Part III From Environmental Performance to Sustainable Housing Performance – Empirical Discussions Chapter 9: Land Use Efficiency 9.1 Prelude Part III extends the discussion of environmental performance to sustainable housing performance with empirical dimension through: – identifying the limitations of building environmental assessment method, and – including socio-economic factors and architectural design in sustainable housing discourse. Both discussions are substantiated by practices found in Singapore public housing. For each of the five sustainable housing performances, i.e. land use efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation, material efficiency, and experience of home, the discussion is generally structured as followed: (a) Elaborate how each of the corresponding environmental performance criteria is measured, and empirically analyse their interrelationship with other environmental performance criteria, in order to highlight conflicts (where occur) among case studies’ results of environmental performances and the hierarchical approach in suggesting solutions to the conflicts; (b) Correlate the results of Singapore public housing case studies’ environmental performances against pertinent socio-economic data, in order to illustrate the limitations of environmental performance domain and the influential factors of socioeconomics domain; and (c) Discuss the approaches to achieve high sustainable housing performance from the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, substantiated through the analysis of Singapore public housing practices. The study: o Identifies case examples of architectural design and socio-economics strategies that contribute to sustainable housing performances as well as 190 environmental performances, but not reflected in building environmental assessment method. o Identifies additional factors in socio-economics and architectural design domains, on top of environmental performance domain, impacting building environmental performances and sustainable housing performances. o Establishes an integrated approach to each sustainable housing performance issue and give empirical dimension to the theoretical-constructed Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse (established in Chapter 5). Subsequently, the assessment criteria and factors that impact each sustainable housing performance issue will be proposed and discussed. The discussion in this chapter focuses on land use efficiency. Globally, land use efficiency is one of the main issues in sustainable development (Jenks & Burgess, 2000) to undertake both population growth and prevention the lost of natural environment to the development of built environment. Locally, due to land scarcity and population growth, land use efficiency is always a prime issue, especially in housing development. 191 9.2 Land use performance and Plot Ratio The environmental performance of land use in GBC is relatively new concept for applying in analysing public housing design. The constituting components of land use performance criterion (L) in GBC, as expressed in equation (12), include the total site area (Asite), building footprint area (Af), percentage of hard-paved area of the site (P), and total net usable area of the building (Anet). L = [Af + (Asite x P)] / Anet (12) In a housing development, Asite is fixed, while the other components are variants. In order to achieve good land use performance, the building footprint area (Af) and the percentage of hard-paved area of the site (P) should be kept as low as possible, and the total net usable area of the building (Anet) should be as large as possible. In Singapore, scarcity of land has always been a dominant issue, and has resulted in the proliferation of high-rise high-density housing development in the country. The legislative measurement and control of land use for each development is Plot Ratio (PR), which is also commonly and conventionally found in architectural practice. In the Handbook on Gross Floor Area by the Urban Redevelopment Authority, 'PlotRatio of a site is defined as the ratio of the gross floor area of a building(s) (Agross) to its site area' (URA, 2003), or: PR = Agross / Asite (13) In a housing development, Asite is fixed, while Agross is the variant. In order to achieve good land use in terms of PR, the commonly found strategies are designing higher building height and higher housing density, or narrower spacing among housing blocks (HDB annual report, various issues). 192 In the comparison between land use performance and PR, the strategies to achieve high PR are found to be more limited and not recognise the credit of greenery provision on site. The relationship between land use performance and PR can be described as that PR does not determine, but only constitute to the score for land use efficiency. In order to gain further insight to the above relationship, empirical investigation into public housing case studies are carried out. When juxtaposing indicative trendlines of PR values and land use performance scores (Figure 9-1), the relationship between the two is not obvious. The reason is that, in land use efficiency, it is the sum of building footprint and hard-paved area, rather than the gross floor area in PR calculation that constitutes the values. Therefore, case studies with larger total greenery area on ground and smaller building footprint yield for higher land use efficiency score. Plot Ratio 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.1 2.7 2.1 1.9 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.7 2.3 2.1 09: 4-R S 10: 5-R