undertaken to evaluate typical low-income housing projects in the ... has been the largest producer of public housing in the State of São Paulo since 1986, when ...
CREATING AN AXIOMATIC EVALUATION METHOD FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING IN THE STATE OF SÃO PAULO, BRAZIL Doris C.C.K. Kowaltowski, Silvia A. Mikami G. Pina, Regina C. Ruschel, Vanessa Gomes Silva, Lucila C. Labaki and Daniel de Carvalho Moreira Department of Architecture and Building, School of Civil Engineering, State University of Campinas, UNICAMP CP 6021, 13084-971, Campinas, SP, Brazil
ABSTRACT: This paper presents a research project which proposes to develop a systematic evaluation method for typical housing projects built in the State of São Paulo by CDHU, the State funded housing agency. The main goal in introducing systematic design evaluation into the housing design process is the importance of inclusion of a large number of qualitative design issues into the decision making process and the questioning of existing standardized solutions adopted by most housing agencies in Brazil. INTRODUCTION This paper presents a research project1 undertaken to evaluate typical low-income housing projects in the State of São Paulo, Brazil, with a view to improve future designs. The principal aim of this study is the development of a design evaluation method. This method should enable designers to foresee and initiate discussions on the quality of housing designs. Quality in housing design is seen here as having two fronts: the physical-environmental impact of large construction projects and the quality of life such housing developments can provide their users. Thus sustainability and quality of life indicators should permeate evaluation methods of housing projects. The hypothesis that underlies this research project is that, already at the site planning stage, a large number of environmental factors are defined which may interfere in the quality of the future users’ life and have positive or negative sustainability impacts. A principal aim of this study is to create a systematic means of evaluating housing projects in the State of São Paulo, Brazil and especially in the region of the City of Campinas. Through systematic evaluation, research based design concepts are hoped to find their way into the design process. Today typical public housing projects are based on the large-scale repetition of standard building types on gridiron street patterns. These housing projects need in-depth discussion to diminish the risk of repeating a criticized model. PUBLIC HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN THE STATE OF SÃO PAULO Housing projects of the housing authority called CDHU (Companhia de Desenvolvimento Habitacional e Urbano do Estado de São Paulo) are chosen as models to develop the evaluation method. This company has been the largest producer of public housing in the State of São Paulo since 1986, when Brazil stopped its national housing program. The company’s projects are based on similar design principals for similar population strata. Many projects are located in smaller cities and thus not especially influenced by large urban conglomerations such as the city of São Paulo. The design criteria, which prevail in the company’s model, are based on repetition and symmetry. Few qualitative concepts associated to the humanization of architecture, as found in the literature of the last forty years, are incorporated into Brazilian housing developments (LYNCH, 1960; JACOBS, 1961; ALEXANDER et al., 1977; KOWALTOWSKI, 1980). 1
This Project is supported by a grant from FINEP, the Brazilian funding agency for technology and scientific development.
Descriptions of typical housing estates, found in Brazil, include elements of a dehumanized architecture. These elements are monumentality, high-density occupation, lack of landscaping and aesthetics with an overuse of man-made objects and over-concern of security as opposed to safety. Monotony in space, color and detailing are further common architectural elements. The ingredients of dehumanization are also the lack of specific care in design and lack of maintenance of buildings. Users, as well, express low satisfaction with regard to emotional and perceptual needs and general environmental conditions. This scenario corresponds to characteristics of “Pruit Igoe”, the housing project condemned through implosion some thirty years ago in Saint Louis. All the elements described above are criticized in the literature on housing, but are still present in many current developments. In the State of São Paulo most housing developments are based on standardized building types, apartment buildings of four to seven floors, and small single-family residential units, on narrow, individual lots. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate such housing estates with apartment buildings; where the four-story typology is mainly used on flat lots, and the seven-story buildings are usually sited on steep lots, with entrances on the third level.
Figure 1 - Standardized four-story typology, mainly used on flat lots.
Figure 2 - Standardized seven-story typology, mainly used on steep lots. Entrance is located on the third level.
Usually, housing estates do not include the complete urban infrastructure expected in adequate neighborhood design. Thus users act on their own in providing for fences, garages and other necessary elements which help to create a community spirit and territorial definition. Figure 3 shows two examples of such initiatives.
Figure 3 – Examples of users’ action in providing for elements which help to create a community spirit and territorial definition.
Public land in these settlements can be described as no-man’s land, underused. A general aspect of abandon is prevalent, as shown in Figure 4. On the whole, most housing developments in the interior of the State of São Paulo have a fairly low density; the remaining open space is however poorly used and does not contribute to overall quality improvement.
Figure 4 - A general aspect of abandon is prevalent in public land, poorly used and not explored to contribute to overall quality improvement.
