“
The central premise of USER-CENTERED DESIGN is that the best designed products and services result from understanding the needs of the people who will use them —Design Council
USER-CENTERED DESIGN AS A KEY FOR (RE)DEVELOPMENT
Graduation Research Booklet 09 | 2014
explore lab 18 Tsveta Ruseva 4257537
2
Colofon
User-centered design as a key for (re)development Tsveta Ruseva 4257537 tsvetaruseva@gmail.com Research mentor: Drs. Andre Mulder Main mentor: Robert Nottrot Building Technology Mentor: Ir. Ype Cuperus ExploreLab 18 Delft University of Technology 2014
4
Acknowledgements
This research master thesis was developed within the frame of the graduation studio “Explore Lab 18� at the Faculty of Architecture, Urbanism and Building Sciences at the Delft University of Technology. The work described in this thesis could not have been accomplished without the help and support of many people, to all of whom I like to express gratitude. First of all, I would like to thank my research mentor Drs. Andre Mulder for providing constructive criticism and proper guidance during the graduation process. Secondly, I would like to thank my main mentor Robert Nottrot who guided and supported me during the entire graduation and whose help I highly appreciate. He provided me with professional advice, comments and a personal attitude towards my design topic. I would also like to thank my family, friends and fellow students for sharing their opinions on the project from a different angle. I am particularly grateful to my mother and boyfriend for the understanding and support during the entire graduation process and beyond. Additionally, I would like to thank all the people who agreed to participate in the interviews and especially my neighbours without whom the completion of this thesis would not have been possible.
5
6
Abstract
The graduation project is about a user-centered design as a key for (re)development. The goal of the project is to define a strategy how to redevelop a neglected city centre area in Sofia through a suitable residential architectural design. The design project is based on the theoretical framework set by the research project which is based on the dweller’s living preferences, the current situation of the Housing market and the municipality goals for the area. The project consists of two main parts – research and design. The research is about the city centre dwellers of Sofia and their living preferences and demands and how this can be accomplished in between the boundaries of the municipality urban goals. The research should define a theoretical basis for the architectural design of a residential building.
7
8
Content 3 Colofon 5 Acknowledgements 7 Abstract 9 Content 10 Introduction 11 13 15 16
User-centered design as a key for (re)development Problem statement Research question Research methods
17 Goal
18 Methodology 24 Theoretical framework 27 Housing market in Sofia 51 People’s living preferences 77 Policy goals for urban development
92 Conclusions 93 94 95 98
Conclusions of the research Reflection on the design Housing Design Guidelines Architectural Brief
100 Bibliography 102 Figures and pictures 104 Appendices 105 106 109 142
Appendix #1 Invitation letter Appendix #2 Interview questions content Appendix #3 Interviews with dwellers Appendix #4 Interviews with experts 9
Introduction
10
User-centered design as a key for (re)development The chosen site location is in Sofia, the capital of Bulgaria. The country is in the south-east part of Europe and is a member of the European Union. Sofia is a densely populated city with 1.3 million people. The time of the communist government has left significant traces on the city’s public as well as residential architecture. The chosen site location needs urgently a redevelopment. Most of the people are moving out, the ones still there just can’t afford to move out. At least half of the buildings are left empty in such a bad condition that they are almost falling apart. As an architectural student and a former resident of the researched neighbourhood I decided to do this graduation project because of my sentimental reasons, but also because I believe that its value will have larger social impact. The idea is to involve the residents in the process. The first step is to conduct individual interviews with them in the frame of the research and the second step would be a meeting to present the final project and a discussion of the conclusions. I hope by introducing a new urban and residential concept that the people will become more initiative and cooperative in order to transform the neighbourhood. The goal of the design is a residential building which will cover a neighbourhood area restricted by 4 street, but the overall idea is to set a standard for all plots in this neighbourhood.
11
Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4
Pic 5
Pic 6
12
Problem statement
Pic 1 Empty plot on “Hristo Botev” street Pic 2 Dangerous self destroying building on “Strandja” street Pic 3 Vacant building in poor condition on “Otec Paisii” street Pic 4 Vacant building in poor condition on “Otec Paisii” street
In the beginning of the last century, years of poverty and housing shortage the nowadays city centre of Sofia was built. The neighbourhood called “Vuzrajdane” was a home place for refugees who were building their own houses[1]. The lack of any urban planning and decent building technology skills have resulted in poor quality of buildings and lack of communal spaces. The low maintenance and the obvious neglection from the owners today have put some of the houses in the municipality list of potentially dangerous buildings. Consequently people are moving out and are abandoning their property. Some of the owners have already demolished their buildings; others have left them vacant. The vacancy premises the wave of squatters and immigrants who choose the cheap accommodation of this particular neighbourhood as their occupation. As a result the level of criminality in the neighbourhood has risen. The available cheap and low quality housing is also creating a possibility of overpopulation of buildings from families with low financial state which has led the neighbourhood to get bad reputation. Despite all listed problems the area has top location being part of the city centre. The public transport connections are very good, the infrastructure is developed. The neighbourhood has a network of educational buildings starting from a kindergarten to a university building. Another advantage is the commercial points – big shopping centre, big supermarket, everyday market and a petrol station. Realising the bad condition of the neighbourhood and estimating its positive sites small private initiatives have started planning a new urban concept.
Pic 5 Overpopulated building on “Strandja” street Pic 6 Occupied building on “Otec Paisii” street
[1] Arch Hristo Genchev, Sofia mislena v prostranstvoto i vremeto (Sofia conceived in space and time), Sofia, EХГ Foundation publishers, 2012 (in Bulgarian) p. 253
13
Research question Research subquestions
14
How do policy goals and dweller’s preferences overlap? How this can be used as base to define a strategy for redevelopment of a neglected city centre neighbourhood?
• What are the living preferences of the city centre dweller? What are people’s motivations behind choosing to live in the city centre? • How does the Housing Market in Sofia answer to the needs and lifestyle of the people? • What are the municipality of Sofia’s plans for the city centre?
15
research question How do policy goals and dweller’s preferences overlap? How this can be use as base to define a strategy for redevelopment of a neglected city centre neighbourhood?
municipality policy goals
dweller’s living preferences
housing market in Sofia
• past city centre urban concepts
• general meaning of home
• general characteristics
• future urban ideas
• preferences for the city centre as a residential environment
• demand for city properties
• building laws and regulations
• price range
• living preferences
research methodology literature study
literature study
literature study
interviews with experts
interviews with dwellers
interviews with experts
research goal Paper on dweller’s housing preferences based on relevant literature and interview analyses which results in conclusions on the meaning of these preferences for a residential architectural design.
16
Research methodology This particular research will be developed in two main phases. The research will start with a literature study on the topic to gain knowledge about its theoretical aspects. Next step will be to conduct interviews among dwellers which prefer city centre as their residential environment and experts with interest in the researched area. The research will be concluded with a summary of the literature study and an interpretation and analysis of the interview results.
Literature study
Interviews with experts Interviews with experts in the researched field will be conducted. The goal is to get an insight in the city policy goals, the current situation of the Housing market and another side point of view. The initial choice of experts is: (1) a person from a real estate management, (2) an university teacher familiar with the urban development plans of Sofia, (3) the municipality architect responsible for the neighbourhood, (4) a developer with interest in building in this area
The literature study is a logical starting point for the research. The main topic about the living preferences of the dwellers and the future city development will be investigated by the use of articles, books, and publications. The goal of the study is to be able to understand the current Housing market in Sofia, to get insight in the new urban concept for the city and to gain theoretical knowledge about the users living preferences.
Interviews with dwellers
Research Goal
The goal of the interviews is to accumulate qualitative data about the dwellers living preferences and demands from their point of view. Therefore the interviews with the dwellers will be conducted in two slightly different groups. The selected initial target group is formed by people who prefer the city centre as a residential environment. The target group will be divided in two subgroups. The first one contains part of the current residents of the researched area. The second group is composed of people who were unsatisfied with their residential environment and recently moved to the area .
The research goal is to get insight in the living preferences of the city centre dweller, the municipality policy goals for future urban development and the Housing market in Sofia. The understanding of the changing needs and lifestyle of the people should help me to develop a range of architectural tools needed for my design. The overall result should be an urban and architectural strategy for redevelopment of a neglected city centre neighbourhood expressed in a “Housing Design Guidelines� followed by Architectural Design Brief.
17
Methodology
18
Literature Study • collect and analyse articles, books and publications
Interviews • qualitative research To be able to get an insight in the dwellers (demand side) point of view interviews will be conducted among 2 different target groups. The first group will be formed by dwellers with preference in city centre residential environment. The second group is determined by experts in different fields with interest in the researched area. The group (dweller’s group) is subdivided in two. Part of the respondents will be currently living in the area and the other part will be formed by people who recently moved in the neighbourhood.
19
Selection criteria
Interview questions
20
Interviews with dwellers Selection criterion for the participants in the interviews
• What are participants’ expectations around comfort/ security/ environment performance within homes and why? The interviews will be conducted with fewer • What are participants’ expectations from the local people because the goal of the research is more area and its amenities? about qualitative data. Therefore the interviewed • What are participants’ perceptions of new-build people will be selected in a way they will be homes? representative for a certain target group. The first • What is the difference between the perceptions two criterion characterising the respondents are: of first-time and experienced buyers of new (1) their current residence is in the boundaries homes? of the researched area, (2) their recent residence changed to be in the boundaries of the researched The interviews will be organized in different topic areas: area. The income threshold is used in order to 1. Introduction and general information select residents who have (some) choice on the First the research topic and goal will be introduced housing market. and secondly people will be asked to introduce After selecting people who qualify according to themselves in short. The questions included will the mentioned criterion next step is to divide the be about the age, educational level, income, selection in subcategories as to choose a reprehousehold composition, current home. sentative people of different significant groups: 2. Previous dwelling and living environment • Already home owners The questions included are about the type of pre • Tenants vious dwelling, living conditions and environment • Singles and the reason for moving out. • Young couple 3. Current dwelling • Young family with/without children The purpose of the category is to gain informa • Family with children tion about the housing condition of the current • Ageing parents without their children dwelling of the investigated people and how they • People who have moved out, but wants evaluate it. The questions will give an opportunity to move back in the area (ownership of the propof evaluating the current living conditions, ask erty) for the reasons for buying or renting the current dwelling, ask for the price and the way of buying Interview questions content (Appendix 2) etc. The goal of the interviews is to accumulate qual4. Dwelling and living environment preferences itative data about the dwellers living experience and conditions and their living quality preferences – expectations of homes The purpose of the category is to gain insight and demands for the future. of people expectations of their new homes. The The research will therefore try to answer the folquestions included will try to answer the reason lowing questions: • What is most important to people when buying/ why they’re not satisfied with the current condition , how do they expect the space in a future renting a new home and why? • What are participants’ expectations around inter- new home to be different from the current home and what are their living demands. nal and external living spaces and why? 21
Selection criteria
Interview questions
22
Interviews with experts Selection criterion for the experts
Interview questions content
At least four interviews will be conducted with experts in different building construction related fields. The main criterion for selecting particular experts to participate in the research is the possible link between their work and the research neighbourhood or area.
The goal of the interviews is to get an insight in the City policy goals and the current situation of the Housing market in Sofia. The questions are specific according to the expertise field of the interviewed person. Considering the research topics the following questions divided in two categories are to be answered:
The initial choice of experts who will be invited for an interview is: 1. Real estate agent 2. University professor familiar with the urban development plans of Sofia 3. The municipality architect responsible for the neighbourhood 4. Developer with interest in building in this area When settling on specifically these four profiles there were already particular names in mind.
* The results of the interviews are given in Appendix 4
1. What are the characteristics of the Housing market in Sofia? 2. What are the current offers on the market? What is the demand and supply ration? 3. What are the characteristics of the current housing stock? What are the age and the condition of the buildings? 4. What are the housing demands of the home buyers? 5. What is the average price range of the properties? How much is the Bulgarian customer ready to pay? 6. What does affordable mean for the Bulgarian? Where is the balance between price and quality? 7. Does the supply on the Housing market cover the current housing demand in quantitative and qualitative way? _ 8. What is the urban historical development of Sofia city centre and specially the researched area - neighbourhood “Vuzrajdane�? 9. What are the current municipality urban plans for this area? 10. How can the current state of the housing stock in the neighbourhood be evaluated? What are the pros and cons of the area? 11. Is there a potential for redevelopment of the area? Whose responsibility is the future development of the neighbourhood? 23
Theoretical framework
24
Housing market in Sofia
25
26
Housing market A big part of the graduation research is the analysis of the Housing market in Sofia. By understanding the components of the housing market and its dynamics I want to answer one of the three main research sub-questions:
How does the Housing Market in Sofia answer to the needs and lifestyle of the people?
In order to get insight into the specifics of the Bulgarian and mostly Sofia’s housing market the analysis is divided in 10 topics. The first part is about the economical situation in Bulgaria and the capital Sofia. The short summary and the statistical data about the economy shows clearly that even though Bulgaria is a full member of the European Union the country is economically far away from the other EU Western members. As a post-socialist country Bulgaria is still struggling with the heritage left from the communist time, but shows a slow and stable economical growth. The second part is about the homeownership. Part of the local mentality is that most of the people live in owner-occupied homes and like to spend a significant part of their life living in the same place. Therefore the choice for a new home is really important. The next topics provide some statistical data about the existing housing stock in the capital and describe in short the quality of the existing dwellings. This part is really important in order to understand what the housing market in Sofia currently offers to homebuyers. In addition the two main dwellings categories, the socialist mass housing blocks and the newly built residential blocks are described. Getting to know about the advantages and disadvantages of the prevailing types of homes will help to understand how people built their preferences and demands for a future home. Further on some more information about the most substantial components of the market and how it functions are summarised and some predictions about its future development are added as a conclusion.
