UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
STUDYING THE EFFECT OF ADAPTABLE MATERIALISATION ON LONG TERM URBAN DEVELOPMENT GOALS: A METHODOLOGY Pieter Herthogs, Vrije Universiteit Brussel & VITO, Belgium,
[email protected] Niels De Temmerman, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium,
[email protected] Yves De Weerdt, VITO, Belgium,
[email protected] Wim Debacker, VITO, Belgium,
[email protected] Abstract Sustainable urban development is increasingly studied within the framework of dynamic theories such as resilience, adaptation or transition – concepts based on the acknowledgement of an uncertain and changing future. However, the use of dynamic concepts in the development discourse is not reflected in the approaches used to materialise our urban environments – conventional approaches mostly lead to the creation of buildings, infrastructure and public spaces that are unable to accommodate changes over time. In order to study the effect of a more adaptable built environment on long term urban development goals, there is a need for methodologies linking dynamic theories on the urban level to concepts of adaptable materialisation. Using complexity theory as a theoretical framework, we have developed such a methodology: the Lab for Urban Fragment Futures. This paper discusses the aim to balance theory and practice, illustrates the methodology based on an urban regeneration project for a social housing estate in Mechelen (Belgium), and discusses its potential use and merits. In essence, the methodology is a design charrette. The goal is to ‘refurbish’ an existing urban development project and adaptable variants of that same project, based on a hypothetical future scenario. Afterwards, the refurbishments of the existing project and its variants are evaluated in terms of their long term sustainable development goals. The development of the methodological framework and resulting theories is an iterative process, evolving case by case (similar to a grounded theory approach). On a theoretical research level, the Lab could be useful to explore the benefits and drawbacks of adaptability on the neighbourhood level, to formulate theory, to create preliminary tools and guidelines, and to explore if there are planning principles to optimise the distribution of adaptable capacity in an urban fragment. At the same time, it could function as a decision support platform for policy makers, designers and other stakeholders of urban projects by demonstrating the importance of adaptable materialisation in supporting longterm sustainability goals. The next stage in the development of the Lab for Urban Fragment Futures is testing the methodology in practice, which will be done in an ongoing redevelopment project in the city of Turnhout, Belgium. The results and experiences of the test case will then be used to explore and assess the methodology’s strength in terms of verifying hypothesis about urban fragment adaptability. Keywords: adaptability, complexity, urban fragment, design charrette, design scenario.
INTRODUCTION Sustainable urban development is increasingly studied within the framework of dynamic theories such as resilience, adaptation or transition – concepts based on the acknowledgement of an uncertain and changing future. For example, transition based approaches are gaining momentum in research and governance, particularly in the Netherlands and the UK (Shove and Walker 2007), and in the Belgian region of Flanders, the concept of transition has become embedded in sustainable urban development policy (Block and Paredis 2012). This shift in theory could be understood as part of a larger evolution towards the acknowledgement of the world as a complex, dynamic system (du Plessis and Cole 2011). Mitchell (2009, p. 13) defines a complex system as ‘a system in which large networks of components with no central control and simple rules of operation give rise to complex collective behaviour, sophisticated information processing, and adaptation
997
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
via learning or evolution’. This adaptation leads to a complex system’s most vital characteristic: the fact that it can maintain ‘coherence under change’ (Holland 1995, p. 4). City systems are inherently complex and dynamic: they bring together a vast amount people with diverse and interdependent needs, desires and skills. As a result, they are too complex to be controlled or planned centrally; instead, they should be developed from the ground up (Batty 2005). Neighbourhoods are generally perceived as being the most basic units of urban development (ibid.), which makes it important to understand how they function. Because ‘neighbourhood’ is a contested term, with different meanings in different fields of study, we have introduced the term ‘urban fragment’. Urban fragments are combinations of physical and social systems that together form the most basic organised systems of cities and urban development; they represent the mesoscale of the city, and are the link between individual elements of the physical built environment and the city system in its