A 11: 3- & 4-R A 12: 4-R A 13: HUDC 14: HUDC 15: 5-R A 2.5 2.7 08: 5-R I 4.2 3.9 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.5 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 28: Premium 29: Premium 30: Premium 27: Exe. 17: Exe. Mais 18: Exe. Aprt. 19: Exe. Aprt. 20: Exe. Mais. 21: 3-R I Upg 22: 3-R NG Upg 23: 4-R A & 5-R 24: 4-R A & 5-R 25: 4-R A & 5-R 26: 4-R A & 5-R 16: 5-R I 05: 3-R NG 06: 3- & 4-R NG 07: 4-R NG 04: 2-R I 03: 3-R I 02: 2-R S 01: 1-R I 2000s Trendline of Land Use Performance (GBC score) 3.5 2.8 0.7 -1 -1.1 -1.4 1.2 2.4 1.1 0.8 0.2 -0.6 -0.7 -1 -0.7 1.2 1.5 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.4 29: Premium B 1.5 28: Premium A & B 27: Exe. -0.6 -1.1 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 30: Premium B & C 26: 4-R A & 5-R 25: 4-R A & 5-R 24: 4-R A & 5-R 23: 4-R A & 5-R 21: 3-R I Upg 22: 3-R NG Upg 20: Exe. Mais. 19: Exe. Aprt. 18: Exe. Aprt. 16: 5-R I 17: Exe. Mais 15: 5-R A 14: HUDC Aprt. 13: HUDC Mais. 12: 4-R A 11: 3- & 4-R A 10: 5-R A 08: 5-R I 09: 4-R S 07: 4-R NG 06: 3- & 4-R NG 05: 3-R NG 04: 2-R I 03: 3-R I 01: 1-R I 02: 2-R S -2 2000s Figure 9-1: Juxtaposition the indicative trendlines of Plot Ratio values and land use performance scores, of public housing case studies 193 Case study number 08 – 5-room point block – is a good example, where the PR value is 2.1, being the third lowest among the values of all case studies, but the score for land use efficiency is 3.5, being the highest among the scores of all case studies. This is attributed to the large greenery area in the total site of the development and the small footprint of the housing block. Figure 9-2: Large greenery area surrounding the housing blocks in case study number 08 Case study number 09 – 4-room slab block in Tampines – is an example of a reversed case. The housing design has a PR value of 3.9, being the third highest among the values of all case studies. However, its score for land use efficiency is -1, being the third lowest among the scores of all case studies. This is due to the large surface parking area, resulting in small percentage of greenery area in the total site area, and the rather large building footprint of a slab block structure. Figure 9-3: Large surface parking area around the housing blocks in case study number 09 194 In juxtaposing the two indicative trendlines of PR and land use performance (Figure 9-1), it is observed that in the early decades, the two types of values are not correlated to each other with the dominant low scores for land use performance. This is due to (1) the preference of slab block structure, which has larger building footprint and lower building height, and (2) the often use of open spaces among housing blocks for surface parking – a common practice found in public housing at the time. In the period after 1990s, the indicative land use performance trend in public housing design shows improvement. This is due to – the requirement of minimum greenery shaded area was established under design guidelines of public housing (HDB, 1995), – multi-storey carparks with smaller land area usage for parking purpose were introduced giving more area for greenery landscape, and – housing blocks are designed with various building shapes and higher building height leading to smaller building footprints in its percentage to the total building net area. Despite of the differences between the two concepts, there still exists, in general, a correlation between PR and land use performance. Nevertheless, a high PR value, although does not promise, is a constituting components leading to, high land use performance score. In summary, the primary difference between the two is the area of greenery on the site. While greenery area is a component in measuring land use performance, it is not considered in PR calculation. From environmental perspective, this difference provides more flexibility in architectural design to achieve high land use performance. This is illustrated by: case studies with higher PR not promise to have high land use performance; and conversely, case studies with lower PR are still able to gain high land use performance (Figure 9-1). The second case is of particularly encouraging for buildings in area with limited PR allowed by planning control. This is because the design of the building still can overcome the obstacle and can gain high land use performance, if large greenery area is provided. 195 9.3 9.3.1 Land use performance and its interconnectedness Land use performance and change in ecological value of the site The relationship between the land use performance, and change in ecological value of the site performance demonstrate a supportive reciprocation. While the prior criterion encourages minimising the use of land and to maximise greenery area, part of the later criterion takes a step further in encouraging the providence of greenery area that contains high ecological value. The measurement of the second criterion bases on 'the presence or absence of design features that demonstrate that the site ecology has been disturbed, retained or improved' (GBTool User Manual, 2002). The rationale is that to be high land use performance by maximise the area of greenery alone is not enough because the environmental quality and ecological values of the greenery have not been defined and are not controlled. The above discussion can be better comprehended through a comparison between case study number and case study number 19 (Figure 9-4). In case study number 8, there are ample areas of greenery and small building footprint, whereas case study number 