RE-DWELL: Definition

Post-occupancy Evaluation

Area: Design, planning and building

As the name suggests, Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) is the process of assessing the performance of a building once it has been occupied. It is often conflated and falls under the umbrella of Building Performance Evaluation (BPE) (Boissonneault & Peters, 2023; Preiser, 2005; Stevenson, 2018). Other definitions refer to POE as any activity intended to assess how buildings perform and the level of satisfaction of their users, ranging from simple survey questionnaires to indoor environmental quality (IEQ) measurements, which makes its scope very broad (Li et al., 2018). Nevertheless, in the case of POE, the focus should be on the occupants’ experience of the building and the impact of spaces on their behaviour and well-being (Watson, 2003 in Sanni-Anibire et al., 2016). It is commonly suggested that POE should be conducted at least a year after the handover and occupation of the building so that users can experience and test it under different weather conditions (RIBA et al., 2016). In the context of housing, housing providers, developers and architecture practices can benefit from enquiring what makes a good design from the occupants’ point of view. A systematic and rigorous POE combined with periodic user experience surveys can be very beneficial as it helps to improve relationships with tenants and provide a better picture of the quality of the housing stock. Thus, POEs do not only help to balance the scale between the social, economic and environmental aspects of buildings but also revitalise the role of research in the whole life cycle of projects.

Despite its potential benefits for the various stakeholders engaged in the production of the built environment, POE is not a widespread practice in the sector. There is a notable absence of literature and research on the subject (Durosaiye et al., 2019; Hadjri & Crozier, 2009). However, since the 2010s, there has been a growing academic interest in POE, as evidenced by the increasing number of scientific publications, including studies related to post-occupancy evaluation (Li et al., 2018). There is a consensus in literature that learning from experience, whether from unintended consequences of ill-considered design or from successful projects, through the active involvement of occupants and users of buildings is a pathway for innovation. POE is commonly considered as an activity that requires long-term commitment and can be time and resource-consuming. This is a limitation that can be explained by the short-term logic of the construction sector and the fleeting commitment of developers, especially private and profit-driven, to the communities and clients they work with. In the same vein, the question of who is responsible for commissioning and conducting a POE represents the biggest barrier to its widespread implementation in the sector (Cooper, 2001). Concerns are inextricably linked to the cost and scope of the assessment, the equipment and professionals involved, and the possibility of being held accountable for flaws that might be exposed by the activity.

Discussions around the importance of inspecting buildings after completion to assess their environmental performance have gained momentum in recent decades as a consequence of the evidenced climate crisis and the significant share of carbon emissions attributable to activities related to the built environment (according to UNEP (2022), 37 per cent of CO2 emissions in 2021). Nonetheless, the emergence of POE as a concept for the built environment dates back to the 1960s in the USA, where it was originally used to assess institutional facilities and fell mainly within the remit of facility managers (Preiser, 1995). Later, the PROBE (Post Occupancy Review of Building Engineering) research conducted between 1995 to 2002 on 23 non-residential case studies in the UK helped spread the concept among the whole gamut of professionals involved in the design and construction of buildings (Bordass et al., 2001; Cohen et al., 2001). With respect to design and housing, the work of Marcus and Sarkissian (1986) in Housing as if People Mattered is worth mentioning. In this book, the authors have outlined a set of design guidelines derived from evidence gathered through POEs. Their research was conducted with the aim of comprehending people's preferences and dislikes about their neighbourhoods and homes, utilizing a people-centred perspective that delves into " the quality of housing environments from a social standpoint, as defined by residents" (p.5). Their approach to POE is grounded in viewing housing as a process rather than a mere product. They propose rethinking the relationship between the designer and inhabitant, extending beyond the completion of buildings. This perspective aligns with that of Brand (1995), who views buildings as intricate systems governed by the 'Shearing layers of change', a concept developed from Duffy's proposal (Duffy & Hannay, 1992). Accordingly, buildings are understood as layered structures in which time plays a pivotal role in the way they interact with each other and with the user. As Duffy stated, quoted in Brand (1995, p.12): “The unit of analysis for us isn’t the building, it’s the use of the building through time. Time is the essence of the real design problem.” This renders it necessary to go back to the building once finished and continue doing so throughout its lifecycle.

The levels of POE

The literature distinguishes between three ‘levels of effort’ at which POE can be conducted, which differ mainly in terms of the thoroughness and purpose of the assessment: indicative, investigative, and diagnostic (Hadjri & Crozier, 2009; Preiser, 1995; Sanni-Anibire et al., 2016). These levels vary in methods and the degree of engagement of researchers and participants, and encompassing the phases of planning, conducting and applying. They can be described briefly as follows:

Indicative: This level provides a general assessment of the most important positive and negative aspects of the building from the users' point of view. It involves a brief data collection period, characterised by walk-throughs, interviews and survey questionnaires with occupants. It is not exhaustive and may reveal more complex problems that need to be addressed with an investigative or diagnostic POE. It can be completed in a few hours or days.

Investigative: If a relevant problem identified in an indicative POE requires further research, an investigative POE is carried out. This second level implies a more robust amount of data to be collected, the use of more specialised methods, and possibly the disruption of occupants' routines and building use due to the prolonged engagement in the research endeavour. It can take weeks to months to complete.

Diagnostic: This level is characterised by its approach which is both longitudinal and cross-sectional. It may involve one or more buildings and a research process that may take months to a year or more to complete. It is more akin to research conducted by specialised institutions or scholars. The scope can be very specific but also have sector-wide implications.

Possible applications of the information gathered through POE

A more recent review of the literature on POE studies highlights the variegated range of purposes behind it: impact of indoor environmental quality on occupants, design and well-being, testing of technologies, informing future decision-making or feedforward, and impact of building standards and green rating systems, to name a few (Boissonneault & Peters, 2023; Li et al., 2018). The breadth of applications and rationale for conducting POE studies show that it is a powerful tool for assessing a wide array of issues in the built and living environment, and partly explain the interest it holds for researchers. However, the industry is still lagging behind, which hinders the dissemination and further implementation of the findings and results. More collaboration between academia and industry is therefore crucial as the great impact lies in applying POE and BPE as a structural part of the sector’s practice.

Moreover, since POE primarily relies on fieldwork and the collection of empirical data, a more comprehensive assessment that incorporates mixed methods and a systematic approach can yield greater benefits for the entire building production chain. The collected feedback, analysis and resulting conclusions can create learning loops within organisations and bring about real changes in the lives of current and future building users. Therefore, a robust POE should be accompanied by the implementation of the concomitant action plan to address the problems identified. For this purpose, a theory of change approach can be helpful. In this sense, POE can become a very effective facility management tool (Preiser, 1995). Some examples of the varied uses of data provided by robust POE and BPE include the creation of databases for informed decision-making, benchmarking and integration into BIM protocols or GIS-powered tools. In this sense, generating data that can be compared and benchmarked is critical to the long-term impact and value for money of undertaking the activity. It is therefore imperative to recognise POE for its benefits rather than viewing it as a liability or a mere nice-to-have feature.

