Generative Design for Affordable Housing

CPU [ AI ] // PS 1

P O R T F O L I O Andreas Margarkis|Tere Sagay|Reiji Nagaoka

CONTENT

< /ps1:

HOUSING> <

<

introduction

// thesis statement //

p. 02

// current housing crisis // // situational inflluences // // our solution//

p. 03 p. 04 p. 05-06

// developing the tool // // parametric workflow// // exploring viewpoints //

p. 07-09 p. 10 p. 11-12

// // // // //

p. p. p. p. p.

<00>

00

narrative < /00>

01

<01>

methodology < /01>

<02>

02

design_delivery 01+02

massing + optimization // space planning // DfMA Strategy // design resolution// structure + MEP //

14 + 26 15 + 27 16-17 18-20 + 28-33 21-23

< /02>

< / >

/ >

< /ps1:

HOUSING>

reflection

// Conclusions//

p. 34

ALERT

Click when this CIRCLE is seen. It indicates an INTERACTIVE part of the PDF document.

Pages 20,21,29 have interactive content 01

THESIS: DEVELOPING THE NARRATIVE

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

The project outlined in this portfolio aims to make a statement about the acceptable standard of quality for housing in the UK and by so doing, highlight the often disparate relationship between building developers, users and architects.

We have developed a tool which will help us understand the priorities of not just the architect/developer, but also the user in whose hands we will be placing the system to generate a design iteration which is user-centred.

We explore how an intervention in these standards of quality can allow social home occupants enjoy homes which are not unrealistically designed/ costed, but are also livable.

Finally, in the portfolio, we develop two design alternatives based on government methods of quality assessment of affordable housing programmes, which show how quality in the developerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s viewpoint is not equivalent to quality in the viewpoint of the building occupant.

Image by Gordon Johnson from Pixabay 02

CURRENT HOUSING CRISIS

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

TRANSITIONS IN SOCIAL HOUSING EXPENDITURE

Transitions in Social Housing Expenditure

Housing benefit expenditure, ÂŁ million, real terms (2017/18 prices)

% %Oof GDP spent on housing development, 1995 - 2005 source: Eurostat, General Government expenditure by function

Source: DWP Benefit expenditure caseload tables 2017, table 1b

0.8 Housing benefit expenditure, ÂŁ million, real terms (2017/18 prices

30k

% of GDP

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

20k

10k

0

1995

2000

SOCIAL HOMES BUILT IN 2016/17

<1%

Of all homes built

2010

2015

Year

Year

28

2005

>4000 Recorded as homeless

13,500 Households waiting for social housing

14,667

Housing schemes granted planning permission

MANCHESTER https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/policy_library_folder/bri efing_social_housing_in_manchester https://www.housing.org.uk/how-public-money-is-spent-on-housing/ https://england.shelter.org.uk/professional_resources/policy_and_research/policy_library/policy_library_folder/briefing_social_housing_in_manchester https://www.housing.org.uk/how-public-money-is-spent-on-housing/ 03

SITUATIONAL INFLUENCES

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Methodology for Increasing Social Housing Developments

Construction industry: statistics and policy

INCREASE PROFITABILITY

A 33% reduction in both the initial cost of construction and the whole life cost of assets (from 2010/09 levels).

REDUCTION OF LABOUR

A 50% reduction in the overall time from inception to completion for new build and refurbished assets (based on industry standards in 2013).

A 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in the built environment (compared to 1990).

A 50% reduction in the trade gap between total exports and total imports for construction products and materials (from February 2013 deficit of ÂŁ6 billion).

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AUTOMATION

DfMA

ML

KIT OF PARTS

(Machine Learning)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/731871/construction-sector-deal-print-single.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/731871/construction-sector-deal-print-single.pdf 04

OUR SOLUTION

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Three-Step Overview

LOW

COST

DEVELOP A GENERATIVE TOOL

Create a tool which generates design iterations based on the construction parameters we have defined to be time, cost and quality.

HIGH

SHORT

QUALITY

EXPLORE DESIGN

BY VIEWPOINT

< /

TIME

ITERATIONS

Understanding the stakeholders involved in the development of social housing + exploring how their viewpoint on design would affect Cost, Quality and Time >

IMPLEMENTING PROJECT THROUGH DFMA

Using the DfMA process in addition to the system we have developed, we can create a time and cost effective model for social housing

05

DEVELOPING THE TOOL

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Quantifying C-Q-T Parameters Defining Quality For a Cost-Time Driven Project Housing Quality Indicators (HQI) is a quality evaluation tool usually used at start of construction on site between 2008-2015 by the UK government. It incorporates design standards that buildings receiving funding through the National Affordable Housing Programme and the later Affordable Homes Programme were required to meet.

