980) bemoans the lack of design’s communicative role and suggested that designers/architects should make visible, differentiate and “concretize” the physical character and essences of place (Larice and McDonald, 2013).

Architecture comes into being when a total environment is made visible (Langer, 1953). This implies to concretize the genius Loci (spirit of Place).

Architecture belongs to poetry and its purpose is to help man to dwell (Larice and McDonald, 2013). Understanding the program of adults with dementia is integral to providing an appropriate environment. Considering the low-sensory acuity associated with the progression of dementia, the insight 8

9

developed from this discourse will be adopted for the development of adequate spaces that convey meanings to the users in a physical and psychological way.

DEMENTIA THE CONDITION AND STAGES OF DEMENTIA: A clearly negative effect of ageing is the significant increase in the number of people with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementia (Snell, 2012). Alzheimer’s is the most common form of dementia, a disease of the brain that impacts memory, cognitive function, and social behaviour.

Alzheimer’s disease affects younger

people but becomes more prevalent with increasing age (Turnpin, 2013; Cayton et al, 2004).

It is a progressive and irreversible degenerative condition which

eventually affects memory recollection and physiological function.

Dementia is not a disease in itself, but an overall term used to describe sundry brain diseases– the two(2) most common being Alzheimer’s and Vascular dementia; Dementia is the most common cause of permanent memory Problems in Older (Cayton et al, 2004). It is characterised by a progressive decline in cognitive, social, and emotional abilities. The deterioration in cognitive abilities includes impairments in memory, language, and orientation (Marquardt and Schmeigg, 2014) According to Sharp (2007), the quality of dementia care in the UK varies, ranging from excellent, through mediocre to neglectful. Only 60% of individuals in care are currently residing in facilities specifically tailored to their high-level of needs. It is critical that Design considers adults with dementia; both the physical and emotional needs; thereby compensating for the cognitive loss of users.

The progression of dementia is often described in stages. The early stage, mid stage and the late stage. The following section represents the stages of dementia.

9

10

STAGES OF DEMENTIA

EARLY

MILD

LATE

Impaired ability for

Reduced capacity to

Difficulties with

activities of daily living

reason or make

recent memory and

such as dressing, eating

decisions

forgetfulness

or shopping

Significant

Anxiety and

Significant Memory

communication

depression often

Lapses such as not

difficulties, including

occur

recognising familiar

fragmented speech

Loss of Concentration Disguising difficulties may be successful for some of the time.

faces Challenging behaviour and social inhibition may be experienced

Immobility, rigidity and recurrent falls Physical deterioration and difficulties with

Sleep Disorders are

eating resulting in

common

progressive physical weakening.

Fig. 1: Diagram represents the stages of dementia as discussed by Timlin and Rysensbry (2010) and Blackamn et al (2010)

11

10

CHAPTER: 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

DESIGNING DEMENTIA FRIENDLY SPACES Norberg-schulz (1926-2000) in his study of environmental phenomenology highlighted that - The Natural environment consists of interrelated element which expresses fundamental aspects of being. The Landscape where he lives is not a mere flux of phenomena, it has structure and embodies meanings. These structures and meanings provided Myths which have formed the basis of dwelling”. Heidegger argues that we act in a world already filled with meanings (Norberg-Schulz, 1980).

Architecture articulates the experience of being in space and strengthens our sense of reality and self (Snel, 2012). Our-everyday life consist of concrete phenomena such as: individuals, animals, of Plants, of stone, earth wood, water, of towns, street and houses, doors, windows – And also consist of intangible phenomena such as feelings - this is what is “given”; and this is the content” of our existence (Norberg-Schulz, 1980).

Sifton (2005) discussed that the need to express feelings, make choices and continue with a familiar lifestyle remains inherent in people with dementia; even though the manner in which such expression occurs may change. Feelings and emotions are essential for people with Alzheimer’s, and there is a need to place a balance between the organisational needs required to maintain health and safety and meet the emotional needs (Sheard, 2007). Sheard (2007) further emphasised that; considering the physical environment that appears dementiafriendly is not in itself adequate.

A therapeutic environment needs to consider the individual as a whole both the emotion and the body as they are intricately linked in the functionality of any individual (Cheston and bender, 2004). It is the bodily experience that makes us human and restores our sense of self and consciousness (Merleau-Ponty, 2002).

Lorena Lehman (2014) stated that emotions in Architecture is seldom linked to how well design exudes a “sense of place” and identity.

There is an increasing recognition that the design of spaces can be enabling or disabling for those who live there (Innes et al, 2011). Individuals are 12

11

made vulnerable by environments that impede movement, stimulation and a sense of personal Safety (Brawley, 2001). Hence, Brawley (2001) concluded that Individuals with dementia pay profoundly for solutions that are not appropriate to meet their needs and environment that addresses these special needs should be viewed as preventive medicine.

Historically, our survival depended on a “Good relationship” to place in a physical as well as a psychic sense (Norberg Schulz, 1980). Maslow (1943) argues that this relationship has been disrupted as we live in a man-made environment; one which we formed in order to satisfy one of our basic physiological needs – the need for a shelter. Our everyday activities often symbolize who we are and what we are about (Davis et al, 2009). Cooksey (2014) emphasized that wellbeing is impacted by our understanding and perception of our place in the environment, and whether our needs are being met by that space.

The meaning a person derives from their everyday activities and environment is central to their wellbeing (Torrington, 2006). Man’s most fundamental need is to experience his existence as meaningful (Norberg-Schulz, 1980). Although dementia affects memory and cognition, a research specific to self-identity and dementia shows that people with dementia can still maintain a sense of selfhood, even in advanced stages (Golander and Raz, 1996; Sabat and Harre, 1992).

A common notion is that the loss of self and personhood is

inextricable linked to the deterioration associated with dementia and the designed environment can renew the sense of self and presence for people (Davis et al, 2014; Hobson, 2014; Curtis, 2014).

The concept of Phenomenology tends to understand perception in terms of the meaning it has for the subject (Gallagher and Zahavi, 2008). It tends not view the subject and object as different entities but unifies both. Additionally, it sets primary emphasis on the every-day experience of people living and acting in the world and the meanings derived from this experience. Understanding this experience of adults with dementia in everyday life is integral to creating appropriate environment for them (D avis, Byers, Nay, Koch and Andrews, 2008).

13 12

Thus, it is challenging to isolate the physical environment and social interactions for people with dementia as these two (2) are interlinked (O’Sulivan, 2008).

Torrington (2006) cogently argues that environments designed for people with Alzheimer’s should take into consideration the importance of both the physical structure of the building design and the social aspects required to meet the emotional needs. There is a need to feel that our lives have meaning and value; if this inherent drive to meet our needs is consistently neglected, it can result in a loss of motivation, a feeling that life lacks meaning (Condell, 2015).

These needs have been highlighted by the work of Lawton (1980), Hobson, (2014), Calkins (1988), Cohen and Weismann (1991), Kitwood, 1997 and Zeisel et al (1949).

Although, the purpose here is not to outline each specific idea as discussed by the above researchers, a summary was outlined as follows -

safety, Positive

stimulation, Autonomy, identity and inclusion.

14

13

SAFETY AND COMFORT Safety is an essential condition for everyone and contributes to a better quality of life. The Changes associated with Alzheimer’s impedes safety in terms behaviour, sense of time and Place, physical Ability and Judgement.

Unobtrusive safety features is less overwhelming, ensures comfort, maintains independence and relieves depression. Torrington (2006) emphasised that there are design solution that can provide a safe-environment without compromising freedom.

POSITIVE STIMULATION This implies the need to feel a sense of attachment (Hobson, 2014). The decline of cognitive abilities associated with people with dementia alienates them from their environment; it creates anxiety and hinders personal enjoyment of daily lives (Cook, 2011). The need for sensory stimulation is vital for people with dementia to optimize their understanding of their environment. The design of the physical environment can control wanted and unwanted stimuli (Woodhead, 2012).

AUTONOMY AND PURPOSE This implies; having decision to make logical choices (Victoria State Government, 2014). Adults with dementia revert to their past which possess significant memories, using design to provide opportunities of engagement in everyday task; creates a sense of normality and a sense of purpose in life (Edvardsson et al, 2008; Brawley, 2006).

IDENTITY AND INDIVIDUALITY The loss of self, impacts the overall care-process and wellbeing. The person with dementia is unique, and such their uniqueness should be advocated

(Hobson,

2014).

