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 of
Civil
Architecture
and
Urban
Design
School
CivilEngineering,
Engineering, Architecture
and
Urban
Design,
State University of Campinas, Brazil
1
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
2
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.
3
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
4
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
5
Transformations
Introduction of:
 site limiting fences, walls, gates
 trash containers
Modifications of:
 additions
 total transformations
6
Single Family Housing Urban Scenes
7
Scenes from multi family projects
Sidewalks?
Trash containers?
Hoses to wash public areas?
8
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:




High satisfaction and
forgiveness rates (!)
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 (!)
9
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
10
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
11
Children: perception
 Reinforced architectural elements:
 Security bars, openings,
antennas, gas deposit
 Non existing elements reinforced
(desires):
 Symbol of house (gable roof on
buildings)
 Vegetation
12
Site-planning guidelines
Spatial, Morphological, Contextual, Visual, Perceptual
Social, Functional, Sustainable
 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
13
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
14
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
15
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
16
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?
17
Some ways out !
 Create a design and evaluation method




Based on “Houses Generated by Patterns” (Alexander, 1969)
Richness of information
If – Then
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
18
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.
19
Example
• DP 1.1:
• Create inward focussed
residential cells, separated
by open land or community
facilities.
20
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.
21
Example
• FR 1.1.1.1: Guarantee access to fresh food.
• DP 1.1.1.1: Design a central market for the housing project.
22
Example:
 IF: Guarantee access to pre-school education.
 Then: Distribute small kindergartens with direct
pedestrian access in the residential cell.
23
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.
24
Example
• FR 1.1.1.1.2: Guarantee car access for delivery.
• DP 1.1.1.1.2: Locate market on major traffic artery.
25
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).
26
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).
27
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.
28
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.
29
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
30
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
31