Regarding the single family dwellings typology, the ownership condition starts a process of rapid transformation of the residential unit (Figure 5). Functional area is increased, garages are built and lots are walled (Figure 6), so that the resultant constructions have little resemblance to the original houses. These transformations break the typical monotonous repetition of standard units, but cause waste of public investment. The transformation of houses in public projects has been extensively studied mainly through Post Occupation Evaluations (POE), which have demonstrated that the main reason is related to insufficient functional space, and designs based on flawed architectural programs (KOWALTOWSKI & PINA, 1995; TIPPLE, 2000). The descriptions above and the large scale transformations of houses indicate the need to rethink the design process of such developments. In the first place, housing typologies must be evaluated by users through extensive POE studies and effectively provide feedback for the design. Through POE studies repetition of errors can be avoided and environmental qualities can be improved in new designs. On the
urban scale, the design phase needs new input and systematic analysis to avoid the repetition of previously proven inappropriate models.
Figure 5 – Residential units originally delivered in the single family dwellings typology.
Figure 6 – After transformation by users, constructions have little resemblance to the original typology.
QUALITY OF LIFE AND SUSTAINABLILITY INDICATORS To develop a housing evaluation method several studies are under way to develop an evaluation method intended to improve public housing design quality in the State of São Paulo, placing emphasis in sustainability and life quality indicators A list of sustainability indicators was established based primarily on the definition, as quoted from the BRUNDTLAND COMMISSION (1987), that designers must create environmental conditions that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Issues as development footprint, construction density, impermeability rates, materials and soil conservation should be considered. Urban form, micro-climate and traffic systems are further indicators of sustainability, as they affect energy efficiency, pollution levels and infrastructure system (THOMAS, 2003). The definition of adequate indicators of quality of the built environment has been the object of many discussions and studies (FELCE & PERRY, 1995; FINDLAY et al., 1988; GOODE, 1993). In relation to the quality of life of residents of housing projects the variety of indicators is large and must be placed within the scope of architectural and urban design decisions. User satisfaction is related to environmental
comfort indicators (thermal, visual, acoustic, functional space aspects and quality of air). Satisfaction also depends on user’s attitudes towards the environment, their psychological wellbeing, their feeling of security and safety (NEWMAN, 1972). The indicators of environmental psychology depend on the users perception of space as territory (GIFFORD, 1997). Feelings of belonging, of privacy and crowding are important. Residents assess the scope for individualization of dwellings and feelings of security are important (CARMONA, 2001; PUNTER & CARMONA, 1997; THOMAS, 2003). Evaluation of housing developments has primarily been based on POE studies, where factors of technicalconstruction and user-satisfaction are the subjects of inquiry. This research project embarked on a field investigation, using POE methods, of such indicators to create a framework and to validate the indicators proposed for the design evaluation method. The field study instruments are based on questionnaires, observations and design analysis, built on a preliminary list of general indicators of quality of life and sustainability related public housing project. The following topics guided the generation of indicators: • Spatial qualities: Distinctive neighborhood; boundaries; topographic assets or restraints;
relation to existing urban tissue. • Morphological qualities: Distinctive form; street character, blocks, edges, nodes; morphology
and volume composition. • Contextual qualities: Distinctive landscape; specific local characteristics; codes, standards and
regulations; unity or diversity characteristics. • Visual qualities: Townscape/landscape/vegetation; vernacular architecture/local style. • Perceptual qualities: Sense of place/identity/territoriality; human scale. • Social qualities: Quality of life; community spirit; gathering places; safety and security/crime
levels; user profile, psychological well-being; road safety. • Functional qualities: Housing density and typologies; infrastructure; architectural program; up-
gradeability; environmental comfort. • Sustainable qualities: Environmental sustainability; energy efficiency; preservation of worthy
vegetation; quality and connection to public transport; microclimatic factors; natural environmental capacity. The field study aims to confirm the functional requirements and design parameters of the design evaluation method proposed. CDHU has five programs, composed by different combinations of housing types and financing modalities. POE studies in ten existing, typical housing developments in the region of the city of Campinas will be undertaken. The selected housing projects are based on similar design principles for similar population strata. Questionnaires will be applied in ten percent of the units of each project. Urban form aspects will be captured through field observations. Finally, the original CDHU design documents will be analyzed as to site planning and concept content. DESIGN METHODS How urban and architectural form contributes to environmental sustainability and the quality of housing projects should be able to be analyzed before a new housing project is built. Thus design evaluation is seen as an important step in the design process, especially of large projects, since their impact can be large as well. To establish a rich and encompassing design evaluation method for low income housing projects in the region of Campinas, establishing user requirements in relation to quality of life and sustainability indicators is not sufficient, existing methods must be investigated. The architectural design process needs investigation as well so that not only content but also procedure is assessed. Research in design primarily investigates the creative process in architecture. The goal in developing design methods is to improve this process and the product outcome. Importance is given to adding structure to the decision-making activity in design. In architecture, this process does not follow rigid rules. Most designers also do not apply universal methods. Research in design methods consider the