entirety. Seeing cities as dynamic, complex systems has resulted in new theories for urban development that explicitly focus on change and uncertainty. However, approaches to apply such dynamic theories to the materialisation of our environments appear to be less common. This is the case from spatial planning to building design. Roggema (2012, p. 29) describes how important international conferences and publications on climate adaptation and resilience hardly mention spatial planning and design. In our built environment, conventional buildings are often unable to accommodate changes over time (Slaughter 2001). When building requirements change, they are abandoned by its users, partially demolished and renovated, or destroyed and replaced. It is not economic or resource efficient to design and build facilities that become obsolete before their expected lifespan is reached (Slaughter 2001). These are not efficient forms of adaptation – this is not ‘coherence under change’. On the scale of the building, research often focuses on the benefits of individual adaptable buildings, such as decreased demolition waste production, lower maintenance costs or increased user control. But would these adaptable buildings also introduce benefits on the urban scale, at the system level? Can they support an urban fragment’s capacity to maintain sustainable under change? In order to study the effect of a more adaptable built environment on long term urban development goals, there is a need for methodologies linking dynamic theories on the urban level to concepts of adaptable materialisation. We have developed such a methodology, the ‘Lab for Urban Fragment Futures’, and illustrate it in this paper using an urban regeneration project. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the methodological process and discuss the underlying ideas of the concept, not to showcase actual results. The first section discusses how the methodology aims to address concerns on both a theoretical and a practical level. The second session is a brief overview of the methodology, its components and structure, before going over to the third section illustrating the Lab for Urban Fragment Futures, based on the Mahatma Gandhi neighbourhood redevelopment in Mechelen, Belgium. Finally, the discussion shows how the methodology addresses the requirements and concerns raised at the beginning of the paper and describes future work.
A METHODOLOGY BALANCING THEORY AND PRACTICE This section discusses why a methodology to study adaptable materialisation at the urban fragment scale should be grounded in both theory and practice. On the one hand, the topic itself is inherently theoretical. The topic’s subject - buildings and infrastructure that have been purposefully designed for change – is not commonly applied in real life. Although such buildings are no longer considered unusual (Kendall 2011), they are not yet conventional, especially when considering the scale of a neighbourhood. The theoretical framework is complexity theory. Because complexity is a relatively recent field of study, there are many uncertainties about theories and methods, and because of the non-reductionist and non-linear characteristics of complex systems, it is difficult to do quantitative studies (Herthogs et al. 2012).
998
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
Because both the subject and the framework are emerging fields of research, the methodology should be able to contribute to the postulation and verification of theoretical hypothesis regarding adaptable materialisation and urban change. On the other hand, there is an increasing demand to put theory into practice. In Flanders, the idea that buildings can and should be designed for future change is gaining ground and is starting to feature in vision and policy documents of governments, government institutions and cities. For example, the Public Waste Agency of Flanders (OVAM) has put the need for ‘dynamic and flexible construction and renovation’ centrestage in its recently proposed policy programme (Materiaalbewust bouwen in kringlopen 2013), and a study for the Agency for Domestic Governance on the policy challenges and threats cities could face when implementing adaptable and multi-purpose buildings and infrastructure (IDEA consult 2012) show that cities are ready to explore the concept. It is likely that this increased interest in adaptability on the building level will result in an increased need to effectively implement adaptability on the urban level. These reports and policy documents also show that the first concern of policy makers is guidelines and evaluation tools, and a preference for predictable planning actions and quantification. The next section gives an overview of the Lab for Urban Fragment Futures, the methodology we developed to study the effect of adaptable materialisation at the urban level. Its aim is to compare different theoretical hypotheses regarding the distribution of adaptable capacity in an urban fragment within the framework of a participatory design exercise exploring urban change in an existing urban development project.
AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE ‘LAB FOR URBAN FRAGMENT FUTURES’ The ‘Lab for Urban Fragment Futures’ (LUFF, or the ‘Lab’) is a guided participatory design exercise. The goal is to ‘refurbish’ an existing urban development project and adaptable variants of that same project, based on a hypothetical future scenario. Afterwards, the refurbishments of the existing project and its variants are evaluated in terms of their long term sustainable development goals - in essence a resilience test. An overview of the methodology, its components and structure is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Structure of the 6 steps in the Lab for Urban Fragment Futures methodology.
999
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
The basic concept of the methodology will now be illustrated based on an urban regeneration project for the Mahatma Gandhi neighbourhood in Mechelen, Belgium. The case selected for this illustration is the regeneration project of the Mahatma Gandhi neighbourhood in the city of Mechelen. It is a typical post-war social housing estate for about 3000 inhabitants (Paduart et al. 2013), mostly consisting of terraced housing units and medium rise housing blocks (see Figure 2). The buildings and public space will be refurbished over a period of several years. The highlights of the master plan shown in Figure 3 are new housing blocks on the south edge, the resizing of roads and parking, and the improvement of green space (Omgeving cvba 2010). This illustration focuses on the first phase of Gandhi neighbourhood redevelopment, situated to the north. The aim of this paper is to explain the methodological process, not to generate correct or representative data and results – the examples used to describe each step are deliberately straightforward. This illustration has been developed to explain the methodology to potential partners in participative cases and researchers. Therefore, it is not based on such a participative process. This illustration in no way aims to reflect any particular visions of those involved in the actual project. Unless otherwise indicated, the only source used for this illustration is the final report of the town planning study done by design firm ‘Omgeving’ for the social housing cooperation ‘Woonpunt Mechelen’ (Omgeving cvba 2010). In case of missing data (like amounts and sizes of apartment types), estimates and assumptions were used.
Figure 2: The current Mahatma Gandhi neighbourhood is a typical post-war social housing estate (Source: Omgeving cvba 2010).
1000
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 3: The highlights of the master plan are new housing blocks on the south edge, the resizing of roads and parking, and the improvement of green space (Source: Omgeving cvba 2010). Analysing an urban development project using the Lab for Urban Fragment Futures is a multi-stepped process, with workshops and preparatory research work. A flowchart of the methodology is shown in figure 4 below. These six steps structure the description of the methodology below. In this description, the researchers are experts in urban adaptability (i.e. the authors of this paper) and the project participants are a selection of key stakeholders in the urban development process (e.g. city officials, developer, designers, experts, neighbourhood representatives, inhabitants …).
1001
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 4: The flowchart of the Lab for Urban Fragments methodology shows how each of its six steps is interrelated, and which steps are participative. Step 1: determining long term development goals In the first meeting, researchers and project participants discuss the project’s long term development vision and goals, and the participants select what they consider to be the key goals. As the Lab is used to study the effects of adaptable materialisation, the goals need to be related to the built environment. In case of the Gandhi master plan, two long term goals fit this requirement: maintaining an increased social cohesion and avoiding future parking space problems. According to the master plan, increasing and maintaining social cohesion will be achieved by increasing the amount of different housing and apartment types, both now and in the future. In other words, the master plan directly substitutes an immaterial goal (social cohesion) for a building specification (housing type diversity). Verifying whether there is a causal link between housing diversity and cohesion is beyond the scope of the Lab; housing type diversity is the first long term goal that will be studied.
1002
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
One of the basic concepts of the master plan is to stimulate multi-modal mobility. The plan significantly reduces the amount of car-based infrastructure, especially the amount of on-site roadside parking space, in order to improve the public space for pedestrians and cyclists, and to reduce the fragmentation of green spaces (Omgeving cvba 2010, p. 51). Nevertheless, drastic changes in mobility could result in parking problems. For, example, the introduction of commercial functions could increase the need for (car) parking, or the stimulation of cycling could result in an increased need for bicycle parking. Studying if and how such evolutions could be supported increases our understanding of the resilience of parking solutions. Suitable parking infrastructure is the second long term goal that will be studied.