Creating

small

home-like

spaces

compensates for sensory-loss and creates a sense of individuality and sense of ownership for people with Alzheimer's (Fleming Purandare, 2010)

INCLUSION AND BELONGING Social interaction is one of the most fundamental human needs (Cook, 2011). Design can create opportunities to keep adults with dementia active and socially engaged to ensure they do not become apathetic and depressed (Timlin and Rylesbury, 2010). Engagement is vital and enhances quality of life. Meeting in small groups can fulfil a basic need Fig. 2:

for belonging (Brooker and Duce, 2000).

15

14

The physical environment can support the above needs and foster the development of self (Davis et al, 2009; Brawley, 2001). The person centred theory advocates the need to focus on dementia as a complex interaction of the above five (5) key attributes, of which the environment is one of them (Kitwood, 1997). The need to maximise the experiential abilities of people with dementia and adapt the environment is essential when dementia design is viewed from person-centred perspective.

Maggie Keswick Jencks (1941-1995) suggested placing both the individuals’ psychological and physiological needs at centre of each unique design’ yields better outcome (Worpole, 2009). Thus, Therapeutic spaces need to move to an environment of encouragement and self-awareness resulting bodily experience.

The design element of this research aims to provide a dementia friendly dayrespite centre. It adopts a structured program of existing day-centres; and translates this into designed space that provides an adequate ambience for the experiential and improves quality of life.

The challenge in designing a care environment for people with Alzheimer is to create calm, coherent spaces which minimises enervating distraction, aid orientation and encourage mobility (Niall McLaughlin, 2009). Although the parameter for dementia are relatively vague, a dementia friendly’ environment is argued to compensate for disability and should consider both the importance for the person with dementia of his/her experiences within the environment and also the social, physical and organisational environments which impact on these experiences (Davis et al, 2009).

Holl (1998) emphasised that Form, space and light are the instruments that can collectively achieve a higher experience in architecture. Alzheimer’s patient depends on sensual perception for communication due to low-sensory-acuity, they tend to give more attention to their states of mind and emotions; and to those elements in the environment that sustains them (Sternberg, 2009; Feddersen and Ludtke, 2014). Similarly, people with Alzheimer’s retain the inbuilt responses to stimuli found in natural surroundings; such as sunshine, shade, flowers and trees (Zeisel, 2009).

16

15

Designing for Dementia is to logically consider what is fundamental about space we live in (Feddersen and Ludtke, 2014). Ideally, it is about creating spaces which have meaning for people with dementia as everyone is unique and their interpretation of the environment will be unique to them (Kitwood, 1997). Factors such as noise levels, lighting, visual contrast, acoustic, colors and cues have all part to play in influencing experience (Innes et al, 2011). For people with dementia, the availability of options is particularly valuable, enabling people to calm down and become themselves (Feddersen and Ludtke, 2014).

Design should attempt to create space that vary in meaningful ways: size, ceiling height, dĂŠcor and style of furniture and most significantly access to outside and to different activities; but consideration should be given to how the size of a space impacts on the meaning of that space for people with Dementia (Torrington, 2006; Calkins, 2001). What make an environment dementia friendly are also qualities that promote general wellbeing (Innes, 2013). Much can be influenced by adopting basic interior design principles: introducing better (i.e. indirect and non-glare) lighting, variety in size, style and design of furniture and installing carpet to reduce glare and noise (Calkins, 2001). Clerestory windows and skylights in entry areas also help to control light levels in transition areas during the day (Brawley, 2001; Niall McLaughlin Architects, 2009).

Individuals are made vulnerable by environments that inhibit movement, stimulation, and a sense of personal safety (Torrington, 2006; Brawley, 2001).

Relevant studies have demonstrated that the utility and navigability of interior environment can be enhanced by tactile wayfinding cues, good lighting and windows that provide plenty of daylight and visual access to external landmarks (Brawley, 1992; Harrington, 1993; goldsmith, 1996; calkins, 1998; Passini et al., 1998; Dementia Services Development Centre, 1999).

As a community based-program, a daycentre provides respite and social stimulation for clients away from the precinct of their home (NADSA, 2002). Moore (2006) argued that the ethos of adult day centers is to encourage engagement and security and the setting of ADS (Adult Day service) centres should maximise its therapeutic intentions. Human emotions have its richest development in a 17

16

social environment (Snel, 2012). Adults with dementia do not experience themselves, the physical and social environment as distinct entities; rather each is in relationship with the other (Davis et al, 2009). Following a comprehensive literature review of literature, this The design element of this project adopts structured program of spaces to develop experiential qualities for users in the day-centre; by providing choice, Familiarity, sensory, engagement, Inclusion and Positive stimulation.

Phenomenology

establishes

a

dialogue

between

designs

and

user's

experience. Similarly, a care setting should foster relationships; but the progression of dementia causes confusion and difficulties in relating oneself to the surroundings. Design can improve Quality of life, curiosity and engagement (Leibrock and Harris, 2011; Marshal, 2001). Holl (1998) furthers explains that; the use of materials, colour, light and emphasis on details of a space; makes it comprehensible in a phenomenological way.

Considering qualities such as light, form, size and texture as stated in above review by Holl (1998) and Calkins (2001), the design element of this research will demonstrate how this can achieve a dementia friendly design; and improve the functional abilities of adults with dementia in phenomenological way. The following section discusses the research methods adopted for the preliminary design.

17

18

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY Functional Programming is essential when information about needs and preferences is to be obtained before commencing preliminary design Brawley (1997). Programming for people with dementia is complicated because of the broad spectrum of needs involved; adopting reasonable research process and ethics approach was vital to the completion of this research.

Brawley

(1997)

recommended

that

the

basis

for

making

better

environments that support a more fulfilling aging experience rely on exploring practical, innovative ideas based on the results of current research studies. On the contrast, Moore (2005) highlighted that respite centres are difficult to design as there are few ideal precedents available, the available precedents consist of uneven population mix and varied program.

Upholding strict ethical integrity was vital in the research process as people with dementia can be vulnerable to exploitation (Schneider et al, 2007). Hence, a suitable consent and ethics surveillance was approved by the university at the introductory stage of this project before the precedent were visited as recommended by Digby and Bloomer (2010).

The choice of the case-studies for this research consisted of respite centres to long-stay accommodations, retirement-homes and specialist care centres. It is hoped that the elements gathered from the case-studies will be discussed to explore the design strategy; alongside attributes from relevant literature and Phenomenological knowledge. This will contribute to the functional programming of the proposed design.

In recognition of the difficulties of studying people affected by cognitive decline as the parameters are often vague (Timlin and Rysenbry, 2010; Dunkelman, Dressel and Aronson, 2004), this research was systematically carriedout in four (4) Phases:

19

18

1. UNDERSTANDING DEMENTIA (THE NATURE AND STAGES OF THE CONDITION): Creating a basic understanding of age-related changes and impairments associated with dementia is the first step to creating friendly environment which support the needs of seniors (DSDC, 2012). The first step was to conduct a desk study (literature review), focusing on the condition and the qualities of spaces used to support people with dementia. Resources where obtained from: international peer-reviewed journals in aging Neuroscience, Ageing and Mental Health, experimental psychology, Publications by the Alzheimer’s Society Research UK and AgeUK and best practice guidelines by the DSDC Stirling, Kings Fund UK, SCIE and NICE. A broad knowledge of current practice was ascertained from this phase concerning the nature and stages of dementia, the physical and social environment of adult with dementia, environmental design for dementia, sensory setting for dementia and standards for care and dayrespite settings for people with Alzheimer disease.

2. BACKGROUND TO ADULT DAY-RESPITE CENTERS AND PROGRAM: Brawley (1997) advised that is essential to consult with staff and healthcare personnel to ensure a setting appropriate to the needs of the building users is achieved. After a review on the background of day-respite centres in the UK, a physical visit was carried out to understand the needs of spaces and how participants use the environment.

Four (4) senior-living Facilities and care Home Designs that typify current practice were considered in the UK and Dublin. Objectively, only three (3) case-studies were physically visited, using online-sources and materials, reasonable understanding was acquired for the completion of the case-study reviews. Although this project focused on designing a dayrespite with 1-floor for people with Alzheimer’s, Majority of the case-studies provided supplementary function and they catered for participants with Alzheimer’s and mild cognitive decline.