On the other hand, POE inherently involves a wide range of disciplines within the built environment, including design, engineering, psychology, policy and finance, among others. This multidisciplinary aspect can be leveraged to promote transdisciplinary research to help better understand the relationships between buildings and people It delves into the impact of these relationships, considering human behaviour and well-being. This perspective is often referred to as the building performance-people performance paradigm, as denominated by other POE researchers (Boissonneault & Peters, 2023). Architectural geographers, for instance, have explored the various meanings and emotions ascribed by inhabitants to buildings, particularly council estates in the UK, through actor-network theory-informed research (Jacobs et al., 2008, 2016; Lees, 2001; Lees & Baxter, 2011). Similarly, the work of organisations such as the Quality of Life Foundation encompassed in the Quality of Life Framework (Morgan & Salih, 2023; URBED, 2021), has highlighted the link between the places where we live and its impact on our quality of life through systematic POEs conducted in collaboration with social housing providers and local authorities.

Amid the climate emergency and the pressing need to curtail carbon emissions, there is now a need for the sector to innovate and mitigate the impact of building construction and operation. It has been argued that sustainability cannot be achieved only by adopting energy-efficient technologies or by promoting certifications such as LEED, Passivhaus, or assessment protocols such as BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology). As discussed earlier, conducting these assessments is an effective tool to mitigate and solve the discrepancy between the expected energy performance of the designed building vis à vis that of its real-life counterpart, the so-called performance gap. POE can be used to ascertain the social performance gap by including qualitative and well-being-related indicators (Brown, 2018). In this way, buildings are evaluated not only in terms of their ability to comply with building regulations and environmental goals, but also in meeting social objectives in order to provide greater sustainability and affordability, particularly in housing.

References

Boissonneault, A., & Peters, T. (2023). Concepts of performance in post-occupancy evaluation post-probe: a literature review. Building Research & Information, 51(4), 369–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2022.2132906

Bordass, B., Leaman, A., & Ruyssevelt, P. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 5: conclusions and implications. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210010008054

Brand, S. (1995). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built. Penguin.

Brown, T. L. (2018). A critical assessment of the place of post-occupancy evaluation in the critique and creation of socially responsible architecture. Intelligent Buildings International, 10(3), 182–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2018.1437708

Cohen, R., Standeven, M., Bordass, B., & Leaman, A. (2001). Assessing building performance in use 1: the Probe process. Building Research & Information, 29(2), 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613210010008018

Duffy, F., & Hannay, P. (1992). The Changing Workplace. Phaidon. https://books.google.nl/books?id=PrlPAAAAMAAJ

Hadjri, K., & Crozier, C. (2009). Post-occupancy evaluation: Purpose, benefits and barriers. Facilities, 27(1–2), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632770910923063

Jacobs, J. M., Cairns, S., & Strebel, I. (2008). Windows: Re-viewing Red Road. Scottish Geographical Journal, 124(2–3), 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/14702540802438488

Jacobs, J. M., Cairns, S., & Strebel, I. (2016). “A Tall Storey ... but, a Fact Just the Same”: The Red Road High-rise as a Black Box. Urban Studies, 44(3), 609–629. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980601131910

Lees, L. (2001). Towards A Critical Geography of Architecture: The Case of an Ersatz Colosseum. Ecumene, 8(1), 51–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/096746080100800103

Lees, L., & Baxter, R. (2011). A ‘building event’ of fear: thinking through the geography of architecture. Social & Cultural Geography, 12(2), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2011.545138

Li, P., Froese, T. M., & Brager, G. (2018). Post-occupancy evaluation: State-of-the-art analysis and state-of-the-practice review. Building and Environment, 133, 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BUILDENV.2018.02.024

Marcus, C. C., & Sarkissian, W. (1986). Housing as if people mattered: Site design guidelines for the planning of medium-density family housing (Vol. 4). Univ of California Press.

Morgan, M., & Salih, H. (2023). Resident review: assessing the impact of new homes on people’s health and wellbeing. Perspectives in Public Health, 143(2), 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139231157530

Preiser, W. F. E. (1995). Post-occupancy evaluation: How to make buildings work better. Facilities, 13(11), 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1108/02632779510097787/FULL/PDF

Preiser, W. F. E. (2005). Building performance assessment—from POE to BPE, A personal perspective. Architectural Science Review, 48(3), 201–204. https://doi.org/10.3763/asre.2005.4826

RIBA, Hay, R., Bradbury, S., Dixon, D., Martindale, K., Samuel, F., & Tait, A. (2016). Pathways to POE.

Sanni-Anibire, M. O., Hassanain, M. A., & Al-Hammad, A.-M. (2016). Post-Occupancy Evaluation of Housing Facilities: Overview and Summary of Methods. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 30(5), 04016009. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000868

Stevenson, F. (2018). Embedding building performance evaluation in UK architectural practice and beyond. Https://Doi.Org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1467542, 47(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2018.1467542

URBED. (2021). The Quality of Life Framework. https://www.qolf.org/framework/

UNEP (2022) CO2 emissions from buildings and construction hit new high, leaving sector off track to decarbonize by 2050: UN, UN Environment Programme. Available at: https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/co2-emissions-buildings-and-construction-hit-new-high-leaving-sector (Accessed: 26 September 2023).

Created on 22-10-2023 | Update on 23-10-2024

Related definitions

Housing Retrofit

Author: A.Fernandez (ESR12), Z.Tzika (ESR10), S.Furman (ESR2)

