CPU [ AI ] // PS 1
P O R T F O L I O Andreas Margarkis|Tere Sagay|Reiji Nagaoka
CONTENT
< /ps1:
HOUSING> <
<
introduction
// thesis statement //
p. 02
// current housing crisis // // situational inflluences // // our solution//
p. 03 p. 04 p. 05-06
// developing the tool // // parametric workflow// // exploring viewpoints //
p. 07-09 p. 10 p. 11-12
// // // // //
p. p. p. p. p.
<00>
00
narrative < /00>
01
<01>
methodology < /01>
<02>
02
design_delivery 01+02
massing + optimization // space planning // DfMA Strategy // design resolution// structure + MEP //
14 + 26 15 + 27 16-17 18-20 + 28-33 21-23
< /02>
< / >
/ >
< /ps1:
HOUSING>
reflection
// Conclusions//
p. 34
ALERT
Click when this CIRCLE is seen. It indicates an INTERACTIVE part of the PDF document. Pages 20,21,29 have interactive content 01
THESIS: DEVELOPING THE NARRATIVE
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
The project outlined in this portfolio aims to make a statement about the acceptable standard of quality for housing in the UK and by so doing, highlight the often disparate relationship between building developers, users and architects.
We have developed a tool which will help us understand the priorities of not just the architect/developer, but also the user in whose hands we will be placing the system to generate a design iteration which is user-centred.
We explore how an intervention in these standards of quality can allow social home occupants enjoy homes which are not unrealistically designed/ costed, but are also livable.
Finally, in the portfolio, we develop two design alternatives based on government methods of quality assessment of affordable housing programmes, which show how quality in the developerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s viewpoint is not equivalent to quality in the viewpoint of the building occupant.
Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay 02
CURRENT HOUSING CRISIS
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
TRANSITIONS IN SOCIAL HOUSING EXPENDITURE
Transitions in Social Housing Expenditure
Housing benefit expenditure, ÂŁ million, real terms (2017/18 prices)
% %Oof GDP spent on housing development, 1995 - 2005 source: Eurostat, General Government expenditure by function
Source: DWP Benefit expenditure caseload tables 2017, table 1b
0.8 Housing benefit expenditure, ÂŁ million, real terms (2017/18 prices
30k
% of GDP
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
20k
10k
0
1995
2000
SOCIAL HOMES BUILT IN 2016/17
<1%
Of all homes built
2010
2015
Year
Year
28
2005
>4000 Recorded as homeless
13,500 Households waiting for social housing
14,667
Housing schemes granted planning permission
MANCHESTER https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/policy_library_folder/bri efing_social_housing_in_manchester https://www.housing.org.uk/how-public-money-is-spent-on-housing/ https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/policy_library_folder/briefing_social_housing_in_manchester https://www.housing.org.uk/how-public-money-is-spent-on-housing/ 03
SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Methodology for Increasing Social Housing Developments
Construction industry: statistics and policy
INCREASE PROFITABILITY
A 33% reduction in both the initial cost of construction and the whole life cost of assets (from 2010/09 levels).
REDUCTION OF LABOUR
A 50% reduction in the overall time from inception to completion for new build and refurbished assets (based on industry standards in 2013). A 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment (compared to 1990). A 50% reduction in the trade gap between total exports and total imports for construction products and materials (from February 2013 deficit of ÂŁ6 billion).
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AUTOMATION
DfMA
ML
KIT OF PARTS
(Machine Learning)
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/731871/construction-sector-deal-print-single.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/731871/construction-sector-deal-print-single.pdf 04
OUR SOLUTION
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Three-Step Overview
LOW
COST
DEVELOP A GENERATIVE TOOL
Create a tool which generates design iterations based on the construction parameters we have defined to be time, cost and quality.
HIGH
SHORT
QUALITY
EXPLORE DESIGN BY VIEWPOINT
< /
TIME
ITERATIONS
Understanding the stakeholders involved in the development of social housing + exploring how their viewpoint on design would affect Cost, Quality and Time >
IMPLEMENTING PROJECT THROUGH DFMA
Using the DfMA process in addition to the system we have developed, we can create a time and cost effective model for social housing
05
DEVELOPING THE TOOL
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Quantifying C-Q-T Parameters Defining Quality For a Cost-Time Driven Project Housing Quality Indicators (HQI) is a quality evaluation tool usually used at start of construction on site between 2008-2015 by the UK government. It incorporates design standards that buildings receiving funding through the National Affordable Housing Programme and the later Affordable Homes Programme were required to meet.