27
Bulgaria
Sofia
Population
7,29 million (Dec-31,2013)
1,3 million (Dec-31,2013)
Unemployment rate
11,8%
5,9% much lower than the national average
Average monthly salary for 2013
790 BGN/404 euro .
980 BGN/500 euro (above the national average monthly income)
Population growth
-0,81%
Inflation rate
0,90%
The considerable immigration from the poorer regions of the countryside to the capital have caused a population growth of Sofia
Labour force
2.62 million
Life Expectancy
74,08 years
Urbanisation
73,10%
* Bulgarian Economy Data 2012-2013 [2]
[2] National Statistical Institute, National Employment Agency, CIA World Factbook
28
Economy factors The Bulgarian economy
Sofia
A positive economic growth in the country has been observed in the last year. This has been in line with the general trend in the EU which is the biggest and most important business partner of the country. A slower increase in the economic activity was observed in 2013 and a stronger growth is expected till the end of 2014 and in 2015. The real GDP growth of the country was 1.5% in 2013 which is considered as insufficient in order to compensate the retardation of the Bulgarian economy compared to the average economic situation of the EU countries. The expectations are that the GDP percentage will increase its number in 2014 and 2015.[3] The average monthly salary has slowed its upward trend and remains the lowest among the member states of the European Union.[4] The increased unemployment rate has reached 11.8% in the end of 2013 which is disturbingly high considering also the fact that the youth unemployment rate has hit 28.5% in November 2013. [5]
Sofia is on the 15th place in the list with the biggest cities in European Union according to its population of 1.3 million people.[6] A considerable immigration from the poorer regions of the countryside to the capital is observed and there is a higher percentage of urbanization. Therefore there is a considerable population growth in Sofia, whereas the population growth of the country is negative. The unemployment rate in Sofia is significantly lower than the average for the country - 5.9%, and is among the lowest in the European Union. The average monthly salary in Sofia which is around € 500 is above the national average monthly income.
In general Bulgaria remains a considerably attractive outsourcing destination for international companies thanks to the current financial stability and lower average salaries compared to the rest of the Central and West European countries and the developed countries around the globe. The low corporate and personal income taxes of only 10% are also seen as a big advantage. Even though there is a tendency of decreased direct foreign investments. This is seen as a result of factors like ineffective bureaucracy, lengthy administrative processes and corruption which are the main deterrents to foreign investors.
[3] Valeri Leviev, Deyan Nikolov, Pazarut na jilishta v Bulgaria Q1 2014 (Housing market in Bulgaria Q1 2014), PDF file, Elta real estate consultants, Sofia 2014 (in Bulgarian) p.1 [4] Todor Davidkov, Sredna rabotna zaplata (Average montly salary)(online), Available: http://www.nsi.bg/bg/ content/11857/метаданни/средна-работна-заплата-–национално-ниво-статистически-райони-област, (Accessed 23.05.2014), (in Bulgarian) [5] J. Gueron, D. Toteva, Ts. Kostova, Employment and unemployment - annual data 2013, National Statistical Institute, PDF file, Education and Science inc. Co., p. 103 [6] Prebroyavane 2011, (Census 2011), PDF file, (online), Available: www.nsi.bg/census2011 (Accessed 15.03.2014), (in Bulgarian) p.2
29
96 %96 %
96%
47%
of the population lives in an owned home
of the dwellings are overpopulated*
*
The overcrowding rate[7] is defined as the percentage of the
population living in an overcrowded household. A person is considered as living in an overcrowded household if the household does not have at its disposal a minimum number of rooms equal to:
50%
of the people live in houses
50%
of the people live in apartments
•
one room for the household;
•
one room per couple in the household;
•
one room for each single person aged 18 or more;
•
one room per pair of single people of the same gender
between 12 and 17 years of age;
•
one room for each single person between 12 and 17 years
of age and not included in the previous category;
•
one room per pair of children under 12 years of age.
53%
of the young people between 25 and 34-year old still live with their parents
Fig 1
[7] Eurostat, http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Overcrowding_rate (Accessed 21.10.2014)
30
Homeownership situation One determinant characteristics of the Housing market in Bulgaria is the fact that most of the people live in an owner-occupied home. The rate of home ownership has always been high. 96% of the population lives in an owned home. Only 4% of the Bulgarians live as tenants. The main problem is that 47% of the dwellings are overpopulated. The statistics report that half of the people live in apartments and the other half in houses.[8] Owning a home is almost a must according to the Bulgarian mentality. Young people tend to share the parents home until they get a family or even after that. 53% of the young people between 25 and 34-year old still live with their parents[9].There are quite some people that have spent all their life in the home where they were born. The financial inability to buy independent home has forced different generations to share a house or even an apartment. In some other situations the parents feel obligated to buy a home for the young family so their children would be released from the burden of paying a monthly rent. Another typical feature of the Bulgarian mentality is the attempt to earn and own as much as possible in order to bequeath it to their children and grandchildren. Therefore almost everybody has its own home received either as a gift or inheritance. This “tradition� explains the incredibly high home ownership rate regardless of the average low income and meager economic growth.
[8] Eurostat, (online) Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Housing_statistics/ bg (Accessed 21.05.2014) [9] Eurostat, (online) Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Housing_statistics/ bg (Accessed 21.05.2014)
31
16.4 %
stock 16.4 housing %
70 % 17 %
= 100000 units
607473 dwellings which are 15.6 % of the whole housing stock
40 % of thehousing dwellings are located in mass housing blocks stock 13 % 70 %
1.9 %
= 100000 units 2.6 people per dwelling 607473 dwellings which are 15.6 % of the whole housing stock
% 17 % 96.6 % 40 % of the dwellings are located in 63 mass housing blocks 97.1 %
Sofia nts ne ves as sh
as
Sofia
13 %
%
a
Sofia
of the Sofia residents define themselves as others
0.6 %
of the dwellings have toilet inside
of the dwellings of the dwellings have have bathroom computer inside 2.6 people per & internet connection dwelling
industry 1.9 %
16.7 % 96.6 %
of the country industry is located in Sofia
63 %
97.1 % of the Sofia residents define themselves as Turkish
32
of the Sofia residents define themselves as others
of the dwellings have toilet inside
of the dwellings have bathroom inside
of the dwellings have Fig 2 computer & internet connection
industry 16.7 %
of the country industry is located in Sofia
Existing housing stock Sofia is the biggest city and the capital of Bulgaria and has a population of 1.3 million people which is 16.4% of the whole population of the country. On its territory there are 607 473 dwellings. They constitute around 16% of the whole housing stock in Bulgaria. Over the past 10 years the number of dwellings has increased by 91,866 or 17.8%. The average floor area of a home in the capital is 80.6 square meters. According to the data of the national census in 2011 nearly one third of the homes have an average of 66 square meters floor area and every fourth house has an average of about 82 square meters. 2.3% of the housing stock is composed by the exception of homes with an average floor area of more than 400 square meters. [10]
The statistical data determines Sofia as a city where the quality of living is higher than the average in the country concerning the durable goods which are present in the homes and the fact that two thirds of all dwellings have personal computer and internet connection available. Regarding the typology of the residential building 40% of the dwellings are located in socialist mass housing blocks, 55% of the people live in residential blocks and the rest 5% inhabit an urban house. The residential density is 2.6 people per dwelling which is above the average for the European Union. [11]
Existing housing stock in numbers 300000
250000
200000
Studio apartment Two‐room apartment Three‐room apartment
150000
Four‐room apartment Five‐room apartment
100000
Six‐ and more room dwelling
50000
0 2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Fig 3 The two-room and the three-room apartment types are defining the biggest share of the existing housing market. One-space apartments (studios) have also a crucial role.
2009
2010
2011
2012
[10]Prebroyavane 2011, (Census 2011), PDF file, (online), Available: www.nsi.bg/census2011 (Accessed 15.03.2014), (in Bulgarian), p. 9 [11] Eurostat, (online) Available: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Housing_statistics/ bg (Accessed 21.05.2014)
33
Pic 7
Pic 8
100% of the mass housing blocks need urgent renovation
40 % 60 % new old
Pic 9
Pic 10
Some of the old buildings in the city centre are even dangerous * 90% of the existing old building stock awaits either demolition or urgent renovation
34
Quality of the existing housing stock Probably one of the most considerable components of the Housing market in Sofia is the existing housing stock, therefore its ingredients needs to be unravel as to gain insight into the dynamics of the Housing market. The quality of the present dwellings defines the home experience of the residents which forms their opinion about a future dwelling. One of the main characteristics that define the quality of the existing housing stock in Sofia is the age of the buildings. At least 60% of the residential buildings can be considered as old (built before 1990s).[12] The mass housing blocks are a considerable part of the old housing stock. Therefore they have a huge influence on the quality of the housing market considering the fact that 200,579 [13] of all dwellings in Sofia are located in these pre-fabricated concrete blocks. In years of enormous housing shortage suburbs were built in an immense scale and in a fast tempo resulting most of the time in poor quality of building and public space. The rapid transformation from communist to capitalist political system resulted in the neglect of public space and buildings. The sudden lack of state control and the natural sense of irresponsibility among the society were the main “ingredients” of this negative change. The mass housing units in Sofia represent 40 percent of the total housing stock in the capital. Consequently the quality and the esthetics of the prefabricated panel blocks have a strong impact on the everyday life of the people including also the people who don’t inhabit these blocks. The “expiration date” of the concrete buildings was set on 50 years. Some of them are being occupied for about the same period without any essential renovations. But the main problem is rooted not in the exact age of the buildings; the blocks which were built years later are in the same bad condition or even worse. The problems of the mass housing
neighbourhoods are generally characterized with an overload and dilapidation of the public space, poor condition of the buildings, limited housing typologies and a little interaction with other parts of the city. The defects of the prefabricated concrete elements buildings are consequence also of the low quality construction. The low quality of the nested materials, their underestimated architectural and maintenance value expands the problems even more. The condition of those buildings is even worse than the condition of older buildings, constructed according to the traditional building systems. Regardless of all weaknesses of the communist mass housing these buildings mark a certain period of economic growth in Bulgaria. A fast answer to the emergent housing question was needed at this time. The insufficient outcome was caused by the conflict between the living necessities and the possibility of realizing them. Now in the 21st century the post-communist mass housing stock is in state of physical, moral and last but not the least in social retrogression. Therefore an urgent modernization and renovation of the buildings and the surrounding urban area is needed. The rest of the old housing stock is unfortunately not in a much better condition. The general problem is basically the same and is neglect. The buildings are left vacant without any maintenance which leads to self-destruction. Even buildings which are part of the valuable architectural heritage of Sofia have met the same fate. All these buildings need to be entirely renovated and some of them even reconstructed. [12] Prebroyavane 2011, (Census 2011), PDF file, (online), Available: www.nsi.bg/census2011 (Accessed 15.03.2014), (in Bulgarian), p. 40 [13]Sofijski imoti, Edropanelnoto stroitelstvo – predimstva i nedostatuci (Large-scale prefabricated constructions – advantages and disadvantages), (online), Available: http:// www.imotibg.com/static/7012/ (Accessed 16.04.2014), (in Bulgarian)
35
Pic 11
Pic 12
36
Socialist mass housing blocks quality of the living space The dwellings in the Socialist mass housing blocks are an overwhelming percentage of the whole present housing stock in Sofia. Therefore they have a big influence on people’s home experience. Even though these residential blocks have a lot of disadvantages they possess also some advantages. The floor plan layout of the mass housing buildings is thoroughly designed. The dwellings are separated in two zones - “day zone” and “night zone” (or “common spaces” and “private spaces”). This is a traditional approach in functional design of apartment structures correspondent to the living habits of the average Bulgarian family. Every building is compounded by at least 3 repeating units. Usually two or three dwellings are designed per floor in the middle unit – two threeroom apartments and one one-room apartment or just three two-room apartments. End units have bigger floor area than the middle ones so the apartments have separate dining room. The options for the layout are two – either two three-room apartments or three apartments (one one-room, one two-room and one threeroom). In reality there are more combinations of different dwelling types in one floor layout. The existing restrictions about the size of the dwelling set in the period of the mass housing production before 1989 didn’t allow any bigger apartments. In general prevailing number have small in size dwellings like one-room and two-room apartments.
Some of the characteristics of the floor layout can be criticized. Firstly the lack of flexibility as a consequence of the big-scale prefabricated concrete element technology leads up to impossibility of satisfying the living demands of the inhabitants. Secondly there are not enough communal spaces and no private garage spaces either on an underground level or ground level. The spatial structure of the buildings varies from simplified compositions of parallel rectangular volumes to complicated shapes in specific urban grid. The free shaped volumes are hard to organize and have some negative effects. The overlapping of volumes results in unacceptable proximity of rooms from different apartments or unwanted blockade of the natural sun light. Socialist mass housing blocks are a huge part of the Bulgarian dweller experience. Almost all of the people who are currently living in one of these blocks express the preference for a future home out of the blocks. The people are fully aware of the specifics of their dwellings and are not satisfied with the present quality of their homes. Unfortunately the construction scheme and condition of the buildings don’t allow alterations and a lot of improvements of the quality of living.
