Commune Multicriteria Analysis

Site Context | The Project

Stakeholder Classification | Power / Interest Matrix Stakeholder Network | Complexity Index | Social Network Analysis

Social | Technological | Economic | Environmental | Political Maps and Evaluations | Strategies

Decision Tree | Common Set of Criteria | Final Framework

Evaluation Factsheets | Performance Matrices Standardization | Weights | Ranking

City | Neighborhood

Site | Guidelines

Located in Spain, Barcelona is the capital and largest city of the autonomous community of Catalonia, as well as the second most populous municipality in the country and the sixth most populous urban area in the European Union.

Barcelona is one of the world's leading tourist, economic, trade fair and cultural centers, and its influence in commerce, education, entertainment, sports, media, fashion, science, and the arts all contribute to its status as one of the world's major global cities. It is a major cultural and economic center in southwestern Europe.

Nestled below Collserola hills, above Diagonal Avenue and due West of the city, is the district of Pedralbes, mostly residential, with few trades except a few hotels and restaurants, also comprises the university area of Barcelona and is considered the most expensive neighborhood in the city.

Located at the nodal point of Pedralbes, intersection between Av. D'Esplugues and Av. Diagonal, the site is a huge urban void on the slope of Collserola National Park, in a prominent position due to the topography of the site.

The main guideline of the project is to propose a social and architectural reflection on the spaces intended for prison institutions.

The insertion of an open model prison in a neighborhood recognized as Pedralbes serves to foster the discussion about the invisibility and prejudice faced by the prison population and also to demonstrate the importance of architecture as a transformative object and reinforce its role of inclusion and humanization.

Source: geoportalcartografia.amb.cat/AppGeoportalCartografia2/index.html

International

National

Regional

Local

Centrality Index | Density Index

Stakeholder analysis in conflict resolution and project management is the process of accessing the impact of a decision on relevant parties. This is used to assess how the interests of those stakeholders should be addressed in a project plan.

1

Political, Bureaucratic

Local

Political, Legal, Economic

2

General

Local

Cognitive

Quality of life

3

General

Local

Legal

Quality of life

4

General

Local

Cognitive

Quality of life, lower crime rate

5

General

National

Cognitive

Social relationship with the prisoners

6

Special Interest

Local

Economic

Economic development, lower crime rate

7

General

Local

Legal, Political

8

General

National/International

Political

General

National/International

Legal

Quality of life, improvement of social and health conditions, rehabilitation

10

Experts

National/International

Cognitive

Provide professional insights on environmental development

11

Experts

National/International

Cognitive

Provide professional insights on environmental development

12

Experts

National/International

Cognitive

Provide professional insights on social development

13

Experts

National/International

Cognitive

Provide professional insights on building the concept of an “open prison”

14

Experts

National/International

Cognitive

Provide professional insights on technical issues

15

Experts

Regional

Cognitive

Provide professional insights on quality of life, safety, and security as users of prisons

16

Bureaucratic

National

Legal, Political

Provide professional insights on safety and security

17

Special Interest

Local

Legal, Political

Economic profit, technical support regarding existing site conditions

18

Special Interest

Local

Legal, Political

Economic profit

19

Special Interest

Local, National

Economic

Economic profit

9

(human rights, prisoner welfare)

Lower crime rate, increasing economy and quality of life

Quality of life, lower crime rate Highlight news and affects public perception

The Power / Interest Matrix divides the stakeholders into four categories: key players, keep satisfied, keep informed, and minimal effort. Their grouping depends on the combination of their level of interest and power.