Factors Influencing C-Q-T As Construction Parameters Method of construction: - Timber [volumetric] - Concrete [volumetric] - Light Gauge Steel [volumetric] - CLT panels
MEP equipment: IF >18m, no potable water tank or sprinkler system needed Solar orientation: Yields greater solar gains, but additional floor area required for staggered apartments
Floor-ceiling height: 2.4-3.0m
“...USING THE HQI ALLOWS US TO QUANTIFIABLY DEFINE “QUALITY” IN ORDER TO HAVE A RANKING SYSTEM FOR THE QUALITY INPUT IN THE C-Q-T TOOL”
COST
We propose that as a quantifiable, government sourced index of quality in affordable housing, we can make use of the hqi as a tool at the design stage for not only determining quality standards REWEIGHING THE HQI in our project but also generating an architectural brief for the project.
A greater HQI score means more governmentgranted social housing subsidy
CURRENT HQICriteria CRITERIA WEIGHTS Current HQI Weighting - Fig
PROPOSED HQI CRITERIA WEIGHTS
1
100%
100%
50%
50%
Location (10%) Visual Impact (10%) Open Space (10%) Routes & Movement (10%) Accessibility (10%) Unit Size (10%) Unit Layout (10%) Unit Noise (10%) Sustainabilty (10%) Building For Life (10%)
0% Site-specific criteria
Scheme-specific criteria
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-quality-indicators
QUALITY
75%
-Location -Visual Impact -Open Space -Routes + Movement -Accessiblity 25% -Unit Size -Unit Layout -Unit Noise 0% -Sustainability -Building for Life Site-specific Scheme-specific *see invididual parameter criteria criteria weights in fig 1
Location (5%) Visual Impact (5%) Open Space (5%) Routes & Movement (5%) Accessibility (5%)
TIME
Module dimensions: Unit Size 3.5 -(10%) 4.3m width, 7.0-10.0m length Unit Layout (10%) Unit Noise (10%) Standardized Modularization Sustainabilty (10%) Extra structure required for nonBuilding For Life (10%)modules stacked, varying Unit Variance and Demographics (10%) Robust Details Standard (10%) Private Amenities (5%)
06
DEVELOPING THE TOOL
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
How Does the HQI Inform Spatial Decisions?
Separate WC
Shower with WC
For each apartment type, code reads 36 spatial matrices provided by the HQI guide, assigning scores to various room dimensions
Bathroom without WC
Single Bedroom
Twin Bedroom
Double Bedroom Room size matrix as outlined by HQI
Kitchen Area
Suggests room dimensions, fittings and furniture required in each room to achieve userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desired quality score
Living Space
OM
IT
TE
D
RE
SU
LT
S
Dining Area
3b5p reference size
Room dimension suggestions generated for a 3b5p dwelling with a Q input score of 10/10
An example room layout matrix provided by the HQI. Where results increase room dimensions but no longer impact score, they are omitted to save space. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/366634/721_hqi_form_4_apr_08_update_20080820153028.pdf
07
DEVELOPING THE TOOL
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Testing The Tool On Site: User Interface GENERATED INFORMATION: Priority: Cost Structure: Concrete Volumes Corridor Width: 0.8m NIA: 2709m2 Floor-ceiling height: 2.7m
Example User Interface:
TH BOO
ST
Modules: 90 Module size: 3.5x8.6m Total Occupants: 100 m2/occupant: 27.09 Occupants/module: 1.11
E DG RI MB CA
To prevent overlooking + shadowing, take note of the‘no build zone’ where a neighbouring building is within 12m of the site.