Factors Influencing C-Q-T As Construction Parameters Method of construction: - Timber [volumetric] - Concrete [volumetric] - Light Gauge Steel [volumetric] - CLT panels

MEP equipment: IF >18m, no potable water tank or sprinkler system needed Solar orientation: Yields greater solar gains, but additional floor area required for staggered apartments

Floor-ceiling height: 2.4-3.0m

“...USING THE HQI ALLOWS US TO QUANTIFIABLY DEFINE “QUALITY” IN ORDER TO HAVE A RANKING SYSTEM FOR THE QUALITY INPUT IN THE C-Q-T TOOL”

COST

We propose that as a quantifiable, government sourced index of quality in affordable housing, we can make use of the hqi as a tool at the design stage for not only determining quality standards REWEIGHING THE HQI in our project but also generating an architectural brief for the project.

A greater HQI score means more governmentgranted social housing subsidy

CURRENT HQICriteria CRITERIA WEIGHTS Current HQI Weighting - Fig

PROPOSED HQI CRITERIA WEIGHTS

1

100%

100%

50%

50%

Location (10%) Visual Impact (10%) Open Space (10%) Routes & Movement (10%) Accessibility (10%) Unit Size (10%) Unit Layout (10%) Unit Noise (10%) Sustainabilty (10%) Building For Life (10%)

0% Site-specific criteria

Scheme-specific criteria

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/housing-quality-indicators

QUALITY

75%

-Location -Visual Impact -Open Space -Routes + Movement -Accessiblity 25% -Unit Size -Unit Layout -Unit Noise 0% -Sustainability -Building for Life Site-specific Scheme-specific *see invididual parameter criteria criteria weights in fig 1

Location (5%) Visual Impact (5%) Open Space (5%) Routes & Movement (5%) Accessibility (5%)

TIME

Module dimensions: Unit Size 3.5 -(10%) 4.3m width, 7.0-10.0m length Unit Layout (10%) Unit Noise (10%) Standardized Modularization Sustainabilty (10%) Extra structure required for nonBuilding For Life (10%)modules stacked, varying Unit Variance and Demographics (10%) Robust Details Standard (10%) Private Amenities (5%)

06

DEVELOPING THE TOOL

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

How Does the HQI Inform Spatial Decisions?

Separate WC

Shower with WC

For each apartment type, code reads 36 spatial matrices provided by the HQI guide, assigning scores to various room dimensions

Bathroom without WC

Single Bedroom

Twin Bedroom

Double Bedroom Room size matrix as outlined by HQI

Kitchen Area

Suggests room dimensions, fittings and furniture required in each room to achieve userâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desired quality score

Living Space

OM

IT

TE

D

RE

SU

LT

S

Dining Area

3b5p reference size

Room dimension suggestions generated for a 3b5p dwelling with a Q input score of 10/10

An example room layout matrix provided by the HQI. Where results increase room dimensions but no longer impact score, they are omitted to save space. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/366634/721_hqi_form_4_apr_08_update_20080820153028.pdf

07

DEVELOPING THE TOOL

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Testing The Tool On Site: User Interface GENERATED INFORMATION: Priority: Cost Structure: Concrete Volumes Corridor Width: 0.8m NIA: 2709m2 Floor-ceiling height: 2.7m

Example User Interface:

TH BOO

ST

Modules: 90 Module size: 3.5x8.6m Total Occupants: 100 m2/occupant: 27.09 Occupants/module: 1.11

E DG RI MB CA

To prevent overlooking + shadowing, take note of the‘no build zone’ where a neighbouring building is within 12m of the site.