creative process complex solving what are termed wicked problems. Most designers do not externalize their thought process (DÜLGEROGLU, 1999; JUTLA, 1996). Due to the inherent complexity of the process, most designers avoid the rigid application of methods. Most architects prefer individual approaches, which are informal. Other designers apply rules belonging to schools of design or aesthetic movements (KOWALTOWSKI & LABAKI, 1993). Studies of the creative process indicate that at least five types of heuristics are applied in the search for solutions (ROWE, 1992). Anthropometric analogies, based on the human body and dimensional limits, can be used. Literal analogies, based on elements found in nature as inspiration, for instance, and other symbolic relationships are often used to inspire the primary form of a design, especially for public building types such as museums, transport terminals and the like. Environmental relationships, based on the concepts of environmental comfort and energy efficiency, should always be part of the design process, especially in the analysis phase. Most designers will study building typologies or prototypes, based on previously solved problems, to gain information for a new design. Finally formal languages, styles or schools of thought in architecture, are still guiding concepts in design. Basic intellectual activities are organized in phases in the design process. These activities can be defined as: analysis, synthesis, prediction, evaluation and decision making. Architectural design is part of a family of decision making processes. To aid the decision making process, most designers, use some verbal descriptions, graphs and/or symbolic sketches, that is, several mechanisms of information (ROSSO, 1980). Design methods, as an organized procedure to aid the creative process, try to rationalize design activities and give support to increasingly complex design problems, so that decision making can be justified and speeded up. Most design processes can be said to consist of analysis and synthesis, and trial and error. A clear goal is not always apparent and data is not readily available or accessible for decisions to be made with justifications. Thus designs are developed empirically, with little verifiable data to go by. The usual design methods are not scientific, since they cannot be shared or repeated due to their informal ways of procedure and lack of protocol. A consensus exists that intuition is an important part of the process and that it is not a linear sequence of exact activities. There is another view that once the designer posses sufficient data or knowledge about a specific design problem, the thought process can no longer be considered totally rational (LANG, 1987). More rigorous design methods on the other hand place emphasis on abstractions. Simulations (computerized or not) focus on specific variables and can be used to evaluate design solutions. Other support systems have been devised, called argumentative methods, where a debate can be simulated to focus on specific design issues. Formal argumentation helps the design process focus on issues, organize facts and opinions and thus support the decision making process. Optimization of specific design variables has been an important issue in devising design tools. Thus the best solution is that which fits conflicting requirements best. Multi-criteria methods have been applied with some success to justify and expedite the decision-making process, thus optimizing this design phase (BALACHANDRAN, 1996; GRAÇA, 2002; BALACHANDRAN & GERO, 2003). Optimization in design can be considered to be multi-facetted. Depending on the number of participants in the design process agreement on solutions are not readily reached, since conflicting views exist especially within a participative process (DÜLGEROGLU, 1999). The participative process is considered important when a lack of information is apparent, thus the inclusion of a variety of opinions can enrich the process and stimulate the creation of new ideas. This process has its drawbacks. It can be lengthy and frustrating in its explanatory phase. It needs clear rules and rigorous documentation to avoid fruitless debates (SANOFF, 1991). Many visual aids should be used in the process. Gaming is a tool, which can be applied. Models are of importance and mock-ups can expedite the understanding of concepts being discussed. Visits to specific building types should be arranged and research data coming from Post-Occupation Evaluations (POE) should be made available.
POE studies have been part of the design process for the last thirty or forty years. These evaluations should measure user satisfaction and actual conditions that may or may not influence this satisfaction. Thus properly conducted POE studies must include technical observations and measurements of environmental comfort such as air and radiant temperatures and air speed for thermal comfort. This data may be used to calculate the Predicted Mean Vote (PMV) or Predicted Percentage of Dissatisfied (PPD) according the FANGER (1972). The principal goal in conducting POE studies has been the attempt to reduce the repetition of error and record design failures and successes for future application in a new design process. With increasing complexity in design projects POE studies are becoming more important to avoid costly mistakes and refits. Many POE studies generate checklists, which can then be applied to evaluate new designs still on paper. POE studies use varying research methods, such as questionnaires, walkthroughs with observations and participation of users. Laboratory tests may be applied to materials used in the building being evaluated. Simulations and calculations of energy efficiency may be conducted (PREISER, 1988; ORNSTEIN & ROMERO, 1992). Visual perception tests can also be included in POE studies to measure more psychological factors with regard to the build environment. Methods coming from research in environmental psychology are important to be included in POE studies but should be conducted by multidisciplinary teams for proper application and interpretation (SANOFF, 1991; BECHTEL et al., 1990). POE studies have been considered an important part of design methods and have become a part of design, especially of housing projects. Data collected, through POE studies, has had a particularly important impact on publications on housing design, which, in turn, have found their way into design practice and education. An introduction of social, cultural and psychological concepts into the discussion of design projects has occurred in design studios globally. The systematic introduction of the diverse, complex and multidisciplinary aspects of design factors however, is still a question