18th IAPS Conference Vienna July 7 -10 2004

1. 18th IAPS Conference Vienna July 7 -10 2004 Site- Planning Guidelines for Low Income Housing in the State of São Paulo, Brazil: Based on POE and AXIOMS Doris C.C. K. Kowaltowski Vanessa G. da Silva Lucila C. Labaki Silvia A. Milami G. Pina Regina C. Ruschel and Daniel de Carvalho Moreira School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Design School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urban Design, State University of Campinas, Brazil

2. Introduction • Research goals: • Evaluate typical low-income housing in the State of São Paulo • Improve future designs • Develop design evaluation method • POE study: • Projects of CDHU: • Largest Housing Authority in the State of São Paulo • Study region: • around the city of Campinas • Five projects: • Campinas, Atibaia, Valinhos, Itatiba and Santa Barbara • 107 questionnaires: • representing 5% of residential units • POE period: • summer months

3. Questionnaires based on indicators: • Quality of life: • within the scope of architecture: • environmental comfort • thermal, visual, acoustics, functional space, quality of air • psychological wellbeing • user perception of territory • resolve feelings of privacy, crowding, safety and security • scope of individualization • Sustainability: • Brundtland Commission • development footprint, construction density, impermeability rates, choice of materials, soil conservation, urban form, micro climate, traffic situations.

4. Design Concepts - CDHU • Similar design concepts and population strata • Repetition + Symmetry = Monotony • Fairly low density • Lack of landscaping • Overuse of man made objects • Lack of maintenance • Low satisfaction with emotional and perceptual needs

5. Design Criteria - CDHU • Standardized building types • 4 to 7 floor apartment buildings • Single family units on narrow individual walled lots • Two bed room program • Public land is poorly used • Many transformations

6. Transformations • Introduction of: • site limiting fences, walls, gates • trash containers Modifications of: • additions • total transformations

7. Single Family Housing Urban Scenes

8. Scenes from multi family projects Sidewalks? Trash containers? Hoses to wash public areas?

9. POE study results: • Site-planning observations: • Low density and arbitrary siting of buildings • Lack of urban infrastructure (sidewalks, etc.) • Steep sites = problem of community integration • Individual introduction of fences, garages • General aspect of abandon, lack of maintenance • Public land = unused, no community spirit • Apartments on ground floors = lack of privacy • User observations: • Lack of experience in participatory management • Dream home = single family house on individual lot • Few planning problems perceived • Density considered low = provide more housing for others (!) High satisfaction and forgiveness rates (!)

10. POE study results: • Quality of life: • Rent to be paid, job market • Unrelated to physical conditions of comfort • Feeling of security: • community overshadowed by drug problems • fairly good inside their own homes • Better schools and health services needed • Sustainability: • Cost of utility bills • Car ownership desired • Pollution not considered a problem • Vegetation considered positive (few trees planted by population) • No intervention on public land

11. Children: observations • Objects to fix play activities in space: • Gas bottle deposit to sit and play on • Open drains to sit and draw • Joint use of green area: football, marbles, bicycle

12. Children: perception • Reinforced architectural elements: • Security bars, openings, antennas, gas deposit • Non existing elements reinforced (desires): • Symbol of house (gable roof on buildings) • Vegetation

13. Site-planning guidelines • Local guidelines: • Based on universal recommendations • climate and culture adaptations • Lack of resources • cannot be factor of perpetuating inadequate housing solutions • Cannot be based on satisfaction rates • Exploited politically • Unrelated to housing quality • Difficulty of introducing desired design factors: • Complexity, multidisciplinary • Need changes on 3 fronts • political, conceptual and follow-up programs Spatial, Morphological, Contextual, Visual, Perceptual Social, Functional, Sustainable

14. Local guidelines: • Community and security: • High crime rates demand closed community solutions (!) • Detailing of territorial limits • Avoid images of confinement and isolation from urban life • Facilitate access of visitors • Street and path systems: • Attention to sun and wind orientation • Introduce sidewalks and urban vegetation at design stage • Good shade trees everywhere • Integrate paths and controlled entrances • Site-planning: • Plan common facilities with users • Clotheslines in the sun, • Visible from residences and away from children playing • Areas for family barbecues and typical local festivities • Large flat covered (shaded) area • Urban Design: • Objects to fix play spatially • Provide for proper disposal of garbage • Locate bus stops appropriately

15. Local guidelines: • Landscaping: • Tropical climates need shade • Avoid construction damage from tree roots • Gentle grading • Good visibility of open areas • Easy maintenance • Public open space: • Avoid left over spaces • Accommodate flat areas for play • Shade and benches to watch children • Easy maintenance • Private open space: • Provide shaded terrace, flowerbeds • Discourage incorporation into indoor area (suff. functional area) • Architecture: • (If must !) use stock plans intelligently • Enhance siting, landscaping, color • Adequate functional areas to avoid transformations • Elevate ground floor to half height for privacy • Provide access for disabled persons • Garbage: provide for adequate disposal, incentives to recycling