T

WES

12m No-build zone

ET RE ST

COST-DRIVEN

ALERT

T REE

No build zone 0

Your Priorities

20

50

100

GENERATED INFORMATION:

Priority: Equal Inputs Structure: Light Gauge Steel Corridor Width: 0.8m NIA: 3018.6m2 Floor-ceiling height: 2.7m Modules: 90 Module size: 3.9x8.6m Total Occupants: 100 m2/occupant: 30.186 Occupants/module: 1.11

12m No-build zone

LEVELS COST QUALITY TIME

5

Limit

5

LEVELS

COST

10

COST QUALITY TIME

1 1 QUALITY

TIME

Drag sliders to set values

GENERATED INFORMATION: Priority: Quality Structure: Timber Panels Corridor Width: 1.2m NIA: 3440.0m2 Floor-ceiling height: 3.0m Modules: 80 Module size: 4.3x10.0m Total Occupants: 85 m2/occupant: 40.47 Occupants/module: 1.05

12m No-build zone 5

LEVELS COST

COST

1 10

QUALITY TIME

Limit

1 QUALITY

TIME

Drag sliders to set values

GENERATED INFORMATION: Priority: Time Structure: Light Gauge Steel Corridor Width: 0.8m NIA: 2327.5m2 Floor-ceiling height: 2.4m Modules: 95 Module size: 3.5x7.0m Total Occupants: 100 m2/occupant: 23.275 Occupants/module: 1.05

COST

5 12m No-build zone

5 5

Drag sliders to set values

QUALITY

TIME

TIME-DRIVEN

02 Determine

10

OTHER ITERATION POSSIBILITIES

12m

QUALITY-DRIVEN

Your Site

ER GH HI

01 Choose

5

LEVELS COST QUALITY TIME

Limit

COST

1 1 10 QUALITY

TIME

Drag sliders to set values

08

TESTING TOOL ON A SITE

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Testing the System on a Social Housing Development in Manchester Greater Manchester

Manchester

Site Location: Trinity Court, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester Site Area: 1800m2 Context: University of Manchester + Manchester Metropolitan University

09

PARAMETRIC WORKFLOW

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

How Does Parametric Modelling Quicken Design Iterative Process?

Backend Processes

01

USER SPECIFIES C-Q-T PREFERENCES BETWEEN 1-10

COST

In this example, the scores are set as:

Neural network suggests structure based on C & T inputs

Suggested structure defines maximum levels

C & T inputs define number of levels within scope of structure

C and T inputs determine module size

Neural network identifies apartment typologies based on nearest area

‘Best fit’ of apartments placed along line based on module sizes and cores

Cost (C) = 9 Quality (Q) = 7 Time (T) = 3

QUALITY

02

TIME

BUILDING PATH LINE DRAWN ON SITE

04

PLACED AT 36M 03 CORES SPACING TO ACHIEVE LINE LENGTH FOUND, MAXIMUM 18M ESCAPE ROUTE FROM APARTMENT FRONTDOORS

10

EXPLORING DESIGN ITERATIONS

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

The Project, C-Q-T Tool + The Stakeholders Our Project will take a look at two iterations developed with the C-Q-T Triangle, which we will use as a design generating tool.

The Project, C-Q-T Tool + The Stakeholders

Developer Viewpoint

User Viewpoint

LOW

LOW

COST

COST

TWO ITERATIONS WILL BE DERIVED FROM PLACING THE TOOL IN THE HANDS OF 2 DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS: THE DEVELOPER AND THE USERS

HIGH

QUALITY TIME

SHORT

TIME

HIGH

SHORT

QUALITY

TIME

TIME

The Developer is interested in making profit within a short period.

The Users are in dire need of shelter and would want to move in as soon as possible.

COST

COST

This can be achieved by reducing costs in construction and labour.

The and pay for

User is more idealistic interested in/able to as little as possible a place to live.

QUALITY

QUALITY

However, this usually leads to a reduction in overall quality of developments

A high quality shelter will improve their overall wellbeing in the residence.

11

EXPLORING VIEWPOINTS REWEIGHING THE HQI What is Important To The User?

The previous building example has established above average

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

quality requirements as outlined by the HQI, though it is clear there is a dispartity between what the government, Our users and arearchitects very lowdeem income little amount of savings. occupants, to beearners building with quality.

Understanding the users concern with high quality dwelling allows us In this section,inwethe highlight the quality problems standards of the HQI as both architectural design to see next a problem minimum set byanthe HQI. and developer tool, and suggest how these problems can be mitigated.

WE WILL REWEIGH THE HQI PARAMETERS

BY LOOKING AT 5 MAIN AREAS OF USERCENTRIC CONCERNS

In order to design for the user, we will reweigh the HQI parameters by looking at five main areas of user-centric design concerns.