Figure 5: Plan and partial rendering of first phase of the master plan. Type 1 buildings are family apartments with garage boxes (yellow), type 2 are single bedroom flats, type 3 are one family terraced houses with an adjacent garage (green): all these types will be or have been refurbished. The type 4 buildings are multi-storey apartment blocks to be constructed at either end of the type 3 streets. (Adapted from Omgeving cvba 2010).. Step 2: developing adaptable variants of the project The Lab for Urban Fragment Futures compares how well a business-as-usual urban project and more adaptable variants of the same projects respond to changes. These adaptable variants of the existing urban development project are developed by the researchers. The idea is to change the ‘adaptable capacity’ (AC) of buildings and infrastructure. Adaptable capacity is a measure of the adaptability of the materialisation – in case of buildings, for example, it covers a range of concepts such as multi-purpose buildings, support and infill, moveable or demountable walls, etcetera. Only the AC of buildings, infrastructure or other materialised components is changed; no changes are made to the overall design scheme of the master plan, intended functions or spatial layout. Each variant is based on a different hypothesis or theoretical principle to distribute AC throughout the site. The first variant of the Gandhi project distributes a low AC evenly on the site. The terraced houses (Figure 5, type 3, in green) are refurbished in such a way as to make it easier to turn the adjacent garage into a functional space for people. This could be done by improving insulation, providing options to swap the garage door with wall and window panels, and installing more multi-purpose water and electricity ducts. Each of the 126 housing units of this type can now increase its number of living spaces by one, but only at the expense of a covered space for parking.
1003
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
The second variant introduces high AC at the street corners. The new multi-storey buildings at the ends of the terraced housing rows (Figure 5, type 4) will now be designed using a support and infill approach. They allow a wide range of possible changes, some of which include introducing covered parking spaces, but there are only 21 units.
Figure 6: In variant 1 (left), the garages of the terraced houses would be more adaptable, while in variant 2 (right), the new multi-storey buildings use a support and infill approach. Adaptable variants correspond to a hypothesis of AC distribution. The Lab for Urban Fragment Futures can be used to compare different adaptable variants, based on the performance of the hypothesis under change (step 4 and 6 of the methodology). The factor of comparison is efficiency: what kind of AC levels are required at which locations on the site in order to maximally support the long term goals determined in step 1? Although the examples described here are (deliberately) simplistic, other distribution principles could use more complicated or complex parameters, such as levels of control (Habraken and Teicher 1998) or network complexity measures (e.g. Hao and Xin 2010, as described in Roggema 2012, p. 137). Step 3: developing a sub-model and generating a changed design programme During a participative workshop, project participants and researchers work together to develop a sub-model for change scenario’s and use it to generate a new design programme for the urban development project. In the next step, this hypothetical ‘future programme’ or scenario will be used to refurbish the existing master plan. The aim of the methodology is to study the effect of adaptable materialisation on change. In the Lab, this change acts on a partial programme of requirements for the Gandhi project. We developed the concept of a ‘sub-model’ as a framework to generate a changed programme of requirements in a controlled and parametric way. The sub-model links different parameters and requirements related to the long term goals of the Gandhi redevelopment project (determined in step 1). Researchers and participants develop the sub-model together, starting from a demo model created by the researchers. The sub-model displayed in figure 7 links different parameters related to housing diversity and car and bicycle parking infrastructure. The first parameter is the number of households that can live in the neighbourhood, the next determines household requirements for bedrooms and living rooms, finally resulting in a demand for certain housing types (in the model, housing types are considered equal to the amount of spaces for sleeping and living). Two more parameters, the number of adults and children per bedroom, determine the amount of inhabitants. Multiplying this by the car and bicycle ownership rate gives us a total required amount of car and bicycle parking.