Pic 11 Layout of the most used pre-fab construction system Bs VIII Sf Pic 12 First Bulgarian large-scale panel building layout
37
Pic 13
Pic 14
38
Newly built residential blocks quality of the living space New constructions allow much more freedom and flexibility in the way people live. Therefore people prefer to find their new home in a newly built block. As follows is a short explanation of the layout of the newly built residential buildings which is provided as to present what is the best that the Housing market can offer today. Most of the newly built residential buildings in Sofia have been built in a dense urban context. The construction plots are usually situated between three other plots and are facing a street. The distance to the other plots is the closest possible according to the building regulations. The ground level of the blocks contains non residential functions like offices or shops. The parking for the inhabitants of the building as well as their private storage space is solved on an underground level. Most of the newly built residential blocks have 5 to 7 residential levels with 5-6 apartments per level. The designed apartments are mostly with one or two bedrooms and open plan of the main living space. There is a similarity between the different floor plan levels but also an attempt of creating diversity in the floor plans and apartment types. The most common load bearing construction is a concrete construction done on site. All external walls are thermally insulated and the finish façade material is usually plaster accomplished in different colors.
Pic 13 Floor plan layout of a newly built residential block in “Manastirski livadi” neighbourhood - second level Pic 14 Floor plan layout of a newly built residential block in “Borovo” neighbourhood - second level
39
Age for getting mortgage loan
Preffered types of apartments
7%
10 % 12 %
18 % studio apartment
before 30 years
37 %
before 40 years
two-room apartme
35 %
three-room apartm
before 50 years
tgage loan
four- and more-roo
after 50 years
41 %
7%
18 % studio apartment
before 30 years
37 %
before 40 years
two-room apartment
35 %
three-room apartment
before 50 years
four- and more-room apartment
after 50 years
40 %
Fig 4
Fig 5
Preffered mortgage loans
5%
40 %
Preffered types of apartments
Preffered area of the dwellings 10 %
20 % 12 %
up to 10000 euro
25 %
37 %
up to 25000 euro
over 120m²
above 50000 euro
Preffered area of the dwellings 50 %
41 %
10 %
20 % up to 10000 euro
%
up to 60m²
37 %
up to 25000 euro
up to 90m²
up to 50000 euro
up to 120m²
above 50000 euro
over 120m²
Fig 6
40
12 %
41 %
up to 90m² up to 120m²
up to 50000 euro
e loans
up to 60m²
Fig 7
Current profile of the buyers, mortgage loans and type of dwelling on demand In the last 5 years the housing market in Bulgaria has suffered a recession and almost reached the bottom.[14] Currently there is an evidence of a gradual increase in the interest in residential properties. In Sofia the annual decline of the dwellings’ prices for the last year has been only of 3%. A growth in the sales deals has been observed during the whole year whereas almost 5% more real estate deals have been concluded.[15] The housing market still has more to offer than the demand is. This is a consequence of the unstable economical situation and the high interest of the mortgage loans, which discourages new potential buyers. The fact that real estate prices have kept stable, has lead to some positive changes on the market. There is an increase of the number of new mortgage loans which is based on the lower prices and the better loan conditions including lower interest. [16] An interest in residential properties seen as an “investment value” is observed. A part of the real estate deals is about dwellings which are bought with the intention of renting.
The trend of buying a residential property on an early construction stage has almost disappeared in the last years, but is coming back slightly. The buyers are more focused on properties with an “added value” like extra green spaces, good surrounding infrastructure, and the presence of enough parking spaces. The presented donut chart statistics gives an overview of the current profile of the buyers, mortgage loans and type of dwelling on demand. If the profile of the current real estate buyers is traced young couple or young families are dominating the market as first-home buyers. People prefer to take relatively lower loans up to 25 000 euro which is also based on the lower average income in Bulgaria compared to the EU countries. Consequently the most desired dwellings are in the middle-price and middle-size range.
Fig 4 The chart is showing the age on which people decide to take a mortgage loan. With just a few more percent the people between 30 and 40 years old have the biggest share. Fig 5 The preferred dwelling types are two-room and three-room apartments which are also the most offered on the housing market. Fig 6 In the last year people tend to take mortgage loans again after a period of uncertainty. The chart is showing the percentage of different loans given. Fig 7 The most preferred dwellings are basically two sizes – the ones up to 60m² and up to 90m².
[14] [15] [16] Valeri Leviev, Deyan Nikolov, Pazarut na jilishta v Bulgaria Q1 2014 (Housing market in Bulgaria Q1 2014), PDF file, Elta real estate consultants, Sofia 2014 (online), Available: http://www.eltaconsult.com/bg/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/bulgaria_residential_report_q1-2014-bg-v2. pdf (in Bulgarian) p.2-4
41
Completed new buildings built in Sofia 350
291
300
261
250
235
200
199
186
181
174 164
150
132
100
76 50
0 2004 Fig 8
42
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Construction rates - number of newly built dwellings The number of the new constructions in Sofia is decreasing. Even though the number of residential buildings started to be built in 2013 has declined with 30% the living area as square meters is reduced only by 7,8%. [17] There is a positive trend for new constructions which is defined by the number of building permits given during the year. This shows a certain sign that investors and developers have confidence in the housing market and trust in increasing demand and stable prices. In 2014 the economical levels are more stable which gives more certainty. The financial institutions are offering better interest rates for the mortgage loans and the prices of the dwellings are the most affordable since the last 8 years.[18] There are basically two types of buyers which are active in the moment. The ones that have a need for an own home. They search for affordable housing without higher demands. The other type is middle and high-class buyers, which have more preferences about the living quality and are ready to pay for it. They are in a search of the best quality/price ratio.
[17] Nacionalen registur za novo stroitelstvo i rekonstrukcii, (National registry for new constructions and reconstructions) PDF file, (online), Available: http://www.bcc.bg/ (Accessed 15.05.2014), (in Bulgarian), p. 5 Fig 8 The linear graph is showing the number of new buildings built in Sofia in the period between 2004 and 2014. There is a clear peak in the years 2007 and 2008 just before the economical crisis. Since then there is a constant decrease in the investment in the building market.
[18] Valeri Leviev, Deyan Nikolov, Pazarut na jilishta v Bulgaria Q1 2014 (Housing market in Bulgaria Q1 2014), PDF file, Elta real estate consultants, Sofia 2014 (online), Available: http:// www.eltaconsult.com/bg/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/bulgaria_residential_report_q1-2014-bg-v2.pdf (in Bulgarian) p.5
43
Newly built dwellings according to the number of rooms 4000 3500 3000 2500
six and more-rooms five-rooms four-rooms three-rooms two-rooms studio
2000 1500 1000 500 0
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Fig 9
Newly built residential gross area in m² 180000 160000 140000 120000 100000
living space auxiliary space
80000
kitchen space
60000 40000 20000 0 2004
Fig 10
44
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Demand & Supply on the housing market Supply There has been a 5.2% decline of the number of newly built dwellings in Sofia for 2013 compared to 2012 according to the data from the National Statistical Institute [19]. But regarding the newly built living space, the decline has been only 3.7%. Currently there are some clear signs of positive development. There are more than 20% new constructions which have been started during this year and a lot projects that have received their building permit [20]. These numbers are a good sign for the confidence that investors and developers have in the market and their expectations that the demand for residential properties will increase in the coming year. The future predictions state that along with the increased dwellings’ demand the prices will stop the downward trend and will even begin to increase. Demand The increase in sale deals concluded in 2013 provides a clear signal that the demand for residential properties will continue to rise. This assumption has been based on the fact that the prices of the dwellings in 2014 have been the most affordable [20] Nacionalen registur za novo stroitelstvo i rekonstrukcii, (National registry for new constructions and reconstructions) for the past 10 years and the financial institutions PDF file, (online), Available: http://www.bcc.bg/ (Accessed have started to offer better mortgage loan con15.05.2014), (in Bulgarian), p. 6 ditions and even possible renegotiation of the Fig 9 existing loans. The two-room and three-room apartments with an area of The improved economic conditions of the Euro60m² to 80m² and 80m² to 120m² are dominating the houspean Union encourage foreign investments in the ing market. [19] National Statistical Institute, PDF file, (online) Available: http://www.nsi.bg/sites/default/files/files/pressreleases/ New_Dwellings2014q2_AV173VV.pdf, (Accessed 21.05.2014), (in Bulgarian), p. 1
country which helps Bulgaria to lessen the level Fig 10 of economical uncertainty. All this evokes fresh inThe ration between the main living space (living room and vestments in the residential market. There is a big bedrooms) and auxiliary spaces (bathroom, toilet, storage share of the housing market formed by residential space and hallways) is in favour for the living space, even though a light difference is noticeable in the last 3 years - the properties bought as an investment for rental living area is getting smaller when the rest is stable. purposes. 45
Average prices per m² in BGN of the dwellings in Sofia 2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Fig 11
46
Prices on the market There is a growing demand in the mid price range homes – up to €70 000 and a constant demand and deficient offering in the low-priced housing – between €25 000 and €45 000.[21] Lately there is a growing interest in favour of more qualitative newly built buildings.
[21] [22] [23] Valeri Leviev, Deyan Nikolov, Pazarut na jilishta v Bulgaria Q1 2014 (Housing market in Bulgaria Q1 2014), PDF file, Elta real estate consultants, Sofia 2014 (in Bulgarian) p.8-9
Fig 11 The graph is showing the fluctuation of the market prices of the dwellings in Sofia. In the period between 1993 and 1996 the prices are below 30 levs per sq.m. In 1997 together with a change of the political system from socialist to democratic a huge increase of the prices is observed. In the period from 2003 to 2008 there is a constant growth of the prices with its peak in 2008. 2009 and 2010 there is an extreme decrease. Since 2010 the prices on the housing market has been stable. The stabilised prices have positive influence on the market like increasing the number of new mortgage loans in comparison to the previous years.
According to the National Statistical Institute the average market prices of the residential properties in Sofia have decreased by around 1,5% on an annual basis in year 2013. The common market trend has been the slower decline rate and the gradual stabilisation of the property prices.[22] Consequently the reaction of the construction developers has been the end of the declining tendency of the prices. The new bids for new projects have been stabilised. The proffered price range for middle and high quality residential properties on the housing market in Sofia is €800 - €1200 euro per square meter (excl. VAT). [23] The selling prices vary a lot depending on the exact location, the quality of the construction and nested materials, the finish materials and the existing infrastructure of the building. The presence of public amenities also has influence. The development of the metro lines has the greatest impact on the prices recently. The properties along the two lines have become more attractive and accordingly expensive – in the range of €700 to €900 per square meter. The average rental prices in Sofia vary between €3,5 and €6.5 per square meter per month depending on the location of the dwelling and the presence and quality of the furnishing. The demand for rental apartments in Sofia is still high because the capital has always been a main destination for migrants from the countryside. The city is a logical choice due to the lower unemployment rate and higher average salary. [24] 47
48
Future predictions Future predictions for the development of the Housing market in Sofia are the conclusion part of the section. There is a huge potential for growth in the demand for residential properties in the near future. This is one of the main outcomes from the analysis of the housing market in Sofia. The reason is routed in the present condition of the existing housing stock. 60% of the current dwellings are “old� (built in the 60s and 70s), in bad condition and poorly maintained. A big part of the existing dwellings and namely the mass housing blocks were built with a life expectancy of 50 years. The initial concept of the mass housing presents a low average living area per person and small size apartments which is in a contradiction to the present living preferences of the people.
The potential home-buyers in Bulgaria nowadays have been more focused on better living conditions. Therefore they have developed higher demands on features such as quality of life, friendly neighbourhood environment, easy parking access, large outdoor spaces, enough greenery etc. Consequently a simple conclusion can be made: the housing market is now open to new attractive competitive residential designs which are able to provide facilities corresponding to the housing needs and preferences of the future residents.
In general the main trend is showing stable sale and rental prices and a constant slow increase in the demand which can be taken as a premise that the housing market is going into an optimistic direction. The data indicates a tendency toward a demand for larger and more spacious apartments in human scale buildings. This encourages the development of higher quality projects which imply the preferred amenities and are able to meet market requirements in a better way. The main threat for the market remains the deteriorating socio-economic environment and the rising unemployment rate. An important positive outcome of the intensified competition on the building market in the recent years has been the improved quality of the housing and the promotion of various incentives for the buyers. However in the last year real estate agencies and developers have become less willing to offer substantial price discount on residential properties. 49
50
People's living preferences
51
52
People's living preferences What people need and expect from their homes in the city centre of Sofia, Bulgaria?
Content: 1. Characteristics of the chosen participants and their previous dwelling experience 2. Living spaces 3. Storage and utility needs 4. Comfort and wellbeing 5. Outdoor space 6. Living environment
This research is a part of a graduation project with topic “User-centered design as a key for (re)development�. The design goal of the graduation thesis is an urban concept for redevelopment of an old city centre neighbourhood and a residential building design within this urban context. During the literature research on the topic it appeared evident that big part of the housing policy of most of the European countries is to do a research on the Housing preferences of the local dwellers. The gained knowledge helped in framing the content of the questions for the interviews. Unfortunately there hasn’t been any governmental or private initiative for developing a similar research about the Bulgarian housing preferences and demands. In this context the following research can be seen as a progressive work that might set new standards for residential development. The research looks at the living preferences and expectations dwellers have for their homes and how they use the space in their homes. A qualitative approach was selected in order to gain insight and detail on the experiences of the Bulgarian householders. 10 individual interviews (Appendix 3) were conducted with people who are either living in the chosen city centre neighbourhood, owning a property there or recently moved in the area. An invitation letter (Appendix 1) explaining the purpose and the general content of the interview was prepared and distributed in advance. The reason was to introduce the topic to the participant so they can compile some thoughts on the subject and clarify their preferences. 53
1. Characteristics of the chosen participants and their previous dwelling experience
1.1.
Personal characteristics
10 personal interviews are conducted during the research. Participants are separated in 6 household comKey findings position groups. There are 2 young couples that The people who participated in the interviews are: live together, one young couple which would like to live together soon, 3 people above 60 year old • covering most of the target groups that live alone, 2 single people who live with flat • either young or old mates, a family living with its children and a family • highly educated living without its children. • currently employed Interviewees can be divided in two big age • average monthly income groups. Half of the people is aged between 26-32 Interviewee’s current living situation: and the other half is between 52 and 63 year-old. • currently live or own a property in the Almost all of the participants have a university neighbourhood degree education with one exception; a 28 year• some live there since being born old man who possesses high school education. All • want to change the current dwelling of them are currently employed and estimate their • most common reason for the change monthly income as an average for the capital. the quality of the dwelling 1.2.