Various methods were used to acquire insights such as observation, photographic ethnography, note-taking and informal interview with carers and home managers. Through observation, various events occurred and this was discussed with the carers, the researcher was able to understand 20

19

that – the diminished capacities that accompany dementia are not experienced uniformly and can be difficult to regard a particular individual as being at a particular stage in the disease. Conducting visits to three (3) Day-centers facilities; enabled the development of an equitable program for the design brief.

3. ADOPTING PHENOMENOLOGICAL LITERATURE AND CONCEPT: The understanding of phenomenology was integral to the development of design brief and design appraisal.

Following a comprehensive literature review and case-study evaluation, features such as texture, color, light, and shape has been discussed by authors when defining the Genus loci of a place and its relationship to human Experience. Once the design considerations for the brief were outlined, the phenomenological concepts - Form, texture and Light were discussed extensively. Analytical text and graphics were used to analyse the features of designed spaces in relation to the aims of this research.

4. DESIGN ELEMENT AND BRIEF: Applicable features adopted from precedents and literature review supported the development of the design brief. It created a physical setting with dementia friendly guidelines acquired form literature review and relevant case-study. It mostly laid emphasis on the experiential qualities of space which met the psychological needs of the participants.

Additionally, it considered the ethos of day-respite centers (engagement, Security and stimulation); to provide momentary experience using the phenomenological concepts (choice of material, form and lighting quality).

Following the development of the brief, a concise design was presented as graphical and annotated drawings (i.e. Floor plan, Site and Sectional Perspective Views).The scheme was themed ‘Merimead Harbour’; situated on an existing site with an imaginary scenario.

The phenomenological concepts were used to discuss the Author’s design and rationale in relation to the aims and objectives.

20

21

SCHEMATIC OF METHODOLOGY

CASE-STUDY REVIEWS

PROGRAMS AND SETTINGS CARE ENVRONMENT

BACKGROUND TO ADULT-DAY

NATURE AND STAGES

THE DESIGN

OF THE DEMENTIA

ELEMENT

DEVELOPMENT OF DESIGN BRIEF

DESIGN AND DEMENTIA

CENTERS

DESIGN BRIEF AND UNDERSTANDING

DESIGN

DEMENTIA

EVALUATION

PHENOMENOLOGICAL CONCEPT

GENIUS LOCI – ‘SPIRIT OF PLACE’ AND HUMAN EXPERIENCE.

Fig. 3:

THE PHENOMENA OF SPACE The design Element of this project demonstrated a phenomenological approach used to achieve a dementia friendly environment in day respite. The above illustration shows the secondary research stage, case study visit, and literature from phenomenology and how it achieves the final preliminary design elements.

21 22

DESIGN

ELEMENT

SECTIONAL

PLAN

Three (3) floor plans will be submitted in the following format:

-

-

-

Color-coded Floor

3D VISUALS

ELEVATION Annotated sectional

Five (5) Rendered images

Elevations with the following

will be produced to illustrate

information will be submitted:

themes and most

-

An Approach

plan showing room

Elevation; shown at

uses. (A3@ 1:200).

1:50.

importantly transitions between the following spaces:

Sectional elevation

-

Circulation space,

showing Zoning

(1:20) illustrating room

-

The Dining Area.

Strategy.

adjacencies and

-

Quiet and

Plan Showing

relationship between

movement/Wanderin

spaces.

Annotated floor-plan

g Loops designed for

-

OUTPUT METHOD

-

-

showing the Zoning

Floor plan on site

Strategies – Private,

showing external and

semi-public and Public

internal relationship.

spaces.

text.

-

-

Sectional elevation

users.

This will be done by

contemplation Area.

Courtyard and seating area.

-

Admin Zone.

Annotated note to discuss design objectives.

Fig. 4:

Above is method for presenting the final design. The following section is the case-study review and evaluation to acquire relevant attributes for the development of the design brief.

23

22

CASE – STUDY REVIEW This case study' review is integral to the functional programming for the development of brief. The aim is not to provide a concise history of these case-studies projects. This section evaluates the architectural strategies adopted to achieve a desired setting for people with dementia, typical floor plans were not acquired for these reviews, and insights were acquired from observations, ethnographic photography, discussions with carers and facility managers as well as knowledge obtained from initial review on dementia design. The relevant attributes Outlined below: 

Inconsistent population mix and participants.



An

even

distribution

domestic

features

serving

as

sensory

for

active

landmarks. 

Indoor

and

outdoor

relationship.

Opportunities

engagement in meaningful group activity. 

Predominance of multi-use spaces with no clear definition.



Proximity of communal spaces to service areas (Kitchen, dining and toilet areas)



Inclusivity; Participants with various needs are actively engaged simultaneously.



Multisensory features such as: plants, music and options for PAT (Pet As therapy).



Natural light was utilized as a common design component to encourage movement, engagement (the dining experience) and circadian rhythm.



Communal spaces with dead-ends corridors causes distress during navigation.

The precedent study has enabled the identification of current practice and useful features relating to a dementia friendly day-respite design.

This has been linked to the literature for the development of the design brief. The following section conducts an evaluation on the case-studies.

24 23

CASE STUDY 1

ORCHARD DAY & RESPITE CENTER BLACKROCK

ARCHITECT: Niall McLaughlin Associates.

LOCATION: Ireland TYPOLOGY: Alzheimer’s Respite Centre.

OPENING TIMES: Not obtained YEAR: 2009 Built within an existing 18th century walled kitchen garden with old granite walls, it was awarded for its poetic response to a disabling condition by Architectural Association of Ireland. The centre responds to these psychological and physical requirements by establishing protected precinct of courts, gardens and interconnected social spaces. The respite centre accepts 17guest on a daily basis.

Fig. 5

Fig. 7 Fig. 6 2524

EVALUATION: The respite was planned to provide respite beds for 11clients, day-care facilities for up to 25 and offices for the Alzheimer's society of Ireland. Using strategic zoning approach, the indoor and outdoor spaces are well linked (fig. 8) and functions flow into each other. Various levels of privacy were created by basic interior design approach (fig. 6).

The use of colour, light, movement, space, materials, smells, orientation and specialised standards were subjects explored in the design of this facility

Fig. 8

RELEVENT ATTRIBUTES: 

A secure perimeter was achieved but the use of a walled garden and aligning program spaces into courtyard.



The materiality (clerestory glazing, textured stock brick and wood) creates a tranquil and comfortable atmosphere for the users (Fig. 7).



The rooms and communal space offers an attractive sightline to internal and external landmarks. This creates orientation of time and place common to people with dementia.



The overall design creates a sense of strolling and freedom of movement. This enhances a sense of purpose and safe autonomy for users.



Natural wandering loops are incorporated to manage wandering and eliminate institutionalisation.



A sense of protective enclosure was provided through the use of Scale, Proportion and size.

26 25

CASE STUDY 2

ST. CRISPINS RETIREMENT VILLAGE, DUSTON

ARCHITECT: Midland Heart.

LOCATION: Northampton TYPOLOGY: Extra-care Retirement Village (17 guest daily).

OPENING TIMES: 09:00 – 17:00 YEAR: 2000 Maintained by the Extra Care charitable Trust, the village consists of 270 homes with over 300 residents. Predominantly, this rich retirement facility was designed for the elderly and adults with mild-cognitive difficulties and dementia. The interesting programmes includes: café bar, craft room, fitness suite, spa pool & saloon, green house, IT suite and Library, Landscape garden areas with lounges, a main street (communal seating areas), and village shop.

Fig. 9

Fig. 10

Fig. 11

27

26

EVALUATION: The design fosters a rich community and family engagement; various ambiences are created by sizes and volume of spaces. An atmosphere of domesticity was advocated to trigger Long-term memories for the users of the space.

Fig. 12

Fig. 13

RELEVENT ATTRIBUTES: 

Personalised spaces are achieved using various textures. This helps orientation.



Legible space and unobtrusive partitions offers user the choice to observe activities prior to participation.



Various quality of light was achieved through the use of atrium, and roof light.



Landmark spaces are created with design features. This ensures 'Place knowing' and creates a sense of purpose for users.



The materiality and flexibility of the space (fig.13) enhances positive stimulation (planting beds for the effect of touch and smell).



Design is centred on inclusivity. It fosters a continuous family connection and this enhances quality of life of people with and without dementia (Fig. 12).

28

27

CASE STUDY 4:

WILLIAM AND PATRICIA VENTONE CENTRE.

ARCHITECT: Gotch Saunders and Surridge (Swallow Construction) LOCATION: Abington, Northampton TYPOLOGY: Lifetime Centre (Day Care).