1004
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 7: The sub-model for the Gandhi neighbourhood links parameters related to housing diversity and parking. The green boxes indicate which type of change is applied to each parameter. The resulting shift in parameter values is listed under each parameter. The sub-model is then used to generate a new programme of requirements for the Gandhi neighbourhood. During the workshop, the change is determined by the project participants per parameter or cluster of parameters. The researchers guide the process by demonstrating how each parameter relates to the projects long term goals, and show relevant references (e.g. expected demographic evolutions). Participants decide on values for the programme of requirements: first, they decide desired or expected values for the project as if it were to exist today; second, they decide or generate new values for that project in a future time. Most parameters in the sub-model are distributions: for example, in the Gandhi neighbourhood, 19% of households need 1 bedroom, 66% needs 2, 11% needs 3, etcetera. These distributions can change, new options can emerge, or existing options can go extinct. We have defined three types of change: normative change is predetermined or chosen based on goals, forecasts or other methods (e.g. the number of households in a neighbourhood must stay the same); normative-random change is a random shift in a distribution, but within a normative minimum-maximum range (e.g. maximum 10% distribution change), making it possible to define slow or fast changing distributions, or distributions that are more or less likely to change; finally, random change shifts the distribution without any limitations. In Figure 7, the type of change selected for each parameter is listed in a green box, and the resulting value or distribution shift is listed underneath.
1005
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
Figure 8: The generated shift in the programme of requirements shows the combined effect of changing individual parameters. The shift in the programme of requirements, shown in Figure 8, is generated by inserting the values for individual parameters into the sub-model. Cumulative or concurrent changes can lead to compounded requirement shifts: for example, the 15% increase in bike ownership together with an increase in household size actually results in a 46% increase of the bicycle parking need. It is possible to cater the sub-model to the needs and requirements of the project participants. For example, an urban development project that aspires to transition towards a certain sustainability vision could normatively favour solutions that support this vision and will maximise the emergence of new solutions. A project focussing on climate adaptation could select the changes that result in a worst case scenario. Step 4: refurbishing the project in a ‘redesign charrette’ Step 4 is the crucial step of the Lab for Urban Fragment Futures. The participants are asked to ‘refurbish’ the Gandhi neighbourhood, adapting the built environment as envisaged by the master plan to a changed programme of requirements generated in step 3. In essence, this step is a design charrette: ‘a time-limited, multiparty design event organised to generate a collaborative produced plan for a sustainable community’ (Condon cited in Roggema 2014, p. 16). The fact that participants are adapting an existing design to a set of determined requirements instead of co-creating a new vision and plan for a sustainable urban project is stressed by referring to this step as a ‘redesign charrette’ instead. The goal of the redesign charrette is to implement the changed programme of requirements. In case of the Gandhi example this implies adapting or adding housing units and bicycle parking infrastructure. Participants keep track of the amount and scale of the interventions needed to adapt the project. Both the existing project and its adaptable variants are ‘refurbished’ in this way, either starting by redesigning the existing and trying to apply the same solution to the adaptable, or vice versa. Step 5: assessing the adaptable capacity in the existing project and its variants The last two steps in the Lab for Urban Fragment Futures methodology evaluate the results of the redesign charrette. In step 6, the researchers evaluate the effectiveness of the existing project and its adaptable variants in terms of supporting their long term development goals. In order to do this, the adaptable capacity of buildings and infrastructure used in the existing project, its variants and the different redesigns needs to be determined.