Area: Design, planning and building

Environmental Retrofit Buildings are responsible for approximately 40% of energy consumption and 36% of carbon emissions in the EU (European Commission, 2021). Environmental retrofit, green retrofit or low carbon retrofits of existing homes ais to upgrade housing infrastructure, increase energy efficiency, reduce carbon emissions, tackle fuel poverty, and improve comfort, convenience and aesthetics (Karvonen, 2013). It is widely acknowledged that environmental retrofit should result in a reduction of carbon emissions by at least 60% in order to stabilise atmospheric carbon concentration and mitigate climate change (Fawcett, 2014; Johnston et al., 2005). Worldwide retrofit schemes such as RetrofitWorks, EnerPHit and the EU’s Renovation Wave, use varying metrics to define low carbon retrofit, but their universally adopted focus has been on end-point performance targets (Fawcett, 2014). This fabric-first approach to retrofit prioritises improvements to the building fabric through: increased thermal insulation and airtightness; improving the efficiency of systems such as heating, lighting and electrical appliances; and the installation of renewables such as photovoltaics (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). The whole-house systems approach to retrofit further considers the interaction between the occupant, the building site, climate, and other elements or components of a building (Institute for Sustainability & UCL Energy Institute, 2012). In this way, the building becomes an energy system with interdependent parts that strongly affect one another, and energy performance is considered a result of the whole system activity. Economic Retrofit From an economic perspective, retrofit costs are one-off expenses that negatively impact homeowners and landlords, but reduce energy costs for occupants over the long run. Investment in housing retrofit, ultimately a form of asset enhancing, produces an energy premium attached to the property. In the case of the rental market, retrofit expenses create a split incentive whereby the landlord incurs the costs but the energy savings are enjoyed by the tenant (Fuerst et al., 2020). The existence of energy premiums has been widely researched across various housing markets following Rosen’s hedonic pricing model. In the UK, the findings of Fuerst et al. (2015) showed the positive effect of energy efficiency over price among home-buyers, with a price increase of about 5% for dwellings rated A/B compared to those rated D. Cerin et al. (2014) offered similar results for Sweden. In the Netherlands, Brounen and Kok (2011), also identified a 3.7% premium for dwellings with A, B or C ratings using a similar technique. Property premiums offer landlords and owners the possibility to capitalise on their retrofit investment through rent increases or the sale of the property. While property premiums are a way to reconcile split incentives between landlord and renter, value increases pose questions about long-term affordability of retrofitted units, particularly, as real an expected energy savings post-retrofit have been challenging to reconcile (van den Brom et al., 2019). Social Retrofit A socio-technical approach to retrofit elaborates on the importance of the occupant. To meet the current needs of inhabitants, retrofit must be socially contextualized and comprehended as a result of cultural practices, collective evolution of know-how, regulations, institutionalized procedures, social norms, technologies and products (Bartiaux et al., 2014). This perspective argues that housing is not a technical construction that can be improved in an economically profitable manner without acknowledging that it’s an entity intertwined in people’s lives, in which social and personal meaning are embedded. Consequently, energy efficiency and carbon reduction cannot be seen as a merely technical issue. We should understand and consider the relationship that people have developed in their dwellings, through their everyday routines and habits and their long-term domestic activities (Tjørring & Gausset, 2018). Retrofit strategies and initiatives tend to adhere to a ‘rational choice’ consultation model that encourages individuals to reduce their energy consumption by focusing on the economic savings and environmental benefits through incentive programs, voluntary action and market mechanisms (Karvonen, 2013). This is often criticized as an insufficient and individualist approach, which fails to achieve more widespread systemic changes needed to address the environmental and social challenges of our times (Maller et al., 2012). However, it is important to acknowledge the housing stock as a cultural asset that is embedded in the fabric of everyday lifestyles, communities, and livelihoods (Ravetz, 2008). The rational choice perspective does not consider the different ways that occupants inhabit their homes, how they perceive their consumption, in what ways they interact with the built environment, for what reasons they want to retrofit their houses and which ways make more sense for them, concerning the local context. A community-based approach to domestic retrofit emphasizes the importance of a recursive learning process among experts and occupants to facilitate the co-evolution of the built environment and the communities (Karvonen, 2013). Involving the occupants in the retrofit process and understanding them as “carriers” of social norms, of established routines and know-how, new forms of intervention can emerge that are experimental, flexible and customized to particular locales (Bartiaux et al., 2014). There is an understanding that reconfiguring socio-technical systems on a broad scale will require the participation of occupants to foment empowerment, ownership, and the collective control of the domestic retrofit (Moloney et al., 2010).

Created on 16-02-2022 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Performance Gap in Retrofit

Author: S.Furman (ESR2)

Area: Design, planning and building

The performance gap in retrofit refers to the disparity between the predicted and actual energy consumption after a retrofit project, measured in kWh/m2/year. This discrepancy can be substantial, occasionally reaching up to five times the projected energy usage (Traynor, 2019). Sunikka-Blank & Galvin (2012) identify four key factors as contributing to the performance gap: (1) the rebound effect, (2) the prebound effect, (3) interactions of occupants with building components, and (4) the uncertainty of building performance simulation outcomes. Gupta & Gregg (2015) additionally identify elevated building air-permeability rates as a factor leading to imbalanced and insufficient extract flowrates, exacerbating the performance gap. While post occupancy evaluation of EnerPhit—the Passivhaus Institut certification for retrofit—has shown far better building performance in line with predictions, the human impact of building users operating the building inefficiently will always lead to some sort of performance gap (Traynor, 2019, p. 34). Deeper understanding of the prebound effect and the rebound effect can improve energy predictions and aid in policy-making (Galvin & Sunikka-Blank, 2016). Therefore, the ‘prebound effect’ and the ‘rebound effect’, outlined below, are the most widely researched contributors to the energy performance gaps in deep energy retrofit. Prebound Effect The prebound effect manifests when the actual energy consumption of a dwelling falls below the levels predicted from energy rating certifications such as energy performance certificates (EPC) or energy performance ratings (EPR). According to Beagon et al. (2018, p.244), the prebound effect typically stems from “occupant self-rationing of energy and increases in homes of inferior energy ratings—the type of homes more likely to be rented.” Studies show that the prebound effect can result in significantly lower energy savings post-retrofit than predicted and designed to achieve (Beagon et al., 2018; Gupta & Gregg, 2015; Sunikka-Blank & Galvin, 2012). Sunikka-Blank & Galvin’s (2012) study compared the calculated space and water heating energy consumption (EPR) with the actual measured consumption of 3,400 German dwellings and corroborated similar findings of the prebound effect in the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and the UK. Noteworthy observations from this research include: (1) substantial variation in space heating energy consumption among dwellings with identical EPR values; (2) measured consumption averaging around 30% lower than EPR predictions; (3) a growing disparity between actual and predicted performance as EPR values rise, reaching approximately 17% for dwellings with an EPR of 150 kWh/m²a to about 60% for those with an EPR of 500 kWh/m²a (Sunikka-Blank & Galvin, 2012); and (4) a reverse trend occurring for dwellings with an EPR below 100 kWh/m²a, where occupants consume more energy than initially calculated in the EPR, referred to as the rebound effect. Galvin & Sunikka-Blank (2016) identify that a combination of high prebound effect and low income is a clear indicator of fuel poverty, and suggest this metric be utilised to target retrofit policy initiatives. Rebound Effect The rebound effect materializes when energy-efficient buildings consume more energy than predicted. Occupants perceive less guilt associated with their energy consumption and use electrical equipment and heating systems more liberally post-retrofit, thereby diminishing the anticipated energy savings (Zoonnekindt, 2019). Santangelo & Tondelli (2017) affirm that the rebound effect arises from occupants’ reduced vigilance towards energy-related behaviours, under the presumption that enhanced energy efficiency in buildings automatically decreases consumption, regardless of usage levels and individual behaviours. Galvin (2014) further speculates several factors contributing to the rebound effect, including post-retrofit shifts in user behaviour, difficulties in operating heating controls, inadequacies in retrofit technology, or flawed mathematical models for estimating pre- and post-retrofit theoretical consumption demand. The DREEAM project, funded by the European Union, discovered instances of electrical system misuse in retrofitted homes upon evaluation (Zoonnekindt, 2019). A comprehensive comprehension of the underlying causes of the rebound effect is imperative for effective communication with all retrofit stakeholders and for addressing these issues during the early design stages. Engaging residents in the retrofit process from the outset can serve as a powerful strategy to mitigate performance gaps. Design-thinking (Boess, 2022), design-driven approaches (Lucchi & Delera, 2020), and user-centred design (Awwal et al., 2022; van Hoof & Boerenfijn, 2018) foster socially inclusive retrofit that considers Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI). These inclusive approaches can increase usability of technical systems, empower residents to engage with retrofit and interact with energy-saving technology, and enhance residents’ energy use, cultivating sustainable energy practices as habitual behaviours. Consequently, this concerted effort not only narrows the performance gap but simultaneously enhances overall wellbeing and fortifies social sustainability within forging communities.