19 has smaller percentage area of greenery and larger building footprint. However, the ecological value of case study number is lower than the one of case study number 19. As illustrated in Figure 9-4, the large greenery areas of case study number comprises of, however, mostly sparelygrown grassland and barely a number of small tree. This setting yields minor room for biodiversity development and does not contain high ecological value. In reverse, although case study number 19 has smaller percentage of greenery area, the design and replanting of mangrove trees along the river banks have not only restored the ecological value of the site after construction, but also act as a green connector and promote biodiversity. As described by the landscape architect, the riverbanks have been designed as green connectors linking Pasir Ris Park in the north to the neighbourhood centre. The replanted mangrove plants and natural vegetation have intermixed with each other along the riversides, restoring the natural state of 196 the river. Mangrove shells, fishes, birds including kingfisher, are among other species can be found in the area (rewritten from interviewing with the senior landscape architect, June, 2004). The comparison of the two case studies has illustrated the necessity of, and positive interaction between, the two criteria of land use performance and of change in ecological value of the site performance, for a meaningful and comprehensive environmental and ecological consideration in terms of land resource usage. Figure 9-4: Comparison of land use performance and change in ecological value of the site performance between case study number (above) and case study number 19 (below) 197 9.3.2 Land use performance and daylighting performance Plot Ratio and visible angle of sky at window The increase of PR, thus constituting to higher land use performance, is perceived as overwhelming and suppressing opportunities for daylighting performance of the building. In calculating daylight factor, one of the constituting factors to enhance the performance is the visible angle of sky at window (degree). This visible angle of sky is 900 minus reduction for overhangs and nearby buildings (GBTool User Manual, 2002). The implication for design strategies to obtain high daylight factor is to have larger distance between housing blocks and lower building heights in the housing estate in order to achieve a larger visual angle of sky at window. This is obviously in contrast to the design strategies to achieve the objective of high land use performance. By juxtaposing the two indicative trendlines of PR and of the visual angle of sky at window of public housing designs, the opposite trends of the two indicators are clearly addressed. While the PR of public housing has been increasing decade after decade, the indicative trend of visual angle of sky at window has been decreased, impacting the trend of daylight factor performance. In the first two decades of public housing development, housing estates are designed with the dominant PR ranged from 1.9 to 2.7, and the dominant visual sky angles at window are ranged from 240 to 450. Conversely, in the case studies built in year 2000 and beyond, the PR values are higher (ranging from 2.9 to 3.7); whereas the visual angles of sky at window are relatively lower (dominantly ranging from 220 to 380). 198 In a similar phenomenon, there appears to be an unclear correlation between preferable housing types in residential mobility and service quality by flat type (Figure 13-2). The performance issues of service quality in GBC include criteria on maintenance of performance, privacy and access to views and quality of amenities and site development,. They can be considered to be influential in apartment selection. While the performance of service quality of 1-Room, 2-Room and 3-Room flats are similar, the preference of 3-Room flat type is higher than the other two flat types in residential mobility. Furthermore, the comparable service quality of Executive Apartments and that of the 4-Room and 5-Room flat does not assure the Executive Apartments to be equally preferable flat types. As a summary of the above two correlation analyses, indoor environmental quality and service quality may have some influences in the preferable housing types in resident mobility. However, these influences are quite minor to the total impact on the preferable housing types. The dominant factors are, in fact, the social affluence trend and the economic force. Due to the social affluence trend and higher income threshold for public housing ownership, there is an aspiration for residents living in smaller flat types (1-Room, 2-Room and 3-Room flat types which were built extensively in the 1960s and 1970s) to upgrade their living environment through moving to larger flat types (HDB annual report, various issues from 1985 to current). This has led to increase in demand for 4-Room and 5-Room flat types, which have also been the popular new built housing types since the late 1980s to the present day. Furthermore, these newly built flats are more attractive with modern design layout, new facilities, and better service quality,. Conversely, Executive Apartments although have similar attractions and conditions, are not a high preferable housing types compared to the 4-Room and 5-Room flat types. Economic force is the reason, that is quality, conditions, and thus the price of executive apartment are closer to those of private condominium in compared to the 4Room and 5-Room flat types. Residents who can afford Executive Apartments tend to opt