16. Search for a housing design method: • Present scenario: • Existence of a certain arrogance, fear of being ordinary • Solving wicket problems, no real methodological support • Process not externalized or documented • Aversion to rigid application of methods • Use of analogies, formal languages and building typologies • Decision making process: • Creative process subjective, not linear through analysis and synthesis • Importance of intuition and abstraction • Rational process dependent on good data • Some solutions? • Simulations • Argumentative methods - structured debates • Optimization • Participation, gaming • Environmental impact studies (BREEAM, LEED) • POE studies with improved documentation

17. Improve the method: • Closing the gap between perception – POE documentation: • Sound, smell, temperature, dust etc… • Feelings of insecurity, harassment, etc. • Spatial configurations • Photos, drawings – not the real thing (!) • Psychological impact: • Inadequate conditions • Lack of privacy • Lack of escape (valve) place • Design divorced from economic/social factors: • Jobs versus view? • Space versus access to “good activities”? • Testing: • How long would you let your mother live in this place?

18. Some ways out ! • Create a design and evaluation method • Based on “Houses Generated by Patterns” (Alexander, 1969) • Richness of information • Defining design concepts with quality of life • Decomposition of design complexity through hierarchies • Apply axiomatic design method devised by SUH (1990) • Use information axiom = weighting system • Those variables that best fit user requirements • Conflict resolution • Separation of need into domains and levels • Structured approach - clarification of positions • Do not establish priorities • Include of the largest number of requirements • Inclusion gives priority to user needs as a whole If – Then

19. Example Based on C. Alexander • Hierarchical Level • FR 1: Design of homes that help in the development of a local community. • DP 1: Design based on local social and cultural habits. • Decomposition of FR1 • FR 1.1: Provide a place where people share the same way of life and reinforce the group feeling. • DP 1.1: Create inward focussed residential cells, separated by open land or community facilities.

20. Example • DP 1.1: • Create inward focussed residential cells, separated by open land or community facilities.

21. Example • FR 1.1.1: Allow for fundamental personality characteristics as: introvert / extrovert (or privacy and community loving) • DP 1.1.1: Divide the residential cells in secluded and busy areas, thus houses will have different degrees of exposure to pedestrian circulation and public area activities.

22. Example • FR 1.1.1.1: Guarantee access to fresh food. • DP 1.1.1.1: Design a central market for the housing project.

23. Example: • IF: Guarantee access to pre-school education. • Then: Distribute small kindergartens with direct pedestrian access in the residential cell.

24. Example • FR 1.1.1.1.1: Guarantee access to the market on foot from all houses in the residential cell. • DP 1.1.1.1.1: Positions the market on a central traffic artery with direct access to pedestrian walks.

25. Example • FR 1.1.1.1.2: Guarantee car access for delivery. • DP 1.1.1.1.2: Locate market on major traffic artery.

26. Example • FR 1.1.1.2: Guarantee access to community facilities at night. • DP 1.1.1.2: Create “Evening Centers” containing restaurants, bars, cinemas, ice cream parlors, police station, gas station, bus stop (give people pleasant places to go at night).

27. Example • FR 1.1.1.2.1: Guarantee that people feel safe. • DP 1.1.1.2.1: Group at least 6 activity facilities together (people feel safe in large groups).

28. Example • FR 1.1.1.4.1: • Provide visibility of pre-school activities. • DP 1.1.1.4.1: • Sink the play and outdoor activity areas of the kindergarten in relation to the pedestrian path so that passerbys can observe children an children can be safely supervised.

29. Example • FR 1.1.4: Give people the opportunity to stroll along community facilities and in parks. • DP 1.1.4: Divide car traffic from pedestrian walks. Create a public walk system never more 50m from public and community facilities or 100m from any house. • FR 1.1.4.1: Place activities evenly to create public life. • DP 1.1.4.1: Along the pedestrian walk create small activity pockets by enlarging the walk as an open space. Place shops and community facilities on these pockets.

30. Discussion • Axiomatic Method not seen as exclusive method • checklists • multi-criteria optimization • Methodological approach: • structured inclusion of qualitative information • act of externalization - enriches the process • logical procedure adds expedience • structured thinking may lead to more creative thought process • documentation - transparency • avoid subjectivity - important with participation of users • information dissemination - avoids conflict • users needs always include some subjectivity

31. Final Remarks • Attempt to create a housing design evaluation method: • For local conditions • Based on: • quality indicators • local POE study • structured indicators and related design elements • establish measurements for indicators • apply software CAD, SIG and ACCLARO for efficiency Application of Design Methods Inclusion of Design Quality Indicators Improve Housing Projects Avoid Repetition of Errors