Site Scoring SITE SCORING

Demographics DEMOGRAPHICS

Building MATERIAL Resilience LIFESPAN

Sunlight + Dual Private Amenity SUNLIGHT PRIVATE AMENITY Aspect

Not enough consideration for natural lighting of apartments and shared space

Private amenity spaces (such as balconies) are critically unimportant

THE PROBLEM

Assessment of the site itself accounts for too much of the overall quality score

Target demographics for social housing are not taken into account

Building material longevity and maintainance has little weight on HQI scores

THE EVIDENCE

>50% of the quality score itself is related to the site rather than the scheme

HQI scores assess proximity to family amenities (such as schools, play areas) per site, but not family dwellings provided per scheme

‘Designed in accordance with Robust Details Standards’ is worth a maximum overall score of 0.3%

Quality of light, aspect and prospect subsection of Unit Noise Control, Light Quality and Services is worth a maximum overall score of 0.3%

If 100% of apartments have a balcony of >3m2, total quality score only increases by 0.3%

THE IMPACT

Schematic parameters bear relatively little weight (up to 50%)

Developers can choose apartment typologies to include based solely on rent, leaving larger families with less opportunity for social housing A weighted scoring matrix similar to unit size subsection where a minimum requirement must be met

Materials may require costly maintainance works that disrupt the lives of occupants

Non-conformation to Rights To Light Easement(2012) and potential developer injuctions

‘Quality’ as defined by developers yields a disconnect between government/developers and occupants in terms of a satisfactory scheme

Robust Details Standards should account for minimum 10% of overall quality score with a minimum subsection requirement to be met

Lighting subsection with particular reference to Rights To Light Easement and minimum requirement to be met

Private amenity provision is moved from unit size subsection and given a subsection weighing 5% of overall quality score with a minimum requirement to be met

THE SOLUTION

Site-specific subsections should be weighted as 5% of overall quality instead of 10%, changing sitespecific criteria to 25% of overall score

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/391683/44872_HC_796_Law_Commission_356_WEB.pdf

11

DESIGN DELIVERY 01

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Iteration 01: Developer Viewpoint LOW

COST

HIGH

SHORT

QUALITY

TIME

9

COST QUALITY

3

TIME

HQI Score:

Site Specific Parameters Location = 8.9% Visual Impact = 4.1% Open Space = 3.8% Routes and Movement=6.9% Accessibility = 3.1%

8

Scheme Specific Parameters Unit Size = 4.2% Layout = 5.0% Noise = 4.4% Sustainability = 2.6% Building for Life = 7%

Site schema total = 26.8% Schema total: 23.2% Reweighted HQI Score: 50%

NOTE THAT THIS SCHEME IS JUST HITTING THE ACCEPTABLE MINIMUM STANDARD OF QUALITY WITH ITS HQI SCORE DUE TO HOW COST + TIME DRIVEN IT IS 13

MASSING + OPTIMIZATION

Solar Optimization resulting in intial massing

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Resolved Form (Mass):

-L-Shaped Mass created to prevent large shadows cast over interior facing windows -open central space onsite for services and community spaces -to maintain existing site access

Resolved Form on Site 14

SPACE PLANNING 01

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Choosing Apartment Types

LOW

COST

Developerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Viewpoint: Studios + 1beds Why? 1. These apartment types have smaller areas; more can fit into building mass. More apartments = more money.

2. More students and young professionals in the area = apartments get rented quickly

QUALITY

Micro Apt/Studio Floor Plan

TIME

7000

7000

7000

7000

7000

REF.

REF.

7000

3500

3500

SHORT

HIGH

1b2p Floor Plan 15

DfMA STRATEGY

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Construction Sequence: Volumetric

01

02

Steel piles are driven 15m into the ground and topped with a concrete pad-foundation footing.

03

Light gauge steel modules brought to site and â&#x20AC;&#x153;stackedâ&#x20AC;? for 6 levels.

**3.5m by 7m module size heavily determined by truck transportation allowance

the cores provide lateral bracing as stability for the building

Concrete podium built (precast panels) + volumetric concrete cores brought to site and assembled first.