OPENING TIMES: 10:00am – 15:00 (Mon – Fri).

YEAR: 1998.

The lifetime-centre provides opportunities for seniors with complex needs and requirements

(physical,

sensory

and

memory

impairments)

in

a

relaxed

environment. The programme of spaces includes: dinning, saloon and bathing facilities. With aim to promote independence, health & well-being, the centre offers various activities such as: arts and craft, seasonal entertainment, light exercise, reminiscence and memory games & Music. (AgeUK, 2015).

Fig. 14

Fig. 15

29

28

EVALUATION: The programs was laid on the two(2) floors, As cases of absconding occurred frequently, the Dementia respite unit was located on the first-floor to manage wandering (Ali, 2015 pers. comm). A large rectangular room was specifically used for multiple (Passive and active) activities (fig. 17). Unobtrusive partitions were used to separate spaces as required.

Various typologies of fenestrations were used to provide adequate lighting and attractive view to the neighbouring church garden (fig. 15). Expressive and warmer colours adorned the communal rooms to engage users of the space.

Fig. 16

Fig. 17

RELEVANT ATTRIBUTES: 

A comprehensive programme of Activity to enhance self and promote independence (such as: group games and art-works).



Floor to ceiling glazing offers attractive views to nature providing seasonal orientation for daycentre participants.



Proximity and relationship of social spaces to service areas (toilets)



Communal spaces are defined by demountable partitions.



Inadequate outdoor space to encourage every-day activity inclusion (such as: gardening).



Institutional setting in social space creates an overwhelming atmosphere.



High-quality of artificial light in circulation areas with dead end corridors.

30 29

CASE STUDY 3

TURN FURLONG SPECIALIST CARE HOME (16 guest).

ARCHITECT: Shaw Healthcare Group LOCATION: Northampton TYPOLOGY: Specialist Care centre and Respite.

OPENING TIMES: 09:00 – 15:00 (Mon – Fri).

YEAR: 2004.

The centre offers a range of short-stay, intermediate and respite care services for older people to enable them return to their own home. Its services and Programs include: 24 places offering rehabilitation, 8 respite care places and 19 respites care places for older people with dementia related illness, small shop, hairdressing Salon and two (2) communal dining areas and communal lounges (Shaw healthcare, 2011).

Fig.18

Fig. 19

Fig. 20

31 30

EVALUATION: The activity spaces are in close proximity and few social spaces provide a view out to an outdoor area. Demountable partitions are used to define activity spaces and dining areas to ensure proximity.

Design elements such as windows and roof lights are used to admit natural light in the space to engage user's cognition. Windows are designed such that it offers views for seated participants. Bamboo materials are used in circulation areas for subtle partition screens and to offer stimuli during touch for people with dementia (fig.21).

Fig. 21

Fig. 22

RELEVANT ATTRIBUTES: 

Visual connection during circulation areas to reduce stress and disorientation.



A combination of art-work and plants provides positive stimulation for participants.



The building provides complementary social spaces for community involvement and pleasure to enhance autonomy.



Activity spaces are defined by unobtrusive partitions to enable visual access.



Proximity of social-spaces to enhance legibility and safe autonomy.



Design features (curtains and blinds) offer controlled views to outside garden area. This offers choice to users, to choose suitable setting (fig.19).



Demountable partitions create flexibility for passive and active activities.

32

31

“Each Moment takes a greater Importance, Each Sensory Experience a special Meaning”  Alan Lightman (1993)

33

32

DESIGN BRIEF THE BRIEF - MERIMEAD HABOR The design brief for 'Merimead Harbour' is to provide a day-respite centre for Twelve (12) participants with early-mid stage of dementia (Alzheimer's). This program will operate from 09:00-15:00 (Monday to Friday). The choice of the opening time was obtained from conducting visits to case-study. Similarly, intentional experts suggested that a group 8-12, provides a domestic atmosphere and avoid social withdrawal (Moore, 2005).

TYPOLOGY: A day centre with sufficient space to accommodate 12 users on a simple floor layout. A simple floor is one that provides familiarity, opportunity to use retained ability, a feeling of freedom and control whilst reducing opportunities for feeling of alienation (Alzheimer's Australia, 2004). The proposed programs of spaces are as follows:

PROGRAMS: 

GENEROUS WELCOMING RECEPTION (ENTRY COURT). This will typify domesticity. Entry areas will stimulate interest through visual sightlines to program spaces and Staff reception will avoid institutionalisation and ensure orientation (Fleming and Purandare, 2010).



ACTIVITY SPACES: These are Kitchen, dining, social spaces and outdoor space (Alzheimer's Australia, 2004). Activity spaces should be maximised to balance stimulation; and must not consider only interior spaces. Outdoor spaces are multi-sensory and offer unique opportunities of enhancing user's autonomy (Gibson et al, 2007; Brawley, 2001). Effective lighting and contrasting colours encourages conversation and eating experience amongst users.



SOCIAL SPACES: Spaces such as family room, lounge sitting room, activity rooms will typify domesticity with proximity to toilet area (Timlin and Rysensbry; 2010). Spaces will be flexible to promote active or passive movement. Individualised and personalised should be advocated and evenly distributed with close proximity to one another (Leibrock and Harris, 2011).



CIRCULATION SPACES: This space should provide strategies to manage wandering (Habel, 2013). Additionally, it will provide features that assist orientation using coherent textures and avoiding dead-ends. High level of natural light, freedom of inside and outside movement to ensure autonomy will be utilised in this space.



SUPPLEMENTARY SPACE: Spaces such as petty shops, café areas, medical room, and cafe – these spaces ensures continuous family and community connection during respite hours.

(Leibrock and Harris, 2011 and Davis et al, (2009) recommends, that this atmospheres this enhances quality of life.

34

33

Split-Kitchen Support Services and General meeting Room

Dining-Area

Storage Laundry

Quiet Contemplation Area.

Ambulant W/c Activity Space

Open CafĂŠ Area

GP & Outreach Team

Courtyard & Circulation

Sitting room

Staff-Station

Therapeutic Remedies and Saloon

Admin and Tuck-shop

Reception and Central Lounge Area

Outside Garden and Foyer space

Fig. 23

The above illustration outlines the relationship between the spaces; as deduced from the above design brief. It also illustrates an indicative zoning strategy. The following section will discuss the design considerations with relevant sketches for the proposed design.

35 34

DESIGN CONSIDERATION Privacy and Community

Visual connection

Choice and Variety

to Intimate spaces

ENGAGEMENT

SECURITY

STIMULATION

Unobtrusive safety Approach

Safe Access to Outdoor Legible and familiar design layout

space

Sensory Cues

Visual and Auditory distractions

The Eating Experience

As discussed in Chapter one (Pg3), the aims of a day centre are: Engagement, security and Stimulation (WHO, 2012 and Moore, 2005). Design can support these goals. The next section discusses the phenomenological and architectural Considerations.

36

35

“Interiors are like large instruments, collecting sound, amplifying it, transmitting it elsewhere. That has to do with shape peculiar to each room and with the surfaces of materials they contain and the way those materials have been applied” -

(Atmosphere - Peter Zumthor (2006) – Pg. 28

37

36

DESIGN CONSIDERATION AND DESIGN DEVELOPMENT

DESIGN AND CONSIDERATION

Lighting levels and quality.

Zones for community and Privacy

Unobtrusive Safety through courtyard.

Readable and flexible Structure

Volume and proximity of space.

Ancillary spaces for continuous community involvement.

Using Indoor and outdoor landmark space to support orientation

Maximising Views to intimate spaces.

Privacy and community

Raised planting beds

Sensory experience through Texture:

The use of transition zones to provide momentary experience.

FIG. 24– THUMBNAIL SKETCHES USE TO VISUALLY DOCUMENT DESIGN PROCESS. (BY THE AUTHOR) After evaluating the case-studies, it provided ideas for the development of the brief. The following design consideration is combined with phenomenological ideas to provide a dementia friendly day-respite design.

The next section will demonstrate how a phenomenological approach brings these considerations to the foreground and support the user’s experience as well as the development of the design concept.

FIG. 25: SKETCHES SHOWING ARCHITECTURAL STRATEGIES (by the Author).

37

FORM

DESCRIPTION OF PHENOMENOLOGICAL CONCEPTS

A variety in size and shape of room design offers affective experience to people with dementia (Calkins, 2001). Design can guide movement and stimulate free movement – these have been implemented in the glass shop design by Frank Lloyd’s Wright and Thermal Bath at Vals by Peter Zumthor (Droog and Devries, 2009).