Created on 08-09-2023 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Social Value

Author: L.Ricaurte (ESR15)

Area: Community participation

Social value (SV) is a wide-ranging concept that encompasses the wider economic, social and environmental well-being impacts of a specific activity. Given its applicability across various sectors, diverse interpretations and definitions exist, often leading to its interchangeable use with other terms, such as social impact. This interchangeability makes it difficult to establish a universally accepted definition that satisfies all stakeholders, contributing to the term’s adaptability and to a variety of methods for identification, monitoring, measurement and demonstration. Nevertheless, common themes emerge from literature definitions. First, SV involves maximizing benefits for communities and society beyond an organisation's primary goals, which requires innovation and a focus that goes beyond financial values. It is often referred to as the added value of an intervention. Second, the short-, medium- and long-term effects of activities, as well as their broader community reach, need to be assessed in terms of a life-cycle project perspective. Thirdly, SV aligns with the triple bottom line of sustainability, which underlines social, environmental and economic considerations in well-being. In the UK, SV gained prominence with the introduction of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012. This legislation mandates organisations commissioning public services to consider and account for the wider impacts of their operations (UK Government 2012; UKGBC, 2020, 2021). The Act has provided incentives to quantitatively measure the impact of projects on communities and standardise approaches in the built environment, a sector that has been significantly influenced by this regulatory framework. Organisations such as the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) have played a crucial role in shaping a common agenda through reports such as Delivering Social Value: Measurement (2020) and Framework for Defining Social Value (2021), which set out the steps needed to determine social value. Recognising that SV is strongly influenced by contextual factors, these publications emphasize the challenge for formulating an all-encompassing definition. Instead, they advocate for focusing efforts on developing context-specific steps and methods for measurement. However, the existing literature is mainly concerned with SV during the procurement and construction phases, overlooking the SV of buildings during the use phase and the potential opportunities and benefits they offer to users. This bias is due to the construction sector's rapid response to the Act and its easier access to certain types of information. This influences the prominence of certain data in project’s impact assessments and SV reports, such as employment opportunities, training, placements, and support of local supply chains through procurement. More intangible outcomes such as community cohesion, quality of life improvements, enhanced social capital, cultural preservation, empowerment and long-term social benefits are rarely featured as they are deemed more challenging to quantify due to their subjective or qualitative nature. Similarly, there remains a lack of clarity and consensus regarding a standardised approach to assessing the added value created. The challenge stems from diverse interpretations of value among stakeholders, influenced by their unique interests and activities. Communicating something inherently subjective becomes particularly daunting due to these varying perspectives. Additionally, translating all outcomes into financial metrics is also problematic. This is primarily due to the unique circumstances that characterise each development and community, making it impractical to hastily establish targets and universal benchmarks for their assessment. (Raiden et al., 2018; Raiden & King, 2021a, 2023). This complexity is recognised by Social Value UK (2023: n.p.), stating: “Social value is a broader understanding of value. It moves beyond using money as the main indicator of value, instead putting the emphasis on engaging people to understand the impact of decisions on their lives.” Moreover, the growing significance and momentum that SV is gaining are evident in the emergence of analogous legislations that have appeared in recent years and that have a direct influence on shaping how the built environment sector operates in their respective countries. Noteworthy examples of social value-related regulations include the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 in Wales; the Procurement Reform Act 2014 in Scotland; the social procurement frameworks in Australia; the Community Benefit Agreements in Canada; the Government Procurement Rules in New Zealand; and the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria considered in various countries around the world, among others. Identifying and measuring social value SV should be an integral aspect of project development and, therefore, must be considered from the early stages of its conception, taking into account the entire lifecycle. The literature highlights a three-step process for this: 1) identifying stakeholders, 2) understanding their interests, and 3) agreeing on intended outcomes (UKGBC 2020, 2021). More recently, Raiden & King (2021b) linked the creation of SV to the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the context of the built environment, SV can contribute to reporting on the SDGs, elevating the value the sector creates to society onto the international agenda (Caprotti et al., 2017; United Nations, 2017). While SDG 11 “Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable”, is often placed within the remit of the built environment, SV programmes developed by social housing providers, for example, extend the sector’s impact beyond SDG 11, covering a broader range of areas (Clarion Housing Group, 2023; Peabody, 2023). This aspect is also echoed in the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Sustainable Outcomes Guide, which links the SDGs to specific outcomes, including the creation of SV (Clark & HOK, 2019). Over the past decade, various methodologies have been proposed to undertake the intricate task of assessing value beyond financial metrics, drawing inspiration from the work of social enterprises. Among the most prominent and widely adopted by diverse stakeholders in the sector are the Social Return on Investment (SROI), Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) — sometimes referred to as SCBA when given the social epithet—, and the well-being valuation approach. (Fujiwara & Campbell, 2011; Trotter et al., 2014; Watson et al., 2016; Watson & Whitley, 2017). The widespread implementation of these approaches can be explained by the development of tools such as the UK Social Value Bank, linked to the well-being valuation method. This tool, used to monetise ‘social impacts’, is endorsed by influential stakeholders in the UK’s housing sector, including HACT (2023), or the Social Value Portal and National TOMs (Themes, Outcomes and Measures) (Social Value Portal 2023). In the measuring of SV, these methodologies unanimously emphasize the importance of avoiding overclaiming or double-counting outcomes and discounting the so-called deadweight, which refers to the value that would have been created anyway if the intervention had not taken place, either through inertia or the actions of other actors. While the development of these approaches to measuring SV is pivotal for advancing the social value agenda, some critics contend that there is an imbalance in presenting easily quantifiable outcomes, such as the number of apprenticeships and jobs created, compared to the long-term impact on the lives of residents and communities affected by projects. This discrepancy arises because these easily quantifiable metrics are relatively simpler to convert into financial estimates. Steve Taylor (2021), in an article for The Developer, pointed out that the methods employed to measure social value, coupled with the excessive attention given to monetisation and assigning financial proxy values to everything, may come at the expense of playing down the bearing of hard-to-measure well-being outcomes: “As long as measurement of social value is forced into the economist’s straightjacket of cost-benefit analysis, such disconnects will persist. The alternative is to ask what outcomes people and communities actually want to see, to incorporate their own experiences and perspectives, increase the weighting of qualitative outcomes and wrap up data in narratives that show, holistically, how the pieces fit together. We loosen the constraints of monetisation by mitigating the fixed sense of value as a noun; switching focus to its role as an active verb – to ‘value’ – measuring what people impacted by changes to their built environment consider important or beneficial.” The process of comprehensively measuring and reporting on SV can be challenging, time-consuming and resource-intensive. It is therefore important that stakeholders truly understand the importance of this endeavour and appreciate the responsibilities it entails. Recently, Raiden and King (2021a, 2023) have highlighted the use of a mixed-methods approach for assessing SV, proposing it as a strategy that can offer a more thorough understanding of the contributions of actors in the field. They argue that an assessment incorporating qualitative methods alongside the already utilized quantitative methods can provide a better picture of the added value created by the sector. These advancements contribute to the overarching goal of showcasing value and tracking the effects of investments and initiatives on people's well-being. Nevertheless, a lingering question persists regarding the feasibility of converting all outcomes into monetary values. Social value in architecture and housing design In the field of architecture, the RIBA, in collaboration with the University of Reading, took a significant step by publishing the Social Value Toolkit for Architecture (Samuel, 2020). This document provides a set of recommendations and examples, emphasizing why architects should consider the SV they create and providing guidance on how to identify and evaluate projects, incorporating techniques such as Post-Occupancy Evaluation. This is a remarkable first step in involving architects in the SV debate and drawing attention to the importance of design and the role of architecture in creating value (Samuel, 2018). More recently, Samuel (2022:76) proposed a definition of SV in housing that places the well-being of residents at the centre of the discussion. Accordingly, SV lies in “fostering positive emotions, whether through connections with nature or offering opportunities for an active lifestyle, connecting people and the environment in appropriate ways, and providing freedom and flexibility to pursue different lifestyles (autonomy).” In this context, it is also relevant to highlight the work of the Quality of Life Foundation (QoLF) & URBED, who published The Quality of Life Framework (URBED, 2021). This evidence-based framework identifies six themes in the built environment crucial for assessing relationships between places and people: control, health, nature, wonder, movement, and community. More recently, Dissart & Ricaurte (2023) have proposed the capability approach as a more comprehensive conceptual basis for the SV of housing. This approach expands the work of the QoLF, focusing the discussion on the effective freedoms and opportunities that the built environment, specifically housing, offers its inhabitants. It serves as a means to gauge the effectiveness of housing solutions and construe SV.