Environmentalists Geologists Sociologists Architects Engineers Aigües de Barcelona Site Owner

Residents Media

Municipality of Barcelona NGOs Association of Guards Secretaria General Instituciones Penitenciarias Developers

Prisoners / Inmates Neighbors Guards Visitors Local Businesses

The Key Players are the Stakeholders who are most involved in the project and have the power to influence the direction of the project. They are involved in the decision-making process and are engaged with and consulted on a regular basis. The Municipality of Barcelona governs the site and has the power to approve or reject the project based on local ordinances and guidelines. Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) are groups that hold special interest in the welfare and development of the project and may be involved as representatives of the general public. We considered the Association of Guards to be a consultant specifically for the inner workings of a prison and the welfare of the end users of the project. The Secretaria General Instituciones Penitenciarias is the governing body of all prisons in Spain and has power and jurisdiction over the project. Developers have special interest in the project due to high financial investment.

The complexity is defined as the existence of a plurality of points of view within processes. The Complexity Index is used in order to group the stakeholders according to what kind of players they are and to show their scale of interest.

The complexity is measured by multiplying the number of rows filled in by the number of columns.

For this project, the maximum complexity is 20 (4 rows x 5 columns).

The project complexity is 13 out of 20.

The complexity is high due to the stakeholders being multi-dimensional, some falling under more than one scale of interest.

The Social Network Analysis gives a visual image of how the different stakeholders interact and affect one another. It is an important tool for the designer to understand the relationships between the stakeholders and how it can affect the development of the project.

1 2

5

3 4 2

5

3

6 7 12

15

9

13

1

16

8

8 9

(human rights, prisoner welfare)

10

10

11 12 13

11

18

14

4

14 17

15 16 17 18 19

6 7

19

Minimal Effort Keep Informed Keep Satisfied Key Players

C = ki / Σki

The Centrality Index is computed using the following equation:

C = ki / Σki

1

C1 = 5/19 = 0.26

Where: Ki is the number of relations of each stakeholder C is the centrality coefficient between 0 and 1

2

C2 = 6/19 = 0.32

3

C3 = 2/19 = 0.11

4

C4 = 4/19 = 0.21

The stakeholder with the highest centrality is the Architect as the principal coordinator of the project. Next to the Architect are the Prisoners as the end users of the project then the Municipality which is considered a key player due to their degree of influence.

5

C5 = 2/19 = 0.11

6

C6 = 1/19 = 0.05

7 8

D = Σki / (n2-n) Where: Ki is the number of relations of each stakeholder D is the density coefficient between 0 and 1 n is the number of relations in total Density indicates the intensity of relations between the actors of a decision-making process. In this case, the density index is low because there are many stakeholders that are interconnected.

C7 = 1/19 = 0.05 C8 = 3/19 = 0.16 C9 = 4/19 = 0.21

D = Σki / (n2-n)

10

C10 = 2/19 = 0.11

D = 54 / (192-19)

11

C11 = 3/19 = 0.16

D = 0.1579

12

C12 = 2/19 = 0.11

13

C13 = 7/19 = 0.37

14

C14 = 2/19 = 0.11

15

C15 = 3/19 = 0.16

16

C16 = 2/19 = 0.11

17

C17 = 1/19 = 0.05

18

C18 = 3/19 = 0.16

19

C19 = 1/19 = 0.05

9 The Density Index is computed using the following equation:

Residents

D = Σki / (n2-n)

(human rights, prisoner welfare)

SWOT (Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats) is a strategy analysis tool that is useful in strategy formulation. The approach is to consider internal and external factors in maximizing the potential of the strengths and opportunities while minimizing the impact of the weaknesses and threats. For this analysis, the site is the main boundary for internal and external factors.

Strengths and weaknesses are evaluated in relation to the site; opportunities and threats are evaluated according to the neighborhood, immediate surroundings, and all other external factors.

There are five components to be evaluated using the SWOT matrix: Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, and Political- simply called STEEP. We’ve created a code to for the development of our strategies. The first letter corresponds to the STEEP component, the second corresponds to the SWOT, and the third is an assigned numerical value (ex. SS1 = Social Strength 1).