in housing design and should be studied on a more methodological basis. Design evaluation on the other hand has not accumulated a large amount of research data or devised many specific methods applied by most designers. As was shown previously, simulations exist and building design advisers have been developed. These tools are however more important in guiding the decision making process and do not evaluate a design as a whole or as to future user satisfaction. Most design analysis has relied on architectural critiques, not always in line with user opinions, perceptions and reactions. As was shown previously checklists have also been devised and are an important tool to avoid known unsuccessful design solutions. Thus checklist coming from research on safety and security are mostly transformed into codes and regulations and thus must be applied by law. Design analysis may also be based on design parameter definitions and the attribution of weights to such concepts. Thus different solutions may be evaluated according to a number of variables. The selection of such parameter is however not fixed or regulated and thus dependent on personal (designer) choices. To give importance to one or other design parameter through a system of weighting is also not always efficient since variables are often equally important, or not comparable. The attribution of numerical weights has a further drawback. Mathematical methods must be applied which may be time consuming and not very fruitful in areas of uncertainty (JONES, 1980). Another means of evaluating designs is through the documentation of clear specifications of design expectations or a detailed architectural program. Such programs must include measurable indicators to be applied to design evaluations. Thus minimum or maximum conditions are set out for design solution checking. Specifications need sufficient detailing to act as efficient analysis tools. Again detailing takes time and is costly. Mathematical models can be devised to map out human judgement according to quality indicators. However in design there is no guarantee that a product or building is, for instance, safe because it possess a large number of safety features. Many elements may be involved which may not have been part of the model and not all parameters can be able to be treated arithmetically.
In the last years, the increase in complexity of design projects and the need for environmental impact assessment have forced the profession to seek better design evaluation tools. The increase in complexity has been attributed to fast moving and changing construction technology, to increasing reliance on buildings as productivity facilitators and to the increase in information and associated problems of human control. The environmental concerns and sustainability are further issues that have added complexity to design decision making and evaluation. Computer applications have been developed to overcome some of the hurdles of design evaluation, especially environmental comfort simulations are greatly enhanced through computer applications. Most simulation tools were developed for the optimization and verification of specific design variables. Most of these tools simplify the design description and therefor cannot represent a full complexity of a design. However design evaluation and optimization at an early stage in the design process can be very helpful in defining form and orientation of building volumes. In the case of an unsatisfactory solution, alternatives can be proposed before more time is spent on detailing. Growing concerns with environmental factors have influenced building design, aimed at reducing impacts. Thus changes have been introduced even in the design process. Building form, construction techniques and management have changed. Some design evaluation methods have emerged to assess building construction impact such as BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) (BALDWIN et al., 1998) and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) (USGBC, 2001). More specialized systems also exist, specifically concerned with application of life-cycle analysis (LCA) to buildings impact assessment. At least five aspects must be evaluated in relation to sustainability and buildings: use of natural resources, generation and emission of pollution, commitment and quality of monitoring the building in operation, environmental quality and urban design impact. The existing evaluation methods do not necessarily assess all aspects (SILVA, 2000). AXIOMATIC DESIGN To devise a design evaluation method for local housing projects our studies of design methods have led us to the method called “Axiomatic Design”. SUH (1990 and 2001) developed the method as a design process for mechanical engineering design. The method is based on the idea of what Suh calls: “to make designers more creative, reduce the research process, minimize the iterative trial and error process and determine good design among those proposed. The axiomatic method is further based on two principles: to maximize independence and minimize information. These principles guide the designer through the process of breaking up customer (or user) needs (CNs) as functional requirements called “FRs”, then breaking up these requirements into design parameters (DPs) and finally process variables (PVs), which define the production process. The axiomatic method can be considered of great importance to solve design problems with an application of logic. The model of the axiomatic method reflects the value given to design experience. Thus the axiomatic method poses essentially simple questions. “What do we want?" and "how will we achieve this?" To answer these questions design information must be organized, classified and systemized in such a way that decisions can be made in an organized sequential way to find adequate design solutions. , The axioms, which underlie this method, provide a rational means of evaluating the quality of proposed design decisions at every level of design, with explicit justifications. Furthermore the method is based on a design structure which is divided in three groups of information: domain, hierarchy and axioms. The domains, in turn, are divided in four segments of what SUH calls customer, functional, physical and process domains. The customer domain defines the user necessities or desires. The function domain can be compared to information found in typical architectural programs, with lists the functions the design must house. Design parameters are established in the physical domain. And in some design cases, especially those involving industrialized production, the process domain must be defined. In architectural design the process domain includes building techniques and construction methods.