T
WES
12m No-build zone
ET RE ST
COST-DRIVEN
ALERT
T REE
No build zone 0
Your Priorities
20
50
100
GENERATED INFORMATION:
Priority: Equal Inputs Structure: Light Gauge Steel Corridor Width: 0.8m NIA: 3018.6m2 Floor-ceiling height: 2.7m Modules: 90 Module size: 3.9x8.6m Total Occupants: 100 m2/occupant: 30.186 Occupants/module: 1.11
12m No-build zone
LEVELS COST QUALITY TIME
5
Limit
5
LEVELS
COST
10
COST QUALITY TIME
1 1 QUALITY
TIME
Drag sliders to set values
GENERATED INFORMATION: Priority: Quality Structure: Timber Panels Corridor Width: 1.2m NIA: 3440.0m2 Floor-ceiling height: 3.0m Modules: 80 Module size: 4.3x10.0m Total Occupants: 85 m2/occupant: 40.47 Occupants/module: 1.05
12m No-build zone 5
LEVELS COST
COST
1 10
QUALITY TIME
Limit
1 QUALITY
TIME
Drag sliders to set values
GENERATED INFORMATION: Priority: Time Structure: Light Gauge Steel Corridor Width: 0.8m NIA: 2327.5m2 Floor-ceiling height: 2.4m Modules: 95 Module size: 3.5x7.0m Total Occupants: 100 m2/occupant: 23.275 Occupants/module: 1.05
COST
5 12m No-build zone
5 5
Drag sliders to set values
QUALITY
TIME
TIME-DRIVEN
02 Determine
10
OTHER ITERATION POSSIBILITIES
12m
QUALITY-DRIVEN
Your Site
ER GH HI
01 Choose
5
LEVELS COST QUALITY TIME
Limit
COST
1 1 10 QUALITY
TIME
Drag sliders to set values
08
TESTING TOOL ON A SITE
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Testing the System on a Social Housing Development in Manchester Greater Manchester
Manchester
Site Location: Trinity Court, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester Site Area: 1800m2 Context: University of Manchester + Manchester Metropolitan University
09
PARAMETRIC WORKFLOW
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
How Does Parametric Modelling Quicken Design Iterative Process? Backend Processes
01
USER SPECIFIES C-Q-T PREFERENCES BETWEEN 1-10
COST
In this example, the scores are set as:
Neural network suggests structure based on C & T inputs
Suggested structure defines maximum levels
C & T inputs define number of levels within scope of structure
C and T inputs determine module size
Neural network identifies apartment typologies based on nearest area
‘Best fit’ of apartments placed along line based on module sizes and cores
Cost (C) = 9 Quality (Q) = 7 Time (T) = 3
QUALITY
02
TIME
BUILDING PATH LINE DRAWN ON SITE
04
PLACED AT 36M 03 CORES SPACING TO ACHIEVE LINE LENGTH FOUND, MAXIMUM 18M ESCAPE ROUTE FROM APARTMENT FRONTDOORS
10
EXPLORING DESIGN ITERATIONS
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
The Project, C-Q-T Tool + The Stakeholders Our Project will take a look at two iterations developed with the C-Q-T Triangle, which we will use as a design generating tool. The Project, C-Q-T Tool + The Stakeholders
Developer Viewpoint
User Viewpoint
LOW
LOW
COST
COST
TWO ITERATIONS WILL BE DERIVED FROM PLACING THE TOOL IN THE HANDS OF 2 DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS: THE DEVELOPER AND THE USERS
HIGH
QUALITY TIME
SHORT
TIME
HIGH
SHORT
QUALITY
TIME
TIME
The Developer is interested in making profit within a short period.
The Users are in dire need of shelter and would want to move in as soon as possible.
COST
COST
QUALITY
QUALITY
However, this usually leads to a reduction in overall quality of developments
A high quality shelter will improve their overall wellbeing in the residence.
This can be achieved by reducing costs in construction and labour.
The and pay for
User is more idealistic interested in/able to as little as possible a place to live.
11
EXPLORING VIEWPOINTS REWEIGHING THE HQI What is Important To The User? The previous building example has established above average
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
quality requirements as outlined by the HQI, though it is clear there is a dispartity between what the government, Our users and arearchitects very lowdeem income little amount of savings. occupants, to beearners building with quality.
Understanding the users concern with high quality dwelling allows us In this section,inwethe highlight the quality problems standards of the HQI as both architectural design to see next a problem minimum set byanthe HQI. and developer tool, and suggest how these problems can be mitigated.
WE WILL REWEIGH THE HQI PARAMETERS BY LOOKING AT 5 MAIN AREAS OF USERCENTRIC CONCERNS
In order to design for the user, we will reweigh the HQI parameters by looking at five main areas of user-centric design concerns.