Growth of population, health, education, socio-economic

Communication and technology, infrastructures

Economy sectors, job demand and growth, finance

Natural environment, sustainable development, air-water quality

Government, international corporations, NGOs, community

Visual connection with the city that can give feelings of connectedness Located between two residential areas

Not easily accessible by public transportation (main access to site is by bus or private vehicle) Visual connection with the city that can also be a constant reminder of being imprisoned

Strategic location between different municipalities, interconnecting and developing interaction among people Near army base that could contribute as support in security aspect Proximity to sports facilities, schools, libraries Proximity to cultural areas

Incompatibility of neighbors (residents, schools, local businesses) and the negative perception of an “open prison” to be developed on the site

Located along a major highway used as the main access point to the site

Presence of water depots that can pose as a design limitation

Presence of highway underground and two pedestrian areas on ground level to access the site

Unknown location of existing water pipes connecting the water depots at the top and bottom of the site can be a design limitation or cause hazards

Bad relation between the sidewalk (parallel to highway) and the site Due to topography, accessibility is restricted to one point not connected to two pedestrian areas

Development of a Metro station and line within 500m walking distance

Proximity to the highway as a possible escape route

Completion of the Metro station can make the site easily connected to the city center

Lack of bike infrastructure

Hotel

Local Businesses

Hotel

Water Depot Owner of part of the Site

Large urban void that can be used to generate resources

Negative perception and presence of an “open prison” can affect real estate desirability and prices

Restaurant Restaurant Pharmacy Pharmacy Café (UPC Campus) Café (UPC Campus) Restaurant

Large green area that can be used for agriculture or other income generating activities for prisoners

Overlap in ownership of the site— owner of water depots and owner of prison High cost of building on a sloped site

High cost of building on granite soil

Proximity to possible work opportunities for prisoners Proximity to hospitality (hotels, hostels, B&Bs, etc.) for possible out of town visitors to boost local economy

Negative perception and presence of an “open prison” can affect real estate desirability and prices Lack of small local businesses in nearby surroundings

Existing natural environment and topography as a point of interest for the development of an “open prison” Elevation and location of site provide good vantage point to the city Large open space that can be used for agriculture and other outdoor activities Topography serves as natural borders Location provides good ventilation

Absence of trees = no shadows, high temperature Topography and lack of trees on site can cause a natural hazard Steep slope on courtyards could cause erosion on the mountain (landslide) Site is oriented towards the sun path; higher temperatures during hot season

Site is oriented towards the sun path; higher temperatures during cold season

Site is near natural parks like Collserola and manmade parks like Parc de Cervantes Natural corridors as opportunity to build natural borders— wall of trees, shrubs, etc.

Near major highway polluting the area— noise and air

Flexible site boundaries— open for expansion

Location of site is at the highest buildable area of Collserola that can give visibility to the project and contribute to changing the perception of a prison

Overlap of site ownership that can cause conflict of interest during development

Possible independence of Catalunya from Barcelona can cause a change management and maintenance of facilities

Development of a new concept of prison as an extension of the city Use topography as a good vantage point in design Minimize soil movement and excavation in design Orient design to utilize sun and wind paths and patterns Orient design in order to maximize the undefined borders of the site Use soft landscaping to create more comfortable site environment

Possibly connect two residential areas and facilities to the prison community Connect public access points to the site’s access Use site as a connection between two pedestrian areas Utilize existing water depots using light infrastructure or open space

Propose more friendly retaining wall design Create additional access through pedestrian route Use topography as a natural site border Propose bike infrastructure near site surroundings Integrate productive facilities in the program (crafts, labor, etc.)

Design infrastructure for possible partnerships with nearby institutions

Restrict building on slopes greater than 30% Possibly connect two residential areas and facilities to the prison community Connect public access points to the site’s access

The project “Commune” is inspired by the idea of emulating a community that supports the development of the concept of an open prison. The design approach is centered towards creating a prison typology that aids its inmates in the preparation to reintegrate into society with spaces that facilitate communal living and gathering as well as fostering learning and growth. All this without compromising the security and indication of it being a prison.