54
Living situation
There are three different types of relation of participants to the selected neighbourhood. The first group which is a half of all interviewees is built up from people who currently live in the same neighbourhood. There are 3 examples of people who only own a property there and 2 examples of people who see the area as a possible future residential environment. Six of the participants live in an apartment and the rest own a two storey high house with a commercial first level. Concerning the period spent in the current dwelling participants are divided in three groups. 3 people have lived all their life in the same home, 3 of the interviewees live in their current homes for more than 10 years and the last 4 live in the present dwelling for around a year. A bit more than half of the participants (6) own the dwelling they live in and all the rest are just tenants in their homes. There are two main reasons which determine participant’s choice of a neighbourhood. 6 of the interviewees like the central location of the
neighbourhood and the others have inherited a property there. 80% of the participants would like to change the present dwelling due to its age and low quality. Their opinion is that an interior renovation would not solve the problems. 1.3.
Previous living situation
Most of the participants have a history of living in or close to the city centre. There are only 2 people who are exception and have been living in the suburbs. Participants have predominantly lived in apartments concerning the type of previous dwelling. Almost of the interviewees have been living in their previous dwelling for either more than 10 years or since they have been born. They share two main reasons for changing their previous home for the current one. The first one is related to the desire of being independent, basically a new stage of live when young people want to move out from the parents house. The second reason is the fact that some of the participants have encountered problems with either the size or the quality of the previous dwelling. 1.4.
Conclusion
The conducted interviews are done with fewer people because the goal of the research is qualitative data. Therefore the interviewed people are representative for a certain target group. The main selection criterion are covered therefore the participants are either currently living in the boundaries of the researched area or they would like to live in the boundaries of the researched area. The income threshold is used in order to select residents who have (some) choice on the housing market. The questionnaire sections about the previous and current dwelling experience are essential to understand the background of the participants which forms their expectations and preferences for a future home.
55
2. Living spaces - present experience and future expectations
Key findings • main living area large enough to host guests • mixed preferences for open plan or separate rooms • no one has a separate working room • working space is seen as very important
2.1. Evaluation of the living space required based on the living experience In the first part of the interview all participants are asked to describe their current living situation. They have a strong opinion about the advantages and disadvantages of their dwelling, what they would like to keep as it is now and what needs to be organised differently in a possible future home. Their notion is mostly based on the living experience they have already gained. 2.1.1. Evaluation of the current living space (the size of the dwelling, number of rooms) When comparing the answers of the participant about the size of their dwelling, it is easy to distinguish two main groups and one additional. The first main group is composed by couples. All of them currently live in apartments between 50 and 65 m2 and they affirm the space is big enough for only 2 people. Though they say they will probably search for a bigger place in the moment they get children.
“Our old apartment was bigger than the current one; therefore it was more work to maintain it properly.” Shares a young couple, living in a 2-room apartment The second group is of households with 3 or more members. Families with one or more children tend to prefer places around 120 m2 and more, so everyone can have its own private room. It is the same case for flatmates living together. Elderly people living alone frame the last group. All of them still live in the same family home where they used to live with their partner and children. The general opinion is that the dwelling has become too big and too hard to maintain for a single person. 56
2.1.2. Preferences for the size
2.2.2. Expectations of large main living space
Almost all of the participants are satisfied with the size of their current dwelling. All young couples think that an apartment between 50 and 65 m2 with one main living space and a bedroom is more than enough for their current life stage. Some of the older people, who still inhabit the home where they have raised their children, prefer to downsize the dwelling, because it happens to be too big for just living alone.
Participants typically prefer to have as much main living space as possible within their homes given what is possible within their budget constraints. This is even the case with smaller homes (less square meters) where people are ready to sacrifice size of other rooms in favour of main living space. Interviewees more often define a home as spacious based not on the actual square meters but on the perception, the “feel” of the main living space.
2.2.
Preferences for the main living space 2.2.3. Flexibility of the living space
For most interviewees in the research, their “main living space” means the space they use for preparing food, eating and their main living area – in other words kitchen, living room and dining room. As not all participants have or want each of these individual rooms, the collective function of these rooms was discussed in terms of the main living space altogether. Where this space was concerned, many participants struggled to evaluate how much main living space they would need for their household.
Most of the participants state that they want a level of flexibility in their main living space, so it can be adapted to suit their needs. However, views vary as to what levels of flexibility and adaptability are acceptable. Based on their current experience people divide in two main groups according to their preference: • Participants who want open plan living space;
At least half of the participants of the research 2.2.1. Evaluating the current space – descriphave a strong preference for a flexible design in tion of the current situation sense of an open planned main living space. For The summary of the interviews determines basimost of them flexibility is less about smart design cally two different types of organising the main like foldable doors or convertible furniture than living space. A bit more than a half of the partichaving a spacious floor layout. These participants ipants currently live in homes where the main are keen to get a sense of a large flexible living living space is defined by medium size kitchen and space where kitchen, living room and possibly a living room, whereas the dining space is either dining area are open and interconnected. part of the kitchen or part of the living room. In The desire for open plan design reflect the fact these cases a separate kitchen is seen as very imthat, in practice, many participants carry out acportant and practical feature of the home. tivities concurrently which would once have been The other half of the interviewees has an open carried out independently – such as cooking and plan main living space which includes living area, entertaining or supervising homework. kitchen and dining area. For these people an easy interaction between the family members is essen- “We prefer to have one open living space as tial. Therefore the main living space should be able big as possible, so while cooking we can still to host all basic household activities like – eating, have fun with our guests.” cooking, relaxing etc.
57
Yet some of the results of the interviews suggest that for a few people open plan designs which incorporated both kitchen and main living area have some constraints which become disagreeable over time. • Participants who prefer separate kitchen, dining and living rooms; For some participants, an open plan design for the main living space mean a trade-off with privacy which they prefer not to make. This is a particular concern for families where kitchen is concerned – some prefer that the kitchen is separate so that cooking smells will not permeate the main living area.
“I like the kitchen to be closely connected to the living room, but still a separate space, because of all the smells from cooking.” For a few more traditional participants, flexible space was not at all appealing. These interviewees prefer to have separate rooms for cooking, eating and for the main living and entertaining space. They tend to agree also to some more progressive design idea. Because in most cases more rooms means more square meters and this can be in contrary to the family budget, some of the participants embrace smart design ideas which can help them uncover the potential of the spaces. The basic preference to have a separate kitchen can be transformed to a preference of having a separate kitchen only when you need to use it as a kitchen. So the participants who prefer this are open to creative design ideas where spaces can be easily transformed. 2.2.4. Meal times and preferences for eating areas Generally, participants who prefer open plan layouts are happy to eat meals in their open plan area, regardless of whether this includes a kitchen area or not, but most have a strong preference for eating around a table rather than on a sofa. 58
Some of the participants admit that they sometimes – or often – are evening meals in front of the television or the computer, but typically do not see this as desirable. Therefore a big enough dining table for eating the main meals and space enough for guests is a must for all interviewees. Yet all participants think that dining room might be just waste of space so half of them prefer to have kitchen big enough to host the dining table and the other half want to place the table in the living room. Participants who favour an open plan design tend to expect homes where the main living space flows into the kitchen or dining area, and possibly also for some into outside space. 2.2.5. Importance of a space for socialize A big part of the participants express a preference for a flexible main living space because of one more reason. They all want to have the possibility to socialise with family and friends in the comfort of their home. The idea is that this flexible space should be able to host both family gathering and parties with friends. This is basically a consequence of the fact that socialising outside the home is less affordable. There are two main preferences when describing how this entertainment space should look like. People want it to be connected either to the kitchen, so socialising through preparing food together or to the outdoor space. All participants would like to use this space also as a space where guests can stay over because most of them can’t afford an extra guest’s bedroom. 2.3.
Preferences for the working space
Discussing the topic “working from home” participants in the research split in three groups. The first group of people works only from home, the second group works occasionally at home and the third group doesn’t work at home.
2.3.1. Presence of working space at the current home Most of the interviewees’ homes don’t have a separate working space. For all participants working from home means working on a personal computer. Therefore people state that they can really easily organize a working space within the home. The ones using a laptop need just a table or they even work in the bed or on the couch. A personal computer requires a bit more space; its place is on a small desk in the bedroom or in the living room. One of the interviewee, a young specialist just starting his own business, has to work full time from home:
“I’ve graduated a year ago and I’m starting my own business, therefore I can’t afford an office place. Working from home is practical for me, but I have no other place to work then my own bedroom, where I have a desk with a computer. I spend my whole day in that room, working, eating and sleeping. I would prefer a separate working room, a cabinet for example. “ Placing a working desk in the bedroom is a common situation. Almost all participants have organized that way. Working in the bedroom gives them a sense of privacy; they want to be away from the main living space, where it’s easy to be distracted. Assigning the bedroom another function than just a sleeping space has proved to be logical and practical is the main opinion of the interviewees. A 61-year old pensioner, retired earlier because of illness, still needs to work, but he’s not able to travel a lot. His occupation now is a freelance accountant. Therefore one of the 2 rooms he has in his home is transformed into a cabinet with all the technical equipment his work requires.
2.3.2. Need of working space and preferences All participants have strong views on having space to work. There is only one exception, a 52 year-old man, living with his wife and 2 children, who doesn’t need and doesn’t want to work from home. The other participants are divided almost in half. The first half expects to have a separate working area in their new home. Their preferred cabinet should be spacious and light enough; the space should be able to host a big desk with computer and printer. A small library is also a must in the future cabinet. The second half has the opinion that just a corner of the bedroom is already good enough working space. Most of the people work in an office and bringing work home is an extreme exception. Even though they think they need a space, which is more quiet and private to place a working desk, but this can be simply part of the bedroom. For them a cabinet would be a waste of living space. 2.4. Conclusion Participants’ expectations and experiences of the main living spaces in their homes – their living room, dining area and kitchens – are very important because they are key influences in determining how they choose a home. Participants tend to have strong views about these issues because having space and a suitable area for entertaining and eating activities is typically very important. Most participants feel it is essential to have a sense of space in this main area, and prefer the area to have some element of a flexible layout to accommodate entertaining friends or family on a small or a large scale as required. Some of the interviewees are open even to more progressive design ideas which could help them perform different activities simultaneously. Overall, there is no consensus for an ideal lay out or single design typology that can suit all households and it is clear that different households have different needs and expectations from the home. 59
3.Storage and utility needs
Key findings • storage facilities do not meet needs • alternate storage options are explored • everyone wants a separate storage room • everyone wants to recycle, but doesn’t • solution for washing machine noise • drying outside
Present experience and future expectations of the storage and utility space In this section findings on storage and utility needs are presented. It’s presented together as participants tend to think about these issues in a similar way. Typically, these are not issues which are given much consideration by participants when they look for somewhere to live or considered how well their living space suited their needs. This lack of consideration means that some participants chose homes that failed to meet their needs. In this chapter will be covered: • Current storage experience • Expectations of storage and utility • Recycling and rubbish •
Washing and drying clothes
3.1.
Current storage experience
When the question of the presence of the storage space is raised people are more likely to struggle in describing how and where exactly they store their stuff. Few participants are satisfied with the amount of space they have for storage and almost most of them have not considered this as an important issue when they have chosen their homes. The others experience difficulties in storing personal items, but also find it hard to assess their exact storage needs. These participants explained it would have been helpful if the storage is built-in so they can evaluate how much living space they have available. 3.1.1. The presence of a storage space
60
When participants are asked about the storage space they all agree it’s really important and they would like to have it better organized. Only two of the interviewees have a special storage space, a woman living alone in a big urban house with an attic and a young man, sharing an apartment, which has a storeroom.
“I really appreciate the fact that this place has a separate storeroom, so I can put away all the things I don’t use daily. It’s incredibly practical for my sports equipment, the suitcases and all my tools.” All the other people keep and store stuff according to the place they have available. Therefore they claim they have enough space, but it’s just poorly arranged. The ones living in a rental places have the tendency not to collect things, because they consider the possibility of moving to a new place and having too many stuff makes it complicated. Their current situation requires only the presence of enough wardrobes and cabinets. People living in an owned place use basically creative ways to create more storage space in a shape of different built-in furniture. Thence the size of the storage space expands with the amount of the owned things and consequently the size of the living space is reduced. 3.1.2. Transformation of the space for storage needs Discussing the storage space it appears that people have found alternative ways of storing belongings. One typical basic example is what most of the participants do, they store things either under the bed or on top of the wardrobe. The general opinion is that both places have some pros and cons. People tend to like exploiting the space to its full capacity, but don’t like the impossibility for easy cleaning. The other transformation of space done in favour of the storage space is a lot more radical. Almost half of the interviewees have fully glazed their balconies in order to furnish it with closets for foodstuffs and utilities. They explain that the reason behind is that this semi outdoor space defines a right climate. In addition there is no feeling of sacrificing the outdoor space, because at first place it wasn’t big enough to host other functions.
3.1.3. Defining practical storage needs All participants claim to be aware of their requirements for storage, utility and some every day domestic activities in the current dwelling. But they explain they tended to choose home that did not entirely suit their actual needs. This was a consequence of the fact that they were compromising the need for storage and utility areas of which they had not fully understood the importance. 3.2.