As competence of the individual varies, the form of design should be flexible to allow the user adapt to it (Eastman, 2013).The aim was to provide a geometrically simple structure through which; the space offers the experience of safe engagement, orientation, visual connection to intimate spaces, privacy and community, movement and safe autonomy. This was achieved by considering zoning, relationships and proximity of program spaces and unobtrusive features. This provides choice and variety for seated and mobile users. The continuous rectangular form of the design has been recommended by Marquardt and Schmeigg (2009) to reduce the spatial disorientation associated with the progression of dementia.

TEXTURE This refers to the materiality of each space (indoor and outdoor) and the way by which these elements combine to achieve a specific ambience. Droog and devries (2009), emphasised that the impressions of hardness and softness; of heaviness and lightness are related with the surface character of materials.

For people with dementia; having low cognition and memory loss, this sensory experience is vital (Feddersen and Ludtke, 2014, Snel, 2012). The spaces are designed to utilise visual and auditory distraction; offering positive stimulation to the users. Using raised planters in the garden encourages gardening; this creates a feeling of domesticity and supports self in dementia (Fleming and Purandare, 2010). Utilising natural elements like water and stone; contributes to the effects of sound and touch; this offers stimuli that restores familiarity with the surrounding and creates a sense of belonging (Zeisel, 2009).

LIGHT Natural light in care-setting is integral to therapeutic benefits (Leibrock and Harris, 2011). High levels of natural light have been shown to be useful in regulating circadian rhythms as well providing heightened visibility or ageing vision (Jenny Willatt, 2011, Brawley, 2001). The design uses features such as large windows, roof lights and courtyard to admit natural light into the building during respite hours.

Light create a different perspective and meaning in space. The outdoor space is designed such that it offers zones for dappled shade, this creates calm and allows adaptation to the ageing eyes. The FIG. 26: SKETCHES SHOWING DESIGN DEVELOPMENT (by the Author).

courtyard contributes to the phenomenological qualities of the space; offering a feeling of openness and light; users can choose settings suitable to their need. Creating various quality of light through

Using rendered and annotated images; the next section will

clerestory glazing and roof light; creates calm and encourages spontaneous engagement with

discuss the final design scheme and phenomenological rationale

activities and people. Prokopova, 2014, has been influential with her argument that; alternating zones of

in each space.

light and dark within the space can enhance and guide movement; as well as improve sleeping disorders.

38

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

IZU CYPRIAN B4035723 D

18

A

E

19

C Corridor RoofLight-Over

B 15

17

1 2

21

ILLUSTRATING THE ZONES AND OUTDOOR SPACE(1:200).

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

C A.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

12

Adrian

6

Arq.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

11

de

RoofLight Over

Hernández.P.

W/C

Guerrero

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Dining Area

Enrique

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

8

Arq.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

7

de

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

20

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Laundry

9

10

Support Services & Admin Meeting Area.

CAFE

13

Lounge

A Detail -A

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

1.

Central Lounge Area

2.

Admin - Area.

3.

Shop

4.

Sitting Room

5.

Quiet & Contemplation Area.

6.

Activity - Room

7.

Dining - Room.

8.

Split-Kitchen

9.

Laundry

10. Support Services & Meeting Room.

11. Cafe

12. Medication storage

13. Staff - Area

14. Waiting Area.

RoofLight Over

15. Saloon & therapeutic Remedies.

16. Courtyard Area with Shallow Puddle.

17. Opening Garden

18. Meditation Garden

19. Activity Garden.

14

20. Dawn Garden

21. Foyer

16

22. Main Entrance to Site.

5

B COMMON ROOMS AND OUTDOOR SPACE FOR DAY-CENTER USERS

PRIVATE SPACE

3 RoofLight Over

COMMON ROOMS FOR DAY-CENTER USERS

PUBLIC SPACE

RoofLight Over

4

STAFF AREAS AND ANCILLARY SPACE

SEMI-PUBLIC SPACE

F

COMMUNAL COURTYARD SPACE

PUBLIC SPACE

P. 39

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

IZU CYPRIAN B4035723 A

D

18

4

E

19

C RoofLight-Over

B 15

17

2

21

SITE LAYOUT ILLUSTRATING ROOM USE (1:200).

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

C Adrian

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

12

Arq.

6

de

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

11

Hernández.P.

RoofLight-Over

Guerrero

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Dining Area

Enrique

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

8

Arq.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

7

de

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

20

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

ANNOTATION

9

W/C

10

RoofLight-Over

13

14

5

B

3

1

A

1.

Central Lounge Area

2.

Reception Admin - Area.

3.

Shop

4.

Sitting Room

5.

Quiet and Contemplation Area.

6.

Activity - Room

7.

Dining - Room.

8.

Split-Kitchen

9.

Laundry

10. Support Services & Meeting Room.

11. Cafe

12. Medication storage

13. Staff - Area

14. Waiting Area.

15. Saloon & therapeutic Remedies.

16

16. Courtyard Area with Shallow Puddle.

17. Opening Garden

18. Meditation Garden

19. Activity Garden.

Detail -A

20. Dawn Garden

21. Foyer

22. Main Entrance to Site.

F

P. 40

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

FIV E

D

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

19

C Corridor RoofLight-Over

18

B 15

17

A 1 2

E 21 Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

C de

12

Hernández.P.

6

Guerrero

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

11

Enrique

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

RoofLight Over

Arq.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

W/C

de

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Dining Area

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

8

A

RoofLight Over

4

ES

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

7

F

COLOR CODED SITE PLAN ILLUSTRATING ZONES AND LOOPED CIRCULATION STRATEGY (1:200)

IDG

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

20

- BR

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

Ramírez.

Suárez

Hugo

Arq.

de

Ramos.P.

Espitia

Francisco

Arq.

de

Arguelles.P.

Romero

A.

Adrian

Arq.

de

Hernández.P.

Guerrero

Enrique

Arq.

de

P.

The Old Mill SECTION A-A

Central Lounge Area

Shop Reception

IZU CYPRIAN B4035723

Sitting - Room

Quiet-Contemplation Room

16

Dining

Kitchen & Dining Area

Support Service & meeting Room.

Saloon & Therapeutic Remedies

Courtyard Area

Laundry

9

10

SECTION B-B

RoofLight Over

Support Services & Admin Meeting Area.

SECTION B-B

CAFE

13

14 Activity - Room Corridor

Court-yard Area

Activity - Room

Staff Rm & Changing.

Corridor

Sitting - Area.

SECTION F-F

Casual meeting area

5

B ANNOTATION

SECTION C-C

3 RoofLight Over

Lounge Detail -A

Quiet Contemplation Room Sitting - Room

SECTION D-D SECTION D-D

Cafe Area Court-yard Area Central Court - Lounge Area

Saloon/Therapeutic Remedies Reception

SECTION E-E

22

Shop Admin & Reception.

PG. 41.

FLOOR PLAN DESIGN FEATURES A singled-loaded corridor with controlled views

A well-lit Dining area creates small sitting groups with

connects to social spaces; enhances wayfinding for

positive stimulation (views to outside); this enhances the

users.

eating experience & creates a less distracting ambience.

COURTYARD AREA The courtyard space creates a secure perimeter and offers a connection to nature.

ACTIVITY - ROOM This space provides the opportunity for various activities to take place in small groups.

CIRCULATION

DINNING - AREA

CAFE AREA The cafĂŠ area Provides engagement with family and community as well as an effective QUIET - ROOM

cue for wayfinding.

This serves as a space for relaxation & Quiet contemplation with visual release to outside Landmarks.

MEETING ROOM

SITTING - ROOM It complements the lounge area. It offers flexible spaces with settings for staff and users in the daycentre.

WAIITNG AREA Personalised spaces with generous views provide subtle cues during circulation.

This design feature avoids institutional features common in traditional careCENTRAL LOUNGE AREA

facilities

The plan is looped around a central courtyard. The central Lounge area provides options for family respite

ADMIN AREA

area, visitors, and carers. Its distinct texture & volume

Staff area ideally located for visual access.

serves as landmark during circulation.

This aids orientation and provides views to

FIG. 30: CONCISE PICTORAL DESCRIPTION

circulation areas.

42

SITE-PLAN DESIGN FEATURES

DAWN - GARDEN The dawn-Garden on the West-side of the site; provides safe visual access for participants in the Dining-area. This ambience encourages the eating.