The implementation of the project follows the idea of being like a new neighborhood added to the Pedralbes area. The main objective is to merge the Institution with the rest of the city, helping to undo the stereotype of conventional prison models, as well as visually and conceptually promote the idea of integration.

Location of the openings respecting the orientation of the sun and the main local wind currents, allowing the reduction of costs for maintaining thermal comfort.

The topography allow the location of the buildings with a privileged view to the rest of the city of Barcelona. This strategy is essential to maintain the connection, even visual, between the inside and outside of the institution.

Definition of buildings that function as clear physical barriers, delimiting the land that is currently considered an urban void on the slope of Collserola Park.

The topographic conditions of the land allow the location of the buildings so that all have a privileged view to the rest of the city of Barcelona. This strategy is essential to maintain the connection, even visual, between the inside and outside of the institution.

Development of landscaping as a central element of the project, characterized by being the main route of connection between the different areas of the project and also by housing areas of contemplative leisure and conviviality among inmates.

Using the same five components in the SWOT analysis– Social, Technological, Economic, Environmental, and Political– an activity was held in the classroom for the thirteen (13) groups in the class to define sub-criteria to be used for the multicriteria analysis. Below are the sub-criteria set by Group 1 during this class activity:

Creation of exterior public spaces Creation of interior integration areas Visual connection with the city

Accessibility within the site Access points from outside the site Fulfilling the spaces in the architectural program

Creation of job opportunities Integrate productive facilities Reduce cost by minimizing soil movement and excavation

Creation of new green spaces Creation of private courtyards

Minimize soil movement and excavation

New type of boundaries Increase quality of life for prisoners

After the classroom activity with the groups creating their own sub-criteria, an expert was consulted to synthesize the input collected. It was during the activity that the Political component was removed from the criteria after concluding that it was not within the measurable scope of the project. Below is the final decision tree illustrating the main objective of the project, the criteria, and the synthesized sub-criteria.

Creating space for education

Creating meeting points inside the prison

Group 1

Group 2

Objective

Creating public open spaces

Group 3

Criteria

Soft mobility to reach the prison

Group 4

Accessibility inside and in the accesses to the prison

Group 5

Group 6

Sub-Criteria

Passive systems

Group 7

Re-using existing buildings

Group 8

Integrating the project with the topography

Group 9

Reducing air and noise pollution

Group 10

Increasing Considering the number the capital of job investment opportunities

Group 11

Group 12

Attracting investors

Group 13

Similar to the formulation of a common set of criteria, input was collected from the groups regarding the descriptions, units of measurement, and classification of the sub-criteria as a cost or benefit. Each group submitted these and an expert was consulted in creating the final framework for the project to be used in the evaluation process.

Creating space for education

Providing education as the vital part of rehabilitation and reintegration into society. Designing a place suitable for the inmates to learn to maintain their good behavior and promote activities

Qualitative - 0+

Benefit

Creating meeting points inside the prison

Creating spaces for the inmates to gather and interact with each other to provide them the social life they need as not to feel isolated like dining hall and multimedia room. Meeting points are all those familiar spaces where the prisoners and the other people that live inside the prison can meet, talk and be together.

Qualitative - 0+

Benefit

Creating public open spaces (integrating inside and outside)

Encouraging social interaction between inmates, workers, visitors and citizens.