Created on 16-11-2023 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Deliberative Democracy

Author: A.Martin (ESR7), L.Ricaurte (ESR15)

Area: Community participation

Defining deliberative democracy Deliberative democracy is a form of democracy that emphasizes the role of discussion and deliberation in the decision-making process. Unlike traditional democratic models that prioritize voting and the aggregation of preferences, deliberative democracy focuses on the quality and process of debate among citizens. The core idea is that through reasoned argument, dialogue, and the exchange of ideas, participants can reach more informed, reflective, and legitimate decisions. In a deliberative democracy, participants are encouraged to engage in discussions that are open, equal, and inclusive. This means that all participants have an equal opportunity to speak, be heard, and influence the outcome. The deliberative process typically involves several key components. Key components of deliberative democracy Inclusiveness: Ensures that all those affected by a decision have the opportunity to participate in the deliberation, including marginalized and minority voices (Rasmussen, 1994). Reason-giving: Expects participants to provide reasons for their positions and engage with the reasons provided by others, fostering understanding, social learning, and respect. Respect and civility: Essential requirements for a respectful and civil exchange of ideas, listening to each other, and refraining from personal attacks. Informed and rational discourse: Encourages participants to have access to relevant information and engage in critical thinking to evaluate different arguments. Consensus-orientation: Despite possible conflicting and plurality of views and values on the issue under scrutiny it is crucial to reach decisions that reconcile and are acceptable to all participants, or at least to the majority, while respecting minority opinions. It therefore has transformative potential. Deliberative democracy aims to harness the "forceless force of the better argument" (Habermas, 1975, 108) in an environment that is tolerant of dissent. It can take various forms, including citizens' assemblies, deliberative polls, and participatory budgeting, designed to facilitate structured and meaningful dialogue among diverse groups of people. This approach helps form a “we-perspective” (Rostbøll, 2008). Positioning deliberative democracy If we were to position deliberative democracy within the spectrum of existing democratic models (see image 1), it would likely fall between direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy aims to include an impractically large number of participants, while representative democracy often creates significant distances between representatives and those they represent. For Habermas, the essence of democracy lies in discourse (Habermas, 1996), rejecting the utilitarian approach. A deliberative approach does not need to ignore the practicalities of representative democracy but can address the “imbalance between the vertical and the horizontal dimensions of democracy” (Hansen et al., 2016). The guiding principles of deliberative democracy Deliberative democracy finds its guiding principles in discursive ethics as it prioritizes reasoned dialogue and inclusive discourse to achieve collective decision-making that respects the inherent worth and equality of all participants. Both Habermas and Dryzek emphasize that ethical discourse and rational deliberation are essential for achieving mutual understanding and consensus in democratic processes. Habermas is a central figure in developing the theory of discourse ethics, which forms the philosophical foundation for his concept of deliberative democracy. One key aspect is communicative rationality. Habermas’s concept of communicative rationality emphasizes the role of reasoned discourse in achieving mutual understanding and consensus. In ´The Theory of Communicative Action´(1984), Habermas argues that democratic legitimacy arises from free and open dialogue where participants justify their claims through rational arguments. This idea is essential for deliberative democracy, which relies on inclusive and reasoned discussion to make collective decisions. It was Habermas who introduced the notion of the ideal speech situation (1983), where communication is free from coercion and participants have equal opportunities to speak and be heard. This ideal situation is crucial for ethical discourse, ensuring that decisions are reached through fair and unbiased deliberation. In his work (Between Facts and Norms, 1996), Habermas connects discourse ethics directly to democratic theory by arguing that legitimate laws and policies must be justified through public deliberation. He contends that the legitimacy of democratic decisions hinges on the quality of the deliberative process, aligning with the core principles of deliberative democracy. John Dryzek extends Habermas's ideas, emphasizing practical and inclusive aspects of deliberative democracy. He argues that legitimate democratic decision-making requires incorporating diverse discourses and perspectives (1990). He builds on Habermas's idea of communicative rationality, advocating for a democracy that is open to multiple forms of communication and expression, thus ensuring a more inclusive and representative deliberative process. Dryzek (2006) argues for the empowerment of marginalized voices in deliberative processes. He stresses that genuine deliberative democracy must engage all affected individuals, reflecting Habermas’s ethical concern for inclusivity and equality in discourse. Additionally, Dryzek (2010) focuses on the practical aspects of implementing deliberative democracy. He discusses real-world applications and challenges, drawing from Habermas’s theoretical framework but adapting it to diverse political contexts. Dryzek emphasizes the importance of creating institutional arrangements that facilitate effective and fair deliberation. Both Habermas and Dryzek see discourse ethics as integral to the functioning of deliberative democracy. Habermas provides the theoretical and ethical groundwork, while Dryzek offers practical insights and adaptations for real-world democratic practices. Together, they underscore the importance of rational, inclusive, and ethical deliberation in achieving democratic legitimacy. The relevance of deliberative democracy in affordable and sustainable housing Deliberative democracy is particularly relevant to the development of affordable and sustainable housing policies. Housing issues are complex and multifaceted, involving economic, social, environmental, and political dimensions. A deliberative approach to housing policy can address these complexities in several ways. By including a wide range of stakeholders—residents, developers, policymakers, and community organizations—deliberative processes ensure that the voices of those most affected by housing decisions are heard. This inclusivity can lead to more equitable and just outcomes. Deliberative democracy emphasizes the importance of reasoned debate and evidence-based decision-making, which is crucial in housing policy where decisions need to balance affordability with sustainability, and economic feasibility with social equity. Achieving consensus can help build broad-based support and legitimacy for the resulting policies, particularly important in contentious areas such as land use planning, zoning regulations, and the allocation of resources for housing development. The deliberative process encourages creative problem-solving by bringing together diverse perspectives, leading to innovative solutions that might not emerge from more traditional, top-down decision-making processes. Especially when it comes to issues that have a direct and significant impact on everyone's lives, such as housing policy. Decision-making should not just fall into the remit of technocrats and politicians. The housing question should be opened up to public deliberation, as has happened in other spheres of urban planning and governance with experiences like participatory budgeting in Belo Horizonte or Porto Alegre (Baiocchi, 2005; Cabannes, 2004; Melo & Baiocchi, 2006). Deliberative democracy and public reasoning can be used as a means for more representative and equitable housing-led regeneration processes to ensure that projects are in the best interests of those directly affected and maximise social value. The democratisation of housing management can also be attained by incorporating the principles of deliberative democracy. Giving tenants more control over decision-making can have a transformative impact on the long-term sustainability of housing schemes. Sustainable housing requires long-term thinking, and deliberative democracy fosters a more holistic approach to policy-making, planning and building, taking into account the long-term consequences of decisions and the need for sustainable development. Possible implementation in the housing landscape Clapham & Foye (2019) identify three levels in which deliberative democracy can be a powerful tool to facilitate housing-related decision-making processes and evaluate housing outcomes: Dwelling scale: Standards developed to set minimum qualities of the housing stock should incorporate a component informed by bottom-up consultation that incorporates residents’ views on what constitutes a decent home. In this way, publicly discussed aspirations and needs are brought together with more quantitative and technical considerations. One example of this is the Living Home Standard, developed by Shelter (2016) following a broad consultation process in which hundreds of members of the public were convened in focus groups and workshops to define what a home means and to identify its key and most valuable elements. In doing so, the process provided the elements necessary for a meaningful exchange, public discussion and debate between participants, in which diverse viewpoints were included. Neighbourhood scale: In his reflections on the ideal size of a city, Aristotle determined a roughly appropriate size based on various characteristics that would ensure its self-sufficiency. Just as important as having access to resources, in his view, was the successful administration of a city, which had to be linked to democratic processes and wellbeing considerations (Lianos, 2016). In such an arrangement, the debate is direct, open and face-to-face. In modern-day terms, at the neighbourhood level, the local context enables a type of relationship between citizens and the city in which they recognise themselves and have a tangible interest in the issues under discussion because it is at the local scale where consequences of ill-considered decisions can have a greater impact. Sennett (2018) identifies similar characteristics in Jane Jacobs’ understanding of a well-functioning neighbourhood as the generative unit of a vibrant and thriving city. In this case, direct democracy practised at the neighbourhood level would constitute, by addition of the parts, a more democratic city. At this level, the relevant stakeholders are expected to play an active role in the participation process because of their attachment to the place. Examples include neighbourhood renewal processes, urban planning and development projects, refurbishment of housing estates or the creation of a local plan. National scale: Although often seen as terrain for more vertical forms of democratic arrangements such as representative democracy, Clapham & Foye (2019) propose deliberative democratic forums held at a national level to discuss highly political issues around housing, such as property tax relief, lad value tax abatements, house price inflation, rent reform, etc. This view aligns with that of Marcuse & Madden (2016), who call for the democratisation of the housing system as a necessary step in devising transformative solutions to the housing crisis worldwide. In order to rebalance the existing power relations, decision-making control should be handed over to those who are “the true experts on their own housing” (p.212), i.e. to those who are oppressed by the current system. A process that relies on a truly democratised housing system, i.e. a system that is open and inclusive enough to allow for broader democratic scrutiny and ensure that the input of non-experts and historically disempowered communities is accounted for. In summary, deliberative democracy provides a framework for developing a housing system that is not only affordable and sustainable but also inclusive, equitable, and widely supported by the community. By fostering open, informed, and respectful dialogue, deliberative processes can lead to more effective and legitimate housing solutions that meet the diverse needs of society.