WALLED GARDEN Although wandering is among the most frequent, problematic and dangerous behaviours for adults with dementia (Lin et al, 2012), Movement keeps an individual

Fig 27. – Perspective view of

motivated and ensures proper brain functioning (Snel,

Activity Garden from Quiet

2015). Design should not encourage wandering but allow it

Room Window (By the

to take place safely. The above layout transforms

Author)

wandering into a stimulating and healthy activity. The paths are arranged in continuous loops; as it takes the users through past areas of interest and exciting views of

ACTIVITY GARDEN Activity spaces can be indoor or outdoor. This offers choice. The above image

plants; the walled garden provides an unobtrusive secure

illustrates the activity garden as seen from the activity room. As an external

perimeter and avoids over-surveillance of participants by

Landmark space, it allows users to touch plants (raise planters). Canopy at

staff (Willatt, 2011).

entrance (Pergolas with climbing plants) allows the eyes to adjust to the

COURTYARD AREA

change from indoor to outdoor light levels and support users with anxiety.

Providing unobtrusive safety that evokes memory of

Access to this space triggers positive memories and a sense of purpose

domesticity was one of the key-design strategies in this

(Brawley, 2001).

project. Cox (2006) describes courtyards as organisational devices which provide sheltered communal space, privacy & security whilst maintaining contact with changing seasons.

Fig. 28 – Perspective view of

The Courtyard design provides a secure perimeter and access

meditation Garden from

to an outdoor space as recommended by Calkins (2001),

Quiet Room Window (By the Author)

Fleming and Purandare (2010). Rainwater harvested from roof gutter forms puddle in the courtyard area; serving as visual

MEDITATION GARDEN

Nature is a rich source of Multisensory stimulation (Gibson et al, 2007). Design

and auditory distraction. This contributes to the

guidance has indicated that orientation can be implemented by views to

phenomenological characteristics of the space (Leibrock and

outdoors areas as they offer external landmark (Victorian State Government,

Harris, 2011; Wohlwill, 1974).

2010). Furthermore, these features have been demonstrated by Niall McLaughlin Architects (2009) in Orchard day respite in Dublin.

CENTRAL LOUNGE – ENTRY COURT Adopting a distinct landscape strategy and texture, the above space

A design for people with Dementia should demonstrate

complements the “Quiet room”. The defined siting area invites users to relax

care for staff & encourage family interaction (Marshal,

amongst scented plants as they experience dappled shade and mild-sound from birds.

2001). This enhances the quality of Life and the way a given environment is experienced.

OPENING GARDEN

Maximising views to nature provides orientation and enhances wellbeing

Fig 29: Screenshot of Site Plan

DISCUSSION

(Delhanty, 2013; Brawley, 2001). As competence of individuals varies, the

A garden is a room; as an outdoor area, it offers variety of places of solitude that are hard to find inside

garden offers an attractive view for seating and standing users; this

(Marsh, 2015; Brawley, 2001). A person with dementia derives meaning from spaces which offer complimentary

prompts engagement and visual comfort. Strongly scented plants define

options (Feddersen, 2014; Eastman, 2013).Quality of life can be negative when design restricts movement for

its route.

people with dementia as movement maintains functioning of the body and cognitive (Torrington, 2006).

Research

by

Cohen-Mansfield

and

Werner

(1988)

advocates the need for domesticity in circulation and entry areas as this reduces agitation amongst users. The central lounge is planned to orientate and accommodate family visitors and staff. It serves as meeting point before for users before they venture to their respective function. This

Day-centre users can go out for a smoke or conversation. Short exposure to outdoor space; even as little as three to five minutes has been revealed

The site layout discusses the Landscape strategy adopted to support the experiential for people with

enables users to spend more time and enjoy the view

to arouse psychological & therapeutic benefits (Ulrich, 2002). The above

dementia. To avoid over stimulation, it offers ambience with distinct settings; so that users can choose the

towards the central courtyard as it evokes memories of

layout aims to offer transitory experience as well as sensory stimulation for

particular setting related to their need.

domesticity.

users of the day respite program.

43

SECTION A-A

SECTION C-C

Cafe

X

Large Spaces connect to smaller spaces with various size, legible

A

spaces defined by unobtrusive partitions.

Central Lounge Area

Kitchen Area

Communal Courtyard Area

Cross-section illustrates the communal

C

areas of the building. Alternating zones of light and dark areas helps o guide and stimulate movement among seniors

SECTION B-B

(Prokopva, 2014).

PRIVATE ZONE PUBLIC ZONE PRIVATE ZONE

Sitting Room

Central Lounge space Reception and Admin Area.

Y

A central lounge (entry court) serves as a public zone, visitors can seat before walking to the siting room or garden area. Program Spaces

SECTION X-X

Y X

Cross-section through sitting room, central lounge area and courtyard. Image shows communal lobby connected to the

are partitioned with view panels; users can view functions before walking-in.

B

B

courtyard

A

C

WAIITNG AREA Cross-section through sitting room and Lounge space (Entry court area). This shows the materiality of the Space from the entry-zone.

SECTION Y-Y FIG. 31: SECTIONAL PERSPECTIVE SLIDE (by the author)

44

Central Lounge Area FEATURES: View towards the courtyard area from the entrance zone. The courtyard invites individuals to the space; and also serves as a focal point to engage family members, carers and users of the space. This refined cue offers satisfaction to users and visitors as well as passive connection to nature. 

Comfortable seating near entry areas has been recommended by Brawley (2001) to alleviate agitation and anxiety. This design feature offers the opportunity for comfort while the ageing eyes adapts to the change of light as they arrive the centre.



The volume and choice of material (exposed Limestone stone finish) complements the phenomenological quality of the space as well as enhancing orientation during navigation.



Functions are visible and readable from the entry zone avoiding anxiety and spatial disorientation.

0 45

Reception Area FEATURES: View towards the activity and circulation area from staff-station and reception. 

Views to social spaces and circulation areas of participants. Opportunities for visual access from reception to key spaces and circulation areas. These offers passive surveillance.



The location of avoids over-surveillance of the residence during day-respite hours.



Location of staff-area zoned away from users communal zone. Provides orientation for visitors and day centre users.

1 46

Sitting - Room

FEATURES: The above layout illustrates a view from the central lounge area towards the secondary sitting room. Variety of spaces provides complimentary options; this offers choice and autonomy to users to (Feddersen and Ludtke, 2014). 

The Sitting-room is adapted to the needs and preference of users, offering ambience for social interaction as well as more individualised setting.



In addition to reducing stress, studies (conducted

by Cooper and Barnes, 1995 and Whitehouse et al, 2001) revealed that access

to gardens

increases user’s satisfaction. The sitting room offers controlled views to outdoor areas and other circulation areas; Blinds can be used to reduce glare as required 

Varying room heights with different lighting quality offers awareness for the participants in the space.

2 46

Quiet Contemplation - Room FEATURES: Dementia as it affects each person in a different way; and there is no specific setting suitable for all user individual (Innes et al, 2011; Low et al, 2004). The above layout provides opportunity for a passive activity 

Its location serves as a retreat to calm user with soothing views to the meditation garden.



Plants are located at face-level provide engagement and offers respite for seated-users in the space. This setting has been recommended in a seminal study by Goswami & Shafiel (2015).



With a relatively compact size and unique view, the lowered ceiling and exposed timber ceiling-finish, serves as acoustic for it participants. This particular setting has been demonstrated by Nial McLaughlin Architects (2009).

3 47

Activity - Room FEATURES: Engaging in meaningful activities enhances quality of life for people with dementia (Ball et al, 2000). Creating opportunities to engage with ordinary activities of daily living is often associated with the principle of homlikenesss (Verbeek et al, 2009). 

This indoor activity area offers the opportunity for participants to be engaged in art & craftwork, Music, Memory games or light exercise.



The

Size

and

setting

stimulates

safe

activity

and

engagement with staff and clients. 

The activity Space offers flexibility and fitting-out for more personalized

space

and

to

accommodate

guest

performers in the centre. 

The space offers safe access to an outdoor activity garden with raised planters and shaded sitting area; this stimulates long-term memory of previous home-life.

4

48

Dining - Room FEATURES: The Eating experience is vital component of person’s sensory stimulation and can contribute as a source of satisfaction and pleasure when other sources of gratification occur less frequently (Davis et al, 2009). 

In the above layout, small sitting groups (family style dinners) and moveable partitions are adopted to avoid visual distraction and avoid an overwhelming dining experience.