Quantitative 0 - 100 %

Benefit

Improving the soft mobility to reach the prison

Designing pedestrian and bicycle path to facilitate the access to the prison for visitors and promote the soft mobility. The new path should be connected to existing public and private infrastructures

Binary yes / no

Benefit

Improving the accessibility inside the prison and the accesses

Facilitating the inner circulation of the prison by providing different access and dedicated distribution for different users

Qualitative - 0+

Benefit

Exploiting passive systems

Creating a sustainable project with minimum resources and maximum efficiency in terms of building technology

Qualitative - 0+

Benefit

Re-using existing buildings

Taking advantage by the presence of existing building

Quantitative m²

Benefit

Integrating the project with the topography

Establishing a balance between natural terrain and modified landscape

Qualitative - 0+

Benefit

Reducing air and noise pollution

Providing devices and precautions that are going to reduce the noise and air pollution coming from the main traffic nodes of the area and from the highway that runs next to the site.

Qualitative - 0+

Benefit

Increasing the number of job opportunities

Offering facilities and activities to increase the number of job opportunities

Qualitative - 0+

Benefit

Considering the Capital investment

Minimizing the cost of the intervention

Qualitative - 0+

Benefit

Attracting investors

Evaluating the capacity of the project to be interesting and appealing for potential investors.

Quantitative number

Benefit

The Final Framework developed was used to evaluate the performance of the different design alternatives proposed by the thirteen (13) groups. The evaluation was done using Definite Software. The educational version of the program limits the input of alternatives to ten (10) so the evaluation process was split into two for the class– half of the class performed the evaluation on the first seven groups and the other half on the remaining six groups.

The Evaluation Factsheets give an overview of the criteria, sub-criteria, and how these were addressed in the design proposal by highlighting relevant strategies or features of the design on the masterplan.

The Performance Matrices illustrate in the form of a chart and bar graph the evaluated performance of each design alternative. In the following pages, these graphical representations will be shown per sub-criteria with the standardized line graphs.

Standardization is done to make criteria comparable using the value function.

Standardized line charts and graphs will illustrate the comparison of the different alternatives proposed. With standardization, the physical measurements (sqm, n°, % area) are translated into a dimensionless score with values ranging from 0 to 1 for each sub-criteria.

Weights dictate the levels of importance to the criteria and sub-criteria of an evaluation. For this, a multi-criteria analysis specialist was consulted. This method is called direct allocation.

With the use of Definite Software, a partial and final ranking was created considering the 13 alternatives, the criteria and sub-criteria, and their assigned weights. The results can be viewed with a general ranking or according to each criteria or sub-criteria showing how each alternative performed.

Scenarios or different perspectives are generated by Definite Software that allow the redistribution of weights. This tool allows the evaluation of the performance of each alternative when a particular criteria is given more importance than the others. This is used to see the stability of the rankings and evaluation.

The project has four workshop buildings which include areas for painting, pottery, and carpentry. These workshop buildings also include classrooms, lecture rooms, laboratories, exhibition galleries, and a library. The classrooms and workshops can accommodate small and large groups with moveable partitions.

The spaces are flexible in both interior and exterior. Each workshop building is connected to an outdoor open space to extend activities to the exterior and connect interior and exterior spaces.

housing units, taluds, pocket gardens, main axis

Quality of life and preparation for integration with society is of utmost importance to the project. Each housing unit is provided with their own common areas like living rooms and a private connection to a backyard talud. These small meeting points within the housing units provide opportunity for the inmates to create meaningful connections amongst one another. Larger spaces like pocket gardens between two adjoining units and the main axis provide venues for larger communal gathering.

For this sub-criteria, the unit of measure was set to quantitative in terms of percentage of the site area to be used. The highest possible score was uniformly set at 70% with the logic that this is the maximum site area we can use for public open spaces.