for 304 private condominium for their higher quality of services, as well as their wider range of facilities and amenities (HDB, 2000). In brief, there may be some influences from having good performances of indoor environmental quality and service quality in the preferable housing types in residential mobility. However, these influences are not strong as the determining factors to the total impact on the preferable housing types, in compared to the social affluent trend and the economic force. Therefore, providing housing with high environmental performance alone does not guarantee resident experience of home. As highlighted by Saegert (1985), 'experience of home' includes physical, social and psychological dimensions. The next two sections will look into the social domain of resident everyday activities and architectural design in their contributions to 'experience of home'. 13.4 What can sustainable housing design to nurture experience of home? 13.4.1 Learning from resident everyday activities Few people are dedicated enough to want to live in buildings just conceived as single-theme energy-efficiency diagrams. Buildings designed for performance above pleasure tend not to work. Occupants 'improve' them. (Day, 2002) It is through this improvement in the dwelling process that leads to the experience of home, which also is ''the territorial core', 'a preferred space and a fixed point of reference' for daily activities.' (Lawrence, 1987 referencing Porteous, 1976). The contributions from resident everyday activities, especially in the adaptive uses of the physical environment, which often was not planned. However, their role, as seen from this research, is to indicate certain residents’ uses, thoughts, and expectations in making housing 'home'. These insights can then be transformed to knowledge from which architectural design can learn and be inspired. 305 Lawrence (1987) notes that the methodology to establish how residents used and thought about their homes includes: (a) by observing behaviour at the housing estate; and (b) by observing physical cues, such as adaptive changes to the buildings and landscape and how the estate has been employed as a medium of communication. Adopting the above studying methodology, the followings document observations made at the 30 case studies of Singapore public housing. Firstly, it is observed that there exists a desire to be closer to nature by using extensive plants to mimic a garden space in front of the flats where the opportunities arise (Figure 13-3 to Figure 13-5). These little gardens can also functions as providing visual privacy for the flat entrances. An example is illustrated in Figure 13-4, showing how the arrangement of taller plants planned on the left of the main door to gain more privacy from the lift lobby on the left. Figure 13-3: The mimic garden/courtyard at the common corridor and staircase landing by residents (Observation was made in case study number 12) 306 Figure 13-4: The mimic garden/courtyard in front of flats by residents (Observation was made in case study number 27) Figure 13-5: The balcony as a small garden place (Observation was made in case study number 27) Figure 13-6: Corridor planting in the dwelling process (Observation was made in case study number 11) 307 Secondly, the use of bicycle (rather than car) is often found in lower-income resident group. This is encouraged as bicycle is a transportation mean that does not consume fuel and produce pollutions as cars does. However, design of housing estate in the early years did not take this into considerations. This resulted in resident using corridors or staircase landings for placing bicycles (Figure 13-7). Figure 13-7: The present of bicycle at staircase handrail, common corridor, and void-deck [Observations were made in case study number 21 (left), case study number (middle) and case study number 19 (right)] Thirdly, it is observed that residents have the tendency to personalise and make changes to their physical living environment both inside and immediately outside their dwelling units (Figure 13-8 to Figure 13-10) wherever opportunities arise. These activities reflect not only the resident-housing relationship but also the resident-resident interaction. Figure 13-8, while illustrating how residents have transformed the recessed area in lobby and common corridor to seating areas, it also shows residents' desire of interacting with their neighbours in these semi-public spaces. These examples of resident modifications and uses of spaces may not be preferred from designing and estate management point of view, because they are by large not anticipated in the design intension. However, they are the indication of dwelling process and promise the 'experience of home'. 308 Figure 13-8: Recess areas in lobby or common corridor have been turned out to be nice seating areas, and at the same time not obstruct the movement of other residents [Observations were made in case study number 17 (left) and case study number 11 (right)] Figure 13-9: Signboards of unit number and altars are often found in front of flats to give a sense of identity and peace in mind [Observations were made in case study number 20 (left) and case study number 29 (right)] Figure 13-10: Different usage of private balconies – e.g. a garden, a study room or an enclosed space (Observation was made in case study number 27) 309 13.4.2 Approaches from architectural design The above observations provide insight into how residents think and adaptively use their housing environment in dwelling process. Translating those into architectural