Modules are arranged in 4 groups divided up by the cores placed at less than 30m from the furthest module

04

Metal Deck Rigid Insulation Single Ply Deck

Metal deck roof cassette tops the building and parapet walls are built

16

DfMA STRATEGY

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Exploded Axonometric of a Module

TECHNICAL INFORMATION Structural Frame: 65x1.6mm Steel C Sections @ 400mm Centres Floor Cassette: • Insulated light gauge steel sections • 25mm wood sheathing (chipboard) • 100mm thick rigid insulation Walls: • Insulated Light Gauge Steel frame • 12mm Gypsum Wallboard (flanking steel frame) • Damp Proof Membrane • Clad with rainscreen cladding of 800mm x 3000mm panels • X-bracing; crossed flat steel straps fixed to the external faces of the studs Ceiling Cassette • 65x1.6mm Steel C Sections @ 400mm Centres • 100mm thick rigid insulation • 25mm plasterboard

17

DESIGN RESOLUTION 01

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Ground Floor Plan

08

06

08

08 02

02

02

02

09

06 10

02

01

02

03

09

06

07

02

02

02

08

09

01 04 05

Legend 01:Escape Stairs 02:Commercial/Rentable Space 03:Residential Plant Room 04:Commercial Plant Room 05:Rubbish Area 06:Mechanical Riser Core 07:Electrical Riser Core 08:8-person Lift 09:Mail Box Area 10:Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Reception 0

5

10

25 18

DESIGN RESOLUTION 01

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

First Floor Plan

0

5

10

25 19

STRUCTURAL DETAIL

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Longitudinal Section

Longitudinal Section 20

STRUCTURAL DETAIL

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Transverse Section

Transverse Section 21

MEP ROUTING

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Mechanical Systems in the Building Cores going all the way to the accessible roof for servicing

Plant room residential above

serving levels

Duct routing for commerical shops.

Plant room serving commerical shops on ground floor

Mechanical Risers Lift Shafts MEP Cupboard in Apts Electrical Riser 22

DESIGN RESOLUTION 01

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

23

DESIGN RESOLUTION 02

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Iteration 02: User Viewpoint

LOW

COST

HIGH

SHORT

QUALITY

9

COST QUALITY TIME

HQI Score:

Site Specific Parameters Location = 4.45% Visual Impact = 2.05% Open Space = 2% Routes and Movement=3.45% Accessibility = 1.55%

TIME

7 8

Scheme Specific Parameters Unit Size = 6.2% Layout = 5.1% Noise = 5% Sustainability = 3.6% Building for Life = 7.5% Unit variance = 8.7% Private amenity = 5%

Site schema total = 13.5% Schema total: 41.1% HQI Score: 54.6%

THE REWEIGHING OF THE HQI ALLOWS FOR A HIGHER MINIMUM STANDARD QUALITY. THUS THE AVERAGE HQI OF THIS SCHEME.

24

DESIGN DRIVERS REWEIGHING THE HQI Reweighing The HQI For The User

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

CURRENT HQI CRITERIA WEIGHTS

PROPOSED HQI CRITERIA WEIGHTS

100%

100%

Location (5%) Visual Impact (5%) Open Space (5%) Routes & Movement (5%) Accessibility (5%)

75% 50%

50%

Location (10%) Visual Impact (10%) Open Space (10%) Routes & Movement (10%) Accessibility (10%) Unit Size (10%) Unit Layout (10%) Unit Noise (10%) Sustainabilty (10%) Building For Life (10%)

0% Site-specific criteria

Unit Size (10%) Unit Layout (10%) Unit Noise (10%) Sustainabilty (10%) Building For Life (10%) Unit Variance and Demographics (10%) Robust Details Standard (10%) Private Amenities (5%)

25% 0%

Scheme-specific criteria

Site-specific criteria

Scheme-specific criteria

DEMOGRAPHICS: Using local authority data as a worked example for refining HQIs

90 2

(7 .7

%)

Using local demographic data to adjust the weighting of HQI scores, we suggest that developers will have a much greater incentive to follow the waiting list data when accommodating for various sizes of families - a greater HQI score means more government granted social housing subsidy.

5150 (43.96%)

3765 (32.14%)

98

18

% of local authority waiting list

%)

2 6.

(1

1 Bedspace

1 Bedspace

2 Bedspace

2 Bedspace

3 Bedspace

3 Bedspace

>3 Bedspace

Household sizes on the Greater Manchester waiting list for social housing (2016).