Because the relationship of the inmates to society is a priority for the project, a large area was provided for nourishing these relationships in the sociocultural building which houses the theater, dining hall, the visitors’ area for family, friends, and more formally legal consultants, and a large open plaza on top of the guest houses.

workshops, classrooms, sports

theater, dining hall, visitors’ area

high, medium, low

high

high

high

high

high

medium

+

+

+

+

+

0

1

1

1

1

1

0,5

high, medium, low

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03

GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

high, medium, low

high

high

high

medium

medium

medium

+

+

+

+

+

0

1

1

1

0,5

0,5

1

high, medium, low

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03

GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

0-100%

28%

25%

25%

17%

23%

21%

28%

25%

25%

17%

23%

21%

0,40

0,36

0,36

0,24

0,33

0,30

0-100%

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03

GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

Pedestrian and bicycle paths were designed in the project to facilitate access to the prison for visitors and outside guests. Only one common site entry point is provided for security that then splits to the visitors’ building and guest houses at the lower level or to the administrative and check-in building at the higher entry platform.

border buildings: louvers

pedestrian and bicycle paths

Access within the site is separated for inmates and visitors. The visitors are allowed access to the guest houses, the visitors building, and the ground floor of the sociocultural building including the theater, the dining hall, and the outdoor piazza. The main vertical access of the site is through the administrative buildings that begin with the check-in building and terminate with the guards housing. There are five main horizontal circulation paths within the prison giving access to the housing units, the main axis with soft landscaping, and ending with the workshop buildings that act as a border for the project. There are multiple smaller paths within the site for the prisoners to access the different levels while staying within the secure borders of the prison. The group was ranked high for this sub-criteria also because of the presence of ramps within the horizontal circulation paths and elevators in the border buildings making the project accessible.

For this sub-criteria, the group scored medium on a qualitative scale because of the consideration of the sun and wind paths in the building design and orientation. Passive systems such as passive cooling and sun shading strategies such as overhangs and vertical louvers were used in the building designs.

housing units: overhangs

inmates circulation

visitors / guest circulation

high, medium, low

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes

1

1

1

1

1

1

high, medium, low

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03

GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

high, medium, low

high

high

high

high

medium

high

+

+

+

+

0

+

1

1

1

1

0,5

1

high, medium, low

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03

GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

high, medium, low

medium

medium

medium

medium

high

medium

0

0

0

0

+

0

0,5

0,5

0,5

0,5

1

0,5

high, medium, low

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03 GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06

GROUP 07

site border strategy One of the existing water depots at the bottom of the site was used as a platform for sports activities. Because of its function and structure, the depot cannot accommodate heavy load. For this reason, it was only utilized for light infrastructure such as basketball courts and steel bleachers. The water depot at the top of the site was seen as an opportunity to serve as a border for the prison. Because of its orientation, general shape, and location it also serves as a visual focal point.

parallel orientation

At the time the evaluation was conducted, the project was ranked a medium in the qualitative scale because it follows the natural orientation of the landscape and takes advantage of the contour lines with the use of ramps and built terraces but the use of containing walls was unavoidable in certain buildings. Containing walls were used in the border elements that were strategically placed perpendicular to the topography.

One of the threats evaluated during the SWOT analysis was the air and noise pollution coming from the highway that runs next to the site which is a main traffic node in Barcelona. The project addresses this with both natural and artificial methods. Preserved and additional vegetation is placed at the border of the site near the highway and thickly along the central axis of the project and other pocket gardens. This vegetation serves as both an air purifier and sound barrier that helps provide a better living environment within the prison. Artificial air and noise control methods such as air purifying paint and noise insulating walls are also used in certain areas of the project.

sports facilities

soft landscaping

sqm

3.753

1.820

3.860

0

0

700

3.753

1.820

3.860

0

0

700

0,83

0,40

0,85

0

0

0,15

sqm

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03

GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

high, medium, low

high

high

medium

high

high

medium

+

+

0

+

+

0

1

1

0,5

1

1

0,5

high, medium, low

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03

GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

high, medium, low

high

medium

high

high

medium

medium

+

0

+

+

0

0

1

0,5

1

1

0,5

0,5

high, medium, low

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03

GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

As mentioned in previous criteria, the project has four (4) dedicated workshop buildings. These are intended for the development of the skills of the inmates to give them better chances at finding a means to make a living when they are no longer incarcerated. These spaces serve as a venue for learning and other activities that can be beneficial in their reintegration to society. Additionally, these spaces along with the dining hall can give the inmates an opportunity to generate income while in prison.