Expressive and warmer color (Soft-yellow) defines this space.

As recommended by the DSDC (2012) and Brawley (1997); these settings are known to encourage eating.



The dining - area is top-lit with Large windows which maximises daylight as well as creating views to the garden.



The setting eliminates excess stimuli and is situated next to service areas (toilet). With close proximity to the kitchen; smells and sounds associated with meal times can stimulate appetite for users as well as provide opportunities for clients to get involved in meal preparation enhancing their selfidentity and esteem.

5

49

Cafe - Area

FEATURES: View towards the café area from dining room and kitchen. The introduction of the café offers opportunities for continuous community involvement in the centre as suggested by Davis et al (2009) and Willatt (2011). 

The café offers visual connection to surrounding spaces, users can relax (for a drink or discussion) in this area before attending other function.



Art-work provides interest and engages the users; reducing agitation and over-stimulation.



The Roof light offers a refreshing and calm atmosphere; this enhances way finding (Goswami and shafiel, 2015; Leibrock and Harris, 2011).

6 50

Corridor and Courtyard Area FEATURES: View towards the courtyard and cafe area from Activity room. The above space provides stimulation for the senses as well as orientation to ensure

`

safe autonomy. This physical sensation restores a relationship with the surrounding for people with dementia. 

The circularity of the path around the courtyard provides a continuous loop for exploring and avoids cul-de-sac; as this creates anxiety and disorientation.



The use of roof lights brings in natural elements such as: light and water; these are maximised to engage the users. Pallasmaa (2009) discussed that all the senses, including vision are extensions of the tactile senses. People with dementia still retain stimuli from natural environment.



Introduction of the puddle (courtyards Area) feature provides visual and auditory distraction. Water contributes to several benefits including the effects of sound, touch and cooling during summer.

(Delhanty, 2013).

7 51

Circulation Area FEATURES: Circulation areas stimulate movement and create cues at decision-points (such as hallway junctions as seen above). 

Unobtrusive partitions define the space. It offers views to the communal courtyards space; creating a feeling of openness and light.



Floor to ceiling artwork engages and orients the users during circulation. This feature serves as landmark

for

wayfinding

as

discussed

by

Chmielowski & Eastman (2014). 

Program spaces are legible during navigation; this offers a sense emotional safety for participants of the respite program (Lynch, 1960).

8 52

Sitting Bays FEATURES: The day-respite program also offers a space that lessens enervating stress and fatigue for users. This serves as cues during navigation; and encourages safe autonomy during mobility (Woodhead, 2013). Long and continuous corridors are disorientating for people with dementia. In the above layout long corridors are broken up by memorable reference points (seating niches) as discussed by Marquardt and Schmieg (2009). 

A more Personalised space is created by niches allowing for individuality and a sense of belonging. This provides opportunities for social interaction as well as enhancing a wayfinding.

Additionally, it supports mobility and stimulates spontaneous movement.



Comfort and reassurance originates from human touch (Leibrock and Harris (2011). the materiality of the space engages the memory of users and contributes to the phenomenological characteristic of the space.



Large opening offers Views of nature. This reduces stress and enhance the Phenomenological experience as users navigate through the space (Goswami and Shafiel, 2015; Chmielowski and Eastman, 2014).

9 53

“The Beauty of nature, the touch of the structure of plants and smell of herbs stimulate and give Alzheimer patients Pleasure”  Julia Retz (2012)

10

54

CONCLUSION The purpose of this project was to demonstrate phenomenology in a day-respite program for adult with dementia. Can a phenomenological approach improve the experience

and

phenomenological

psychological

needs

approach in design

of

people

heighten

with the

dementia?

Can

relationship with

a the

environment for people with dementia? The research aims were outlined as follows: 

To adopt an appropriate day-respite program in creating a physical environment that meets the psychological and emotional needs of adults with dementia.



To demonstrate a phenomenological approach in enhancing a dementia friendly environments in a day-respite setting using research and analytical design.



To offset the Cognitive difficulties related to dementia using models from phenomenological approach to ensure a dementia friendly design.



To evaluate the completed design project using relevant outcomes from secondary research to highlight the adopted phenomenological strategy.

Adopting a planned research method, an integrated literature review on the topic to obtain issues most relevant to the topic was conducted, physical visit to existing case-studies to understand in respite setting was carried out and reviewed appropriately and relevant attributes were identified. A cogent brief was developed with design and phenomenological considerations prepared afterwards.

Using descriptive texts and a concise design, the design element of this research demonstrated a phenomenological approach in achieving a dementia friendly environment. Considering Form, texture and light, the functional abilities and the experiential can be heightened in day respite setting form people with dementia.

The form provides legible spaces with functions; evident through size and proportion in this way distinct and memorable places are created to enhance user's autonomy and orientation. Materiality appeals to the senses and contributes to the effects of touch and sound; this restores identity and improves connection with their environment. Creating different levels of light from roof lights, clerestory glazing and 11 55

courtyards creates light and dark areas in the design; this stimulates interest and curiosity and regulates circadian rhythm in people with dementia. Marshal advised that designing an environment for people with dementia will result in well-designed environment for all.

There is no single setting suitable for all individuals with dementia, as comfort depends on the state of mind. An environment cannot realistically meet the needs of all the people living within the care setting, but it should provide an opportunity for people to feel a sense of belonging. This approach has addressed an adult daycentre program; which offers short-term respite for people with dementia. As care setting varies enormously, there is a need to focus on how this phenomenological approach could be adapted in other long-term care-settings.

Dementia is now recognised by research councils and policy makers as worthy of major research focus; as there remains a desire across the service for empirical advice to improve and quality of life and care for people with dementia. It is hoped that, this project will offer experiential and theoretical underpinnings that will

inform

design

guidelines

for

a

more

user-centred

dementia-friendly

environments.

The theme and methodology of this thesis has honed the researcher's understanding in designing for dementia. Design transcends visuals; it involves the creating of spaces that arouse a feeling of appropriate use. A design that through the use of proportions, materials, light, colour an acoustics communicates elementary sensory is appealing to the society as a whole; with or without dementia.

12 56

REFERENCE 1. Age UK Northampton (2015). Lifetime Centres. Northampton AgeUK. Northampton.

Retrieved from: www.ageuk.org.uk/ Northamptonshire.

2. Alzheimer's society (2015). Statistics. Retrieved from: https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/statistics 3. Alzheimer's Australia (2004). Dementia care and the built environment. Position paper 3

by Alzheimer's Australia. an Australian government initiative.

4. Alzheimer’s Society (2015). Public health, prevention and dementia. retrieved from: https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentid=2766 5. Blackman .T, Mitchell .L, Burton E, Jenks .M, Parsons .M, Raman .S, Williams .K(2010). The Accessibility of Public Spaces for People with Dementia: A New Priority for the ‘Open City’. [Online]. Disability & Society. Vol. 18, No. 3, 357-371. Carfax Publishing.

6. Brawley. E.C. (1997). Designing for Alzheimer’s disease: Strategies for creating better care environments. Brisbane. John Wiley and Sons.

7. Brawley. E.C. (2001). Environmental Design for Alzheimer’s disease: A quality of life issue.

Journal of Aging and Mental Health, 5:S1, 79-83 8. Brooker .D, Duce .l (2000). Wellbeing & activity in dementia: a comparison of group reminiscence therapy, structured goal-directed group activity & unstructured time.

Journal of aging & mental health, 4:4, 354-358.

9. Calkins, M.P. (2001). History of creating settings for people with Dementia. [Online].

Health Professions Press, Baltimore, MD, 2001. Vol. 43, No. 4.

10. Cayton .h, Graham .n, Warner .j (2004). Dementia - Alzheimer's and other dementias.

Class publishing ltd. London. P25-35 11. Cheston, r. & Bender, M (1999). Understanding Dementia: the man with the worried eyes. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. London. 182 12. Cooksey S. (2014). Interior Wellbeing Place. M.Sc. Research thesis. Available at: http://issuu.com/shannancooksey/docs/thesis_book__web_-_pages_ 13. Cook .G (2011). Dementia care: sensory environments. Journal of nursing and residential care. Vol. 13. No. 5. Pg. 240-242.

14. Cohen, U and Weismann, J (19919. Holding on to Home Baltimore, M.D., John Hopkins University press.

15. Dalke.h. And Matheson .m. (2007). Colour Design Schemes for Long-term Healthcare Environments. Kingston University London. Funded by Arts and Humanities Research Council. Design Research Centre. London.