Expectations of storage and utility
Qualifying and quantifying the practical requirements from a home is a complicated task for all participants. On consideration of the storage issue, most of them feel that they need additional space for storage of personal items. Most interviewees define two different types of storage needs. It’s either divided in long and short-term storage or private and common storage. Based on their living experience all participants want to have a long-term storage as a separate space. All other storage needs can be covered depending on the flexibility of the space, explain more than a half of the people. 3.2.1. Type of storage – long and short-term storage Where these actual needs are concerned, a number of themes emerge. First of all, it is important for participants to have storage space for both short-term and long-term access. Storage is required for occasional access to rarely used items, which include seasonal items such as holiday equipment and decorations. These items are often larger and are used more infrequently, and participants expect a separate utility space. The presence of such a storage room is a must for all of them. Most of the people prefer it to be inside the boundaries of the apartment itself, because they consider organizing the space both for long and short-term storage.
61
Therefore the easy access is important for them. Items like vacuum cleaner, suitcases and sports equipment are likely to be kept away from sight and as they are used regularly, all participants want to put them behind a door. Even though there is a clear distinction between both types of stored stuff, all the interviewees affirm that one separate storage space will be enough.
3.3.
Recycling and rubbish
Participants have strong views on how a newbuild homes should accommodate their needs regarding both storage and utility requirements. The options for a storage space outside of the apartment like an attic or basement are mostly negative. Only a few people don’t have specific preferences for the placement of their private stor-
Modern recycling requirements need dedicated areas in the home, as people need a series of bins for different types of waste. In Bulgaria the municipality introduced different types of public waste bins just a few years ago. There are basically 3 new types – plastic and metal bin, glass bin and paper bin. These bins are made out of plastic in comparison to the old trash containers which are made out of metal and are still used for general garbage disposal. The new municipality bins are placed randomly on the street, not in all areas of the city and because of the material they are also being often vandalized. The described problems discourage the average citizen of Sofia. Only a few of the participants in the research are currently putting
age space in the building.
some effort in separating garbage.
3.2.2. Private storage (sentimental things)
“Yes of course I recycle. I have a special box where I put every single waste paper and I also put on a side the glass bottles.”
Privacy of storage space is also an important consideration for participants in the research. Many participants feel that they have things they wanted to store and access on a regular basis, but which they want to keep private, such as clothing and general daily clutter. Basically that applies to the bedroom area where commonly the clothes are stored. Half of the participants don’t have special preference about the dressing space. For them big enough wardrobes in their private bedroom is convenient enough. The other half of the people, mainly the women, but also some of the men preferred to have a walk-in closet room next to the sleeping room in their future dwelling.
“It will be perfect if I can have a walk-in closet, so I can organize my clothes and especially all my shoes in a way that I can see them all.” – explicate enthusiastically a 28-year-old girl living with her boyfriend. 62
– answers a 61-year-old man, being really proud of the efforts he is putting into being environmentally conscious. Discussing the topic of recycling all interviewees agreed that it should be done, even though most of them are not doing it now, they want to do it. All participants explain they will be encouraged if the residential block has a common garbage disposal space organized for easy recycling.
“I can’t rely on the municipality to arrange separate trash bins in a close proximity to my home therefore I would appreciate if it can be facilitated by my residential building. It would make it so much easier.” – suggestion from a 63 -year-old woman currently living alone.
3.4.
Washing and drying clothes
3.5.
Conclusion
Having suitable space to wash, dry and iron clothing and bed linen is a widespread problem for participants in the research, but it’s not one which has been given much consideration when thinking about their next home. The place for washing is of a biggest concern for most of the interviewed households. The current situation is that the washing machine is placed in the kitchen. A separate space for it is a demand from all participants. They share that the biggest problem is the noise and in situations when the main living space is an open space, the sound from the washing machine can bring a sense of discomfort.
In general, participants do not prioritise storage and utility needs, unless they have experience in owning and living in their own home. Nonetheless, all need long-term and short-term storage for functional items and personal possessions, and most feel that their demand for the future home will be the presence of enough suitable storage space. Privacy of storage and utility space is also a consideration for most participants. Many feel they need dedicated space for domestic utility tasks, such as washing and drying clothes, as well as for storing vacuum cleaners, rubbish bins and recycling. On prompting and exploring these issues in depth, it is widely felt that such suitable space should be a separate space inside the
“Sometimes when we turn on the washing machine in the evening the sound is so noisy that we can barely watch television and this taking into account that the washing machine is kind of new.”
boundaries of the apartment.
– complains 60-year-old man living with his wife Depending on the size of the future home some of the people are ready to combine storage and laundry room in one space. For many interviewees, having private outdoor space is the perfect solution for drying. The climate allows most of the time drying outside in fresh air and under the sun light. All the people stated they prefer it, because they believe is more hygienic, space and money saving. When asked whether living in the city centre is an issue in that sense, most of them answer that they’re doing it now and they will keep on doing it in the next home. Consequently one of the reasons they ask for a spacious private outdoor space is to accommodate there their wet laundry.
63
4. Comfort and wellbeing
Key findings • balance between high daylight penetration and privacy is seek concerning the size of the windows • willing to compromise with outdoor noise • good sound insulation between dwellings • energy efficiency is seen as important • poor experience with district heating systems • residents want control over heating system •security is an important issue
In this section findings on areas which participants feel to be more intangible when they consider changing the home are presented. These are, for some people, the least important considerations when they choose a home, but are also ones which they tend to address later on with experience. In this section the following issues are addressed: • Windows and light; • Noise; • Privacy and wellbeing; • Energy efficiency; • Security 4.1. Windows and light All participants in the research feel that it is important to them to have as much natural light as possible in their homes. Many of them already have the quality and quantity of natural light they need. Only few of the interviewees explain that they have some issues which are based on a problem with the close proximity of the neighbourhood buildings. Sometimes the problem is the objective lack of enough light caused by the adjacent building and other times is about an evoked issue of privacy. People start to feel intimidated by the close view into the private space of the neighbours and dislike the fact that they can be observed by the neighbours as well.
“There is this guy who is always smoking on the window just opposite my window and sometimes it is the case that we stare into each other’s eyes, it’s so obnoxious.”
64
– a 32-year-old guy sharing an apartment with a flat mate A high level of light is associated with wellbeing and an antidote to the stressful environment of the city. Therefore a preference for the future dwelling is the presence of as many windows as possible. Discussing the privacy issue people say they prefer to solve it rather by hanging curtains which allows them to control the level of privacy then with smaller windows.
All participants have almost the same preferences concerning the question of the window size. They would rather have larger than the standard windows in their main living space and normal size windows in the bedroom. For few interviewees the size of the window should be determined not only by the function of the space behind it, but also by the sun orientation of the dwelling and a possible view. The bathroom is a room which is mostly considered as an artificial lighted space which is the case with most of the households of the participants. They consider it would be preferable to have a natural light in there, but this feature won’t determine their choice of a future home.
Participants tend to describe it as a problem when it has disrupted activities which required concentration such as study and work, but for some it also has disturbed sleep and entertaining guests. Overall, noise is a concern for participants only once they have experienced the difficulties of living with it. Although important, it is not an issue around which participants have too high expectations of their homes, although in practice it is evident that high noise levels adversely affect levels of comfort and wellbeing. All of them believe this is a solvable issue that depends on the quality if the building materials, so they require a good enough sound insulation. 4.3.
Privacy and wellbeing
4.2. Noise None of the participant has a bad experience with the noise. The noise is a characteristic of the city centre as a residential environment and as this is their preferable environment they are ready to make compromises.
“We live in the city centre on a comparatively busy street and we have got used to all possible outside noises really quick. As long as we can reduce the sound level by closing the windows we are feeling ok. “ – a young couple, living together for a bit more than a year All participants, living in a city centre dwelling, say that the environment provides them a lot of amenities and the accompanying noise can be understood. However poor noise reduction in homes is something completely different. It is felt to reduce privacy as well as affecting how relaxed people feel. Most of the interviewees won’t tolerate it in a future home.
“The noise from the boulevard I can switch off, but that noise coming from the neighbours is just too much. I don’t want to know every time when they’re visiting the toilet.” – a 28-year old man, working from home
Talking about privacy the participants share that they would like to have enough separate rooms so in case they would like to relax, there is a space they could spend some time on their own. This space is basically associated with the bedroom and it might require having there a TV. Having your own place to relax is strongly connected to the feeling of wellbeing. 4.4.
Energy efficiency
When asked about energy efficiency, all participants typically equated this with cost and how much money they could spend or save if a home is more energy efficient. Environmental performance is a consideration for participants, and they tend to perceive this in the form of bills. Many of the participants have a central heating system connected to the city heating system, running on hot water. They all complain about firstly about the quality they are receiving and secondly the price they are paying. They don’t consider the ratio between price and quality to be fair. Therefore all of them have decided to give up the central heating system changing it an alternative. In most of the cases the alternative is to use electricity. 65
People explain they feel more independent and they have a better control over their bills, because they can decide which rooms to heat and which not. But for some participants poor energy efficiency limit the way people use their homes: in order to save money they only heat and use certain parts of the home. They choose to wear extra clothing, or spend more time together in one room to conserve heat and money. In a further interview, an interviewee cite the lack of double-glazing as a major reason for wanting to leave the rented flat – he find it both too cold to live there and very expensive. But despite the fact that energy efficiency is a concern for all participants, many say they would find it very difficult to judge how energy efficient a home is.
“We have internal thermal insulation of the facade walls and the floor, but because the apartment below is empty and even has its openings without any windows , our home is always so cold.”
Participants mentioned that the two main factors for reducing the energy efficiency of the dwelling are not having modern double glazed windows and lack of external thermal insulation. All interviewees are aware of the beneficial advantages of a sustainable renovation. Half of them have already assessed the added value of the new double glazed windows and external or in some cases internal thermal insulation.
Many of the participants answer that the energy efficiency would be a factor for their choice of a future dwelling. They are aware that the price could be a bit higher, but look at this as a secure investment. A few people even consider adding technology for production of a renewable energy in their new homes.
“I can see a huge change in both the climate comfort and the bills after the renovation we made to the house in 2011.” - explains a 61-year-old man, living in an urban house. A couple of the participants have put some effort in increasing the energy efficiency of the apartment, but even though they state another typical problem of the old residential blocks. They describe a situation where some of the dwellings in the block are empty and the owners don’t want to invest any money for renovation. Consequently although a lot apartments are thermally insulated the ones that are not create a thermal bridge which reduces the overall energy efficiency of the building. 66
– a young couple, living in an old residential block All participants have an association of new builds being more energy efficient, and thus cheaper to maintain and more efficient to run. Few consider energy efficiency as important for its own sake, but most are aware that it is an important and relevant issue. One of the interviewees has an attic space and has used the roof area to install solar panels some years ago. His investment has proved as good and he claims it has paid itself off.
4.5. Security Security is a consideration for everyone who is part of the research. Participants talk about security in terms of the design of their home and the type of local area they live in. Most of the interviewees credit their homes as safe enough. The opinion about the transition common spaces of the building itself varies. Some of the participants, mostly the one living in smaller residential blocks – 15 to 18 apartments, explain they know all their neighbours and the entrance door is kept locked, which gives them a safe feeling. A few of the people have experienced exactly the opposite. They feel unsafe in the common space of the building, because there are too many apartments; some of them are just empty others are changing their tenants too often. The idea that everyone is anonymous evokes dubious feeling.
Security is an issue which typically comes up only on prompting in a discussion. Although many participants do feel security is important, they also tend to feel it is more the responsibility of homeowners to ensure their homes are secure, and many also link the importance of security with ensuring that their home is in a good and suitable locality. For a few participants, there are greater expectations that new-build homes are designed with security in mind. The preferences for the security of the future home are generally split in two. Half of the people are more concerned about the environment. For them the neighbourhood should provide them a feeling of being safe. The other half tend to say that even the neighbourhood is considered safe everything can happen so they prefer to have better locks and a proper security system. Overall, the security of a home is an important concern for participants, but one which they tend to feel is their own responsibility rather than that of those designing, selling or developing homes. 4.6. Conclusion Space for private time away from other members of the household is important for participants of all ages to encourage and engender wellbeing. Participants also feel that wellbeing is encouraged by light, airy rooms, and through controlling the amount of noise within homes. Regarding other aspects of comfort within the home, energy efficiency is typically perceived as really important. It is not only a preference, but rather a demand for the future home. Security is an issue which participants tend to feel is their own responsibility and the way they deal with it is based on their personal feeling of being safe.
67
5. Outdoor space
Key findings • participants are used to communal entrance • preference for a limited amount of dwellings connected to communal entrance • the private outdoor space is seen as extension of the living space • private outdoor space is also required for domestic tasks • participants are unused to communal outdoor space • willing to try
68
All participants regard the outdoor space as important to them, whether private (in the form of a balcony or terrace), or public, in the form of community space. This section covers the following issues: • Living space and transition to the outdoor space • Private outdoor space • Communal outdoor space 5.1. Living space and transition to the outdoor space All participants in the research currently have to share a common entrance space in order to reach the front door of their home. Raising the question about the feeling that this communal space evokes, the answers are divided in two completely opposite opinions. Generally the interviewees repeated what they have shared about security in the residential block. Based on their current experience participants are either happy with their shared entrance area or completely wretched with it. The explanation is mostly based on the size of the building. The interviewees who live in blocks with fewer apartments experience a good communication with their neighbours. They know each other; therefore they discuss the common problems of the building and find together a solution. In those cases they arrange a cleaning lady for the shared area. The other part of the interviewees has totally different experience, living in a building where the number of the residents makes it impossible to know all of them. Another issue in those buildings is the constant change of the tenants, which makes it even more complicated to find a way to communicate. Participants complain that their neighbours prefer to stay anonymous which allows them to disregard to communal issues of the building. The consequence is a lack of any maintenance like cleaning, changing light bulbs etc.
