FACADE RE-DESIGN A VISUAL EXPERIMENT Arch. Francesca RICCARDO PhD TU Delft, Faculty of Architecture, Department of Real Estate & Housing Dr. Clarine VAN OEL Department of Real Estate & Housing, Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft Ing. Peter DE JONG Department of Real Estate & Housing, Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft In cooperation with Ir. Paul DE RUITER Department of Building Technology - Design Informatics, Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft

2 CONTENT 1) Introduction 2) Questions and methodology 3) Facade characteristics tested & simulations 4) Results: expected vs. actual preferences 5) Next steps & challenges

3 1) INTRODUCTION

4 Would you say the open sewer is more beautiful than the wild river?* Wohlwill in ‘What belongs where’, 1979

Theory of aesthetics of the built environment We judge sharing common structures Beauty is (NOT) in the eye of the beholder Aesthetics is NOT a matter of personal taste/data driven Aesthetic preferences of buildings can be predicted Bottino et al., 2009; Gifford, 2000, Stamps, 1999 and 2000; Groat, 1988

6 If high aesthetics, demolition is no option If no demolition, longer life and less waste buildings more environmental friendly

7 YES Old buildings YES Curved, grooved and decorated surface NO atypical - modern style NL: bricks - traditional exteriors very appreciated Facade Preferences from research (van den Berkhof, 2008; Thissen, 2007; Herzog and Shier, 2000; Gifford, 2002; Stamps and Nasar, 1997; Stamps, 1999,)

8 WHY FACADES REDESIGN? - Postwar Housing: poor energy efficiency e.g. insulation (27% EU energy consumption - EU targets 2020 < 20%) - Postwar Housing: poor aesthetics, livability (no identity, dissatisfaction, vandalism) - Envelopes 80% of European building decay EC, 2007; Cecodhas, 2007; van der Flier and Thomsen, 2006; Koopman, 2007; Brunoro and Andeweg, 2007

9 For energy efficiency, decay and livability problems NOT ONLY technical aspects BUT ALSO preferences for architectural aesthetics

10 AIM of this study recommend housing associations and/or municipalities how to manage decay - livability problems of postwar neighborhoods to be renewed

11 1.To what extent are tenants willing to pay higher rent? 2.To what extent willingness of people to pay higher rent depends on characteristics of facade with combined effect on the energy efficiency and aesthetics for building? van Eck et.al., ) QUESTIONS & METHODOLOGY

12 Methodology WHAT: post-war multifamily blocks (47% EU) hallway-access flats HOW: Discrete Choice Method by on-line questionnaire Tenants express preference for hypothetical buildings differing on facade characteristics National Board of Housing Sweden, 2005; Bogerd et al., 2009

13 3) FACADE CHARACTERISTICS TESTED and SIMULATIONS Related to current Dutch renovation practice (NRP) Are innovative (bio-shading, living walls) 6 are appropriated for visual experiments 5 with combined effect Energy efficiency & Aesthetics 1 non facade characteristic Willingness pay higher rent

14 Procedure STEP 1 3 levels per characteristic STEP 2 receipt for combination of characteristics (SAS) STEP 3 3D imaging techniques to simulate characteristics STEP 4 production 36 paired simulations - questionnaire structure

15

16

17 4) RESULTS: EXPECTED vs ACTUAL PREFERENCES - PREF. for medium to high complexity YES but pref. medium levels (small difference with high) YES articulation and sustainable character (50% to 100% moss) exception window design full size window - PREF. for traditional solutions NO pref. 50% moss tiles over no tiles NO pref. bio-shading over venetians (small diff. venetians, screens) - PREF. for complexity in colors NO pref. 1 very dark color (small difference 2 colors medium-dark) - Willingness to pay a higher rent YES no difference 575 and 600, but 550 preferred over 600

18 5) NEXT STEPS & CHALLENGES SHORT RUN STEPS Run Dutch housing associations Recommendations LONG RUN STEPS Run Italian housing associations international research cooperation Other countries (e.g. Japan) demographic and cultural stability Other facade characteristics (e.g. random design, green)

19 CHALLENGES TECHNIQUES Test challenging simulation techniques (e.g. gyroscopic, virtual reality) Test interaction observer – built environment (exploration – change) (visited, June, 2010)

20 THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION!! Questions for discussion are very welcomed