The axiomatic method should proceed from the customer domain to the process domain. Design matrixes are established as shown in table 1. The Xs in the table indicates that a design parameter affects a functional requirement. In some cases the relationship can be expressed in numerical terms, thus defining which design parameter has a larger affinity with a specific functional requirement Table 1. Example of a typical design matrix using the axiomatic method Functional Requirements FRs
Design parameters - DPs DP1 X O O
FR1 FR2 FR3
DP2 O X O
DP3 O O X
The two under-lying principles or axioms that must be applied in the method are the axiom of independence and the axiom of information. The axiom of independence guides the decision making process toward choosing a functional requirement/design parameter relationship that is as independent as possible. With least interference the design procedure proceeds in an orderly way. This assures that conflict is avoided. In the example in table 1 this is the case. The axiom of information is used when more than one solution exists and choices must be made. The axiom guides this choice; by finding the solution which best represents the requirement. Thus the functional variables (information) of a solution should be the closest to the functional requirements set out in the customer domain. This can be exemplified in the case of window design in a housing project as presented in MONICE (2003). In local housing projects typical bedroom windows have shutters and glazed components and come in typical standardized sizes. Given the need to choose between four options of windows, all with the same overall size, the functional requirements ask for the windows to have specific minimum illumination and ventilation areas and act as a specific acoustic barrier. The values in this example were arbitrarily chosen. FR1: The area for illumination must correspond to at least 50% of the total window area. FR2: The openable area for ventilation must correspond to at least 30% of the total window area. FR3: The acoustic properties of the window must isolate at least 30db when the window is closed Thus given the four types A, B, C, D of windows available on the marked which have the minimum overall size of 1,50 x 1,20m, table 2 shows the design variables of these options. Table 2. Example of functional requirements of window options FR1 illumination FR2 ventilation FR3 acoustics
Type A 0-45% 0-50% 25-35 db
Type A 0-80% 0-50% 28-32 db
Type A 0-80% 0-40% 30-40db
Type A 0-70% 0-60% 25-35 db
The information Ii content for a given FR, as a probability of satisfying the original FR, is defined by: Ii = log2 (variable of the system/the common interval) Table 3 shows the information content of the four window types and accordingly the window type D is the best choice. Table 3. Information content of window options Inf. Cont. I in bits I1 I2 I3 total
Type A ∞ 1.74 1.00 ∞
Type A 1.42 1.74 1.00 4.16
Type A 1.42 3.00 0.00 4.42
Type A 1.81 1.26 1.00 4.07
The two axioms are the basic concepts of the method. The hierarchy of domains is another important concept that should be followed. Thus a design structure must be established for sequential decomposition until the lowest level of Frs, DPs and PVs is reached. A final concept of the axiomatic method is the zigzag procedure of traveling between pairs of domains. A possible application of the axiomatic method to housing design evaluation can be exemplified bya sample of design criteria development according to MONICE (2003). The application example, shown in table 4 and corresponding figures, is based on “Houses Generated by Patterns” by ALEXANDER et al. (1969). The pattern descriptions were transformed into the domains of the axiomatic method. As can be seen, the explicit definition and structuring of the user requirements induces design solutions, which can form a whole and have qualitative content. DISCUSSION To demonstrate the use of the axiomatic method in architectural design the decomposition of functional requirements and design parameters shown in table 4 and corresponding figures was used. The example is only a short introduction to the possible use of the axiomatic method in design and design evaluation. The transformation of the patterns was possible due to the richness of information given by ALEXANDER et al. (1969). We chose the example also because the work of Alexander is important in defining design concepts with quality of life in mind. The design indicators chosen for the creation of the proposed housing evaluation method are in part based on both the “Pattern Language” (ALEXANDER et al., 1977) and “The Timeless Way of Building” (ALEXANDER et al., 1979). One may argue that the conception of the Patterns Language by Alexander is a natural development of his methodological work in “The synthesis of form” (ALEXANDER, 1964), where the author structured design problems in a form resembling the axiomatic method by SUH. The purpose of the early work of ALEXANDER (1964) was the decomposition of design complexity and solution viability. The example shown in table 4 did not present the decomposition matrices. At each decomposition hierarchical level, a matrix should be built to verify if the requirements and design parameters are uncoupled or independent. It is important to note that with experienced designers the perception of context is such that independence occurs naturally. Thus the designer looks for solutions that avoid conflict and prefers to separate design parameters intuitively (MONICE, 2003). The example in table 4 shows that no priorities are given to specific, or single, user requirements or design solutions. The axiomatic method is based on the assumption that the largest number of requirements should be included and addressed in the design process. Through inclusion user needs are given priority as a whole. The information axiom can be seen as one of the ways that weighting of design variables occurs, thus only those variables which best fit user requirements are