Created on 19-06-2024 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Housing Quality

Author: A.Elghandour (ESR4)

Area: Design, planning and building

Housing quality is concerned with the conditions and characteristics ensuring it is safe, healthy, comfortable, and sustainable for its occupants. It considers the physical conditions of a dwelling and the social and physical environment surrounding it (Bonnefoy, 2007; Swope & Hernández, 2019). There is increasing pressure to ensure affordable housing meets quality standards in Europe and the UK. Neglecting quality in assessing affordability could perpetuate poor-quality, unsustainable housing, harming both the planet and households' wellbeing (AHC, 2019; Fraser et al., 2023; Haffner & Heylen, 2011; OECD, 2021). This vocabulary entry focuses on housing quality. Housing quality directly impacts the wellbeing of households by influencing physical and mental health and financial stability. It has been recognised as a crucial determinant of health and wellbeing, as poor housing conditions are linked to numerous health issues, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, injuries, and mental health disorders (WHO, 2018). As such, housing quality not only concerns the physical attributes of a dwelling but also its capacity to support the health and wellbeing of its occupants (Rolfe et al., 2020). Levels of Housing Quality Housing quality can be recognised through various contextual levels, which include: Physical structures and features of buildings, such as insulation, ventilation systems, materials used, and essential services such as heating, plumbing, and electrical systems (Keall et al., 2010). Internal environment and living conditions, which refer to the atmosphere within a dwelling. These include air quality, light, noise levels, and thermal comfort, all contributing to indoor environmental quality. They could also encompass factors such as overcrowding and cleanliness (Riva et al., 2022). The living conditions arise from the interaction between the building characteristics and the residents, and how they use or treat the dwelling. (Bonnefoy, 2007; Riva et al., 2022). For example, mould can develop due to a lack of proper ventilation systems suitable for the household and dwelling size. Alternatively, a proper ventilation system might be provided; however, occupants may not use it when cooking, bathing or showering (Keall et al., 2010). Household characteristics refer to the behaviours and lifestyles of residents. According to Keall et al. (2010, p. 767), the household level encompasses "social, cultural and economic aspects such as affordability, suitability, security of tenure,” which impact people's needs for space, energy, water, and transport. Additionally, it acknowledges that demographic, psychological, and biological aspects, such as attitudes towards recycling, maintenance, cleaning routines, and use of space, influence lifestyles. External community and infrastructure involve the neighbourhood, regional policies, and global environmental conditions impacting housing quality. Factors such as urban planning decisions, availability of community resources, and neighbourhood safety play crucial roles (Keall et al., 2010; Swope & Hernández, 2019). Regulatory and policy frameworks pertain to the standards and regulations to ensure housing quality. Compliance with these regulations should promote equity in housing practices (Swope & Hernández, 2019). For example, A new set of Consumer Standards established by the Regulator of Social Housing in England aims to improve the quality of social housing and ensure that landlords fulfill their responsibilities to tenants by providing quality homes, transparent operations, and fair tenancy management (Regulator of Social Housing, 2024). Housing Quality Indicators Housing quality indicators are vital for assessing the conditions of dwellings. They could address various aspects of housing, such as safety, sustainability, comfort, and suitability for residents. These indicators are essential for understanding the physical state of housing and the living conditions within dwellings. These indicators could serve four purposes: Measuring housing quality and affordability across countries: Some housing quality indicators could enable meaningful cross-country comparisons to better determine what residents are paying for in terms of quality. The OECD (2021) Policy Brief on Affordable Housing highlighted some housing quality measures to accompany measuring housing affordability, such as the "Overcrowding Rate," "Housing Deprivation Rate," and subjective measures to assess housing affordability and quality based on household perceptions. Elaboration on these measures is available in the Measuring Housing Affordability vocabulary. Measuring housing quality within a country: Some indicators are used to evaluate the quality of housing schemes to ensure that housing standards are met across different regions. For example, non-decent housing in England is identified with the help of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) (Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006). HHSRS assesses 29 potential health and safety hazards in residential properties, including structural dangers, toxicity, mould and inadequate heating. Another example is England's Housing Quality Indicators (HQIs) system. Although currently withdrawn, it served as an assessment tool to evaluate housing scheme quality. The HQIs system encompassed four categories: location and proximity to amenities, site-related aspects (landscaping, open spaces, pathways), housing unit features (noise, lighting, accessibility, sustainability), and the external environment (Homes and Communities Agency, 2011). Measuring housing satisfaction across groups: Other indicators measure household satisfaction, gauging how well housing meets their expectations and needs. For example, the English Housing Survey (EHS) collects comprehensive data on housing conditions and residents' satisfaction levels across different demographic groups and regions (DLUHC, 2019). It evaluates housing quality, adequacy of amenities, safety measures, and overall satisfaction with the living environment. Thus, it enables identifying targeted improvements needed within the housing sector. Measuring housing quality of a specific housing scheme: Post-Occupancy Evaluation (POE) could be considered a housing quality indicator in the design and construction context. POE is a process for assessing buildings' performance and functionality after they have been occupied (Hadjri & Crozier, 2009). It could include energy efficiency, indoor environmental quality, and occupant satisfaction (Elsayed et al., 2023). The evaluation involves various methodologies to collect data, which can be objective (measured data) and subjective (occupant feedback), providing insights that could lead to improvements in management practices and future designs. However, in the EU context, this process remains inconsistent (Elsayed et al., 2023). This inconsistency hinders comparing results and gathering insights to improve broader housing quality. Despite the usefulness of the indicators mentioned above, accurately measuring housing quality is still challenging. The inherent subjectivity of what constitutes "adequate" housing means that perceptions can vary significantly due to influences of cultural, economic, and individual expectations. Furthermore, the technical feasibility of employing comprehensive quality indicators is often limited by outdated or incomplete data on the characteristics of dwellings. These limitations hinder effective housing quality assessment, making it difficult to enforce and update housing standards consistently (OECD, 2021).