lessons, it is identified that to nurture ' experience of home' , the housing environment should include the following characteristics: – Rooms for growth: residents can personalise, make changes and modifications to their dwelling units and/or the immediate surrounding spaces (e.g. their front corridor); – Diversity: residents can have choices about and a sense of identity of their home; and – Interactions: residents can interact with their neighbours and develop community bond. The above flexible and adaptive characteristics are in line with Habraken's observation about the people-built environment interaction: While the built environment is growing and changing through time, and resembles an organism more than an artefact; it is so 'by virtue of human intervention', which brings life and spirit toit. Habraken (1998) further elaborates: As long as they [people] are actively involved and find a given built environment worth renewing, altering, and expanding, it endures. When they leave off, the environment dies and crumbles, pulled back down to the earth by the ineluctable force of gravity. In this sense, the built environment can persist only through flexibility and adaptation. It is noted that 'flexibility and adaptation' are also captured in environmental performance domain (being criteria in GBC) but with a difference objective, which is a preparation for the designed building to be flexible and adaptive to a different function or technology development, e.g. changes in future uses and changes in type of energy supply. The user dimension is, again, absent. Conversely, Habraken (1998) emphasised that 'there are sticks and stones, and there are people living among them: the two are inseparable, though readily distinguished.' 310 The Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, constructed in this thesis, acknowledges the importance of such people-built environment relationship in nurturing the experience of home. The role of architectural design in doing so is highlighted with the spiritual, qualitative, innovative and inclusive approaches. Examples of how to these approaches can be deployed to reach the above characteristics of rooms for growths, diversity and interaction, can be found in the practices of Singapore public housing. ' White flat' 'White flat' concept was announced in September 1999 with the objective to give flat owners more choices and flexibility in changing the flat layouts over time to suit their changing needs (Chiam, 2000). White flats are empty-shell units, including only perimeter walls, basic fittings like entrance door, windows, household shelters, and basic utility services like water tap outlets, TV and telephone points. Electrical supply lines are terminated at the entrance of each individual flat. There are no internal partitions, except for toilets and household shelters, which allow owners to personalise room layout of their flats (HDB Annual Report, 1999/2000). It is noted that from the practice of building environmental assessment perspective, a complete measurement of environmental performances for 'White Flat' housing type are not able to be carried out, due to the lack of many input parameters, especially for those essential for computing natural ventilation, daylighting, etc. 311 Figure 13-11: Plan of a White Flat (Source: HDB's Sales Brochure) Upgrading programmes The practice of both Interim Upgrading Programme and Main Upgrading Programme reflects how the changes in socio-economic trends and the needs of residents have been observed, and how architectural design approaches were deployed to respond to these needs. With spiritual and qualitative consideration, architectural design has rejuvenated, and improve the quality of living environment in, many aged housing estates since 1989 (case studies number 21 and 22 are the examples). With inclusive thinking of residents’ expectation and innovative design, the Upgrading Programmes have been carried out without relocating residents out of their 'home', thereby breaking community ties which have already been established. 312 Figure 13-12: Playground, pavilions, seating area, carpark are among the new facilities in Interim Upgrading Programme to replace the empty open space between the two housing blocks (Observation was made in case study number after upgraded) Public facilities In understanding resident interactions and community binds are important aspects in strengthen resident sense of belonging (HDB, 1998) and thus nurturing the experience of home, public housing design has also exercised the spiritual, qualitative, and inclusive approaches in providing public facilities that can promote interactions between residents. Figure 13-13 to Figure 13-15 illustrates various types of public facilities integrated in public housing estates. Figure 13-13: Facilities to encourage healthy community activities, e.g. sport venues [Observations were made in case studies number 20 (left) and number 24 (right)] 313 Figure 13-14: Facilities to encourage family and community activities, e.g. BBQ pits and children playground [Observations were made in case studies number 28 (left) and number 20 (right)] Figure 13-15: Facilities for gathering community activities, e.g. multi-purpose hall and senior citizen lounge, [Observations were made in case studies number 26 (left) and number 15 (right)] Downplaying of mass designs and development approach There is a movement towards more various housing designs. The dominant slab block and point block designs in the 1960s and 1970s have given way to many more housing configurations, such as the