1006
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
The type of adaptability assessment to be used depends on the type of project and the types of materialisation that needs to be assessed. For a participatory exercise, the adaptability assessment methods need to be straightforward. Some examples we have (co-)developed are a set of multi-criteria analysis tools for the material, building and urban infrastructure level (Paduart et al. 2013), a tool to evaluate the generality and adaptability of a building plan’s spatial configuration (Herthogs et al. 2013), and a verification diagram to assess the entanglement of building components with different life-spans (Osman et al. 2011). Step 6: evaluating the ‘resilience’ of the existing project and its variants The final step evaluates how well the existing project and its adaptable variants can stay ‘coherent under change’, expressed in terms of the effort needed to adapt them to fit the new programme of requirements. Depending on the type of project, the available data and the interest of the project partners, the evaluation can be qualitative, quantitative, or a combination. In case of the Gandhi illustration, the two important benchmarks are how well the neighbourhood can be adapted to a spike in bicycle popularity, and to what extent it can support the diversification of housing (or household) types. The results of this evaluation should be interpreted as cases that explore particular hypotheses and minimum requirements for adaptable capacity in urban fragments. How much of the projects needed to be refurbished to meet the new requirements? How extensive was this refurbishment? Was it easier to redesign a particular adaptable variant? How much of the new requirements could not be met, and need to be solved in adjacent or larger scale systems? DISCUSSION The Lab for Urban Fragment Futures is a methodology which aims to allow the formulation and evaluation of theory while it is being used in practice. It is similar to a grounded theory approach, in the sense that the methodology itself, the hypotheses it explores (the adaptable variants), its assessment methods and evaluation tools can evolve with every iteration. The Lab can iterate in three different ways: it can be used to analyse different urban development projects; it can be used to generate different sub-models and programmes of requirements; and it can be used to test different adaptable variants. It is important to stress that the Lab is a framework to study adaptation, not change. The methodology can’t be used to predict future change – in fact, it is completely independent of the kind of change an urban fragment needs to adapt to. The final results will never be useful as predictions or estimates, but they can increase our understanding of urban level adaptability, and could serve as illustrations and verifications of hypothesis and principles. On a theoretical research level, the Lab could be useful to explore the benefits and drawbacks of adaptability on the neighbourhood level, to formulate theory, to create preliminary tools and guidelines, and to explore if there are planning principles to optimise the distribution of adaptable capacity in an urban fragment. At the same time, it could serve as a decision support exercise for people in practice, such as policy makers, designers and other stakeholders of urban projects. The exercise could explain the impact of change on sustainable urban projects, demonstrate the importance of adaptable materialisation in reaching long-term sustainability goals, and identify opportunities for more deterministic analysis of particular problems that were encountered. Du Plessis and Cole (2011) describe how a flexible and reflexive participative approach, where researchers are not experts, but co-learners, is particularly suited to study in a holistic, uncertain paradigm or world view. We think our methodology fits that description. Nevertheless, part of finding a balance between theory and practice is the ability to bring both closer together. An inherently uncertain worldview might be acceptable for fundamental theory, but it is a concept many – including the future participants in our charrettes – will find hard to grasp. It seems to contradict the basic human tendency to continuously predict the future; a tendency which can’t be excluded artificially (Sela 2013). A completely ‘prediction free’ urban planning approach might just be incompatible with practice. The Lab’s use of sub-models could serve as a hybrid. A sub-model with unexpected accumulation effects in the end might be a good way to demonstrate to the participants how a complex urban system works, and how
1007
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
different aspects are interconnected, while still allowing them to apply determinism and prediction to individual parameters. In practice, the act of making or deciding on predictions and designing for change might prove to be an important stepping stone to actually building adaptable buildings.
FUTURE WORK The next stage in the development of the Lab for Urban Fragment Futures is testing the methodology in practice. We will do this together with the project partners (city and developer) of an ongoing urban redevelopment project in the city of Turnhout, Belgium, where a part of the old industrial area next to the railroad station is being turned into an urban fragment focussing on sustainable housing and innovative healthcare solutions. The LUFF test-case will take place within the framework of a consultancy study aimed at setting up transition experiments to act as catalysts for innovation. The results and experiences of the test case will then be used to explore and assess the methodology’s strength in terms of verifying hypothesis about urban fragment adaptability.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research is funded by VITO, the Flemish Institute for Technological Research.