Created on 14-10-2024 | Update on 23-10-2024

Read more ->

Related cases

Deben Fields (Garrison Lane)

Created on 15-11-2023

The review and the analysis of this case is based on several sources of data including project design statements and reports (e.g., planning, architectural, transport, drainage, heritage, landscape, tenure, sustainability and energy), design drawings, planning application and the associated documentation, and archival records obtained from the designers and the East Suffolk planning portal. As well as conducting interviews with the actors involved in the project planning and design, namely the architects, energy system designers and sustainability specialists. Therefore, this review is structured to address various key aspects such as, design, construction, sustainability, community impact and cultural heritage. 1- Design statement “The initial idea was a cricket pitch on the existing playing field and on the leftover land to develop 25 to 30 housing units. We saw an opportunity to connect the dots by connecting the school site into the cricket field and create better spaces and connectivity for the neighbouring communities […] through prober massing the site was optimised to increase the density to 61 housing units, maximising the views towards the park and generate best returns for the council […] that and investing in East Suffolk Council affordable housing scheme” (M. Jamieson, personal communication, June 13, 2023). The Deben Fields development is located near the centre of Felixstowe in Suffolk, England (Figure 1). The site was previously occupied by Deben High School, which was built in 1930, surrounded by low-density semi-detached housing. In their design statement, TateHindle, the architects responsible for the project, articulate a design philosophy centred around the creation of an environmentally, socially, and economically sustainable neighbourhood. This vision places paramount importance on people, their lived experiences, and the integration of nature into the living environment (TateHindle, 2021, 2022). The site's redevelopment aligns seamlessly with East Suffolk Council's Housing Strategy, which emphasises the expansion of council-owned affordable housing through innovative and sustainable methods. To adhere to this strategy, the architect chose to preserve and repurpose existing structures on the site, including the school hall and its annexes. These buildings were meticulously retained, redesigned, and refurbished to serve as a new indoor public facility catering for both the current and anticipated population (ESC, 2021). The project site is 3.89 hectares, of which 2.65 hectares is open green space (cricket pitch and park) and 1.36 hectares is allocated to residential development, with a net density of 53 dwellings per hectare and a total of 93 car parking spaces (61 for residential and 32 for leisure and community services) and 163 cycle spaces (HDA, 2022; TateHindle, 2021). The project is designed according to Passivhaus standards with airtight building envelopes and comprises 61 dwellings with 18 one-bedroom, 28 two-bedroom, seven three-bedroom and eight four-bedroom, spread across semi-detached houses, flats and maisonettes. From a tenure distribution point of view, 68 per cent are available at affordable rents, while the remaining 32 per cent are intended for open market sale (TateHindle, 2021). The average floor area of the housing units is 74.0 m², five per cent above the floor area requirement described by the Nationally Described Space Standard (HDA, 2022). In terms of ownership, however, the aim is to deliver a ‘tenure neutral’ project, so there is no physical distinction between open-market, shared ownership and affordable rental housing. The tenure mix has been integrated throughout the site to ensure that the project delivers proper housing that meets the needs of the housing market. Figure 2 illustrates Deben Fields tenure distribution and housing typologies plans. 2- Construction TateHindle's structural design statement outlines their goal of achieving a highly insulated façade construction. This was accomplished through the implementation of load-bearing double stud timber frame walls and load-bearing timber metal web beams at both floor and roof levels. The project uses Typical Passivhaus Foundations (TPFs) to minimise thermal bridging and achieve low U-values for the ground slab construction. Cradden (2019), however, explains that there are multiple challenges when using TPFs, such as soil conditions, material and geological properties (Cradden, 2019). To address these challenges, a shallow foundation method was chosen within the Red Crag Formation, a geological structure in south-eastern Suffolk defined by a basal pebble bed overlaid with coarse shell sand. This approach utilised the mini-pile technique, thereby bypassing the need for extensive and deeper excavations. In addition, Modern Methods of Construction (MMC) are used to maximise the use of off-site construction and achieve high levels of quality through factory-controlled assembly, reduce construction time, minimise noise pollution and construction waste, and reduce CO2 emissions (TateHindle, 2021). 3- Sustainability and energy “The project has similar challenges to others […] with this project electrification and overheating were the main challenge […] so we did really want to simplify the forms to make it more Passivhaus compliant and cost-effective […] We started from rectangles; obviously you can then add and remove to create interest and increase efficiency” (sustainable design specialist, personal communication, July 20, 2023). To achieve the planned outcomes of the economically, socially and environmentally sustainable neighbourhood, Deben Fields has set comprehensive objectives including: improving the well-being of residents, promoting pedestrian and child-friendly design, integrating passive design principles such as natural ventilation and daylighting, optimising construction costs and minimising waste through recycling and efficient use of materials, implementing monitoring systems for seamless building management, reducing sequestered carbon by reusing existing structures, promoting affordability as an overarching principle, adopting a fabric-first approach to reduce energy consumption and tackle fuel poverty, addressing future sustainability requirements, using renewable energy through photovoltaics to power communal areas and providing spaces that encourage social interaction such as areas for growing food and for play. To translate design objectives into a practical design language, the project employed various approaches, as explained in the following subsections. 3.1- Architectural design and technology integration The primary emphasis is placed on optimising the orientation of the buildings to harness passive solar gain effectively, thereby ensuring ample natural lighting and thermal comfort within indoor spaces (Figure 3). In pursuit of energy efficiency and to reduce overheating impacts, a simplified building form was devised. This involved implementing measures to minimise thermal bridging and establish an airtight building envelope, thereby reducing undesired energy losses. To emphasise the importance of insulation, sufficient provisions were made in the walls to allow for higher levels of thermal protection. A mechanical background ventilation with heat recovery system (MVHR) was used to create a well-ventilated and comfortable living environment. Furthermore, strategically positioned openings, balconies, entrances, sunshades, and shade pergolas contribute to a cohesive architectural language, fostering socially stimulating spaces while adhering to energy-efficient design principles in line with Passivhaus standards. The high-performance triple glazed windows have been carefully positioned and sized to allow natural cross ventilation. All of such techniques maximise control over the building envelope and reduce energy consumption. 