Site Scoring SITE SCORING
Demographics DEMOGRAPHICS
Building MATERIAL Resilience LIFESPAN
Sunlight + Dual Private Amenity SUNLIGHT PRIVATE AMENITY Aspect
Not enough consideration for natural lighting of apartments and shared space
Private amenity spaces (such as balconies) are critically unimportant
THE PROBLEM
Assessment of the site itself accounts for too much of the overall quality score
Target demographics for social housing are not taken into account
Building material longevity and maintainance has little weight on HQI scores
THE EVIDENCE
>50% of the quality score itself is related to the site rather than the scheme
HQI scores assess proximity to family amenities (such as schools, play areas) per site, but not family dwellings provided per scheme
‘Designed in accordance with Robust Details Standards’ is worth a maximum overall score of 0.3%
Quality of light, aspect and prospect subsection of Unit Noise Control, Light Quality and Services is worth a maximum overall score of 0.3%
If 100% of apartments have a balcony of >3m2, total quality score only increases by 0.3%
THE IMPACT
Schematic parameters bear relatively little weight (up to 50%)
Developers can choose apartment typologies to include based solely on rent, leaving larger families with less opportunity for social housing A weighted scoring matrix similar to unit size subsection where a minimum requirement must be met
Materials may require costly maintainance works that disrupt the lives of occupants
Non-conformation to Rights To Light Easement(2012) and potential developer injuctions
‘Quality’ as defined by developers yields a disconnect between government/developers and occupants in terms of a satisfactory scheme
Robust Details Standards should account for minimum 10% of overall quality score with a minimum subsection requirement to be met
Lighting subsection with particular reference to Rights To Light Easement and minimum requirement to be met
Private amenity provision is moved from unit size subsection and given a subsection weighing 5% of overall quality score with a minimum requirement to be met
THE SOLUTION
Site-specific subsections should be weighted as 5% of overall quality instead of 10%, changing sitespecific criteria to 25% of overall score
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/391683/44872_HC_796_Law_Commission_356_WEB.pdf
11
DESIGN DELIVERY 01
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Iteration 01: Developer Viewpoint LOW
COST
HIGH
SHORT
QUALITY
TIME
9
COST QUALITY
3
TIME
HQI Score:
Site Specific Parameters Location = 8.9% Visual Impact = 4.1% Open Space = 3.8% Routes and Movement=6.9% Accessibility = 3.1%
8
Scheme Specific Parameters Unit Size = 4.2% Layout = 5.0% Noise = 4.4% Sustainability = 2.6% Building for Life = 7%
Site schema total = 26.8% Schema total: 23.2% Reweighted HQI Score: 50%
NOTE THAT THIS SCHEME IS JUST HITTING THE ACCEPTABLE MINIMUM STANDARD OF QUALITY WITH ITS HQI SCORE DUE TO HOW COST + TIME DRIVEN IT IS 13
MASSING + OPTIMIZATION
Solar Optimization resulting in intial massing
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Resolved Form (Mass): -L-Shaped Mass created to prevent large shadows cast over interior facing windows -open central space onsite for services and community spaces -to maintain existing site access
Resolved Form on Site 14
SPACE PLANNING 01
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Choosing Apartment Types
LOW
COST
Developerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Viewpoint: Studios + 1beds Why? 1. These apartment types have smaller areas; more can fit into building mass. More apartments = more money. 2. More students and young professionals in the area = apartments get rented quickly
QUALITY
Micro Apt/Studio Floor Plan
TIME
7000
7000
7000
7000
7000
REF.
REF.
7000
3500
3500
SHORT
HIGH
1b2p Floor Plan 15
DfMA STRATEGY
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Construction Sequence: Volumetric
01
02
Steel piles are driven 15m into the ground and topped with a concrete pad-foundation footing.
03
Light gauge steel modules brought to site and â&#x20AC;&#x153;stackedâ&#x20AC;? for 6 levels.
**3.5m by 7m module size heavily determined by truck transportation allowance
the cores provide lateral bracing as stability for the building
Concrete podium built (precast panels) + volumetric concrete cores brought to site and assembled first.