REFERENCES Batty, M., 2005. Cities and complexity: Understanding cities with cellular automata,AgentBased Models, and Fractals, The MIT press, Cambridge, Massachusetts & London, England. Block, T & Paredis, E., 2012. ‘De Januskop van duurzaamheid in Vlaamse steden en van het gangbare transitiedenken’, Presented at the ViA-rondetafel “Naar een duurzame en creatieve stad,” Brussels, Belgium. du Plessis, C & Cole, RJ., 2011. ‘Motivating change: shifting the paradigm’, Building Research & Information, vol. 39, pp. 436–449. Habraken, NJ & Teicher, J., 1998. Structure of the ordinary: form and control in the built environment, MIT Press, Cambridge MA. Herthogs, P, De Temmerman, N & De Weerdt, Y., 2013. ‘Assessing the generality and adaptability of building layouts using justified plan graphs and weighted graphs: a proof of concept’, in: CESB13 - Central Europe towards Sustainable Building, Grada Publishing for Faculty of Civil Engineering, Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic, p. 992. Herthogs, P, De Temmerman, N, De Weerdt, Y & Debacker, W., 2012. ‘Links between adaptable building and adaptive urban environments: a theoretical framework’, Proceedings of the CIB Conference on Smart and Sustainable Built Environments, Funcamp: Campinas, Brazil, São Paulo, Brazil. Holland, JH., 1995. Hidden order: how adaptation builds complexity, Helix books. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. IDEA consult, 2012. Aanpasbare, combineerbare en multi-inzetbare infrastructuur in centrumsteden: uitdagingen en knelpunten voor het beleid (Eindrapport), Agentschap voor Binnenlands Bestuur, Team Stedenbeleid, Brussel. Kendall, S., 2011. ‘New challenges for the open building movement: Architecture in the fourth dimension’, in MD Gibson & S Kendall (Eds.), Architecture in the Fourth Dimension: Methods and Practices for a Sustainable Building Stock, Proceedings of the Joint Conference of CIB W104 and W110, 15-17 November 2011, Boston, USA. Ball State University, Muncie, USA
1008
UIA2014 DURBAN Architecture OTHERWHERE
CIB W104 OPEN BUILDING IMPLEMENTATION
Materiaalbewust bouwen in kringlopen. 2013. Preventieprogramma duurzaam materialenbeheer in de bouwsector 2014-2020, (No. D/2013/5024/31), OVAM, Mechelen. Mitchell, M., 2009. Complexity: a guided tour, Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York. Omgeving cvba, 2010. Mahatma Gandhiwijk Mechelen: stedenbouwkundige studie, De Mechelse Goedkope Woning, Mechelen. Osman, A, Herthogs, P, Sebake, N, Gottsman, D & Davey, C., 2011. ‘An adaptability assessment tool (AAT) for sustainable building transformation: towards an alternative approach to residential architecture in South Africa’, in MD Gibson & S Kendall (Eds.), Architecture in the Fourth Dimension: Methods and Practices for a Sustainable Building Stock, Proceedings of the Joint Conference of CIB W104 and W110, 15-17 November 2011, Boston, USA. Ball State University, Muncie, USA, pp. 83–91. Paduart, A, De Temmerman, N, Trigaux, D, De Troyer, F, Debacker, W & Danschutter, S., 2013. ‘Casestudy ontwerp van gebouwen in functie van aanpasbaarheid: Mahatma Gandhiwijk Mechelen (No. D/2013/5024/27)’, OVAM, Mechelen. Roggema, R., 2012. ‘Swarm planning: The development of a planning methodology to deal with climate adaptation’, Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft; Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen. Roggema, R., 2014. The design charrette: ways to envision sustainable futures, Springer, Netherlands. Sela, R., 2013. ‘Global scale predictions of cities in urban and in cognitive planning’, Presented at Complexity, Cognition, Urban Planning and Design, TU-Delft, Delft, The Netherlands. Shove, E & Walker, G., 2007. ‘CAUTION! Transitions ahead: politics, practice, and sustainable transition management’, Environment and Planning A, no. 39, pp. 763–770. Slaughter, ES., 2001. ‘Design strategies to increase building flexibility’, Building Research & Information, no. 29, pp. 208–217.
1009