5.2.
Private outdoor space
All interviewees want to have a private outdoor space. As willing to live in the city centre they realise that their outdoor space will be either a terrace or a balcony. The general preference is the space to be big enough for a table with chairs so they can host their friends. The outdoor space is considered like the main living space as a place to socialise and possibly to relax.
“I have a really big terrace now where I have all my plants and enough space to relax. This is something I would also want to have in my future dwelling so I can move there all my beloved plants, drink my coffee in the morning and relax under the sun.” - a 63-year-old women, living in an urban house
tasks, such as drying clothes or keeping rubbish bins. 5.3. Communal outdoor space Most of the participants don’t have the experience of sharing an outdoor space. Many of them find the idea appealing and are willing to try. Their assumptions are that they will use the space to socialise with the neighbours and to offer their children and grandchildren an easy access to green area where they can play. However, sharing private space do not always work well, explain a participant who already has this experience. Although he appreciate the presence of a communal green space, he and his family feel that this space is difficult to use as a personal outdoor area as sharing the area with
others do not tend to work well. One other interviewee also highlights some of the potential probA couple of the interviewees stated that the prilems of shared areas. In particular, a communal vate outdoor space is important for them, but it garden could mean a lack of privacy, and could be needs to be designed in a decent way. They exuncomfortable for residents to use if relations with plain that if the balcony doesn’t have a view and neighbours were strained. is within a close proximity of the neighbouring Private outdoor space is desirable to participants building is not of any worth. because it increase wellbeing, so they tend to be As well as being seen as a private area, outside loathed to reduce this benefit through the perspace is seen to be an important extension of the ceived disadvantages of sharing this space with main social and living space of the home. Many others. participants report that they want the option of Although some of the interviewees state they extending their living and entertaining space into won’t use it, they like the idea of having a green the outdoor area. For this reason participants want space around even if they will only observe it from outdoor spaces that link to main living area or their apartments. kitchen through wide accessible doors and which will enlarge the main space. 5.4. Conclusion The presence of private space outside, or the “A really nice outside decking area, a big access to green communal space, is important balcony with nice plants on, just something to all participants. This is because it is considered like that, so that you can sit out in the sumessential for wellbeing. Private balcony or terrace mer and socialise, have barbecues, things like is preferred to share courtyard because they are that.” felt to be more suitable for entertaining, domestic For many participants outdoor space is important tasks and for relaxation. The size of the private to them as a personal and private space. A private space and its connection to the main living area is space is valuable to many people not just for well- of a great significance to all of the people involved being and relaxation, but also for private domestic in the research. 69
6. Living environment
Key findings • proximity to centre is the biggest advantage of the neighbourhood • good public transport network is seen as asset • poorly maintained buildings and squatters built up a bad image of the area • all participants express a feeling of insecurity • people expect a solution for the parking problem • preference for promotion of slow traffic • more sun, air and greenery is desired
6.1. City centre as a chosen residential environment Life in the city centre is full of action. It is a creative place where cultural, social and economic streams come together. Most of the participants prefer the city centre because the level of facilities (employment, cultural, culinary etc.) is high and all these facilities are relatively close by. But also the proximity of friends is important. For them the possibility of combining various activities like having a good professional career, being able to go regularly to the theatre, concerts or cinema and being able to maintain a good social life is highly evaluated. All of the interviewees admit that activities like going to cultural events and shopping play an important role in their preference for living in the city centre.
“I can just walk to my working place and as a lawyer it is important to me that all important administrative public buildings are in a walking distance to me” - states a 60 year-old lawyer who lives with his wife
“It’s really nice that we can just walk back home late in the night so we don’t need to pay for a taxi” - shares a young couple who lives in the city centre for almost a year
70
6.1.1. Public transport All participants agree that the very first reason for choosing the city centre as a residential environment is the good public transport connections and the possible walking distance proximity to working and entertainment places. They admit that this particular city centre neighbourhood provides all possible public transport options whereas the most important is the metro line. The people who have lived there for a longer time
explain how much the building of the metro line changed the traffic in the neighbourhood and how easier is now to travel. I young couple even sold their car after moving in to the area because they find it cheaper and faster to use the metro.
“Sometimes in the winter I need to spend half an hour to remove all the snow from my car therefore I would love to have a shed parking space” 6.1.3. Amenities
“These days the most reliable public transport is the metro that’s why it is so important that we have a metro stop really close by”
Contrary to resident’s opinion of the public transport the private transport causes basically only problems for them. All interviewees express a
Big part of the interviewees agrees that this neighbourhood cover most of the amenities they need. Some of the women say they like the fact that there are 2 everyday markets and a big shopping centre with cinema nearby. For young couples and families is essential that there are different educational facilities in the neighbourhood. Small businesses like freshly cooked food to take-away are also highly appreciated by the residents. Most of the participants consent that there is
strong preference for an easy parking access even the ones who don’t own a car.
almost nothing really missing the neighbourhood concerning the public amenities it provides.
“I don’t have a car, but I would like to be able to offer my guest a temporary spot where they can park”
“The presence of 3 elementary schools in the neighbourhood helped me by making the choice about the house”
For some of the people the image of the neighbourhood is unpleasant because of the too many cars which are just parked on the street. For some of the smaller streets there are no parking restrictions which transform it into a parking lot where cars are not only on the street lane but also on the walkways. People who have cars get frustrated and the others who don’t get even more. All interviewees express their belief that parking should be organised in the buildings and not on the streets.
“All cinemas and theaters are in the city centre as well as the best schools for my children. I also believe that the people who live in the city centre are more intellectual, the old citizens of Sofia”
– admits a women who lives in the city centre for the last 26 years 6.1.2. Parking
“I don’t use my car because there is no place to park it “ Another issue that some of the participants who own a car but don’t have a garage is the extra effort they need to do to maintain their car during winter.
6.1.4. Socialising The opportunity to have a good social life is another important reason why all the interviewees have chosen the city centre. The good location helps to facilitate more friend gatherings as well inside of the home as outside in a bar. For the young people living in the city centre means that they live in a close adjacency to their friends and eases them to socialise without prior appointments.
71
“The apartment is in the city centre so it’s a walking distance to all the entertaining places and close to the bars where we meet our friends; it is also easy for our friends to visit us.” 6.2. Pros and Cons of the neighbourhood Almost all the participants start first to describe the negative characteristics of the neighbourhood when asked to evaluate its assets. They agree that the area has a really bad reputation as a consequence of the unpleasant architectural image it has. The buildings are very bad maintained some of them are abandoned and left to self destruct. The vacancy has caused squatters to move in and some of the houses are even overpopulated. After describing this situation the interviewees state that they experience daily a feeling of insecurity whereas the lack of enough street lighting doesn’t help. Some of the participants have raised one more issue which are the noise and the vibration coming from the tram line on the main street.
“There are too many super cheap second hand shops in this area with too many strange people sticking around. All this looks suspicious to the residents. I assume a new development will automatically make them disappear.” When talking about the advantages of the researched area all interviewees state that the biggest one is the walking distance to the actual city centre. They appreciate the well developed public transport network and especially the metro line which they believe could attract new residents. Other positive features are the range of educational facilities and the variety of shopping possibilities. 6.3. Expectations of the living environment The participants have chosen the city centre as a living environment because of the before 72
mentioned characteristics but the researched neighbourhood has advantages as well as a lot of disadvantages. Even though all the residents believe is has a lot of potential which needs to be uncovered. They strongly believe in total urban and architectural redevelopment of the area. The interviewees express their preference for a pedestrian and bicycle friendly zone where cars are not allowed and the parking problem is solved. Another issue is the current chaotic urban situation. All the participants desire more sun, air and greenery. They state that there are not enough semi-public and semi-private green spaces. Another common wish is for a nice, peaceful, middle density neighbourhood where they can feel safe and let their children play outside.
“I want to live in a neighbourhood with a friendly atmosphere where you would like to socialise with your neighbours” Some of the participants even express a clear opinion about the architectural look they image for a future redevelopment. Their proposal is for a middle size residential blocks development which they believe will suit the neighbourhood better than the existing houses. One of the interviewees who happens to be an architect suggests that the new image should express architecturally the image of the city centre and maybe imply some of the traditional architectural features of the capital. 6.4. Conclusion All participants of the research express the importance of the living environment and how big is its influence on their choice of a future home. The selected area possesses a lot of positive features as well as negative ones. Even though most of the interviewees appreciate the public amenities of the neighbourhood they are not satisfied with the current situation and hope for an upcoming redevelopment. They have already firm expectations about the future image of the neighbourhood.
73
Analysis of the people’s living preferences Summary of the results The main part of the graduation research was accomplished by conducting 10 interviews with preselected people. The research looked at the needs and expectations people have for their homes, how they use the space in their homes and what are their demands for a future home. The qualitative approach was selected in order to get insights and detail on the experiences of the Bulgarian city centre dweller. What people need and expect from their homes: • City centre as a residential environment All participants of the research expressed the opinion that the living environment has a big influence on their choice of a future home. Most of them were aware of the positive as well as the negative features of the researched area, but mainly because of the nice location and well developed public amenities they preferred it as a residential environment. Even though they were not satisfied with the current condition of the housing stock and hoped for an upcoming redevelopment. The interviewees had already clear wishes about the future image of the neighbourhood. One of the first was a pedestrian and bicycle friendly zone and a solution to the parking problem. Another really important desire was more sun, air and greenery in the sense of semi-public and semi-private green spaces. The common wish was for a nice, peaceful, middle density neighbourhood where they could feel safe and let their children play outside. • Large main living area for eating and socialising, either with members of the household or for entertaining guests Social activities such as eating and entertaining 74
were the foundation of the home and, for this reason, participants tended to have strong views about their main living space (which they would use for eating, relaxing, entertaining and sometimes cooking). All the participants stated that it was important to them to have a sense of space in the main living area. There were mixed preferences for open plan layout or separate kitchen and living room but most of the people wanted the area to be flexible in order to accommodate entertaining friends or family. Some of the interviewees preferred the area to be developed with progressive design ideas and most of them would like the main living space to be open to an outside. • Separate working space in quiet away from other members of the household Working space within the home made an important contribution to participants’ wellbeing. This was especially marked in bigger households like family with children. The reduction of noise both within and between households was essential for a sense of privacy. • Long-term and short-term storage for functional items, and for personal possessions Most participants stated they didn’t have enough storage space in their current place and that they needed more short-term storage (for day-to-day access of items like food or outdoor clothing), and more long-term storage (for seasonal items and items which they stored nostalgically). In particular, the long-term storage would be preferably a separate room. Privacy of storage space was also an important consideration: many participants felt that they had things they wanted to store yet access regularly, but which they wanted to keep private from visitors. Some of the interviewees even expressed their strong preferences on a walk-in closet instead just a wardrobe for their clothes.
• Dedicated space for domestic utility tasks Having suitable space to wash and dry clothing and bed linen was a widespread problem for participants in the interviews. Most of them stated they would like to have either a separate laundry room or a space in the storage room where they could place the washing machine. Almost all of the households preferred to dry their clothes and bed linen outside in the fresh air. Therefore they asked for a big enough outdoor space which can accommodate some domestic tasks. All participants explained they would be encouraged to recycle if there was a common garbage disposal space organized in or close to the residential block. • Importance of natural light and sustainability All participants in the research felt that it was important to them to have as much natural light as possible in their homes. Most of the interviewees preferred to have windows of a size that would balance between high daylight penetration and privacy. They would rather have larger than the standard windows in their main living space and normal size windows in the bedroom. Most of the participants were aware that sustainability is an important and relevant issue and of the beneficial advantages of a sustainable renovation. All of them had an association of new buildings being more energy efficient, and thus cheaper to maintain and more efficient to run. Therefore they demand their future homes to incorporate sustainable design features and to correspond to a certain energy efficiency level.
• Private outdoor space or access to communal green semi-private space All participants felt that the presence of an outdoor space, whether private (in the form of a balcony or terrace), or public, in the form of community space is really important for their wellbeing. Again all of them expressed a strong wish to have a private outdoor space. This outside space was seen as an important extension of the main social and living space of the home. For this reason participants wanted outdoor spaces that link to the main living area or kitchen and which would enlarge the main space. Most of the participants didn’t have any experience with sharing an outdoor space, but expressed a strong wish to try. The general idea was to use the space for socialising with the neighbours and to have a nearby green space where the children can play.
75
76
Policy goals
77
78
Policy goals In order to get insight into the urban development of the research neighbourhood its historical urban growth should be investigated. A short explanation of the main historical processes and the current ongoing initiatives will help understanding the present condition of the area. This chapter is trying to reveal the municipality policy goals and resident’s influence through the years. Therefore there are some questions to be answered: Who is responsible for the existing condition of the neighbourhood? What is the general municipality policy goal for the area? Who is responsible for a future redevelopment of the neighbourhood? These and some more questions are tried to be answered with the help of the expert’s interviews (Appendix 4) and literature study. Some of the information about the historical urban processes as well as some of the images are thanks to the interview with Dimitar L. Andreychin, Architect, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Architecture of the UACG. He has worked on one of the unrealized projects for the area as a member of the design team. The findings about the present municipally goals are based on the interview with the municipality architect who is responsible for this zone of the city centre. He has been regulating the urban and architectural changes of the researched area for the last 12 years.