3.2- Policy and standards To achieve the desired sustainability goals, a combination of mandatory and voluntary policies and standards were introduced as part of the project design strategy. Firstly, the mandatory building regulations on sustainability, particularly Part L, which sets specific requirements for insulation, heating systems, ventilation and fuel consumption and aims to reduce carbon emissions by 31 per cent compared to the previous regulations. Secondly, the 'SCLP9.2' – a local planning initiative produced by East Suffolk Council to foment sustainable construction. The SCLP9.2 aims to achieve higher energy efficiency standards resulting in a 20 per cent reduction in CO2 emissions below the target CO2 emission rate, design the dwelling to use less than 110 litres of water per person per day, and encourage the use of locally sourced materials, with a focus on recycling and waste reduction (ESC, 2020, p. 9). Thirdly, the project adhered to Passivhaus standards and set a higher target by meeting higher sustainability standards in terms of energy efficiency, water consumption and material use. CGB Consultants – the sustainability specialist – clarified that with such combination of policies and standards, the dwellings could comfortably exceed the planning target for a 20 per cent improvement over building regulations, as simulated using calculations based on the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) (CGB, 2021). 4- Community and cultural heritage In the early design phase, the design team developed a comprehensive communication plan that included public hearings and consultations with the community to inform planners of local needs, foster effective communication with project neighbours and obtain their feedback. However, the restriction of COVID-19 posed a challenge to the effective implementation of the original plan. In response, the architect and the City Council took alternative measures such as formal online consultations, monthly newsletters, social media updates, a website, public exhibitions, public notices, press releases, emails and letters. As a result, the project received critical feedback and concerns around impacts on nature, traffic, existing buildings, privacy, green spaces and alternative renewable energy sources. Responding to the concerns raised, the project team developed a cycling and pedestrian strategy that introduces the concept of “green corridors", “rain gardens" and “play streets", while carefully allocated parking in line with the National Transport Strategy provides a green roof with photovoltaic panels. The community gardens, use the building structure as a privacy screen and integrate existing culture and heritage into the project (Figure 4). Although the former Deben High School site is not nationally recognised as a historically significant building, it has become a local landmark with local significance and considerable architectural and historical value. Designed by Cecil George Stillman (1894–1968), a British architect known as a "pioneer of prefabrication" (Hinchcliffe, 2004). The proposed architectural language therefore draws on the existing buildings, particularly the school's building and assembly hall, which is considered the largest historic building on the site. The proposed pedestrian corridors also have helped to make the building more visible and put the assembly hall at the centre of the project (TateHindle, 2021). 5- Final reflections This section highlights both the successful aspects and the potential areas for improvement arising from the review in the previous sections. This is by addressing the following questions: What methodologies were deployed within Deben Field that can be classified as exemplifying ‘good' practise? The proposed designs have looked beyond the initial requirements and original goals and proposed economically, socially and environmentally viable strategies and solutions. Jon Bootland (2011) explains that responsible housing design must adopt a rigorous design standard for low energy consumption, develop high-quality and affordable outcomes, and prioritise user comfort (Bootland, 2011). In response, the project has embraced higher design standards that go beyond mandatory building regulations and systematically addressed the challenges of engaging specialist services (including Passivhaus designers, ecology and biodiversity consultants, sustainable drainage designers and sustainability consultants) with a high level of expertise to provide the necessary technical feedback. In addition, current challenges such as electrification and overheating were proactively addressed by choosing simple architectural forms and integrating renewable energy sources. While the project initially took a top-down approach, the community was actively involved in the early design phases through a variety of well-organised communication channels (as listed in section 5.4). The project team ensured that responses to planning notices were reviewed, analysed and incorporated into the architectural language of the project. For example, when neighbours raised privacy concerns, the building massing and layout were adjusted to form a privacy screen without compromising the number of dwellings provided. The project has also demonstrated an inclusive design approach that appeals to users of all ages (e.g., community garden and play street). In addition, the design has maximised the benefits of using brownfield sites and seamlessly integrated the existing infrastructure into the project layout, carefully considering the recycling and reuse of materials. What are the vulnerabilities associated with Deben Fields? Knox (2015) stated that the high construction costs of ‘green building’ are a common misconception for which there are insufficient studies (Knox, 2015). However, the study by Chegut et al. (2019) shows that “BREEAM – Excellent” certified buildings are 40 to 150 per cent more expensive to build and attributes these higher costs to specialised design costs, material selection, specialised labour and construction time (Chegut, Eichholtz, & Kok, 2019). The Deben Fields project adopted several sustainability features, such as special materials, green roofs and photovoltaic cells. However, it appears that the project has not conducted a thorough life-cycle cost analysis to determine the costs and benefits of these features and whether additional features are needed in the future. Meanwhile, at the design level and to achieve the intended outcomes, the project complied with several standards and building codes, resulting in a complex and intertwined design structure that makes it difficult to apply the same strategies to other projects. From a sustainable urbanism perspective, density and diverse land use are often considered effective strategies for sustainable development (Carmona, 2021). Despite its central location, the project did not consider density and diversity of land use as a key strategy for its development. For example, the proposed project does not include any retail or commercial uses, and the nearest commercial services are 500 metres from the project (Figure 5). The Deben Fields project is widely regarded as an example of ‘good practice’ in its field, as reflected in the number of awards it has won. However, in order to accurately assess the results of the project, it is essential to conduct additional post-occupancy studies. These studies will allow for a thorough evaluation of the project's features and provide valuable insights and potential areas for improvement. Another major factor contributing to its prominence is the use of numerous well-designed features. These features have improved the overall performance of the project and highlighted the novel techniques (e.g. play street, environmentally friendly materials, reducing overheating through massing). Therefore, it is crucial to undertake comprehensive documentation of all phases, steps and procedures taken during the design and construction of the project. Acknowledgement I would like to express my sincere gratitude to TateHindle Architects for generously providing the necessary data and information for Deben Fields. Special thanks go to Mike Jamieson for dedicating his time and expertise to discussing the project in detail. Additionally, I extend my appreciation to the anonymous interviewees who provided valuable insights into this case. Thank you all for your support and cooperation.

M.Alsaeed. ESR5

Read more ->

Related publications

Relational graph

Case Study

Concept

Publication

Blogposts