Modules are arranged in 4 groups divided up by the cores placed at less than 30m from the furthest module
04
Metal Deck Rigid Insulation Single Ply Deck
Metal deck roof cassette tops the building and parapet walls are built
16
DfMA STRATEGY
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Exploded Axonometric of a Module
TECHNICAL INFORMATION Structural Frame: 65x1.6mm Steel C Sections @ 400mm Centres Floor Cassette: • Insulated light gauge steel sections • 25mm wood sheathing (chipboard) • 100mm thick rigid insulation Walls: • Insulated Light Gauge Steel frame • 12mm Gypsum Wallboard (flanking steel frame) • Damp Proof Membrane • Clad with rainscreen cladding of 800mm x 3000mm panels • X-bracing; crossed flat steel straps fixed to the external faces of the studs Ceiling Cassette • 65x1.6mm Steel C Sections @ 400mm Centres • 100mm thick rigid insulation • 25mm plasterboard
17
DESIGN RESOLUTION 01
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Ground Floor Plan
08
06
08
08 02
02
02
02
09
06 10
02
01
02
03
06
09
07
02
02
02
08
09
01 04 05
Legend 01:Escape Stairs 02:Commercial/Rentable Space 03:Residential Plant Room 04:Commercial Plant Room 05:Rubbish Area 06:Mechanical Riser Core 07:Electrical Riser Core 08:8-person Lift 09:Mail Box Area 10:Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Reception 0
5
10
25 18
DESIGN RESOLUTION 01
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
First Floor Plan
0
5
10
25 19
STRUCTURAL DETAIL
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Longitudinal Section
Longitudinal Section 20
STRUCTURAL DETAIL
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Transverse Section
Transverse Section 21
MEP ROUTING
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Mechanical Systems in the Building Cores going all the way to the accessible roof for servicing
Plant room residential above
serving levels
Duct routing for commerical shops.
Plant room serving commerical shops on ground floor
Mechanical Risers Lift Shafts MEP Cupboard in Apts Electrical Riser 22
DESIGN RESOLUTION 01
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
23
DESIGN RESOLUTION 02
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Iteration 02: User Viewpoint
LOW
COST
HIGH
SHORT
QUALITY
9
COST QUALITY TIME
HQI Score:
Site Specific Parameters Location = 4.45% Visual Impact = 2.05% Open Space = 2% Routes and Movement=3.45% Accessibility = 1.55%
TIME
7 8
Scheme Specific Parameters Unit Size = 6.2% Layout = 5.1% Noise = 5% Sustainability = 3.6% Building for Life = 7.5% Unit variance = 8.7% Private amenity = 5%
Site schema total = 13.5% Schema total: 41.1% HQI Score: 54.6%
THE REWEIGHING OF THE HQI ALLOWS FOR A HIGHER MINIMUM STANDARD QUALITY. THUS THE AVERAGE HQI OF THIS SCHEME.
24
DESIGN DRIVERS REWEIGHING THE HQI Reweighing The HQI For The User
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
CURRENT HQI CRITERIA WEIGHTS
PROPOSED HQI CRITERIA WEIGHTS
100%
100%
Location (5%) Visual Impact (5%) Open Space (5%) Routes & Movement (5%) Accessibility (5%)
75% 50%
50%
Location (10%) Visual Impact (10%) Open Space (10%) Routes & Movement (10%) Accessibility (10%) Unit Size (10%) Unit Layout (10%) Unit Noise (10%) Sustainabilty (10%) Building For Life (10%)
0% Site-specific criteria
Unit Size (10%) Unit Layout (10%) Unit Noise (10%) Sustainabilty (10%) Building For Life (10%) Unit Variance and Demographics (10%) Robust Details Standard (10%) Private Amenities (5%)
25% 0%
Scheme-specific criteria
Site-specific criteria
Scheme-specific criteria
DEMOGRAPHICS: Using local authority data as a worked example for refining HQIs
90 2
(7 .7
%)
Using local demographic data to adjust the weighting of HQI scores, we suggest that developers will have a much greater incentive to follow the waiting list data when accommodating for various sizes of families - a greater HQI score means more government granted social housing subsidy.
5150 (43.96%)
3765 (32.14%)
98
18
% of local authority waiting list
%)
2 6.
(1
1 Bedspace
1 Bedspace
2 Bedspace
2 Bedspace
3 Bedspace
3 Bedspace
>3 Bedspace
Household sizes on the Greater Manchester waiting list for social housing (2016).