>3 Bedspace

% of apartments in scheme

% provided is +/- 5 of waiting list %

% provided is +/- 10 of waiting list %

% provided is +/- 20 of waiting list %

43.96

35

No

Yes

Yes

32.14

25

No

Yes

Yes

16.20

20

Yes

Yes

Yes

7.70

20

No

No

Yes

+2 score for each YES

+1 score for each YES

+0 score for each YES

Local Authority Housing Statistics dataset, England 2015-16: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/local-authority-housing-statistics-data-returns-for-2015-to-2016 25

MASSING + OPTIMIZATION 02

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Existing Module Reconfiguration Initial module arrangement

Modules shifted in order to increase SUNLIGHT and achieve DUAL ASPECT.

PRIVATE AMENITY added to give users private exterior space

26

SPACE PLANNING 02

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Choosing Apartment Types

LOW

COST

User’s Viewpoint: Single-bed Apts + Familily Apts

SHORT

HIGH

TIME

QUALITY

Hall 5.93m2

WC 3.16m2

1750

1.03m

2

WC 3.16m2

1750

1750

1750

1750

7000

Studio/1b1p

1b2p

1750

3500

3500

MEP Cupboard 1.94m2

3500

3500

3500

Living Area 28.99m2

1.30m2

Hall 9.70m2

° 26.57

3500

° 26.57

° 26.57

° 26.57

MEP Cupboard 1.94m2

1.03m

3500

MEP Cupboard 1.94m2

Bedroom 11.06m2

Bathroom 4.24m2

2

WC 3.16m2

3500

Hall 13.48m2

3500

MEP Cupboard 1.94m2

Bedroom 11.32m2

7000

7000

7000

WC 3.16m2

1.03m

2

Bedroom 11.32m2

Living Area 25.65m2

1750

1750

1750

1750

1750

1750 7000

1.03m

2

Living Area 37.31m2

° 26.57

Bedroom 11.32m2

° 26.57

° 26.57

° 26.57

° 26.57

Bedroom 6.42m2 Living Area 17.20m2

Planter 3.06m2

Balcony 3.06m2

° 26.57

Planter 3.06m2

Planter 3.06m2

° 26.57

Planter 3.06m2

° 26.57

Balcony 3.06m2

Planter 3.06m2

° 26.57

Balcony 3.06m2

1750

Balcony 3.06m2

10500

10500

2b3p

2b4p 0

1

5

10 27

DESIGN RESOLUTION 02

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Ground Floor Plan

08 09

02

07

01

02

06

10

02

11 02

01

02

04

03

05

07

07

02

01

Legend 01:Escape Stairs 02:Commercial/Rentable Space 03:Residential Plant Room 04:Commercial Plant Room 05:Rubbish Area 06:Mechanical Riser Core 07:Electrical Riser Core 08:8-person Lift 09:Mail Box Area 10:Residents’ Reception 11: Residents’ Entrance 0

2

5

10

20 28

DESIGN RESOLUTION 02

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

First Floor Plan

0

2

5

10

20 29

DESIGN RESOLUTION 02

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Longitudinal Section

30

DESIGN RESOLUTION 02

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

31

DESIGN RESOLUTION 02

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

32

DESIGN RESOLUTION 02

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

33

REFLECTION

Andreas Maragakis | Tere Sagay| Reiji Nagaoka

Project Conclusion It is important to understand that, while social housing is urgently needed on a national scale, housing is an intrinsic human right and should be delivered by housing providers with empathy being as much a design rationale as financial gain.

Through our investigations into social housing, we have learned that the reason architecture exists to make interventions is to question existing conventions and implement the end-user into design considerations.

Our endeavour to produce and develop two iterations for this project allows us to use the first iteration (developerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s viewpoint) to make a statement which criticizes the existing level of quality/standards. Creating a project which strictly adhered to minimum quality standards allowed us to understand the areas of the standards which need to be changed.

This understanding allowed us to move forward with a new minimum standard in order to create a project that starts to define livability and make compassionate but cost-effective interventions.

While the use of DfMA strategies falls in line with this costtime effective approach to social housing, the potential for reweighing satisfaction metrics in delivered buildings is not specific to any construction methodology, and has the potential to be adapted to all social housing developments as a result. It is our hope that future housing reform will ensure developers endeavour to design as carefully for occupant satisfaction as they would in the private sector.

34