79
Pic 15
80
1900 - 1920
After 2000
1920 - 1930
still in construction
1960 - 1970
Site location
Initial urban growth The research area is now in the boundaries of the city centre but this was not the case 100 years ago when its urban growth began. In the 20s of the last century the land was empty waiting for the city to expand. Just after the World War I Bulgaria lost some territories and a lot of Bulgarian citizens lost their residence[24]. There was an urgent housing need so the state had decided to give this area of the city to the refugees coming from the former Bulgarian territories and mostly the one coming from the west border (nowadays Macedonia). The land was divided in small plots. Everyone was given the right to built whatever he/she wanted according to their needs and financial resources. Therefore the size, the height and the architectural appearance of the buildings are so different. There are 4 storey high single family houses as well as one level high houses looking like garage building. The shortage of finance influenced entirely the urban organisation or practically the lack of it and the exterior image of the buildings. The constructions were mostly self-built without a particular knowledge of the building techniques which resulted in a poor quality. The cheap faรงade material, namely the plaster faรงade finish was hard and expensive to maintain. The small size of the plots and the ambition to host all the refugees created a chaotic urban development with cramped sidewalks and not enough semi-private or private greenery. The image of the neighbourhood as it was built then is still visible and is defining its present condition.
Pic 15 The drawing presents the current age of the buildings in the neighbourhood. The differents shades of grey show the approximate year of construction.
[24] arch Dimityr Tokov (municipality architect), interview taken on 14.05.2014
81
Pic 16
82
First urban planning In the beginning of the 19th century the well organized part of the city had reached 60 sq.km[25]. Next to this “core” a lot of unsystematic territories were built. The expansion of the city had taken threatening proportions. Some newly built neighbourhoods had arisen spontaneously and uncontrollably in an unhygienic way. The plots were so small that it was not possible to have a normal building development. The constructions in Sofia were following the law, which was containing standards and regulations only for the building itself, without having in mind a common urban concept. It was allowed to build multistory residential blocks just 3 meters away from the next
[25] [26] Sofia 127 years stolitza (Sofia capital for 127 years), Stolichna obshtina 2000-2014, (online), Available: http:// www.sofia.bg/history_content.asp (Accessed 23.05.2014), (in Bulgarian) Pic 16 On the picture is the first specially designed urban plan for the city of Sofia. The concept was developed by the wellknown European architect Adolf Mussman
building. The inhabitants of those buildings were deprived of sun and air for generations ahead. Therefore after almost a 20-year long period of construction building chaos the authorities became aware of the plight of the city. The mayor of that time had the ambition to establish order in the urban development of capital. The government embraced the idea of a law which was supposed to regulate the construction works and put to an end the indiscriminate urban growth of the city and which should have been based on a common urban planning strategy[26]. The task was assigned to the famous European architect Adolf Mussman who had already designed the urban plans of Stuttgart and Düsseldorf. Professor Mussman achieved in the short period of only 2 years to accomplish the given task. His urban planning which was of a really high quality was unfortunately foredoomed to not be enforced because of subsequent political interests. The “Mussman” city planning was dominant only between the years of 1938 to 1945. Even though it had a crucial impact on the whole urban development of the city and was used to evaluate future urban concepts. The “Mussman” urban plan was the first urban plan of the research city centre area. It turned all already constructed buildings into being “lawful”. 83
Pic 17 Site location Camera position View direction
Pic 18
84
Defining an urban axis
[27] [28] Sofia 127 years stolitza (Sofia capital for 127 years), Stolichna obshtina 2000-2014, (online), Available: http:// www.sofia.bg/history_content.asp (Accessed 23.05.2014), (in Bulgarian) Pic 17 A scheme of the city which illustrated how it is separated by the main communication track boulevard “Todor Alexandrov” Pic 18 An aerial view of the city centre where the main boulevard and the important buildings around it are highlighted
In 1947 the state organized a competition for reconstruction of the central urban area of the city[27]. As a result of this the first idea about creating an axis through the city “Largo” came. The detail design of the plan was approved in year 1961. This was the urban plan of the city that was legitimate for really long time till 2009. The city centre of Sofia suffered bomb attacks during the Second World War therefore it needed to be rebuilt. The idea to totally reconstruct the central part of the city was prompted by this need. Meanwhile the change of the political order brought some new foreign influences to the cultural and business life and created settings for another type of architectural creativity. The war had interfered the realization of the “Mussman” urban plan for the city. The organized competition didn’t announce a first and a second price, so the assignment was given to a special team formed by some of the honored participants. The designed plan introduced for the first time the idea of “the Largo” as a significant by size space which needed to be architecturally further developed to host the “home” of the Central committee of the party. The project was a result of a collective work which was under the strong and decisive Soviet influence[28]. The concept was extremely simple – a strongly highlighted east-west direction axis through the city which would be emphasized by an almost mirror symmetry of the facades of the public buildings situated in the centre of the city. The plan layout outcome had the typical ornament like impression of the ensembles of totalitarian societies. The architecture of the surrounding important public buildings was “late socialist eclecticism”. This public area was in a close proximity to the research area. The new boulevard reformed the boundaries of the neighbourhood. Some houses were destroyed and some plots were cleared awaiting the urban concept to turn into an architectural. 85
IDEAS FROM 1974
Pic 19
86
Unrealized policy ideas
[29] arch Dimityr Andreychin, professor at the University of Architecture Civil engineering and Geodesy, interview taken on 8.05.2014
Pic 19 A photo of the physical model of the unrealized urban concept from 1974
For almost 10 years between 1964 and 1974 a big team of urban planners, architects and economists had worked on a bold new urban concept for the city. A deep analysis of the structure of the population and its needs was included. Some predictions for the future spread of the city and the growth of the population due to immigration and economical development were made. The team was separated in three groups which were responsible for the three main topics – home, work, relax. One of the emphases was on the new image of the “Largo”, the public area in the middle of the new main boulevard crossing the city from east to west. The introduced concept was to build highrise office buildings along the city centre part of the boulevard in order to transform the area into a new modern business centre[29]. The research neighbourhood was also part of the plan. It would have changed its residential character. The site was chosen because of its good centre location and insignificant architectural value which made it perfect for transformation. The area next to the boulevard was supposed to be framed with skyscrapers which should have created a remarkable new cityscape. The plan was not realized either because of lack of finance or because it was too bold for the ruling authorities. This was the most major attempt for transformation of the area. There were some other smaller public competitions, but none of them was actually realized. An example is the detailed urban plan for a part of the area as a result of a public competition organized in 2001. The architects were searching a way to reduce the traffic of the main boulevard. Their suggestion was to shrink the width of the boulevard with 1/3 by transforming to rightmost lane into parking places. Not all of the results of these competitions were satisfying maybe this was the reason for the plan not to be approved. 87
residential commercial office
Pic 20
88
Private initiatives The current general urban plan of the city was approved in 2009. The team started working on it in 1999 and finished the first proposal in 2001, but due to an unexpected population growth and positive economical development influenced by foreign investments between the years 2001 and 2006, the plan kept on changing till 2009. The new urban plan changed the urban category of the researched area. Before it was an area meant only for residential purposes. The new category is called “central 1� which is the definition for the city centre districts[30]. This new zoning allows much more freedom for new constructions. The plan basically determines only the percentage of greenery on each and every plot and allows all types of constructions. The only rule the municipality has set is that every new building need to be defined by volume and urban studies before getting a building permit. Unfortunately there is still no detailed urban plan of the area therefore the currently valid plan is the one from 1961 which is more than 50 years old.
[30] OUP, General urban plan of Sofia, (online) Available: http://maps.sofproect.com/oup_sofia_cache/ (Accessed on 03.06.2014)
Pic 20 A perspective view of the urban plan proposal for the neighbourhoood done by an initiative resident
Private initiatives There was only one proposal for an alteration in the detailed urban plan of the neighbourhood in the last 12 years. It was initiated by one of the plot owners in the research area. The plan had suggested the construction of residential buildings with 6 floor levels which to be built as raw houses next to each other. Another feature was 12-storey high office buildings on the south situated plots next to the boulevard which should be able to block the noise coming from the busy traffic. The plan was introduced in the municipality without the prior written consent of all interested parties which in this case were all residents of the neighbourhood. One of the owners disliked the proposal and made an appeal against it. Consequently the whole initiative was renounced. 89
empty plot empty building
apartment building
single family house
auxiliary building
-1-2-
Pic 21
Silhouette street view -1-
Pic 22
90
Silhouette street view -2-
Current lack of municipality goals Currently only a few of the buildings in the neighbourhood are occupied, the others are either vacant or left to self-destruct and the rest of the plots are just empty. The owners are stuck in the same position for the last 20 years. They want a new development of the neighbourhood. Some of them are also ready to take the initiative. But the law allows private initiative only if it is supported by all residents. The question is then how can you unite everyone for a same concept and at the same time satisfy all preferences. This sounds like an almost impossible task for a single man! What about the authority of the municipality and all the state laws and regulations? The municipality representative states that the operational detailed urban plan of the area is 50year old and there isn’t any new concept for this neighbourhood[31]. Even though the area is part of the city centre and have the potential to turn into one of the best residential areas for middle-class citizens, its redevelopment is not on the priority list of the municipality. The claim is that there is not enough money assigned for it, but maybe the fact is that there is no interest or at least no interest for the moment.
[31] arch Dimityr Tokov (municipality architect), interview taken on 14.05.2014
Pic 21 A scheme of the neighbourhood showing the condition of the housing stock Pic 22 Silhouette of the neighbourhood from the north and from the east side
The ugly truth is evident in the bold statement of the architect who has been responsible for the destiny of the neighbourhood for the last 12 years:
“We don’t have any particular idea about the area, we’re totally uninterested. Therefore I encourage all private initiatives. The redevelopment of the neighbourhood is in the hands of its owners.” 91
Conclusions
92
Conclusions of the research The thesis research is focused on the characteristics of today’s housing market in Sofia, people’s living preferences and the municipality goals for the selected research area. Taking into account the analysis of the current housing market there is a clear demand for better quality new residential buildings with a good city centre location. Therefore a dense residential block located on the researched area would be a logical city asset. The existing housing stock situation not only allows but encourages neighbourhood redevelopment processes. The freedom that is given by the municipality policy for new constructions in the area is another factor which is in favour of a new residential building on this site. The municipality has been in an adverse financial situation in the last couple of years which has been their excuse for not developing rehabilitation strategies for the area. Therefore their current policy has been to allow and encourage private initiatives. This has been a stimulating reason for me as an architectural student and a resident of this neighbourhood to develop a proposal for an urban and architectural design which can set a standard for redevelopment of the whole area.
As a conclusion of the research the answer of this question seems really easy. The research findings show that the state doesn’t have a strict policy about the development of the city centre area of the capital which answers the first part of the question. The outcome is that the most important component in defining a residential design strategy for redevelopment is the people’s living preferences. The conducted interviews among my neighbours are the key point for the research. The preselected people who decided to take part in the research expressed needs and preferences for their future homes which can be logically translated into architectural elements and implemented in a residential design for the researched area. The goal of the graduation project is to develop a design which is focused on the needs and wishes of the people and is able to evoke a future redevelopment of the area. By investigating people’s living preferences I gained knowledge and gathered ideas for the future residential design which I started to develop parallel to the research.
In the beginning of the research process a main research question was determined:
How do policy goals and dweller’s preferences overlap? How this can be used as base to define a strategy for redevelopment of a neglected city centre neighbourhood?
93
Reflection on the design In the design I will try to incorporate the architectural and urban elements which were mentioned as important from the participants in the research and to develop some more features that will satisfy their wishes and add extra value to the design. For instance through the design I would like to promote collectivity or in other words a more communal way of living. Therefore the urban concept presents a closed block system with number of semi-private outdoor and indoor spaces where people are able to interact with each other. The design will also focus on diversity in the program as well as in the dwelling types in order to be able to satisfy the various wishes which were expressed by the people who were part of the interviews. Additionally a possible flexibility in the apartment layout will be searched so the future inhabitants can shape the space according to their current needs. By using the demands of the people as a starting point I will try to design a dense residential block with a set of different dwelling types where I will try to further develop the architectural elements that were asked by the people and to elaborate an image which would meet their expectations. This can be achieved by designing open spaces and creating visual connections between the interior spaces and between outside and inside. The implementation of unusual outside spaces and transition spaces between the public and the private will be used to enrich the design. Semi-private and collective spaces could be introduced as different elements like terraces, gardens, atriums or other interior and exterior spaces. The resident will be given the chance to pass through these transitional spaces which will present different atmosphere. By arranging spaces in a certain order I would like to provoke user’s experience and emotions so as to bring additional value and quality to the project and make it more vital. 94
Another feature of the design would be the presence of different types of collective spaces which can enhance different functions in the different times of the year or for special events. The collective interior and exterior spaces can be used both by children during the day for games, arts and hobbies and by the people from the building to meet with each other. A special feature of the design on an urban level would be a pedestrian and bicycle deck above the noisy polluted boulevard on the south border of the neighbourhood. The reason is to improve the climate and the atmosphere of the area and to transform it into a bicycle and pedestrian friendly green zone which was one of the most pointed desires of the people concerning the living environment. All mentioned possibilities could be incorporated in one or another way in the design both of the private and public spaces and their gradients. The right choice of approach will be decided in the design progress. The key role of the research is the gathered knowledge and inspiration for a further development of the design. In this way the research has become the basic part of the entire process of designing and serves as a base for taking decisions and setting starting points. As to link the results of the research with the design in a more understanding and direct way I develop a proposal for “Housing Design Guidelines”, which are the result of the translation of the people’s living preferences into architectural elements. Based on the guidelines an architectural brief is composed.
Housing Design Guidelines Housing Design Guidelines Design Guidelines 1.0 Shaping Good Places 1.1
Defining places The design should present: -how the building responds to its physical context - the character and legibility of the neighbourhood; - how the scheme relates to the neighbouring plots and how it can be translated to fit in the area and used as a strategy for future redevelopment; The design proposal should present: -how the scheme enrich the existing local network of public spaces, including how it integrates with existing streets and paths; -how public spaces and pedestrian routes are designed to be overlooked and safe; -how any new public spaces support and complete the design of the building.
