Evaluation Criteria

Components of Criteria

Affordability Housing with a mix of density, flexible to meet needs of different income groups to ensure housing is accessible to the average citizen

Density Typology Cost Mix Function Emergency Housing Long/Short Term Housing

The number of inhabitants per unit area Use of new building types or adaptation of existing building types Cost effective reuse of existing buildings, use of policies to manage costs More than one function; adds vitality through creative mixed use of spaces Low cost accomodation for people in need Temporary housing for refugees and immigrants; meets quality standards

Infrastructure Social Space Accessibility Environment Housing Quality Human Scale

Basic physical and organisational structure and facilities Provide spaces for social activities that lead to neighbourhood interaction Network of roads, pedestrians, transit that helps ability to access site Considers people’s surroundings and conditions of living Design of lighting conditions, streets and facilities for quality and safety Evaluation Criteria Size and articulation of physical elements to the scale of human comfort

Low Energy Consumption Flexibility Building Configuration Climate Consideration

Includes passive design solutions and water management systems Provides possibility to adapt spaces for changing needs Building forms take sun path and wind patterns into consideration Open spaces and building facades consider sun angles and seasonal temperatures

Identity Cultural Consideration Historical Consideration

Gives residents better sense of ownership and belonging to the area Sensitive to different values and lifestyles of people Considers influence of history on heritage buildings, open spaces and built form

Density Sharing Space Transport Mode

Spatial allocation of population contributed to local community and city needs Creates significant green spaces to be shared by the city Provides multiple well-integrated public, private and non-vehicular transit options

Speed Economic Robustness Funding Phasing

Number of years to implement project Ability to remain valid under different assumptions, parameters and conditions Identification of investment costs and funding sources Clear rationale for implementation stages

Liveability Enhances the quality of the site resulting in improved quality of life; access to sunlight, air, public transportation, recreation, jobs and other services Sustainability Promotes energy efficiency through building forms and orientation, savings in electricity, water, materials and lessens impacts on the environment Neighbourhood Builds on the identity of the place, uses cultural or historical references, or specific uses or activities as identifiers to nurture community belongingness Vibrant Open Space A functional mix supports interaction with surrounding urban community; considers living spaces and open spaces in relation to the city Implementation Identified stakeholders, phases and funding; identified user groups to enable planning; allows community participation in decision making

Results 18 16

Each of the schemes was evaluated based on the criteria and then individually scored from 1 to 4, with 4 as the highest. The scores for each category were then averaged and totaled. The 6 schemes that had the highest total score were chosen. These are Health Kiez, Green Density, Urban Nucleus, Living in the Green Oasis, Liveable Axes, and Newcomers.

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Bo

ard

wa y

He alt

hK

iez

Gr ee n

De

An to

ns

ity

Th

nS

alm

ae

fko w

Kie

än

z

N Liv Ur Nee Liv Ne ba iigghh ing wc ea nN ble om bboo in uc ruhro Gr ers Ax l h e ee oodo es iez us nO dCoC as non is nenc tec t

nK

Sh

are

It

Affordability Liveability Sustainability Affordability Liveability Sustainability Vibrant Open Space Neighbourhood Implementation Quality of Open Space Neighborhood Implementation

Master of Urban Development

Design 2015-2016

113