>3 Bedspace
% of apartments in scheme
% provided is +/- 5 of waiting list %
% provided is +/- 10 of waiting list %
% provided is +/- 20 of waiting list %
43.96
35
No
Yes
Yes
32.14
25
No
Yes
Yes
16.20
20
Yes
Yes
Yes
7.70
20
No
No
Yes
+2 score for each YES
+1 score for each YES
+0 score for each YES
Local Authority Housing Statistics dataset, England 2015-16: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/local-authority-housing-statistics-data-returns-for-2015-to-2016 25
MASSING + OPTIMIZATION 02
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Existing Module Reconfiguration Initial module arrangement
Modules shifted in order to increase SUNLIGHT and achieve DUAL ASPECT.
PRIVATE AMENITY added to give users private exterior space
26
SPACE PLANNING 02
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Choosing Apartment Types
LOW
COST
User’s Viewpoint: Single-bed Apts + Familily Apts
SHORT
HIGH
TIME
QUALITY
Hall 5.93m2
WC 3.16m2
1750
1.03m
2
WC 3.16m2
1750
1750
1750
1750
7000
Studio/1b1p
1b2p
1750
3500
3500
MEP Cupboard 1.94m2
3500
3500
3500
Living Area 28.99m2
1.30m2
Hall 9.70m2
° 26.57
3500
° 26.57
° 26.57
° 26.57
MEP Cupboard 1.94m2
1.03m
3500
MEP Cupboard 1.94m2
Bedroom 11.06m2
Bathroom 4.24m2
2
WC 3.16m2
3500
Hall 13.48m2
3500
MEP Cupboard 1.94m2
Bedroom 11.32m2
7000
7000
7000
WC 3.16m2
1.03m
2
Bedroom 11.32m2
Living Area 25.65m2
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750
1750 7000
1.03m
2
Living Area 37.31m2
° 26.57
Bedroom 11.32m2
° 26.57
° 26.57
° 26.57
° 26.57
Bedroom 6.42m2 Living Area 17.20m2
Planter 3.06m2
Balcony 3.06m2
° 26.57
Planter 3.06m2
Planter 3.06m2
° 26.57
Planter 3.06m2
° 26.57
Balcony 3.06m2
Planter 3.06m2
° 26.57
Balcony 3.06m2
1750
Balcony 3.06m2
10500
10500
2b3p
2b4p 0
1
5
10 27
DESIGN RESOLUTION 02
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Ground Floor Plan
08 09
02
07
01
02
06
10
02
11 02
01
02
04
03
05
07
07
02
01
Legend 01:Escape Stairs 02:Commercial/Rentable Space 03:Residential Plant Room 04:Commercial Plant Room 05:Rubbish Area 06:Mechanical Riser Core 07:Electrical Riser Core 08:8-person Lift 09:Mail Box Area 10:Residents’ Reception 11: Residents’ Entrance 0
2
5
10
20 28
DESIGN RESOLUTION 02
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
First Floor Plan
0
2
5
10
20 29
DESIGN RESOLUTION 02
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Longitudinal Section
30
DESIGN RESOLUTION 02
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
31
DESIGN RESOLUTION 02
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
32
DESIGN RESOLUTION 02
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
33
REFLECTION
Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka
Project Conclusion It is important to understand that, while social housing is urgently needed on a national scale, housing is an intrinsic human right and should be delivered by housing providers with empathy being as much a design rationale as financial gain. Through our investigations into social housing, we have learned that the reason architecture exists to make interventions is to question existing conventions and implement the end-user into design considerations. Our endeavour to produce and develop two iterations for this project allows us to use the first iteration (developerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s viewpoint) to make a statement which criticizes the existing level of quality/standards. Creating a project which strictly adhered to minimum quality standards allowed us to understand the areas of the standards which need to be changed.
This understanding allowed us to move forward with a new minimum standard in order to create a project that starts to define livability and make compassionate but cost-effective interventions. While the use of DfMA strategies falls in line with this costtime effective approach to social housing, the potential for reweighing satisfaction metrics in delivered buildings is not specific to any construction methodology, and has the potential to be adapted to all social housing developments as a result. It is our hope that future housing reform will ensure developers endeavour to design as carefully for occupant satisfaction as they would in the private sector.
34