1.2
Outdoor spaces The design proposal should present that the outdoor spaces comply with the borough's atmosphere and adds value to it by providing new pedestrian and bicycle friendly public and semi public spaces. The design proposal should include collective spaces as part of the semi public outdoor spaces in order to promote social cohesion between the residents. The design should provide communal open space which: - is not overlooked by surrounding development; - is connected to the public space; - is designed to take advantage of direct sunlight; - is green; - accommodates collective spaces.
2.0 Housing for a Diverse City 2.1
Appropriate density Development proposals should present how the density of residential accommodation is higher than the existing density.
2.2
Residential mix Design proposal should present how the mix of dwelling typologies and the mix of different profiled residents are appropriate to the city centre location.
3.0 From Street to Front Door 3.1
Entrance and approach All main entrances to communal entrance lobbies, shops and parking should be visible from the public realm and clearly identified and illuminated.
95
3.2
3.3
3.4 3.5
Shared circulation within buildings The number of dwellings accessed from a single core should not exceed four per floor. The main vertical connection cores should receive natural light and adequate ventilation. Car parking All developments should conform to Bulgarian policy on maximum car parking provision of 1.1 parking spaces per dwelling. The car parking should be organised indoors on a ground or underground level so it does not negatively affect the use and appearance of open spaces. Bicycle storage All developments should provide dedicated storage space for bicycles at the ground level directly connected to the communal entrance lobby. Refuse and recycling The design should provide communal refuse and recycling containers; communal bin enclosures and refuse stores should be accessible to all residents and located in the underground level.
4.0 Dwelling Space Standards 4.1 4.2
4.3 4.4 4.5
4.6
4.7
96
Diversity in floor plans Floor plans should present diversity in plan layout and size of the dwellings which should be able to satisfy a range of different households. Flexibility and adaptability Dwelling plans should demonstrate that dwelling types provide flexibility by allowing for alternative furniture arrangements in living areas and options for separating and transforming the space through rotating, sliding and foldable partition walls, furniture or doors. Living / dining / kitchen The main living area which includes living room kitchen and dining should be big enough so it can be divided at least in two independent rooms and be able to host guests. Bedrooms The minimum area of a single bedroom should be around 8 sq m. The minimum area of a double or twin bedroom should be around 12 sq m. Bathrooms and WCs Dwellings designed with two bedrooms provide a minimum of one bathroom with WC and one additional WC. Dwellings with more bedrooms should provide the corresponding number of bathrooms. Storage and utility Every dwelling should be provided with long-term and short-term storage space and a utility dedicated space. Depending on the size of the dwelling there should be at least one independent storage space and a separate utility room. Study and work Dwelling plans should demonstrate that all homes are provided with adequate space to work from home.
4.8
Private open space Every dwelling should have access to a private outdoor space. This space should be directly connected to the main living space.
5.0 Home as a Place of Retreat 5.1
5.2 5.3
Privacy Design proposals should demonstrate how habitable rooms within each dwelling are provided with an adequate level of privacy in relation to neighbouring property and the street and other public spaces. Dual aspect All the dwellings should have at least double orientation and single aspect north facing dwellings should be avoided. Daylight and sunlight All homes should provide for direct sunlight to enter at least one habitable room for part of the day. Living areas and kitchen dining spaces should preferably receive direct sunlight. The size of the windows should be a balance between high daylight penetration and privacy.
6.0 Sustainability 6.1 Environmental performance The building should be developed according to sustainable design principles and should reach a level of energy efficiency. 6.2 Heating The design proposal should incorporate low temperature heating system which can be controlled individually by the users. 6.3 6.4 6.5
Overheating Design proposal should present how the design of dwellings will avoid overheating during summer months. Water A system for rainwater harvesting and storage should be incorporated in the design which should ensure a lower consume of tap water per household. Materials The residential development should use sustainable materials with lower environmental impacts over their lifecycle and low-maintenance facade materials.
97
Architectural Brief Site Details
Sofia City centre Site location
The plot site is part of the city centre of Sofia, Bulgaria. The plot size is a bit more than 9ha with rectangular shape which has the dimensions of 65m by 140m. The plot is orientated with its short sites in north-south direction. The north direction is facing a nice street and a school on the opposite side. The south side is orientated toward a really busy boulevard, but also has a nice view to the mountain.
Outdoor Spaces The design should present a big semi-private outdoor space – a system of a closed block with inner courtyard. The courtyard should interact with the public spaces around the plot. A pedestrian deck over the busy boulevard needs to be introduced in order to block the noise and the pollution from the cars and to create a nice pedestrian and bicycle friendly zone for the whole area.
Occupants The new residential design should host all the current residents of this plot and be able to prove higher density in order to fit the standards of the city centre area. The design should be able to accommodate people of different ages, life stage and special needs.
98
Space Requirements and Relationships The building should have an underground parking level, ground/plinth level with shops, additional parking places and the entrances for the residential levels. It needs to contain at least 6 residential levels. The floor layout should present a variety of apartment types and big private outdoor spaces. These outdoor spaces should be directly connected to the main living space of the apartment. All the apartments should have a separate utility & storage space. Depending on the size of the apartment a separate working space needs to be included. The number of dwellings accessed from a single core should not exceed four per floor.
Design Objectives The apartments should be able to receive as much daylight as possible without interfering with the privacy of the dwellers. All the dwellings need to be at least double side orientated. The apartment layout should allow more open plan and flexibility in the main living space. The private outdoor space should be seen as an extension of the main living space.
Lifestyle The main living space should be big enough to host and entertain guests. The private outdoor spaces need to create a nice atmosphere where member of the household can relax, entertain their guests and spend some time together.
Environmental Sustainability The design should be developed according to sustainable design principles. The building should incorporate systems for storage and harvesting grey water, and efficient heating and cooling systems. The heating system can be based on the use of the nearby located hot water mineral spring. The cooling of the building should be achieved only by passive measures like outside sun-shading. The energy use needs to be minimized by the use of active solar energy systems like Photovoltaic cells and Solar Collectors placed on the roof. The design should use sustainable materials with lower environmental impacts over their lifecycle and low-maintenance facade materials. The material choice should be based on the local traditional construction and facade materials.
99
Bibliography
100
1. Atanas Kovachev, Gradoustrojstvo chast 2, (Urban planning part 2), Sofia, Pensoft publishers, 2003 (in Bulgarian) 2. Ivan Nikiforov, Istoriq na gradoustroistvoto (History of the urban planning), (Sofia, 2003), (in Bulgarian) 3. Arch Hristo Genchev, Sofia mislena v prostranstvoto i vremeto (Sofia conceived in space and time), Sofia, EĐĽĐ“ Foundation publishers, 2012 (in Bulgarian) 4. Paul A. Bell, Thomas Greene, Jeffrey Fisher and Andrew S. Baum: Environmental Psychology, Taylor & Francis, 2005 5. Janine Meesters: The meaning of activities in the dwelling and residential environment, A structural approach in people-environment relations, IOS Press BV, 2009 6. Irene Cieraad: At Home, An Anthropology of Domestic Space, Syracuse University Press, 1999 7. Julienne Hanson: Decoding Homes and Houses, Cambridge University press, 1998 8. Stephen Finlay, Isabella Pereira, Ella Fryer-Smith, Anne Charlton, Rebecca Roberts-Hughes, The way we live now: what people need and expect of their homes (Ipsos MORI & RIBA, London 2013) 9. Mladen Mitov, Pazarut na nedvijimi imoti (Real estate market), Yavlena realestate, PDF file, Sofia 2013 (in Bulgarian) 10. Valeri Leviev, Deyan Nikolov, Pazarut na jilishta v Bulgaria Q1 2014 (Housing market in Bulgaria Q1 2014), PDF file, Elta real estate consultants, Sofia 2014 (in Bulgarian) 11. Prebroyavane 2011, (Census 2011), (online), Available: www.nsi.bg/census2011 (Accessed 15.03.2014), (in Bulgarian) 12. Sofia 127 years stolitza (Sofia capital for 127 years), Stolichna obshtina 2000-2014, (online), Available: http://www.sofia.bg/history_content. asp (Accessed 23.05.2014), (in Bulgarian) 13. J. Gueron, D. Toteva, Ts. Kostova, Employment and unemployment - annual data 2013, National Statistical Institute, PDF file, Education and Science inc. Co. 101
Figures and pictures
102
Figures
Pictures
Fig 1. Source: own infographics based on Statistics given by Eurostat Fig 2. Source: own infographics based on data from the census in 2011 by National statistical institute Bulgaria Fig 3. Source: own bar chart based on data from the census in 2011 by National statistical institute Bulgaria Fig 4. Source: own donut chart information from Mladen Mitov, Yavlena realestate, analiz_Yavlena_Feb_2013, PDF file, Page 10 (in Bulgarian) Fig 5. Source: own donut chart information from Mladen Mitov, Yavlena realestate, analiz_Yavlena_Feb_2013, PDF file, Page 10 (in Bulgarian) Fig 6. Source: own donut chart information from Mladen Mitov, Yavlena realestate, analiz_Yavlena_Feb_2013, PDF file, Page 10 (in Bulgarian) Fig 7. Source: own donut chart information from Mladen Mitov, Yavlena realestate, analiz_Yavlena_Feb_2013, PDF file, Page 10 (in Bulgarian) Fig 8. Source: own linear chart based on data from the census in 2011 by National statistical institute Bulgaria Fig 9. Source: own bar chart based on data from the census in 2011 by National statistical institute Bulgaria Fig 10. Source: own bar chart based on data from the census in 2011 by National statistical institute Bulgaria Fig 11. Source: own linear chart based on data from the census in 2011 by National statistical institute Bulgaria
Pic 1. Empty plot on “Hristo Botev” street Source: own photo Pic 2. Dangerous self destroying building on “Strandja” street Source: own photo Pic 3. Vacant building in poor condition on “Otec Paisii” street Source: own photo Pic 4. Vacant building in poor condition on “Otec Paisii” street Source: own photo Pic 5. Overpopulated building on “Strandja” street Source: own photo Pic 6. Occupied building on “Otec Paisii” street Source: own photo Pic 7. Source: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread. php?p=115443332 Pic 8. Source: http://www.novini.bg/news/728- санирамепанелките-с-европари.html Pic 9. Source: http://www.vsekiden.com/151348 Pic 10. Source: http://fakti.bg/imoti/41134-18-opasni-sgradiv-5-raiona-na-sofia Pic 11. Layout of the most used pre-fab construction system Bs VIII Sf Source: http://forum.gtsofia.info/index.php?topic=2991.220 Pic 12. First Bulgarian large-scale panel building layout Source: Source: Atanas Kovachev, Gradoustrojstvo chast 2, (Urban planning part 2), Sofia, Pensoft publishers, (2003) Pic 13. Floor plan layout of a newly built residential blockSource: Archives of the architectural studio “Stroyconsult 999” Pic 14. Floor plan layout of a newly built residential block Source: Archives of the architectural studio “Stroyconsult 999” Pic 15. Source: own drawing Pic 16. Source: Personal archives of arch. Dimitur Andreychin Pic 17. Source: own scheme Pic 18. Source: https://www.google.nl/maps/place/ София,+България/@42.6988425,23.317445,689m/ data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x40aa8682cb317bf5:0x400a01269bf5e60?hl=bg Pic 19. A photo of the physical model of the unrealized urban concept from 1974 Source: Personal archives of arch. Dimitur Andreychin Pic 20. Source: own drawing Pic 21. Source: own drawing Pic 22. Source: own collage based on https://www.google.nl/ maps/@42.700865,23.3122871,3a,75y,274.59h,80.77t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sGeoUdIVbNnM3pa21dIE6yQ!2e0?hl=bg
-
Icons Attribution Book designed by Ben Rex Furneaux from the thenounproject.com Man designed by Piotrek Chuchla from the thenounproject.com Business Man designed by Piotrek Chuchla from the thenounproject.com Real Estate designed by Luis Prado from the thenounproject.com Goal designed by Matt Gray from the thenounproject.com
103
Appendices
104
Appendix 1. Invitation letter
Subject: Invitation for an intervie w Date: 22nd of April 2014 From: Tsveta Ruseva E-mail: tsveta.ruseva@gmail.com
Faculty of Architecture Explore Lab 18 Address: Julianalaan 134 2628BL Delft
Dear Madam/Sir, The city centre area of Sofia, the plac e where you are used to live is constan tly changing. You as citizens and your experience are the most important ingredients for a positive urban development. As to change your living environment in the way you wan t to you are invited to take part of a research on the housing preferences and dem ands of the people willing to live in the city cen tre of Sofia. The research is part of an architectural graduation thesis abo ut the User-centered design as a key for (re)development. The goal of the thes is is to propose an architectural des ign able to satisfy the needs and lifestyle of the city centre dweller in order to bring back the liveliness of a neglected city centre area in Sofia. Your home experience is of a great importance and value for the research topic. Therefore the research will try to gain information about the following: 1. What is most important for you whe n buying/renting a new home? 2. What are your expectations arou nd internal and external living spaces? 3. What are your expectations arou nd comfort/ security/ accessibility/ environmental performance within your home? 4. What are your expectations from the local area and its amenities? 5. What are your perceptions of new -build homes? 6. How would you feel the current mar ketplace for homes can be improve d? The interview will be divided in 4 sect ions. The questions want to accumul ate data about your previous and current dwe lling and living environment and exp ectations about a future home. The conclusions of the interview will be benefitial for the development of the residential des ign located in the city centre. The summary of the interview resu lts will be included in the research. All answers will be completely anonymous.
Sincerely,
Tsveta Ruseva graduation student in Architecture Technical University Delft
105
EXPLORE LAB 18
2014 Tsveta Ruseva 4257537