chosen. When conflicting needs occur the designer must try to separate the needs into the domains and levels of domains. The structured approach will help solve conflict by clarifying positions. The proposal, in applying the axiomatic method to housing design evaluation, is not seen as an exclusive design analysis method that should be present in the design process. Other analysis methods are recommended such as checklists, and multi-criteria optimization of certain variables, especially aspects of environmental comfort and energy efficiency. The axiomatic method is seen as an important contribution for the inclusion of qualitative information into the design process. This should increase the quality of design solutions. The act of externalizing and structuring a large quantity of design information enriches the design process. The logical procedure, where designers advance in their solution evaluation, should also add expedience to the design process. Although the mental process in design is not purely sequential, the exercise in a structured way of thinking may reveal new design methods and induce a more creative thought process (Broadbent, 1973). The documentation of the decision-making process gives transparency to the design process especially when participation of users occurs. This process is often difficult to conduct and does not occur on a one
to one basis. Information dissemination can avoid conflict and post-occupancy dissatisfaction among users. In final analysis, the methodological procedure in design evaluation is important to increase the scientific bases of design and reduce the subjectivity of the field. We are aware that subjectivity will always be part of design solutions. The relation of user needs, desires and perceptions to physical form is not based on clear cut, one to one, recipes. The literature of environmental psychology demonstrates this. Most studies on the relation between user behavior and physical settings result in data on perception, general satisfaction and some description of behavior (GIFFORD, 1997). The physical elements and configurations of architecture are rarely identified in this data. The detailed inclusion of people’s conception of quality into the design process may produce a more direct link between design criteria and user desires. The conscious inclusion of design concepts, in a methodological way, is seen as a continuous questioning of design criteria and comparing solutions with new POE data. FINAL REMARKS This paper describes and discusses the development of a housing design evaluation method appropriate for the housing agencies in the region of the City of Campinas, Brazil. The method is based on several specific studies. A theoretical and bibliographic study was undertaken to establish quality of life and sustainability indicators for local low income family housing projects. A POE study has been devised to verify, in ten housing projects of the region, these indicators with the local population. This study will also assess peoples` conceived quality of life and the environmental quality of the housing areas being investigated. Physical site-planning elements of housing projects, especially for the particular situation of smaller cities in the State of São Paulo, must be identified since they influence scale, urban setting and architectural form. Many elements are directly related to legislation. Important elements are topography, landscape and streetscape. Choice of housing typologies and their groupings are further aspects to be considered. Subsequently housing density, solar orientation and thermal and ventilation conditions are established. Site conditions such as lot dimensions and lot form are important elements to determine the housing character, proportions, unity and complexity. The relation of built areas and open space, as well as green areas, is of prime importance to determine the urban character, hardness or softness. Housing typology is defined through construction volumes and their groupings, massing, scale, materials, colors and transparency. We mention here only a few the architectural and urban elements of housing projects that influence environmental and life quality. Once the indicators are verified they will be structured for introduction into the axiomatic method. To transform the axiomatic (engineering) design method into an architectural design evaluation method, the environmental quality and sustainability indicators for housing projects must be organized into the four domains of the axiomatic method (CNs, FRs, DPs and PVs). After establishing design elements, parameters can be identified to measure the quality indicators. Privacy indicators, for instance, can be measured through distances between individual residential units and security can be evaluated by careful assessment of visibility of public areas, thus dependent on building form (PUNTER & CARMONA, 1997). To apply the axiomatic design evaluation method two more procedures are necessary. First the site-plans of housing projects should be standardized through CAD (Computer Aided Design) drawings which permit annexation of specification data. For this purpose “AUTOCAD Land”, “Survey”, “Civil Design” and Arcview can be used. The physical modeling will help in checking environmental quality and sustainability indicators, according to their specific formal and dimensional parameters. The axiomatic design task then requires multi-domain modeling which can be made easier through the use of “Acclaro@”, software developed by Axiomatic Design Software, Inc. With the development of this housing design evaluation method we hope to improve the design quality of such projects. Through better quality design it is hoped, as well, to influence positively the quality of life of residents and control the environmental impact of large construction projects, thus promoting