total site area building footprint gross floor area landscape area underground area

20.886 sqm 6.372 sqm 11.148,50 sqm 14.514 sqm 3.186 sqm

*assumed half of building footprint

This sub-criteria considers the cost of the project. One of our main strategies is to minimize soil movement and excavation in the design therefore the project does not have any completely underground levels, only partial excavations. For the sake of the evaluation, an assumption was made that the underground floor area is half of the building footprint. Because we minimized excavation, the building footprint is still relatively significant therefore the project scored medium in this sub-criteria.

The unit of measure used for this sub-criteria was a quantitative number of private spaces within the prison that can attract potential investors. For this, the project has three spaces: the theater, the dining hall, and the guest houses.

workshops, classrooms, library

theater, dining hall, guest houses

high, medium, low

high

high

high

high

high

high

+

+

+

+

+

+

1

1

1

1

1

0,5

high, medium, low

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03 GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

high, medium, low

medium

medium

medium

low

high

high

0

0

0

-

+

+

0,5

0,5

0,5

0

1

1

high, medium, low

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03 GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

n°

7

3

5

12

8

3

7

3

5

12

8

3

0,58

0,25

0,42

1

0,67

0,25

n°

GROUP 01 GROUP 02 GROUP 03 GROUP 04 GROUP 05 GROUP 06 GROUP 07

Creating space for education Creating meeting points in the prison

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

0.5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1.00

0.40

0.37

0.35

0.24

0.33

0.29

0.35

0.28

0.62

0.26

0.68

0.49

Improving soft mobility

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0

1

1

1

1

1

Improving accessibility inside the prison

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

1

1

0.5

1

Exploiting passive systems

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

0.5

1

1

Re-using existing buildings

1.00

0.83

0.40

0.85

0.00

0.00

0.15

0.86

0.83

0.12

0.00

0.00

0.82

Integrating the project with the topography

0.5

1

1

0.5

1

1

0.5

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0.5

1

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1

1

1 1

Creating public open spaces

Reducing air and noise pollution Increasing number of job opportunities

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Considering the capital investment

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1

1

1

0

1

1

0.5

0

Attracting investors

0.25

0.58

0.25

0.42

1.00

0.67

0.25

0.17

0.50

0.42

0.17

0.25

0.42

GRP 1 GRP 2 GRP 3 GRP 4 GRP 5

31% Creating space for education

37%

Creating meeting points in the prison

16%

Creating public open spaces

47%

By assigning weights, more importance is given to specific criteria or sub-criteria that can affect the overall ranking of an alternative. It should be noted that the projects were at partial completion at the time the evaluation was made.

rank 1°

31% Improving soft mobility

13%

Improving accessibility inside the prison

62%

Exploiting passive systems

25% 23%

Re-using existing buildings

6%

Integrating the project with the topography

57%

Reducing air and noise pollution

37%

The design proposal of Group 1 received a good ranking overall being 1°. In the two heaviest weighted criteria, our alternative was also ranked 1° which is likely due to our main design strategies focusing heavily on the quality of life and reintegration of the inmates as well as accessibility within the prison. However, our alternative ranked low as 5° in the other two criteria. This was surprising to us because we also prioritized environmental aspects in our design. This is likely due to the assigned unit of measures for each sub-criteria.

15% Increasing number of job opportunities

33%

Considering the capital investment

57%

Attracting investors

10%

Because we ranked higher in the heavier weighted criteria and lower in the lower weighted criteria, our design proposal still received a good ranking.

rank 1°

rank 1°

rank 5°

rank 5°

GRP 6 GRP 7

rank 1°

rank 1°

rank 1°

In the assigned weights given by the analysis expert, our design proposal was ranked as 1° overall. To test the stability of this result, different scenarios or perspectives were evaluated. Using Definite Software, the 7 alternatives were tested by giving a heavier weight to one of the four main criteria and giving equal weight to the other three.