introduction of 'atrium block' and various hybrid blocks (HDB, 1995). Furthermore, HDB also stated that: As homes become more and more a personal statement and identity marker for their owners, mass designs and a mass approach to housing will no longer be a desirable proposition, despite the convenience and economies of scale they bring (HDB Annual Report, 1999/2000) This policy movement and implication to housing design has contributed to the diversity of housing environment facilitating resident choices and identity association to their home. 314 13.5 Approach from the Integrated Framework Integrating all the analyses in this chapter so far and organised them in accordance to the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, a systematic approach to the sustainable performance of experience of home can be formed as illustrated in Figure 13-16. The systematic approach to 'experience of home' is somewhat different to the systematic approaches to other sustainable housing performance issues – land use efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation, and material efficiency – that encompass direct contributions from all various domains of sustainable housing. Instead, the approach to 'experience of home' encompasse s only one direct contribution to the ultimate objectives. This direct contribution is from the dwelling process through resident everyday activities and interaction with the built environment. All approaches and strategies from architectural design, environmental performance, and even socio-economics domains provide opportunities and facilitate the dwelling process to occur. 315 Figure 13-16: A systematic approach to sustainable performance of experience of home, based on the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse. 316 13.6 Assessment criteria and influencing factors The next question from the established concept of 'sustainable housing performance of experience of home' is how to assess sit performance. The detailed discussion at section 13.3 has hinted that one of the assessment criteria for this sustainable performance is the 'level of resident mobility'. Although there are many factors determi ning resident mobility, Figure 13-16 shows that there are also many offsetting factors in the approach towards the formation of 'experience of home', and that the 'experience of home' will reduce the level ofent resid mobility, which has also negative implication to sustainable housing (see section 13.3.1 The implication of resident mobility). Furthermore, section 13.4.1 – Learning from resident everyday activities – has already highlighted examples of residents' everyday activities types that occur in dwelling process leading to 'experience of home'. Moreover, at the same time, theyontribute c to sustainable housing. The discussion also linked these everyday activities to the physical aspects of the built environment (i.e. architectural design and building environmental performance). Therefore, positive types of resident interaction with the built environment are good indicators to assess the sustainable performance of experience of home. Figure 13-17 summarises the two assessment criteria and factors that can influence the sustainable performance of 'experience of home'. The influencing factors were revealed from the analyses of case studies in early sections of this chapter. They are from all three domains of sustainable housing and their interconnectedness. The factors are constituent components to contribute to, and thus can be looked up for improvements to this sustainable performance. 317 'Experience of Home' Criteria: 1. Level of resident mobility (new criterion) 2. Types of resident interaction to the physical environment (new criterion) Factors: Socio-Economics: - Dwelling process through resident everyday activities and interaction with the physical built environment. - Resident affluence leading to aspiration for moving to new flats. - Economic context, e.g. different cost between housing types. - Economic incentive, e.g. upgrading programmes. - Policies to control minimum living period before moving. - Social Incentive, e.g. promoting and/or maintaining community ties Architectural Design - Spiritual approach. - Innovative design. - Inclusive design. - Qualitative design. - Contextual design. + Level of nurturing the dwelling process. + Level of creating identity. + Room for growth. + The extent of diversity. + The extent of facilitating interaction. Environmental Performance - Knowledge-based, e.g. comfort level, healthy environment, etc. - Level of indoor environmental performances. - Level of service quality environmental performances – assessment criteria and influencing factors. Figure 13-17: Sustainable housing performance of 'experience of home' 318 13.7 Conclusion This chapter has focused on the discussion of experience of home and sustainable housing. The discussion has identified that the experience of home, with its role as the main envoy between residents, built environment, and the natural environment, has much contributions to 'sustainable housing'. However, by paying attention to environmental performance domain of housing development alone, the formation of 'experience of home' may not be ensured. This has been illustrated by the empirical uncorrelated indicators between housing types with good environmental performance and housing types that residents prefer to move into. The discussion then shifted to view residents’ everyday activities and has identified three flexible and adaptive design characteristics of rooms for growths, diversity and interaction. These