sustainable design. We also hope to provide a convincing case for the application of design methods to the decision making process in architectural design and prove efficiency in computer aided design. BIBLIOGRAPHY ALEXANDER, C. Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass., 1964. ALEXANDER, C.; HIRSHEN, S.; ISHIKAWA,S.; COFFIN, C.; & ANGEL, S. Houses Generated by Patterns. Center for Environmental Structure, Berkeley CA, 1969. ALEXANDER, C.; ISHIKAWA, S. & SILVERSTEIN, M. A Pattern language. Oxford University Press, Nova York, 1977. ALEXANDER, C. The timeless way of building. Oxford University Press, Nova York, 1979. BALACHANDRAN, M. Knowledge-based optimum design. Topics in engineering. Southampton e Boston: C.A. Brebbia e J.J. Connor, 1996. 165 p. (Computational Mechanics Publications. V.10) BALACHANDRAN, M.; GERO, J. S. (1990). Knowledge engineering and multicriteria optimization. In: H. Eschenauer, J. Koski and A. Osyczka (eds), Multicriteria Design Optimization, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 115-147. BALDWIN, R.; YATES, A.; HOWARD, N.; RAO, S. BREEAM 98 for offices: an environmental assessment method for office buildings. BRE Report. Garston, CRC. 1998. 36 pp. BECHTEL, R.; MARANS, R. & MICHELSON, W. Methods in environmental and behavioral research. New York, Van Nostrans Reinhold , 1990. BROADBENT, G. Design in architecture: architecture and the human sciences. John Willey & Sons, London, 1973. BRUNDTLAND, G.H. Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1987. CARMONA, M. Housing Design Quality through Policy, Guidance and Review. Spon Press, London, 2001 COOK, J. Millennium measures of sustainability. In: The 18th International Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture. Proceedings. Florianópolis, 2001. CUMMINS, R.A. The Comprehensive Quality of Life Scale. In: First International CONFERENCE ON QUALITY OF LIFE IN CITIES. Proceedings. SINGAPUR, 1998, PP. 67-77. DÜLGEROGLU, Y. Design Methods Theory and its Implications for Architectural Studies. In: Design methods: theories, research, education and practice, v.33; nº3, p.2870-2879. Design Methods Institute, California, 1999. FANGER, P.O. Thermal comfort, analysis and applications in environmental engineering. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1972 FELCE, D.; PERRY, J. Quality of Life: Its Definition and Measurement. In: Research in Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 16, 1995, pp. 45-55. FINDLAY, A.; MORRIS, A.; ROGERSON, R. Where to live in Britain, in 1988: Quality of Life in British Cities. In: Cities, vol. 5, No. 3, 1988, pp. 268-276. GIFFORD, R. Environmental Psychology: principles and practice. 2 ed. Allyn and Bacon, Boston, USA, 1997. GOODE, D. (ed.). Quality of Life. Brookline, New York, 1993.
GRAÇA, V.A.C. Otimização de projetos arquitetônicos considerando parâmetros de conforto ambiental: o caso das escolas da rede estadual de São Paulo. Universidade Estadual de Campinas, 2002 (Dissertação de Mestrado). JACKOBS, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, New York, 1961. JONES, J.C. Design Methods: seeds of human futures. Great Britain: A Wiley- Interscience Publication, 1980.407p. JUTLA, R. An inquiry into design methods: theories, research, education and practice. V. 30, nº 1. p.2304-2308, Design Methods Institute, California, 1996. KOWALTOWSKI, D.C.C.K. & LABAKI, L.C. O projeto arquitetônico e o conforto ambiental: necessidade de uma metodologia. In: ENTAC – ENCONTRO NACIONAL DE TECNOLOGIA DO AMBIENTE CONSTRUÍDO. São Paulo. Proceedings. v.2. p.785-794,1993. KOWALTOWSKI, D.C.C.K. e Pina, S.A.M.G. Transformações de Casas Populares: Uma avaliação. In: III Encontro Nacional e I Encontro Latino Americano de Conforto no Ambiente Construído. Anais. Gramado, Julho 1995. KOWALTOWSKI, D.C.C.K. Humanization in Architecture: Analysis of themes through high school building problems. Berkeley, University of California, PhD. Thesis, 1980. LANG, J. et al. Design for human behavior: architecture and behavioral sciences. Dowden, Hutchinsos & Ross, Inc. Pennsylvania, 1974. LYNCH, K. The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, 1960. MONICE, S. Projeto Axiomático de Arquitetura: Estudo para implantação em Sistemas CAD. Escola Politécnica da Universidade de São Paulo. 2003. (Dissertação de Mestrado). NEWMAN, O. Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design, Collier Books, New York, 1972. ORNSTEIN, S.W. & ROMERO, M. Avaliação Pós-ocupação do Ambiente Construído. Studio Nobel, EDUSP, São Paulo, 1992. PREISER, W. et al. Post-occupancy evaluation. New York. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1988. PUNTER, J. & CARMONA, M. The Design Dimension of Planning: Theory, Content and Best Practice for Design Policies. E&FN Spon, London, UK, 1997. ROSSO, T. Racionalização da construção. FAUUSP, São Paulo, 1980. ROWE, P. G. Design Thinking. 4.ed., MIT Press, Cambridge, USA, 1992. SANOFF, H. Visual Research Methods in Design. New York, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1991. SILVA, V.G. Avaliação do desempenho ambiental de edifícios. Revista Qualidade na Construção, nº25, ano lll. SindusCon SP: São Paulo, 2000. SUH, N. P. The Principles of Design. Oxford University Press, New York, 1990. SUH, N.P. Axiomatic Design: Advances and Applications, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2001. THOMAS, R., ed. Sustainable Urban Design: an Environmental Approach. Spon Press, London, 2003 TIPPLE, G. Extending Themselves: user-initiated transformations of government built housing in developing countries. University of Liverpool Press, UK, 2000. US GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL - USGBC. LEED for Existing Buildings: The LEED Green Building Rating System for Improving Building Performance through Upgrades and Operations. Version 2.0. USGBC, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. August 17, 2001 (Unballoted Draft)
Table 4. Example of axiomatic method applied to the structuring of a housing project 1. HIERARCHICAL LEVEL FR1
Design of homes that help in the development of a local DP1 (peruvian) community
Design based on local social and cultural habits.