With the different perspectives generated

by Definite Software, we can see that our alternative remains 1° for social and technological. When the environmental criteria is given a heavier weight, our alternative goes up three ranks from 5° to 2°. This may be attributed to our project having the highest standardized value for reusing existing buildings which is the only sub-criteria where the values– measured initially by sqm– vary greatly. When the economic criteria is given a heavier weight, our alternative goes up two ranks from 5° to 3°. Although this seems like an unusual result, we understand that the higher values we received in the other criteria also affect this ranking.

rank 2° Social Technological

Environmental rank 3°

Economic

rank 2°

rank 1°

rank 3°

rank 11°

rank 9°

With the help of an expert, a final ranking considering all 13 alternatives and the assigned weights to the criteria and subcriteria was made. With this evaluation, we are able to see the performance of our design proposal compared to that of our classmates.

The design proposal received a good overall ranking of 2° with a standardized value of 0,84 coming second only to the alternative proposed by Group 10 whose project received an overall standardized value of 0,88.

Using the rankings per criteria, we can see that our design proposal received a low ranking in the categories of environmental and economic. With this data, we are able to review our design and strategies in relation to these criteria.

This report shows the background and steps taken towards the development of an open sustainable prison in Barcelona. The main objective is to inform, assist project development, and define the best design solution among different alternatives.

The first step was the introduction of the site, its context, and local needs. Also added at this stage is the core concept of the project and its main objectives. This step is of fundamental importance for the physical reading of the site and assists in defining the main design strategies.

The second step proposes a more complex reflection on the project. It includes Stakeholder Analysis that points out the main actors involved in the process along with their scales of action and the SWOT Analysis which is done to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats within the categories chosen as the main ones: Social, Technological, Environmental and Economic. This step is an essential tool that assists in the formulation of design strategies and guides the project development in order to remedy the negative points found and improve the positive points.

The next step is the Multicriteria Analysis and Evaluation. For this, the process was carried out with the participation of all 13 groups: defining the core aspects of each criteria and addressing and justifying design strategies to fulfill each of the sub-criteria.

In this stage we used Definite Software, a very relevant tool for the creation of a performance matrix, standardization of results, and definition of weights for each criteria and sub-criteria. This tool shows through graphs and tables the design proposal that best fits and meets the requirements necessary to meet the main objective of the project and makes it possible to compare proposals in different ways and considering different scenarios. With the results of the evaluation done at partial completion, we are given an opportunity to find the areas in which we can improve our projects.

After all this, rankings are produced to show the performance of the different design alternatives. Group 1 appears in the partial ranking in first place and the final ranking in the second position, which confirms the correct design direction.

https://www.casa.cat/barrio-de-pedralbes/ http://www.oh-barcelona.com/en/barcelona-districts/pedralbes/

https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/informaciourbanistica/cerca/es/fitxa/COLLSERO/--/--/ap/ https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/ecologiaurbana/es/servicios/la-ciudad-funciona/urbanismoy-gestion-del-territorio/informacion-urbanistica https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/websmunicipals/es/tema/medio-ambiente-y-sostenibilidad/ https://ajuntament.barcelona.cat/websmunicipals/es/tema/cartografia-y-calles/ https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/agua/temas/gestion-de-los-riesgos-de-inundacion/mapapeligrosidad-riesgo-inundacion/Mapas-peligrosidad-segundo-ciclo-2019.aspx

https://w33.bcn.cat/planolBCN/es/guia/act/hospitales-y-clinicas-I001,caps-I002,centrosurgencias--cuaps--I007/angle/44.4/position/420820,4578274/ https://www.tmb.cat/en/home https://geoportalcartografia.amb.cat/AppGeoportalCartografia2/index.html

http://thenounproject.com http://unsplash.com