16. Davis. S, Byers .S. Nay and Noch .S (2009). Guiding Design of dementia friendly environments in residential care settings: considering the living experience. Vol 8 (2) 185-203.

5713 17. Dementia Service and Development Centre-DSDC (2012). Virtual Care Home. DSDC. Retrieved from: http://dementia.stir.ac.uk/design/virtual-environments/virtual-carehome

1. Dementia Service and Development Centre-DSDC (2012). Virtual Care Home. DSDC. Retrieved from: http://dementia.stir.ac.uk/design/virtual-environments/virtual-care-home 2. Digby .R and Bloomer M. (2010). Transferring from an Acute Hospital and settling into a subacute facility: the experience of patients with dementia. International Journal of Older People Nursing. 7, 57-64.

3. Droog .s and Devries .p. (2009). Emotion in Architecture (improving user experience).

EXPLORELAB_4 RESEARCH thesis, United States. Available from: http://issuu.com/pauldevries/docs/20090202_emotioninarchitecture_big 4. Dunkelmann .D.M, Dressel RC, Aronson MK (eds) (2004). Reshaping Dementia Care.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE,.

5. Farley .k & Veitch .j (2001). A Room with a view: a review of the effects of windows on work and Wellbeing. Ottawa, Canada: Institute for Research in Construction; Report No.: RR136.

6. Feddersen .e. and Ludtke .i. (2014). Lost in S pace – Architecture & Dementia. [Online].

Birkhauser Verlag. Basel, Switzerland.P15-21 7. Fleming .R and Purandare .N (2010). Long-term care for people with dementia: environmental Design Guidelines. University of Wollongong Research Online.22 (7), 1096 8. Goldsmith, M. (1996), Hearing the voice of people with Dementia: Opportunities and obstacles. London: Jessica Kingsley.

9. Goswami .B and Shafiel. S (20150. Optimizing Design for geriatric patients. Towards a Silver Architecture. [Online].

10. Innes .a, Kelly .F& Dincarslan .O (2011). Care Home Design for people with dementia: What people with Dementia and their family cares value? Journal of Aging & Mental Health, 548556.

11. Hobson .P. (2014). the Modern registered Manager- Vol 2 No. 2 mar-April 12. Holl s. (1998). Intertwining. New York, Princeton Architectural Press, 1998, p.176 13. Kitwood, T (1997) Dementia Reconsidered; The person Comes First. Berkshire: Open University Press.

14. Lawton, MP (1980). Environment and Aging. Montery,CA brookks-cole 15. Leibrock .C. and Harris. D (2011). Design Details for Health: Making the most of design's heeling potential. 2nd Edition. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. UK. 27-40 16. The Global Impact of Dementia 2013–2050, Alzheimer’s disease International (ADI), London.

December 2013.

17. Snel h. (2015). Alzheimer’s Architecture – Mission 2 [Online]. Available: http://alzheimerarchitecture.nl/mission-2/ 18. Snel h. (2012). Urgent Matters – Through Space.[Online]. Insight Series #3. Master of interior Architecture Sandberg Instituut. Available: http://issuu.com/alzheimerarchitecture/docs/insightseries_3 14

58

19. Schneider Z, Whitehead D., Elliot D, Lobiondo-Wood G. and Haber J. (2007).

Nursing and Midwifery Research. Elsevier, Sydney, NSW. Australia.

20. Sternberg .e (2009). Healing spaces: The Science of Place and Wellbeing.

Cambridge: Belknap Press. 219.

21. Thompson (2007). Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the sciences of MIND. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22. Torrington, J. (2006). What has Architecture got to do with dementia care: Explorations of the Relationship between quality of Life and Building design in tow EQUAL Projects? Quality in Ageing – Policy, Practice & Research, 7, 34-48.

23. Marquardt .G, Bueter .k, and Motzek .t (2014). Impact of the design of the built environment on people with dementia: an evidence-based review.[online].

Environments for people with dementia. Health environments research & design journal. Vol. 8. No. 1, pp. 127-157.

24. Maslow A.H (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review. pp.

370-96 25. Marshall, M. (2001). Environment: how it helps to see dementia as a disability.

Care homes and dementia (ed s. Benson) the journal of dementia care. Journal of dementia care, 6(1), 15–17.

26. Moore .k.d (2005). Designing guidelines for adult day services. Washington State University. pg. 77-89 27. Niall McLaughlin Architects (2009). Alzheimer’s Respite Centre. Niall McLaughlin Architects. AJ Building Library. Available from: http://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/display/id/3400 28. Norberg-Schulz .C, (1980). Genius Loci: Towards a Phenomenology of Architecture. Academy Editions. London. P21-36.

29. NADSA (National Adult Day Services Association) 2001. Standards and guidelines for Adult day services. Washington DC - National Adult day services association.

15

59

30. Sharp .s (2007). Home from Home: A report highlighting opportunities for Improving Standards of Dementia Care in Care Homes, Alzheimer’s.

31. Sifton, C.B (2005). Who's Challenges? Who’s Behavior? Who’s Problem?

Alzheimer's Care Quarterly, 6 (2), 81-84.

32. Sheard. D (2007). Being: An Approach to life and dementia, London: Alzheimer's Society.

33. Timlin G. and Rysenbry .N (2010). Design for Dementia: Improving Dinning & Bedroom environments in care homes. Helen Hamlyn Centre, Royal College of Art, Kensington Gore, London.

34. Victorian State Government (2014). Dementia friendly Environments; a guide for residential care. [Online]. Retrieved from: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/dementia/images/a2z/checklist42.pdf 35. Wicht k. (2013). Memory moment. [Online]. Studio stannard winter project.

Available at: http://issuu.com/kwreads/docs/kwicht_thesis_winter_2014_book_ulti 36. Willatt. J (2011). Design as therapy: Faciliating the lives of those with Alzheimer's disease thorugh envrionmental Design. A Master thesis submitted to The university of Cambridge. UK. 37. Worpole .k (2009). Modern hospice Design: The Architecture of Palliative Care.

Abingdon. Routledge. P5-10.

38. Woodhead (2013). Aged Care Book - Portfolio Statement. [Online]. Woodhead Company Profile. Australia.

39. Zeisel, .J. (2009). I’m still here: A Breakthrough Approach to understanding someone with Alzheimer’s, Avery, New York. [Online]. Journal of clinical.

40. Zumthor p. (2006). Atmospheres: Architectural Environments - Surrounding Objects. Printing .ed. Birkhauser Verlag. AG, Basel Switzerland. P24-50.

16

60

FIGURE INDEX 41. Fig. 1 - Image by Author. Stages of Dementia 42. Fig. 2 - Image by Author. Emotional Needs of Adults with dementia. Pg. 14 43. Fig. 3 -Image by Author. Schematic of Methodology. pg.

44. fig. 4 - Image by Author. Presentation format 45. Fig. 5 - image by Nial McLaughlin Architects (2009) 46. Fig.6 - image by Nial McLaughlin Architects (2009) 47. Fig.7 - image by Nial McLaughlin Architects (2009) 48. Fig. 8 - image by Nial McLaughlin Architects (2009) 49. Fig. 9 - image by Author (2015) 50. Fig. 10 - image by Author (2015) 51. Fig.11 - image by Author (2015) 52. Fig. 12 - image by Author (2015) 53. Fig. 13 - image by Author (2015) 54. Fig.14 - image by Author (2015) 55. Fig.15 - image by Author (2015) 56. Fig. 16 - image by Author (2015) 57. Fig. 17 - image by Author (2015) 58. Fig.18 - image by Author (2015) 59. Fig. 19 - image by Author (2015) 60. Fig. Fig. 20 - image by Author (2015) 61. Fig. 21 - image by Author (2015) 62. Fig.22 - image by Author (2015) 63. Fig. 23 - Image by Author - Indicative Zoning Strategy and Space Analysis 64. Fig. 24 - image by Author- sketches used to visually document design (2015) 65. Fig. 25 - image by Author - sketches of architectural strategies (2015) 66. fig. 26 - Image by Author - sketches showing design development.

67. fig. 27 - Image by Author - activity garden 68. fig. 28 - Image by Author - Meditation garden 69. fig. 29 - Image by Author - Snapshot of Site-plan 70. Fig. 30 - Image by author - concise Pictorial description of design 71. Fig. 31 - image by Author - Sectional Perspective.

1761