DECOMPOSITION OF FR1 FR1.1
Provide a place where people share the same way of life and DP1.1 reinforce the group feeling.
Create inward focussed residential cells, separated by open land or community facilities (Figure 7)
FR1.1.1
DP1.1.1
Allow for fundamental personality characteristics as: introvert / extrovert (or privacy and community loving) FR1.1.1.1
FR1.1.1.2
Guarantee access to fresh food
Divide the residential cells in secluded and busy areas, thus houses will have different degrees of exposure to pedestrian circulation and public area activities (Figure 8) DP1.1.1.1
Design a central market for the housing project
FR1.1.1.1.1
Guarantee access to the market on foot from all houses in the residential cell
DP1.1.1.1.1
Positions the market on a central traffic artery with direct access to pedestrian walks (Figure 9)
FR1.1.1.1.2
Guarantee car access for delivery
DP1.1.1.1.2
Locate market on major traffic artery
Guaranty access facilities at night
FR1.1.1.2.1
to
community
DP1.1.1.2
Guaranty that people feel safe
Create “Evening Centers” containing restaurants, bars, cinemas, ice cream parlors, police station, gas station, bus stop (give people pleasant places to go to at night) (Figure 10) DP1.1.1.2.1
Group at least 6 activity facilities together (people feel safe in large groups)
FR1.1.1.3
Guaranty access and openness to education. Guaranty integration between school and community. Formal education should not be separated from most ordinary social processes.
DP1.1.1.3
Locate the school so that public pedestrian paths run through the grounds. Locate open spaces such as playgrounds, auditoria, some workshops towards public paths so they can be shared by the community (Figure 11)
FR1.1.1.4
Guaranty access education.
DP1.1.1.4
Distribute small kindergartens with direct pedestrian access in the residential cell
to
pre-school
FR1.1.1.4.1
FR1.1.2
Provide visibility of pre-school activities
Serve any residential area by local roads. Avoid fast noisy and dangerous traffic.
DP1.1.1.4.1
DP1.1.2
Sink the play and outdoor activity areas of the kindergarten in relation to the pedestrian path so that passerbys can observe children and children can be safely supervised.
Base the neighborhood road system on narrow one-way loop roads (Figure 12)
FR1.1.2.1
Avoid two road crossings.
DP1.1.2.1
At any point in the road network where two roads meet, without traffic lights make right-angled T-junctions with at least a 50 m distance between points of connection (Figure 13)
FR1.1.2.2
Give pedestrians comfort on local roads.
DP1.1.2.2
On roads with perceived car traffic flow, sink the car lanes by 50cm from the pedestrian path. (Give pedestrian better air to breath and a view of the other side of the street) (Figure 14)
FR1.1.3
Provide distributed parking lots near community facilities, schools etc.
DP1.1.3
Create small broken-up parking lots of 5 to 9 cars maximum. (Wellknown perceptual facts about the number 7 +/- 2.) Avoid large paved areas or the “sea of cars” syndrome (Figure 15)
FR1.1.4
Give people the opportunity to stroll along community facilities and in parks.
DP1.1.4
Divide car traffic from pedestrian walks. Create a public walk system never more 50m from public and community facilities or 100m from any house.
FR1.1.4.1
FR1.1.5
Place activities evenly to create public life.
Create separate car and pedestrian traffic systems which cross frequently FR1.1.5.1
Mark the crossings between pedestrians and cars clearly
DP1.1.4.1
DP1.1.5
Along the pedestrian walk create small activity pockets by enlarging the walk as an open space. Place shops and community facilities on these pockets.
Create two separate orthogonal crossing traffic systems (with crossings at 100m distances and small parking lots near crossings. (Pedestrians and cars should meet.) (Figure 16) DP1.1.5.1
Create “knuckles” at crossings of the two orthogonal systems to mark them clearly (Figure 17)
Figure 7 -
Inward focused residential cells, separated by open land or Figure 8 - Residential cells divided in secluded and busy areas. community facilities.
Figure 9 - Market positioned on a central traffic artery with direct access to pedestrian walks.
Figure 10 – Creation of evening centers, pleasant places for people to go to at night.
Figure 11 - School located so that public pedestrian paths run through the Figure 12 - Neighborhood road system based on narrow one-way loop grounds. Open spaces located towards public paths so they can roads. be shared by the community.
Figure 13 - Right-angled T-junctions where two roads meet without traffic Figure 14 - Car lanes sink by 50cm from the pedestrian path, on roads with lights, with at least a 50 m distance between points of perceived car traffic flow. connection.
Figure 15 - Small broken-up parking lots of 5 to 9 cars maximum, avoiding Figure 16 - Separate orthogonal crossing traffic systems, with crossings at large paved areas or the “sea of cars” syndrome. 100m distances and small parking lots near crossings.
Figure 17 - “Knuckles” at crossings of the two orthogonal systems mark them clearly.