are aspects for architectural design in the providence of housing that can help nurture residents'experience of home through their dwelling process. The spiritual, qualitative, inclusive and innovative approaches found in conventional architectural design are acknowledged as being able to derive such design characteristics. Furthermore, achieving high flexibility and adaptiveness in housing design also means that many environmental performance criteria of such design are unable to be computed. This illustrates the less significant role of this domain in nurturing the 'experience of home'. Finally, thro ugh applying the Integrated Framework and the insights from earlier discussions, a systematic approach to the sustainable performance of experience of home, its proposed assessment criteria, and influencing factors have been established. Detailed development of the assessment criteria is open for future study. 319 [...]... to the sustainable performance of land use efficiency, but also to other sustainable performances of energy efficiency and sustainable lifestyle For example, the inclusive and innovative approaches from architectural domain could resolve the potential conflicts between land use performance and other environmental performances (e.g daylighting), and contributes to 219 the sustainable housing performance. .. between the design objectives of land use performance and impact on the access to daylighting of adjacent building Furthermore, it is observed that land use performance of public housing design has been receiving higher priority in the later decades 9 .3. 4 Land use performance and visual privacy The assessment of visual privacy performance bases on the distance of available point that horizontal and downward... only on the building physical performance of the effectiveness of site area usage in providing total net usable area of a building, rather than in the numbers of residents accommodated (in other words, the actual social and economic context) In short, the results of these empirical analyses have substantiated the theoretical discussion in Part I of the thesis 211 9.5 Approach from the Integrated Framework... discrepancy as analysed The reason originates from the measurements of both land use performance and daylight factor, that are not determined by the building height and spacing between buildings alone In land use performance, other considerations include building footprint area and percentage of greenery area in the site In daylight factor, other constituting components in the measurement include the total area... By including socio-economics and architectural design domains, the discussion of land use performance in environmental performance can be shifted to that of land use efficiency in sustainable housing performance Before looking into how the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse contributes a systematic approach to land use efficiency; section 9.5.1 reviews and reveals case... into the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, a systematic approach to land use efficiency can be formed (Figure 9-20) 217 Figure 9-20: A systematic approach to sustainable performance of land use efficiency, based on the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse 218 The systematic approach to sustainable performance of land use efficiency in Figure... – The knowledge of environmental performance domain can contribute to architectural design in terms of knowledge-based inputs and inspiration For instance, the understanding of potential discrepancies between land use performance and other environmental performances (e.g daylighting, visual privacy, etc.) can inform and inspire architectural design for inclusive and innovative approach to overcome The. .. trendlines of land use efficiency, daylight factor performance, and visual angle of sky at window 201 Figure 9-8: An imagery trendline to illustrate windows in living area of public housing has been getting larger and larger over times In brief, although there is a potential conflict in the objectives between land use performance and daylighting performance, the practice of public housing development has... demonstrated that this potential discrepancy can be minimised and even diminished through various design strategies 9 .3. 3 Land use performance and impact on access to daylight of adjacent building The measurement of impact on access to daylight of adjacent building performance base on the vertical angle measured from the building line on the ground of the nearest adjacent property to the roof line of the. .. environmental performance of land use is mapped with the one of impact on access to daylight of adjacent building (Figure 9-9) Empirically, the indicative trend of land use performance has been increasing, whereas the other has been decreasing over time Case studies in the early stage, up to and including the 1980s, are often in slab block structure, 10 to 13 floor heights, and are often placed parallel . performance bases on the distance of available point that horizontal and downward views are available of the interior of bedroom and living areas of certain percentage of dwelling units of the. possible, and the total net usable area of the building (A net ) should be as large as possible. In Singapore, scarcity of land has always been a dominant issue, and has resulted in the proliferation. domain and the influential factors of socio- economics domain; and (c) Discuss the approaches to achieve high sustainable housing performance from the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing