In search of quality in multi-unit housing. Comparative analysis of Swiss and Polish examples.

Table of contents

Introduction 1 5

Starting position 1.1 5

Research goal 1.2 6

Main research questions 1.3 6

Hypothesis 1.4 6

Thoughts on quality in architecture 1.5 8

Contextualizing housing 12 2

Polish context 12.1 2

Cultural and social 12.1.1 2

Social - economic conditions 12.1.2 3

Current Polish situation in housing 12.1.3 4

Building regulations in Poland 12.1.4 7

Swiss context 12.2 9

Cultural and social 12.2.1 9

Social - economic conditions 22.2.2 0

Current Swiss situation in housing 22.2.3 1

Building regulations in Switzerland 22.2.4 4

Comparative Analysis 23 8

Method 23.1 8

Analysis instrument AI 33.2 0

Descriptive Analysis DAI 33.2.1 2

Functional Analysis FAI 33.2.2 2

Quantitative Analysis QAI 33.2.3 2

Basic tools3.2.1.1 33

Guidelines for building features3.2.2.2 33

Evaluating and grading according to a criteria-set3.2.3.3 34

Quantitative analiysis criteria3.2.4.4 35

Case studies 54 4

Case selection criteria 54.1 4

CS 1 | 4.2 Hegianwandweg estate in Zurich 56

CS 2 | 4.3 James housing and office complex in Zurich 64

CS 3 | Pflegi Areal residential and office complex4.4 in Zurich 74

CS 4 | Wilanowska estate in Warsaw 84.5 4

CS 5 | Lobzowska Street apartment houses in Cracow 94.6 4

CS 6 | Eko Park estate in Warsaw 104.7 2

Comparison 114.8 0

Interpretation 115 4

Conclusions 116 7

Further research opportunities and closing remarks 116.1 9

Table of pictures and drawings 1206.2

Tables 1216.3

Bibliography 1226.4

Introduction

Foreword

This paper in its current shape could not have come to being without support of the tutors of MAS Housing course at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. Firstly of all, I would like to express my gratitude to professor Dietmar Eberle, whose teaching, knowledge and experience influenced my research considerably and opened my eyes to complexities and intricacies of the topic of ‘quality in architecture’. I would like to thank Dr Marie Glaser who helped in forming the structure of this paper. She gave me basic tools to understand ‘research rules’ and moti-vated me to research deeper and more. Apart from that, I would like to thank Søren Linhart, who helped in solving many issues throughout the whole year. During the workshops I was supported by creative comments and sugge-stions of Ms Christina Schumacher and professor Jacques Blumer. I would also like to thank the professor for reminding me of the pre-war aspects of Polish architecture. As well I would like to thank professor Susanne Gysi who by pre-senting me thoroughly the Pflegi Areal helped a lot in my understanding of the notion of ‘Swiss box’. My stay in Switzerland would not have been possible without scholarship founded by Federal Commission for Scholarships for Foreign Students (FCS). I would also like to thank Zbyszek Maria Okuljar, who during this time supported and has always said ‘das ist Schwierig aber machbar’. Not smaller thanks to my friends, whom I met during the MAS course: to Florencia Medina for huge support, to my irreplaceable friend Petro Papucis for support in difficult moments. I am also grateful to all the people who contributed and helped me in gathe-ring the materials for the project. And last but not least my deepest gratitude to Michal Switalski, who many times during the writing of this dissertation transformed my multi-layered thoughts and made them simple and structured. He supported me in the worst moments and thanks to his corrections and help not only the linguistic aspect of this thesis has taken its final shape.

Patrycja Okuljar-SowaZurich, August 2009

„What we search for in a work of architecture is not in the end so far from what we search for in a friend. The objects we describe as beautiful are versions of the people we love.“ Alain de Botton The Architecture of Happiness

Introduction

Introduction | | 1

Starting position | | | 1.1

My initial starting position was my perception of Polish housing, which compared to Swiss equivalents is of a much lower quality. However it becomes clear that Polish housing quality is specific for Polish conditions, and the Swiss buildings are also a result of the Swiss environment. If they are solutions to a specific context, the question becomes, not only how to learn from Switzerland, and adapt these lessons learned, in a way that is natural to Poland.

The Polish situation is very much dominated by the change of the political system and its effects during the last two decades. Poland is dealing with the shift from public/government driven initiatives to ones dictated by free market economy, while trying to find its place as a member of the European Union. As a result the construction industry is blooming (especially in the field of housing) - all characterized by the lack of a clear vision and chaotic mass production of architecture. Therefore the preferences of buyers and tenants of housing in Poland have been relatively poorly examined after the fall of communism. Systematic research on this issue and academic articles dedicated to this subject are also rare. The literature only sporadically provides an occasion for more extensive discussion and debate. 1 As much of the information is in the form of housing market research and buyers preferences, it becomes clear that the need for a tool as the Swiss Housing Evaluation System (WBS) is particularly vital.

Switzerland, with its wisely allocated resources (public and private), as well as a democratic system providing fair opportunities to its society seems to be a perfect place to studying the concept of “quality” in housing. Swiss cities, Zurich, Geneva and Bern for few years dominate on the top places of best cities in the world, offering the best quality of life (Zurich was placed first the last few years). 2

Examples of Swiss architecture can be found in a variety of magazines and books, especially in the last decade. There are many terms describing its characteristic features, among them the perpetually repeated “Swiss-box” and “high quality”. Though the first concept is easy to explain to anyone unfamiliar with architecture, the second concept, that of quality, requires more thought and understanding of the subject.

The main premise of this work is understanding, that the search of the meaning of quality in housing, requires to familiarise oneself with all cultu-ral, historical, social, economical and political contexts of housing, either in Switzerland or Poland.

1 M.Gluszczak, “Preferences of House Buyers Based on the Example of Kraków“, Zeszyty

Naukowe nr 703, Akademii Ekonomicznej w Krakowie, 2006

2 http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html, access: 2009.03.12

In search of quality in multi-unit housing

Research goal | | | 1.2

The initial premise of this paper was to improve the understanding of the concept of quality in housing. However, as mentioned in chapter 2 (pt. 2.1), quality in housing is comprised of objective, as well as subjective features. Thus the necessity to find, select and name crucial factors determining quality in housing becomes clear.

More specifically, the premise became to find the differences in the concept of quality in housing in Switzerland and in Poland- based on assorted examples of contemporary multi-unit urban housing.

Another goal is, by way of choosing examples, to analyse current trends in design of Swiss multi-unit urban housing focusing on selected factors in order to check if these aesthetic characteristics go together with “high quality housing”.

Furthermore, the emphasis lies in familiarising oneself with the Swiss Housing Evaluation System (WBS) instrument, adapting it to the Polish context and reflect on its appropriateness therein. I also wish to mention some personal aspirations regarding this paper. Firstly, architectural-practice oriented goals. I would like to take full advantage of the knowledge about Swiss tools of architectural design and transfer them in the future into my professional work. As a second step perhaps, further trans-ferring this knowledge of Swiss architecture into the Polish context.

Main research questions | | | 1.3

1. What are the main factors determining quality in contemporary housing in Switzerland and in Poland?2. What are the differences in the concept of quality in housing in Switzerland and in Poland?3. Is it possible to transfer the knowledge of Swiss architecture into the Polish context?

Hypothesis | | | 1.4

A number of questions concerning quality in housing were posed before formulating the hypothesis. The prevailing one was: what are the main factors determining quality in housing?Quality in housing is characterised by large complexity and mutual connec-tions of numerous factors and is comprised of objective and subjective features. Personally I believe that factors which determine good quality in contemporary multi-unit family housing can by defined by:

Introduction

1. Spatial layout - issue of distance between buildings, which respond to privacy

2. Clear borders of the settlement without exaggerated closing of the area

3. Scale of the entire complex, especially the height of the buil-dings and the issue of human scale

4. Different categories of semi- and public spaces, zones of different functions with graduated exposure to public surroundings

5. House entrance zone

6. Lighting issues, the quantity of fenestration and relationsship between indoor and outdoor-spaces

7. Material and colour aspects

8. Versatility of the rooms, which through their size and propor-tions allow for a change of use

The above mentioned physical characteristics are expressed through the architecture and are determined by the design processes. Through sensory experiences, they influence our psychological perception of space and have thus a profound effect on our emotional wellbeing. Therefore one can conclude that these physical variables are interconnected with one’s perception of quality of a given space.

Under quality, I understand building that within a subjective list of the above mentioned criteria satisfies these criteria the best.

Thoughts on quality in architecture | | | 1.5 The first difficulty we encounter in thinking about quality in architec-ture is the lack of a satisfactory definition of the subject. Therefore the discus-sion of quality is still in its infancy, enabling contributions to be characterised by a wide variety of approaches. 3 So rather than a rigorous analysis of theories as a method of explaining quality, one is given the freedom to write about it in a more polemical way. Perhaps most importantly, this lack of a definition indicates that the concept of high quality is relatively new and thus specific to our time and a direct product of our culture. Thus deliberating about quality is as vital to our understanding of architecture as are discussions on the more established subjects such as style, beauty or tradition.

It is interesting to note that quality in architecture has become to mean high quality - a shift from being a synonym for the word “characteristic”, to a concept in itself. This subtle and unspoken redefinition of the word “quality” seems rather obvious, but necessary to observe, as one realises that it has the potential of becoming loaded with varied meanings. The main question being, why some meanings and not other ones. A first intuitive attempt might define (high) quality in architecture as particular features demanded of buildings, which are satisfied beyond existing standards or expectations.

In itself, the above statement is a rather simple one, yet one is faced immediately with more questions than answers. (“[T]he fact that something is simple does not mean it should be perceived in a simple way” 4 seems therefore to be a rather appropriate observation). Firstly it leaves the choice open, as to which building features should be considered when assessing quality. The other aspect, that of standards, is also left undefined- not only are standards and expectations very subjective and personal, they can drastically change over time. All of which perhaps explains why we could get by without a clear definition in the first place - one can recognise something as “high quality”, always in a given context (as something being better than another thing), yet to influence and design “high quality” is rather more difficult undertaking.

3 D. Eberle, Qualität im Wohnungsbau, 2008, pg. 5

4 M. Steinmann, Helvetian Constructions, AV Monographs 89, Arquitectura Viva SL, Madrid,

May-June 2001, pg. 7

Introduction

As mentioned before, the history of quality in architecture is a rather short one and in my opinion mostly indebted to Modernist architecture in the first half of the 20th century. It was movements such as CIAM, Neue Sachlichkeit or the Bauhaus, which are responsible for not only a new architec-tural expression, but also brought with them a different way of thinking about the built environment. Through manifestoes, programmes and conferences, the major architectural movements and schools attempted to standardise and regulate every aspect of architecture- from education, to the actual act of construction 5. This wish for regulation is in turn indebted to scientific and industrial processes, where through trial and improvement one is able to cre-ate better solutions and products. Together with the concept of economy of production and use (Wirtschaftlichkeit), various “existential-minimum” space standards were established. 6 Thus the very foundation of quality in architecture lies in these minimum requirements, which enable comparing and evaluating buildings with each other.

Yet why have concepts of “existential-maximum” or high quality never gained the prominence of minimum space standards in design? (2) As Amos Rapoport observes, “in housing, wants are more important than needs; wants are also much more variable”. 7 So if we consider Modernist methodology as the search for one perfect solution (the ideal house), we immediately see why the concept of quality, open-ended by nature, is a more realistic alternative. 8 Perhaps this alternative is a result of shifting the focus towards quality as experienced from the user‘s perspective- a contrast to the top-down Modernist approach.(3)

Even if we are not completely certain as to how to define quality in architecture, it seems that “quality architecture” has already developed a formal language. An overriding theme has been formal self-restraint. And through the renunciation of sumptuous architectural ornament (used to express luxury and importance in the past), the focus lies on “balanced proportions, elaborate custom work, carefully executed details and select sensual material”. 9 It beco-mes clear that this “high quality aesthetic” conceals its costs at a high price, and lies in stark contrast to garish skirting boards or door frames available to the masses in hardware stores. As Kees Christiaanse notes, the higher quality detailing found in Swiss architecture demonstrates a very architect-driven pro-cess from start to finish (somewhat disciplining the user) 10 - and as architects we

5 W. Gropius “Das Staatliche Bauhaus Weimar- Programm“, in V. Lampugniani (Ed.),

Architekturtheorie im 20. Jahrhundert, 2004, pg. 78-81

6 K. Frampton, Modern Architecture - A Critical History, Thames and Hudson, 2004, pg.138

7 A. Rapoport, “Housing and Culture“, in L. Taylor (Ed.), Housing: Symbol, Structure, Site, Cooper-Hewit Museum, 1990, pg. 12

8 “Die ideale Wohnung gibt es nicht, wohl aber gute Wohnungen für unterschiedliche

Nachfragegruppen.“ (S. Gysi, “Die ideale Wohnung- gibt es sie?“, in A. Simon (Ed.), Wohnen in Zürich, Niggli, Zürich, 2006, pg. 49)

9 J. Solt, in J. Solt (Ed.), Luxus Wohnen, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2003, pg. 51

10 K. Christiaanse, “Wohnen in Zürich - ein kritischer Blick von aussen“, in A. Simon (Ed.),

Wohnen in Zürich, Niggli, Zürich, 2006, pg. 61

2 Certainly one reason being that the task of improving housing conditions of a vast number of people (and doing it in an eco-nomical way) has been a major concern of the past century.

3 Which would bring us back to the WBS as a scientific tool that tries this very thing - to empower as the main actor, as opposed to abstract notions of functionality.

implicitly strive for the highest possible quality.

This contrast in the modest expression and actual effort of the detai-ling is quite indicative of the cultural changes of the past century. With Swiss egalitarianism in particular, social status cannot be explicitly expressed through architecture anymore- instead it has to be done more subtly. As quality allows for different graduations in its definition, it could perhaps be a more democratic and less absolute form of what luxury meant in the past centuries.

However this cultural change is not without its dangers- the principal one being that the surplus income we produce is increasingly invested in areas serving fewer individuals. Or put differently, “the polarization of society… is reinforced by the transfer of many normal public functions to the realm of private concern- for those that can afford them- and public neglect for those that cannot”. 11 One only has to think of the great Renaissance Pallazzi, which demonstrated their wealth in the city (contributing to its urban quality); we have been increasingly confronted with the phenomenon of reclusive gated communities.

What has since become self-explanatory in the discourse on sustainabi-lity, becomes applicable in considering quality in architecture. When we think of ‘quality‘, we have to consider economical, aesthetic or social aspects that inevitably constitute this concept and have all to be satisfied in order to define something as ‘high quality architecture‘. Afterall, we not only require from our buildings to shelter us, but to also provide us with opportunities to help us grow as human beings.

11 P. Marcuse, “The Contradictions of Housing“, in L. Taylor (Ed.), Housing: symbol, struc-

ture, site,op. cit., pg. 33

Chapter 2: Contextualizing housing

This chapter sets the scene of this research, by bringing closer the context relevant for this work. Although it is descriptive in its nature, it helped clarify some important aspects this thesis should focus on.

Contextualizing housing | | 2

Polish context | | | 2.1

Cultural and social | | | | 2.1.1

As of 2008, Poland has a population of 38.1 million inhabitants and with an area of 313,000 km2 has a population density of 122 per km2. According to statistical surveys from 2006, about 64% of the population lived in cities - 23.3 million in towns, while 14.8 million live in rural areas.

Poland can be described as being a Catholic country - social statistics state that over 90% of Poles declare themselves as being Catholic, whilst only half of this group considers themselves to follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. 12 This religious heritage certainly has an impact on the fact that the ‘family’ is a central value in Polish society.

The period following the Second World War determined Poland‘s political adherence to the communist camp, which meant that every sphere of Polish life became subject to ideology and the country itself remained in a state of permanent economic destabilisation. It wasn’t until the late 1980s that the situation changed in any way. 13

Despite the collapse of communism 20 years ago, today’s attitudes reflect these of socialist Poland. Particularly evident are the attitudes towards public and community space - which in the past was considered to belong to the State and by implication to no-one. There is a strong separation between one’s private property that has to be guarded, in opposition towards public space, which one is forced to share and is allowed to neglect.

Tower blocks and the mass production of housing define the built landscape to this day as remnants of the previous political system. It is defined by the neglect for individual needs, standardisation and minimum-space stan-dards (a typical 4 person flat had around 40sqm). The Gomułka-Era (1956-70) is the most drastic example of this- apartments above 60sqm were a rarity, with a 38sqm, 2 room flat, being a typical standard. 14

12 A.Willma ”Nikt nie wie, ilu katolików mieszka w Polsce”, http://www.pomorska.pl, access:

2009.05.15

13 A. Kantarek, “Collective Housing in Poland“ in: New forms of collective housing in Europe, Arc en Rêve Centre d‘Architecture, 2008

14 “Jakiej wielkosci mieszkania sa obecnie dostepne na rynku nieruchomosci“,

http://www.mieszkaniowy.com, access: 2009.06.26

Contextualizing housing

Sources: www.reas.pl

Social - economic conditions | | | | 2.1.2 15

The average living space per-capita in 2007 year was 22.8sqm (that is, the average usable f loor space of 1 dwelling in sqm per person) and grew from 16,8sqm in comparison to 1988.

Although married couples with children constitute 52% of households within the city, the number of single-person households is now rapidly incre-asing from 20% in 1988, to 28% by 2002. The average household in the cities consists therefore of 2,67 persons and decreased since 1988 from 2,86 person per household. Additionally, the amount of married couples living in the city decreased in the last 14 years by 6,9%.

Household structure in 1988 and 2002Table 1

Number of Persons 6 5 4 3 2 1

1988 in % 7.3 9.5 22.0 20.3 22.3 18.3

2002 in % 5.9 8.2 18.0 19.9 23.2 24.8

The average apartment in 2007 consisted of 3.5 rooms, with the mean useable f loor space of f lats increasing to 61.9sqm since 1988 from 58.1sqm. One can state that Polish housing in urban areas are generally well equipped with standard infrastructure and technical installations.

A general criterion in determining the quality of the housing stock is the amount of usable f loor area per person, with variations of this value being an indication of the standard of life in a given country. Although the average apartment in Poland consisted of 3.5 rooms, as compared to 2.5 in Switzerland, the per capita living space in Switzerland is 44sqm, whilst in Poland it is half this amount - 22.8sqm. One notices therefore the typical attitude within Polish society, which considers a 60sqm apartment with small and separate rooms, as luxurious. 16

Average dwelling size 1960 - 2008Table 2

Year [1960] [1970] [1980] [1990] [2000] [2008]

Size sqm 37 41 54 66 58 62

15 GUS - Głowny Urzad Statystyczny (Central Statistical Office), state on 01. 01. 2008,

http://www.stat.gov.pl

16 B. Komar, B. Kucharczyk-Brus (Ed.), Housing and Environmental Conditions in Post-Communist Countries, Wydawnictwo Politechniki Slskiej, Gliwice, 2008, pg. 33

| Household structure

| Dwelling size

| Household budget

| Dwelling ownership structure and real estate market

In 2007 the average monthly nominal expenditure for the total number of households amounted to about 810 PLN (231.4 €) 17 per person. The average national wage has been consistently increasing since 1990, influencing the spen-ding habits of Poles - 74% chose better quality goods as opposed to the cheapest product in 2003, compared to only a third of the population in 1994. 18

Average monthly net receipts per capita income in households in pln per person grand total: 1´270.64 PLN (363.0 €) and average yearly per capita net dispos-able income in households by socio economic group total: 14´902 PLN (4 ´257.7 €). In 2008, average gross monthly wages and salaries excluding annual bonuses in the national economy amounted to 2908.26 PLN (830.9 €) and were by 10.3% higher than last year.

Current Polish situation in housing | | | | 2.1.3

Polish cities still face the problems of the political transformation and negative effects of a free-market economy - the increasing influence of private businesses and investors, which in fact decide and shape the urban development policies of towns. 19 Whereas in many European countries (such as Switzerland), the society and individuals take a part in the structures determining the deve-lopment of cities - in Poland, such integration is absent.The urban planning coordinated by the government is characterised by chaotic building and in turn creates a focus on quantity and mass-produced architec-ture. It is these policies, which ultimately determine the low quality of life found in most Polish cities.

At the moment there is a higher demand for dwellings than the pro-duction is able to realize. The problem of housing the population is a great challenge, as it currently estimated that the housing deficit amounts 3 million dwelling units. An additional problem facing Polish cities is the deteriorating standard of the housing stock and housing quarters. 20

According to GUS (Central Statistical Office) the estimated housing stock is comprised of 12.7 million dwellings, or put differently, 0.9 dwellings per household (whereas in France, Belgium and the Netherlands this value stands at 1.0, or even 1.5 in Spain). 21

The last years have been characterised by an increase of private owner-ship of housing and a decreased interest in housing cooperatives and social

17 related entire thesis - PLN to € according to the average exchange rate zloty in 2008 year,

http://www.nbp.pl

18 A. Pawlicka ”Polacy, dobrze nam, coraz lepiej”, Przekrój nr 33/3327

19 Z. Sierszuła ”Mieszkalnictwo i urbanizacja w Polsce”, Advisory Council of the Un-Habitat

Warsaw Office - First meeting - 25-26 February 2007 Warsaw

20 ibidem

21 http://globaleconomy.pl/, M. Wasik, ”Budownistwo mieszkaniowe”, 10.2006, accessed

on: 20.04.2009

housing initiatives backed by the government.The structure of dwelling ownership in 2006 was as follows: 59% were the property of individuals27% were in housing co-operatives10% were communal housing units4% percent other.

The percentage of Poles in ownership of their property was 78% in 2008, with average prices for 1sqm in Warsaw ranging 8´000-9´000 PLN (2 4́26 € and 5000-7000 (1´714 €) for Cracow- a stark rise from 3000PLN/sqm (857 €) in the year 2000. 22 (Source: If one considers the relation between housing pri-ces and the income, until 2007 the average wage would allow for 0.9sqm, even in the major agglomerations, the sharp rise in prices in 2007 meant that this amount fell to 0.6sqm.) 23

Dwellings are on the whole expensive assets, with the market prices too high for the income in most Polish families. Without the aid of public funding, for most low to average income households, apartments remain out of reach. 24

Since 2004, Poland has been a full member of the European Union. At the turn of the millennium, the new Polish government laid the foundations of a market economy, which had numerous repercussions on the way people lived and provoking clear change in the forms of housing. Its most important aspects are outlined below. 25

The monopoly of the state and of the housing co-operatives on which it depended was broken and replaced by a multitude of economic entities, with private investors at the forefront. Furthermore, there are no established legal mechanisms to prevent exploitative practices from the side of the developers, where in the building of new housing estates, money and not the individual is the determining factor.

Urban-Planning Conditions. Progressive changes in the rules governing development in general tended to increase the flexibility of planning. A system of studies of the condition and orientation of the city was adopted, along with schedules for local planning and redevelopment. This resulted in a more general absence of guidelines as to the function and form development should adopt.

Legal Regulations. Thus the height of any new building without an elevator was limited to four f loors: all entrances had to be adapted for use by handicapped people, and heating and soundproofing were much more carefully

22 http://www.reas.pl/ ”Rynek mieszkaniowy w Polsce”, Autumn 2008 accessed on:

15.03.2009

23 http://globaleconomy.pl/, M. Wasik, op. cit.

24 B.E. Gronostajska, Kreacja i modernizacja przestrzeni mieszkalnej, Oficyna Wydawnicza

Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław, 2007, pg. 63

25 A. Kantarek, “Collective Housing in Poland“ in: New forms of collective housing in Europe Arc en Rêve Centre d‘Architecture, 2008

monitored. The old regulations determining the size of an apartment as a func-tion of the number of people living in it were completely discarded.

Standard Semi-Private Spaces. Autonomy of space and privatisation favour good housing maintenance. Common areas, which are planned and taken care of as such. The use of space is also changing; for example, the tradi-tional storage and garage areas insulated underground are being replaced by car parks for several cars and sometimes shared areas for leisure activities.

The Dwelling. The changes in this area concern the functions of apartments and the ways they work. Day-living part of the f lat is made up of a cooking space a dining room, and a living area which is set up to suit the audio-visual apparatus owned by the resident and linked to a balcony or terrace.

Standard Architectural Materials and Aesthetic Aspect. The standard materials and the formal aspects of architecture are steadily improving in Poland. This area concerns building programmes, technical solutions adopted during construction, infrastructure, and detailing. Increasingly more care is given to the aesthetic aspect of homes and to the specific nature of their space.

| Characteristic features of the contemporary housing in Poland

Analysing housing conditions of Poland in the last decade, one can point out the most characteristic features of existing, contemporary residential buildings as follows:

1. It is investors and contractors that decide about the appearance of the architecture; although internationally this is a common trend, it is even more distinct in Poland. Developers in Poland have presently little experience (in comparison to other

countries), making high quality architecture hard to come by. “In the past fif-teen years, developers learned from their own mistakes, because architecture and building were left to the invisible hand of the market (...) Now, better planning is required” (K. Kirejczyk, president of the board of REAS consul-ting company specializing in real-estate market research) 26

2. Great pressure is exerted on the amount of usable area that is, rather than the quality of functional or aesthetic solutions, it is the return for a given invest-ment that is assessed. This phenomenon in Poland is called art of PUM-izm (art of usable area).

“Unfortunately, architects are often paid not according to the project value but by the amount of usable area- surface area of the building without circu-lation and utility space.” 27

26 ”City, Mass, Bucks”, Architektura Murator, No. 05/2007

27 ibidem

3. People live within “closed ghettos”- with the tendency for fenced and securely protected residential building complexes, not accessible freely to outsiders.These closed estates are regarded by many a characteristic phenomenon of the Polish urban landscape. They are a threat not only to urban public space by its privatisation and the creation of gated communities. More importantly, there is a social segregation occurring, with apartments in the above mentioned estates being considerably more expensive to buy, giving the buyer a higher social status. In 2008 Warsaw hosted a festival called „Passengers”, which made closed

housing estates as its main topic. A Swiss artist, San Keller, was the author of a happening where he encouraged people to form a “wolf choir” at the gates of these estates. 28

4. The relationship between public, semi-public and private space is still consi-dered a secondary matter. They are usually executed to superficially conform to building regulations - estates are provided with the minimum required size, with little regard to the actual quality of open spaces.

5. There is still a real difficulty in adopting new or even innovative technolo-gical solutions during the building process (also in terms of sustainability)- as a consequence contractors fall back on the old tried and tested systems.

6. Polish architecture lacks the will to establish a strong aesthetic language of its own - it is either concerned with following current Western trends, or to produce middle of the road (‘correct’) forms.

7. The main faults of current f lats are their small surface area, frequently with badly proportioned and organised rooms, as well as a lack of additional rooms for other activities, such private working space.

Building regulations in Poland | | | | 2.1.4

The most detrimental regulations for the research and housing context are outlined below. 29

Building location:A building cannot be situated closer to the plot boundary than:1) 4m in the case of walls with openings towards that boundary2) 3m in the case of walls without openings [Division II, Section 1, §12. 1.]

Daylighting and sun exposure:Living rooms should have a guaranteed sun exposure of at least 3 hours during

28 http://warszawa.naszemiasto.pl/wydarzenia/898428.html, M. Babula, ”Przy pełni ksiezyca

wilki zawyły w Warszawie”, 2008.09.16, accessed on: 20.04.2009

29 Rozporzadzenie Ministra infrastruktury z dnia 7 kwietnia 2004 r.w sprawie warunków tech-

nicznych, jakim powinny odpowiadac budynki i ich usytuowanie (Dz. U. Nr 109, poz. 1156)

the solstices (21st March and September). In an apartment with multiple rooms, this requirement has to be satisfied in at least one room, whereas in an urban situation, the time can be reduced to 1.5 hours.The area of the openings within a room should comprise at least 1/8th of the given floor surface area. [Division III, Section 2, § 60. 1.]

Staircase and ramps The dimensions for staircases in multi-unit housing are as follows: minimum width: 1.2mminimum landing width: 1.5mmaximum riser height: 0.17m [Division III, Section 4, § 68. 1.]

Bathrooms: The volume of a bathroom equipped with natural stack ventilation should be at least:1) 8m3 if equipped with gas-fired appliances2) 6.5m3 if the gas-fired appliance is situated outside the roomIt is possible to reduce the volume in the case of mechanically ventilated rooms, but never below 5.5m3. [Division III, Section 6, § 80. 1.-2.]

Green and recreational areasOn building plots assigned for housing estates, a minimum 25% of the total plot area should be established as natural (biologically active), outdoor space.[Division II, Section 8, § 39] Playgrounds and recreational space:Within a multi-unit housing complex a children’s play and recreational space should be provided, where at least 30% of this area should be on a natural (bio-logically active) ground. [Division II, Section 8, § 40. 1]

Ventilation provisions:All apartments, with the exception single or double-room units, should be cross-ventilated or corner-ventilated, i.e. openings should be provided on two differently facing walls. [Division III, Section 7, § 91.]

Further regulations regarding multi-unit housing:The minimum wall dimension in a given room in a multi-unit complex should measure:1) single rooms: 2.2m2) double rooms: 2.7m3) kitchen in a single-room dwelling: 1.8m4) kitchen in a multi-room dwelling: 2.4mA given dwelling should have at least one room no smaller than 16sqm.[Division III, Section 7, § 94. 1.-2]

Swiss context | | | 2.2

Cultural and social | | | | 2.2.1

The Swiss population of 7.7 million people is distributed over an area of 41,300 sqkm, giving a population density of 176 persons per sqkm in 2002. Around 68% of the population lived in urban areas, with a fifth of the perma-nent residents of Switzerland not having a Swiss citizenship. Globalization and world-wide migration have brought individuals and groups with hugely diverse traditions and ideas to Switzerland. 30 Therefore one of the main features characterizing this country is its cultural diversity- it is neither a homogenous nor a clearly defined cultural area, on the contrary: there is a complex overlap of linguistic regions, religious denomina-tions, urban centres and peripheral areas. 31

The two major religious communities in Switzerland are Roman Catholics and Protestants. Although the Roman Catholics have a slight majo-rity (due to demographic changes and immigration from Catholic countries) of 42%, compared to 35% Protestants 32, many of features of Swiss society and its attitudes seem rather more Protestant in their nature.

Functionality, rationality and equality are all terms that come to mind when describing this ‘nature’. Furthermore Switzerland possesses a highly deve-loped culture or cooperation, which is defined by the ability for individuals to concern themselves with specialised tasks, but allowing everyone to benefit equally, through the common final product. This brings with itself that changes in direction require the careful building of consensus and are incremental. This is true in all spheres of public life. 33

The Swiss striving for egalitarianism in society that on the whole is highly educated and aware of issues concerning ethics, culture and aesthetics. This makes the implementation of spatial planning policies much easier, as sustainable planning requires coordination on all spheres of society. 34

One should note that Swiss federalism and the concomitant smallness of the bodies that take decisions on public commissions probably play an important part in allowing small offices (architectural or otherwise) to establish themselves en par with other institutions. 35 30 “Human Settlement in Switzerland. Spatial Development and Housing.“ Housing Bulletin,

Band 78, Federal Office for Housing (FOH), Grenchen, 2006, pg. 52,

as well as: http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Europe/Switzerland-Population

31 Ibidem pg.6

32 http://www.all-about-switzerland.info/swiss-religions.html, access on: 20.06.2009

33 S. Spier, M. Tschanz, “Innovation and the Patient Search“, Swiss made. New architecture from Switzerland, Thames & Hudson, London, 2003, pg.7

34 ibidem, pg.8

35 S. Spier, M. Tschanz, “Essentially Realism“, Swiss made. New architecture from Switzerland,

op. cit. pg. 237

| Household structure

| Dwelling size

Social - economic conditions | | | | 2.2.2 36

The built-up environment is expanding considerably faster than the population, which increased by just nine per cent over the same period of time. The reason for this growth is the increasing number of households, rising perso-nal living-space requirements and the constriction of large numbers of detached houses for one or two families.

Average per capita living space occupation was 44sqm in 2000, (10sqm more than in 1980), with great disparities, however, between various population groups. Home owners occupied 50sqm per person, tenants ‚only‘ used 39 sqm per person.

Household structure 1980 - 2000Table 3

Number of Persons 5 4 3 2 1

1980 in % 9.1 16.4 25.8 29.7 29.0

1990 in % 6.5 14.5 14.9 31.7 32.4

2000 in % 6.3 13.2 12.9 31.6 36.0

In 2000, 36% of all households were one-person households and 28% were two-person households, which is also reflected in a decreasing occupancy rate. Urban centers with more than two-hundred thousand inhabitants had 56% single-person and childless-couple households; municipalities numbering one to two thousand inhabitants had only about half as many.

More and more people in Switzerland are living alone. More than 35% of households consist of one person. The number of marriages has dropped slightly in the last ten years, while the number of divorces has increased. The average age of women at the birth of their first child is just under 30. 37

In the ten years between 1990 and 2000, the resident population increased by 6%, while the number of private households increased by almost 10%. In other words, average household size or occupancy rate per home decreased from 2.3 to 2.2 persons, (while forty years ago the occupancy rate was around 3.3 persons). Throughout Switzerland, in 2000, some 175000 households (6%) lived in homes with ‚high‘ occupancy rates of more than one person per room; one in five households, however, lived in ‚spacious‘ homes providing at least three rooms more than occupants. The larger the number of persons per household, the higher the occupancy rate is likely to be.36 http://www.bfs.admin.ch/ and “Human Settlement in Switzerland. Spatial Development

and Housing.“ Housing Bulletin, Band 78, op. cit.

37 http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/eur/vgbr/infoch/chpopu.html, “The people

in Switzerland”, accessed on: 15.04.2009

| Household budget

While rental f lats on average have 2.3 bedrooms (almost two-thirds of all rental f lats have 2 or 3 bedrooms), f lats in the owner-occupied sector tend to be larger, with over 50% of them having 4 or more bedrooms (an average of 4 bedrooms) and only one in twenty being smaller f lats. Over the past ten years, the increase of large f lats with a surface area of more than 120sqm has been weaker than for same-size in the owner-occupied sector.

Over half the rental f lats have a surface area between 60-100sqm; con-versely, three out of four owner-occupied flats are larger than 100sqm, while there are very few small ones.Swiss homes are in general very well appointed. This high standard means that almost half of the total energy in Switzerland is consumed for residential hea-ting and hot water. (Statistical data for Switzerland concern information about structure of householder divide for two and are presented for rent and owner-occupied).

Dwelling Size, state on year 2000Table 4

Area m2 [+160] [140-159] [120-139] [100-119] [80-99] [60-79] [<40-59]

Househol. in % 9.0 5.0 6.0 6.0 5.5 2.5 1.5

Renters in % 2.5 2.0 3.0 7.0 16.0 19.0 15.0

The standard of living in Switzerland is high and has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. Average per capita income in 2005 Switzerland: 54‘031 CHF, in city Zurich: 68‘804 CHF. 38

Current Swiss situation in housing | | | | 2.2.3

In 1998, the municipal administration of Zurich set itself the ambitious goal of building 10,000 new residential units in ten years (for a city with a popu-lation of only 360,000). It sponsored many competitions that were often won by newcomers. Some of the buildings and developments have been realized in the meantime and some display the most astonishing solutions, focusing around reinforcing the identity of given quarters, creating varied housing typologies for varied social groups and aspiring for the highest possible quality even in the social-housing sector. 39

38 http://www.bfs.admin.ch/

39 A. Simon, „Beyond the Swiss box”, A10 Magazine, no.3

| Dwelling ownership structure and real estate market

Nearly two thirds of all residential units in Switzerland are rented, meaning the structure of ownership for apartments in 2000 was as follows: 40

35% owner occupation65% rental units (in per cent): - 57.5 % Private - 22.2% Institutional - 7.9% Cooperative - 3.4% State

Average monthly rents amounted to 1056 CHF, or 13 CHF per square meter, though this value varies greatly from one Canton to another. Thus, accor-ding to 2003 surveys concerning income and consumption, tenant households on average spent 20% of their income on rent, roughly the equivalent of the European average. 41

Home ownership is further discouraged by federal regulation providing strong protection of tenants in rental housing units. Tenants are protected against eviction by landlords. Moreover, they are protected against rental incre-ases, which must be justified by cost increases on the part of the landlord. The security provided to tenants through this legislation encourages households to rent rather than own their home.However, home ownership is encouraged by federal pension fund regulation. Mandatory individual pension accounts can be withdrawn for the purpose of buying residential property. 42 Low-income tenant households are burdened by high rents. The main objective of the Swiss government‘s policy of housing promotion is to provide affordable housing for low-income households. 43

Table 5 Dwelling ownership strukture and real state market

Number of Rooms +6 5 4 3 2 1

Householders in % 9.0 10.5 10.0 4.5 2.0 0.5

Renters in % 2.5 6.0 18.0 22.5 12.0 5

40 http://www.bfs.admin.ch/

41 “Human Settlement in Switzerland. Spatial Development and Housing.“ Housing Bulletin,

Band 78, op. cit., pg.43

42 M. Brown, “Country note: housing finance in Switzerland”, www.bis.org/publ/wgpapers/

cgfs26brown.pdf, 2007, accessed on: 03.05.2009

43 “Human Settlement in Switzerland. Spatial Development and Housing.“ Housing Bulletin,

Band 78, op. cit., pg.45

| Characteristic features of the contemporary housing in Switzerland

In 1994 Hans Frei wrote an article in the magazine Archithese sharply criticizing modem German-Swiss architecture at precisely the time when it had begun to gain a high degree of international recognition. 44 Aside from theoreti-cal and aesthetics discussions common to most Western architecture, there are some aspects that sets Swiss architecture apart in particular.

The spirit of cooperation finds its way into the building profession, where planers, architects, graphic designers, clients and investors all interact with each other to a high degree in every project. 45 Perhaps this multi-disci-plinary approach is possible mainly because the architect still sees himself as an all-rounder, in charge of the project from initial concept to final execution. Even today it is not unusual for the architect to oversee construction and for individual subcontractors and craftsmen to be directly under his supervision. Indeed, until recently this was fairly standard practice. 46

Further consequence of the cooperative attitudes is the possible divi-sion of labour and its organisation. It allows for a high degree of specialisati-on among trades and for the development of a high level of craftsmanship. Therefore the subsequent development of the skin in Swiss Architecture shows a modernist sensibility employing the high-quality hand-crafting still available in the construction trades; things are rarely used straight out of the box. 47

There are many terms describing its characteristic features: minmalism, neo-modernism, the new simplicity, the box. These are all terms used to descri-be cotemporary Swiss architecture and are strong visible also in housing archi-tecture. Summarizing the main characteristics of Swiss contemporary architec-ture, we could talk about intense buildings, with physical presence based on materiality and integrity, which responds to the need to recover elementary and almost phenomenological sensations. 48

1. Simplified geometrical and its reduction to the most basic - preference for the orthogonal in order to archive the best value of usable area through neutrally serviceable spaces.

2. Functionality as the main generator of aesthetics, rather than explicit formu-lation of architecture as an artistic undertaking.

3. Highly precise level of detailing and craftsmanship traditions, which leads to a material-technological innovativeness. At the same time, attention is drawn to

44 S. Spier, M. Tschanz, “Essentially Realism“, op.cit., New architecture from Switzerland, pg. 241

45 S. Spier, M.Tschanz, “Innovation and the Patient Search“, op.cit., pg.12

46 S. Spier, M. Tschanz, “Essentially Realism“, op.cit., pg.236

47 S. Spier, M.Tschanz, “Innovation and the Patient Search“,, op.cit. p.13

48 “Helvetian Constructions: Theme and Variations”, AV Monographs. Materia Suiza

No.89, May-June 2001, Arquitectura Viva SL, Madrid

the covered body and the impact of surfaces and materials. 49

4. Very high standard of construction aimed at longevity, as the main focus in the area of sustainability in terms of resources (consideration of a building beyond construction onto use and upkeep).

5. Concern with creating an architecture responding and reinforcing the context and the character of a given quarter (social sustainability).

6. Highly organised planning process, which coordinates actions from all parties, often focused with providing high returns to the investors, as well as affordable dwellings in the case of non-profit housing cooperatives.

Building regulations in Switzerland | | | | 2.2.4 50

In contrast to the Polish regulations, the Swiss system is more struc-tured in its nature and reflects the differing building requirements, from region to region. In other words, it is difficult to speak of a single set of regulations one has to follow in Switzerland - they are dictated by local conditions, depen-ding on canton, the city concerned, and even zone within a municipal region. Therefore the legal system also reflects this hierarchy in its organisation.

On a national level, the Raumplanungsgesetz (RPG) describes strategic aims goals, regarding issues that influence the whole of Switzerland - for exa-mple, the building of airports, railways, nature reserves and recreational areas. The RPG defines the profile of a given area, in relation to the whole country.

On a regional (canton) level it is the Planungs- und Baugesetze (PBG), Planing and Building Regulations, which in consideration of the national RPG, decide on the specific rules applicable to construction work. The cantons defi-ne the minimum requirements, such as buildings distances; and define terms and values, such as usable f loor areas or building volume number. These basic regulations may vary therefore from canton to canton - whereas in Poland they are applicable on a national level.

The individual municipalities use the PBG as a basis to designate and plan building work on a local level through the Bau- und Zonenordnung (BZO- Building and Zoning Regulations). The BZO is drawn up for each area and defines the density, building volume, as well as general designation (residential, commercial or industrial).

49 S. Spier, M. Tschanz, “Essentially Realism“, Swiss made,.New architecture from Switzerland, op.cit.

50 The following section is based on: S. Menz, Drei Bücher über den Baurpozess, VDF Verlag,

Zürich, 2009

Whereas the building performance and functional requirements are dictated by the PBG (for issues such as thermal performance or minimum day light requirements), the BZO regulates the building form and dimensions local-ly. As an example, in the region of Winterthur, the minimum building distance from the site is 7m in a two-storey zone, whereas this distance decreases to 5m in a 4-storey zone.

Depending on where the site is, different building regulations result and architects have to respond accordingly. One can in fact go so far as to say that the first step in aiding the quality of Swiss buildings lays in this site-specific approach which aims for the best possible contribution to a given area.

Chapter 3: Comparative analysis

The following chapter describes the chosen analysis method, as well as outlines some of the main terms used throughout this paper.

Comparative Analysis | | 3

Method | | | 3.1

Within the presented method, the background work seeks to recognise and explain the current housing situation in Poland and Switzerland, by analysing the cultural, social and economic fac-tors, present in each country. This is followed by an investigation into a more theoretical concept of quality in housing, which together with the context work, allows for the formulation of a hypothesis to be researched further. Based on the information gained above, selec-tion criteria where defined. This helped in finding relevant case study examples and to narrow the field of research; it was decided to concentrate on multi-unit urban housing and estates (as opposed to free-standing blocks or infill forms). The resulting pool of case studies were 3 Polish and 3 Swiss urban housing examples, which ultimately were chosen based on subjective pre-ferences - examples which seemed to offer a lot architecturally. An appropriate analysis instrument was devi-sed, based on all the information and conclusions gained so far. In order to carry out a thorough investigation, three analysis instruments were developed, meant to complement each other - I Descriptive (DAI), II Functional (FAI), III Quantitative (QAI). The case study examples allowed for a deeper analysis of the investigated concepts of quality. Furthermore, the aim was to compare the exa-mples to each othern - or seen differently, to find a way of comparing them. The conclusions present these comparisons, as well as the lessons learned from them - all whilst considering the context and current situa-tions in each country. The aim is thus, through the research and interpretation of results, to verify the hypothesis formulated in the beginning, perhaps suggesting ways to modify and improve it.

Current situationin housing

Socio-culturalcontext

SQUESTIONS ?

SELECTION CRITERIA

BACKGROUND in PL and in CH

ANALYSIS CRITERIA

ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT = AI

QUANTITATIVE = QAI

FUNCTIONAL = FAI

DESCRIPTIVE = DAI

CONCLUSIONS

HYPOTHESIS

COMPARISON

CASE STUDIES3CH | 3PL

Comparative Analysis

1. Multi-unit urban houses created such as a housing complex or urban quarter2. Examples from German speaking part of Switzerland3. Objects not older than ten years, newly built housing4. Examples for households on the average income and not-average income.5. Examples well-known, described as successful archiecture

QAI - QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT

QAI 1 LOCATION

FAI - FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT

DAI - DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS INSTRUMENT

QAI 1. 1. Town or village centre QAI 1. 3. Nearby playgroundQAI 1. 2. Public transport stop QAI 1. 4. Nearby recreation area

QAI 2 ESTATE [outdoor spaces | semi-public spaces]QAI 2. 1. Range and types of flats QAI 2. 3. Communal outside areaQAI 2. 2. House access area QAI 2. 4. Graduated exposure

QAI 3 FLAT [indor spaces | private spaces]QAI 3. 1. Nett surface area QAI 3. 5. Flaxible organisation of roomsQAI 3. 2. Number of bedrooms QAI 3. 6. Flaxible floor plan QAI 3. 3. Vesatility QAI 3. 7. Private outside area QAI 3. 4. Furnishabbility of rooms QAI 3. 8. Windows in room

- distances between buildings- density- height of story

These descriptions focus mostly on:- atmosphere of entire comlex- borders- character of ground floor and house access area

- distribute of entrences- organization of apartment- value of the technical factors

- semi-and public spaces - relation and character of both- materialistic surface and color aspects- light issue, fenestration

Analysis instrument AI | | | 3.2

Presented below is an analysis instrument that is a product of the search for a way of measuring quality in multi-unit urban housing. As such, the final result is based on three approaches to measuring an entire housing complex: 1. Descriptive analysis (DAI)2. Functional analysis (FAI)3. Quantitative analysis (QAI)

Each of above the mentioned analysis instruments (1) is focused on something different and the three approaches to analysing were chosen as a way of complementing the quantitative nature of the WBS 51. It is the author’s opinion that the other two analysis methods close some of the gaps that could have resulted if a quantitative method alone would have been chosen.

51 WBS - instrument to plan, assess and compare residential buildingsThe Swiss Housing Evaluation System (Wohnungs-Bewertungssystem WBS) is an instrument to plan, assess and compare residential buildings. First published in 1975, it initially served to assess new-build applications in the context of the federal promotion of residential construction. In 2000 the WBS was adapted to new housing requirements, and its scope of application widened.The WBS takes into account many diverse ideas and requirements for housing. Residential buildings constructed according to WBS concepts should distinguish themselves for their organisational flexibility and versatility. The practical value of a flat, residential building or residential estate is expressed in terms of utility value. The higher this value, the more versatile the use of a residential object.Assessments are based on thirty-nine criteria in three categories: f lat (W1), estate (W2) and location (W3), each weighted differently and rated with up to three points. If the building project is compatible with relevant criteria, a high number of points will result. With regard to flats, the WBS emphasises criteria which address the f lexibility of the f loor plan, or the potential for alternative placement of furniture; with regard to the residential building, emphasis is on communal areas; criteria regarding location place particular emphasis on easy access to services and facilities. Source: Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen (2000): “Wohnbauten planen, beurteilen und ver-

gleichen. Wohnungs-Bewertungs-System WBS Ausgabe“, Schriftenreihe Wohnungswesen,

Band 69

1 Individual chapters contain a detailed description of each analysis method.

Definition of main terms Table 6

Persons Household (PHH) is a measure of a maximum, adequate occupancy rate of a f lat. The PHH value should not be corresponded to the actual occu-pancy of a f lat.

Location | Urbanistic Criteria: housing location with nearby and distant neigh-bourhood.

Estate | Outdoor Spaces, Semi-Public Spaces: The complete residential area, together with surroundings within the estate.

Flat | Indoor Spaces | Private Spaces: area encompassing the dwelling - private indoor and outdoor spaces.

The UFA is understood here as the (main) usable f loor area, as defined in the Swiss norm SIA 416 - It is this part of the f loor area, which serves precisely the purpose of the building 1. Usable space does not include: Wall cross-sections, ducts and chimneys, door and window niches, as well as balconies, terraces, loggias.

The GFA is understood here as defined by the Swiss Norm SIA 416: The area of f loor plans of all accessible f loors, enclosed [by building parts] on all sides, including the structure area. 2

The BV is understood here as defined by the Swiss Norm SIA 416: The gross f loor area multiplied by its corresponding floor height without any additions or deductions. 3

Norm SIA 380/1 defines the BEA as: Sum of the surfaces which are understood as system limited in the heat balance calculation. 4

Rooms, living rooms (common spaces) and dining rooms are living spaces. These are day lit, naturally ventilated and heated. User controlled ventilation (comfort ventilation) may be provided. Combined, these rooms form the living space of the f lat.

Surface of a 90cm wide space provided for the interior access of individual rooms and spaces.

Each area within the flat, irrespective of whether it is naturally lit, ventilated, heated, open or closable.

Separate living space.

Single-room-flat with kitchenette and washroom.

1 Norm SIA 416:2002 – Flächen und Volumen von Gebäuden und Anlagen

2 Ibindem

3 Ibindem

4 Norm SIA 380/1:2007 – Thermische Energie im Hochbau

UFA - usable f loor area

GFA – gross f loor area

BV - building volume

BEA - build envelope area

Living spaces

Circulation

Studio-room

Descriptive Analysis DAI | | | | 3.2.1

The descriptive part of the methodology focuses on outlining the gene-ral framework of the projects, but its main focus lies on depicting subjective experiences, feelings and sensual aspects. Issues such as neighbourhood iden-tity, atmosphere and style of living are elucidated, with the focus on features most crucial to “high quality”.

It is important to mention, that prof. Dietmar Eberle, who during the course’s meetings always encouraged the author to be subjective. These descriptions focus mostly on:- atmosphere of entire comlex- borders- character of ground floor and house access area - semi-and public spaces - relation and character of both- materialistic surface and color aspects- light issue, fenestration

Functional Analysis FAI | | | | 3.2.2

The following method is meant to serve as a graphical representation of aspects which cannot be contained within the descriptive and quantitative parts of the analysis instrument. Its main focus lies on describing the spatial organisation within the flat itself, again centering around features detrimental to “high quality”.

- distances between buildings- density- height of story- distribution of entrences- organization of apartment- value of the factors:UFA | GFA - balance netto to brutto areas BV | UFA - balance netto to cubic metre

Quantitative Analysis QAI | | | | 3.2.3 52

The Quantitative Analysis Instrument (QAI) is based and adapted from the WBS 53. The main changes lie in selecting criteria which seemed to influence “high quality”. Additionally the structure was adapted in such a way that would allow for a better evaluation within the Polish context and help to compare

52 Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen (2000): “Wohnbauten planen, beurteilen und vergleichen.

Wohnungs-Bewertungs-System WBS Ausgabe“, Schriftenreihe Wohnungswesen, Band 69,

Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen, Grenchen, 2000, translated by Michal Switalski

it against the Swiss background. From the original list of 39 criteria, 16 were selected and arranged in three sections pertaining to the location, estate and the actual f lat. The analysed flat chosen is a 3 room flat, which can be considered a standard and representative of most features found in dwellings. A more detailed explanation of the working principles behind the QAI is outlined in the following section.

Basic tools | | | | 3.2.3.1

The QAI defines the utility value as a benchmark of quality. This utility value places functionality for the occupant at the fore. Size, fittings and varied ways of furnishing, relationships between rooms or the convertibility are all keywords for the utility value of a flat. Important criterium in the case of the residential building is the availability of common rooms and outdoor spaces. The proximity to services such as schools and shops, or nearby recreational areas of the neighbourhood, city or region, are factors significant for the location.

In evaluating according the QAI, the utility value of a f lat, residential building and location, is calculated. General conditions such as planning and building regulations, norms, as well as needs of the disabled and aged, have to be satisfied as well. Furthermore, requirements for the f lats’ minimum net living areas and standard fittings also apply. In order to provide a comparable assessment, f lats are graded according to a theoretically adequate occupancy rate, referred to as Persons per Household (PHH). The utility value assessments are based on sixteen criteria in three cate-gories - f lat (Q1), estate (Q2) and location (Q3) - each weighted differently and rated with up to three points. The utility value is calculated by dividing the indi-vidual weighted and summed results, by the absolute weight of each category.

Guidelines for building features | | | | 3.2.3.2

To provide a comparable assessment, f lats are graded according to their size. For this, a maximum number of occupants is defined, which under ade-quate conditions can inhabit a f lat as a Persons Household (PHH). The effective occupancy of a f lat however, is not dependent on the PHH-rating. In defining the PHH-rating, the net living area, the standard fittings and furnishing varia-tions of the utility spaces are all decisive factors. If a f lat does not satisfy some criteria, the PHH size has to be adequately adjusted, until it suits the level of standard fittings.

The minimum net living area and the standard fittings of the utility spaces is defined in criterion: Q3.1

Rooms with a net living area greater than 8sqm are accounted for one person; rooms greater than 12sqm for two persons. A rooms has to be furnished in at

Number of occupants and Persons Per Household (PPH)

Net living area and standard fittings

Rooms for person and for two persons

Utility Value: a quality benchmark

Evaluation: methodology behind the QAI

least one alternative way (see criterion: Q3.4). In cases where an adequate fur-nishing in a one person room is not possible, the surface area is added, but the room is not considered for the PHH-rating. At least one two persons room has to have possibility of being furnished with a double bed.

A space or room of at least 12sqm net living area in the flat is reserved as a living room. The area designated as dining area is not included. Living and dining rooms cannot be considered in determining the PPH size of a f lat.

Each flat is made up of various areas. The general requirements and standard fittings need to be fulfilled in each separate area and have to satisfy the corre-sponding PPH size. The dining area can situated adjacent to any suitable day lit, naturally ventilated and heated area, such as cooking or living areas, or in a niche part of the circulation.

The cooking area should be day lit and naturally ventilated. Around the kitchen fittings, a 120cm service space is required. The standard fittings in the kitchen require the space for a two person table or can form a f loor to ceiling high opening of at least 120cm width to another room. All spaces, with the exception of outdoor spaces, need to be accessed through a circulation strip of at least 90cm width. If a usable area is contained within another room, the circulation strip is terminated at the entrance to that room. In cases where usable areas are combined, for example living and dining rooms, the circulation strip has to be brought around these areas. Areas with an already designated use cannot be counted double in the assessment.

Every new built f lat has to have direct access to an outdoor space, such as a balcony, terrace or a garden, with a minimum width of 140cm. Exempt from this rule are f lats which by law cannot have an outdoor space. In the cases of residential building refurbishment, directly accessible outdoor spaces need to be provided where possible.

The furniture layout depicted in drawings is considered to illustrate only one from many usage proposals. The greater the functional versatility, the better the f lat-rating (Q1). The same applies to the estate (Q2). This means that with the WBS, versatility of use and arrangement of common rooms and outdoor spaces is more valued.

Evaluating and grading according to a | | | | 3.2.3.3 criteria-set

Before one can assess a building according to the QAI method, some basic requirements have to satisfied (as mentioned below), the basic fittings need to be determined and the PHH value needs to be defined.

Common living space

Dining, cooking, storage and wash areas

Minimum cooking area dimensions

Circulation space

Outdoor space

Multiple uses and functional neutrality

The criteria are all set out along the same principle: first the definition of the aim of the criterion is introduced, followed by an explanation of the measurement method. The requirements to be fulfilled during the assessment are established so that a score between 1 and 3 points may be reached. Rules for the rounding-off of scores are explained in the individual assessment charts.

1 point is awarded if the requirement is only partially satisfied. 3 points are awarded if the requirements are satisfyied to a very high degree. Satisfying a criterion that is assessed through the QAI, to a degree reaching beyond 3 points, should and will not be additionally rewarded. Criteria which cannot be applied in certain cases (such as studio flats) are normalised and awarded 1 point. A criterion is awarded 0 points, if it does not satisfy the required standard for 1 point.

The weighting indicates which importance in percent a given assessment criterion is given. The total weight of all of the 16 criteria amounts to 100%.

Quantitative analiysis criteria | | | | 3.2.3.4 Q 1. Location [Urbanistic Criteria]

Q1. 1. Town or village centre weight 15 Q1. 2. Public transport stop weight 15 Q1. 3. Nearby playground weight 5 Q1. 4. Nearby recreation area weight 5 Total weight Q1 30

Q 2. Estate [Outdoor Spaces | Semi-Public Spaces]

Q2. 1. Range and types of f lats weight 5 Q2. 2. House access area weight 5 Q2. 3. Communal outside area weight 7 Q2. 4. Graduated exposure to the public weight 3 Total weight Q2 20

Q 3. Flat [Indoor Spaces | Private Spaces]

Q3. 1. Nett surface area Q3. 2. Number of bedrooms weight 7 Q3. 3 . Vesatility weight 7 Q3. 4. Furnishabbility of room weight 7 Q3. 5. Flaxible organisation of rooms weight 7 Q3. 6. Flaxible f loor plan weight 5 Q3. 7 . Private outside area weight 5 Q3. 8. Windows in living room / bedrooms weight 5 Total weight Q3 50

Structure and methodology

Points

Weighting

Measurement: distance in m

600 800 1000 1200

Q1. 1. Town or village centre weight 15

AimsThe benefits of a neighbourhood, village or town centre should be available within an appropriate distance:- shops for daily needs - employment: especially part-time work, for example for parents with children, a range of neighbourhood job opportunities is particularly crucial- services: post office, bank, doctor, pharmacy, hairdresser, restaurant- meeting points: meeting and event halls, community and youth centres

Measurement methodThe distance between the housing area and the focal point of the neighbourhood, village or town centre is used for assessment. In cases where only the following range of shops and services is available, 1 point is deducted: grocery store, restaurant, meeting hall.

Q1. 2. Public transport stop weight 15

AimsA public transport stop should be situated close to the estate. This should enable the inhabitants to reach city and regional centres, work, school, leisure and outdoor areas, as well as friends and relatives, without the use of individual motorised traffic.

Measurement methodThe distance between the estate and the nearest public transport stop (train, tram and bus) is assessed.

Full points are awarded if the daily average trip frequency is greater than 2 per hour. In cases where the frequency is 1 to 2 trips, one point is deducted; if the average waiting time is greater than 60 minutes no points are awarded. The daily average is calculated by considering trips between 6.00-23.00 o’clock.

300 400 500 600

Q1. 3. Nearby playground weight 5

Aims A nearby situated neighbourhood or estate playground should facilitate various individual and group activities for children, youths and adults.

Measurement methodThe distance from the estate to the neighbourhood or estate playground is assessed.The playground should measure at least 600m2 and can be grass or hard groundcover. The playground form should allow for various games and sports to take place.

In the case of pedestrian or play streets, one point is deducted. Playgrounds with an area between 400-600m2 as well as ones located separately off the estate also receive one point less.

300 400 500 600

Q1. 4. Nearby recreation area weight 5

AimsThree categories of recreational areas for children, adolescents and adults should be within an appropriate distance from the housing area:- walking, hiking and bike trails in natural areas- streams, rivers, natural and manmade lakes- open-air swimming

Measurement methodThe distance between the housing area and the edge or start of the closest recre-ational area of each category is used for assessment.

The three recreational areas are assessed independently. Subsequently an ave-rage value is determined.

1000 1200 1400 20001600 1800

Q2. 1. Range and types of f lats weight 5

AimsThere should a provision of varied flat sizes within the housing estate.This way, the range of choice for residents is achieved. This in turn offers the opportunity, in the case of changing living needs, to find a new suitable f lat in an area already familiar with.

Measurement methodThe percentage of the most frequently occurring flat types with a housing block, or in the case of multiple buildings, within the housing estate, is used for assessment. Four residence types are differentiated: small f lats with studio and 1 and 2 PPH, middle-sized flats with 3 and 4 PPH and large f lats with 5 and 6 PPH, as well as very large f lats with 7 and above PPH.

The classification criteria of the f lat-sizes were modified as follows: Small: 1, 1.1/2, 2, 2.1/2 roomsMedium: 3-3.1/2 roomsLarge: 4-4.1/2 roomsExtra-large: >5 rooms

Measurement: the percentage of the most frequently occurring flat types

35 40 45 50 55 60 65

Q2. 2. House entrance area weight 5

AimsThe main entrance should be a transitional space between the outside and interior - spacious in size and protected. It should be suitable for circulation, lingering and play.

Measurement methodThe surface area of the entrance zone is measured and the circulation surface, a 90cm wide circulation strip to the stairs, and a 140x140cm zone around stair landings, lift and flat doors. This remaining area is divided by the total PHH value of all the f lats using the entrance. Open entrance halls or covered vestibules are counted as half. The entrance area should be level and therefore wheelchair accessible. The interior space should be naturally lit, clearly laid out and well light at night. In cases where the criteria are not satisfied, the possible point score is reduced by one. In the case of multiple entrances, each entrance is assessed separately and an average value is calculated.

Measurement: m² per person

0.3 0.4 0.5

Q2. 3. Communal outdoor area weight 7

AimsChildren of all ages, as wells as teenagers and adults should be provided with various outdoor and play areas.The within the outdoor area of the estate, there should also be area not assigned specifically to a particular age group or activity. The arrangement and planting of the communal outdoor areas should encourage the inhabitants towards active use of these spaces.

Measurement MethodOutdoor, play and freely accessible areas are assessed. The total area is then divided by the total PHH value of the affected households. Circulation areas are can also be considered if they are suitable - in the form of pedestrian and play streets. Parking places have to be deducted however.If the individual areas are fragmented, the possible point score is reduced by a half. If children’s play ground are separated by traffic circulation or parking spaces, the possible point scores is reduced by one.

The measurement method was adapted for the case studies as follows:

3 Points Various outdoor spaces for the use of different ages groups are provided.

2 Points Some outdoor spaces are provided for only certain user groups (eg. only children’s playgrounds).

1 Point No outdoor spaces with a provision for specific activities.

Q2. 4. Graduated exposure of public space weight 3

AimsOutdoor areas should include zones of different functions and graduated exposure to the public. A differentiated spatial progression within the outdoor rooms can help in avoiding conflicts of use.

Measurement methodThe structuring and usability of graduated public space is used in the assess-ment of the outdoor areas within the housing estate.

3 Points The outdoor spaces are structured into differentiated zones. The public exposure is clearly graduated. Each separate spatial zone is assigned varied uses.

2 Points The outdoor spaces are only partly structured. The public exposure has limited graduation. Each separate spatial zone is assigned varied uses.

1 Point The outdoor spaces are sparsely or not at all structured. The privacy of groundfloor f lats is not ensured.

Q3. 1. Nett surface area weight 7

AimsThe net living space should be as big as possible. This ensures a greater freedom of use for the residents.

Measurement methodThe net living space of a f lat is used for assessment. The net living space consti-tutes primarily the main usable area as in SIA 416 and is the sum of the accessi-ble and available f loor surfaces within a f lat. Included in this measurement are built-in closets and kitchen elements.Not included are wall thicknesses, shafts, chimneys, door and window alcoves, as well as outdoor spaces such as balconies, loggias and terraces. The surface area of internal stairs however, is included. The exceptions in comparison with the SIA 416 are: storage spaces are included, as are surfaces under pitched roof spaces, which are measured from a minimum ceiling height of 150cm, as long as the roof pitch is greater than 15°.

Measurement: net living space in m²

50 70 90 140110 13040 60 80 100 120

Q3. 2. Number of bedrooms weight 7

AimsThrough a sufficient number of rooms, inhabitants should be provided with a considerable freedom of use. Individual activities should thus be able to under-taken simultaneously.

Measurement method The number of rooms greater than 8sqm and accessible from the circulation space is considered.Open kitchens, which additionally have a living area of 8sqm are also considered. Daylit rooms, niches or galleries which are at least 5sqm are counted as half.

Measurement: number of rooms

1 2 5 73 4 6 8 9

Q3. 3. Versatility weight 7

AimsA flat should allow versatile usability and be capable to be furnished for diffe-rent needs. The aim should be rooms which through their size and proportions allow for a change of use.

Measure method This is evaluated by assessing in which rooms a defined surface area module can be placed. This area module measures 14m2 (length x width being from 300 x 467 cm, up to 380 x 369) and can allow for a number of basic uses, for example it can be furnished with a double bed, two single beds or a seating arrangement for 4 people. In cases where the room is irregular in shape, it should be possible for a rectilinear area module to placed entirely within the room.

1 2 3 4 5

Measurement: number of rooms, in which a defined surface area module can be placed

5- und 6-

7- und 8- P

368389412437467

Q3. 4. Furnishabbility of rooms weight 7

AimsLiving spaces should allow for varied furnishing and multiple uses. A good fur-niture layout in living rooms is determined by all of the living area, the room proportions, the point of access to windows or other fixed fittings.

Measure method As a gauge for the furnishing and representing other types of furniture, a bed module is used. The footprint of the bed measures 210 x 100 cm, the adjacent service and circulation surface is 90cm. The number of bed placements possible for each room is measured. Furthermore the bed module has to touch with at least one side a wall.In the case of rooms greater than 12m2 net living area, the number of place-ments of a double bed module, or two single bed modules are used. In the case of rooms above 8m2, the number of single bed placements is used. Door and window leaves which are opened to 90° cannot encroach on the bed module. Every living room is separately considered. Subsequently an average value is found. Where a living room is combined with a cooking and/or dining space, the furnishing of this room is not considered.

This measurement method has been modified so that for rooms which are combined with a cooking or dining area and can still be used separately are also considered.

Measurement: number of of bed placements possible in room

2 3 4 5

-Bed Rooms

100 90

909010

210 21

90 100

Q3. 5. Flexible organisation of rooms weight 5

AimsResidents should be provided with the provision to react to changing living needs through adapting the organisation of rooms. Short-term changes in the opening and division of living areas should be possible, i.e. to separately adjust the privacy gradient between the circulation space, day rooms and each living room.

Measurement method The number of movable room partitions of minimum 120cm width, for exam-ple sliding, folding or double doors, are used for assessment. Available openings of a width between 120 and 250cm, which exhibit the possibility of installing a partition are counted as half.The separated room zone should be independently accessible, have a surface area of at least 8m2 and be naturally lit and ventilated. Cases in which the access to the separated room zone leads through a cooking area, can only be counted as half.

The measurement method is modified to consider openings which are 100cm wide. Cooking areas are also considered.

Measurement: number of movable room partitions

2 3 41

4- und 5-

6-, 7- und 8- P

Q3. 6. Flaxible f loor plan weight 5

AimsResidents should be able to react to changing living needs with flexible f loor plans through a minimum of constructional work. Through the shifting, remo-val or creation of non-structural walls, a new spatial organisation should be achieved, thereby guaranteeing a longer usability and lettability.

Measurement method The number of non-structural walls is considered: on one hand walls which can be retrospectively removed without difficulties for the structure or techni-cal installations, on the other additional partition walls which can be added. These walls should have a minimum length of 250cm. The newly formed rooms should have a minimum surface area of 8m2 .

Measurement: number of non-structural walls

2 3 41

5- und 6-

nd 8- PHH

Q3. 7. Private outdoor space weight 5

AimsEvery flat should posses an outdoor room, suitable for a variety of functions, such as eating, rest, play, work, etc.

Measurement methodThe outdoor surface area which can be accessed or cultivated and which clearly belongs to the apartment is used for assessment. At least one outdoor space should be accessible from the outside. Directly accessible areas are counted wholly: bal-conies, terraces, loggias and gardens. Indirectly, but still conveniently accessible outdoor areas are counted as half, for example allotments or roof gardens. At least one outdoor space should be dimensioned, so that a PHH-sized table can be placed within it. Where this is not achieved, half a point is deducted from the possible score. In cases where the orientation of the main outdoor space of a f lat is within ±30° to the north, or the outdoor space is exposed without adequate visual and weather protection, one point is deducted from the possible score. In case of existing buildings without outdoor space, or new developments where such space is not possible for legal reasons, the criterion is nullified and 1 point is given.

Measurement: outdoor surface area in m²

3 6 15 189 12 21 24

7- PHH

8- PHH

Q3. 8. Windows in living areas weight 5

AimsThe arrangement of windows in all living areas should allow for the most varied possible views outside. At the same time good sun exposure and ventilation should be achieved.

Measurement method The number of windows in living areas which differ in their orientation by at least 90° from each other are used for assessment. In the case of windows overlooking deck access, windows with a balustrade over 140cm high, or roof area windows, the possible score is reduced by 1/2 point. Where the circulation possesses an adequate view in an additional direction, 1/2 points are additio-nally given.The sun exposure of north facing living areas is also considered: in cases where the orientation is within ±60° towards the north, 1 point is deducted.

7- und 8- PHH 5- und 6- PHH 3- und 4- PHH 1- und 2- PHH

Studio

1 2 3 4 5

The case studies presented in this chapter help deepen the concepts outlined in the previous chapter by way of thorough analysis, helping a later comparison to be undertaken.

Chapter 4: Case studies

Case studies | | 4

Case selection criteria | | | 4.1

The dream of living in a house in the idyll of one’s own garden, even though it is still deeply lodged in people’s imaginations, must compete today with choices of habitats that lay their emphasis on the proximity of urban ser-vices and demand an architectural quality that is adaptable to the ways people live today. 54 It must also be taken into consideration that worldwide, the basic building block of urban tissue are large housing units occupied by diverse social living forms. 55

In order to narrow the field of the research was decided to concentrate on multi-unit urban houses created such as a housing estates or urban quarters as apposed to free-standing blocks of f lats or infill forms. It was established, that in such kind of urban typologies, there are much stronger visible features affecting the so-called “quality of living”. This provides more opportunities to underline the crucial problems in contemporary multi-family urban housing (particularly noticeable in Polish present situation) and to emphasize advan-tages and disadvantages. Therefore an initial the attempt was made to restrict the choice of cases to those with evident “high quality” features, while ones designated for low-income households were left out. (In Poland, as opposed to Switzerland, social housing is still characterised by a low standard of aesthetic, functional, material and environmental issues). Finally it should be stressed the last selection criterion is a subjective preference according to architectural quality and aesthetics. The limitation of selected case (the examples are arranged according to): 1. Multi-unit urban urban houses created such as a housing complex or urban quarter2. Examples from German speaking part of Switzerland3. Construction period - objects not older than ten years, newly built housing 4. Target was on group of users and costs. Selected examples for households on the average income and not-average income. 5. Well - known examples, evaluated as successful archiecture

54 “New forms of collective housing in Europe, Arc en Rêve Centre d‘Architecture, Birkhauser,

2009, pg.36

55 D. Eberle, J. Slot, “Nichts gegen das Vordach“, Archithese No. 4/2004, pg.30

Case studies

| CS 1 | Hegianwandweg | EM2N| Zürich | 2000 - 2003

CS 1 | Hegianwandweg estate in Zurich by EM2N | | | 4.2

Location: Hegianwandweg, 8045 ZurichArchitects: EM2N | Mathias Müller | Daniel NiggliDates of design: Competition: 1998; January 2000Dates of construction: January 2002 - April 2003Client: Familienheimgenossenschaft Zurich FGZCosts: 32´900´000 CHF (BKP 1-9)

Site area: 12´900 m² | 1.29 haUsable floor area [UFA]: 8 280 m²Total Floor Area [GFA]: 14´404 m²Bulding Volume [BV]: 49´716 m³ (SIA 416)Inhabited of area (PHH): 255 Density (1): FAR ratio equals 1.12

Structure of dwellings: 13 apartments with 2 1/2 rooms 24 apartments with 3 1/2 rooms 29 apartments with 4 1/2 rooms 8 apartments with 5 1/2 rooms 2 ateliers1 common room 1 hobby room 1 nursery school 1 underground parking (79 PP)Total number of dwellings: 74

1 FAR (The Floor Area Ratio) is the total building square footage [GFA] divided by the site size square footage [Site area].

Drawing 1 situation plan s: 1 | 2000

Case studies

| | | CS 1 | DAI

Scale of the complex. The first thing that surprised me is the size of the complex. In reality it seems to be much bigger than in descriptions in architectural magazines. The Hegianwandweg development consists of four and five-story apartment buildings positioned along a longitudinal axis. Each of the buildings is created on regular plan and is characterized by quality ratio of rectangles (good proportion of the length to the width and height). Despite very geometrical shapes of the buildings, they look differently on all sides, adding variety to the whole concept.

Borderlines of the settlement are very clearly recognizable. The housing development complex is clearly outlined despite not being surrounded by the fence. This is caused by the following factors: form of topography (buildings are set very intelligently in the landscape, terrain drops from south to north side), public pedestrian paths and asphalt platform, on which buildings are placed.The way of creating relation between semi-public and public spaces is a big advantage of this complex. Relationship between green areas and asphalt paths within the urban structure is definitely in favour of green areas. Green part is created as system of terraces with very diverse vegetation within it. Different paths with different shapes generate variety of spaces. What especially attracted my attention were areas designed as place for different activities for people of different age. Allotments - places with entertainment for children or ‘street-furniture’ (small colourful cottages - rubbish bins, stone walls, glass box - ent-rance to the garage).

But the main common space, acting as ‘heart of the settlement’ is the asphalt platform. Like a backbone, it connects five houses and creates a new background level. The garage is hidden under the platform with the entrance from east side. The asphalt platform serves as circulation, communication space and adjoins entire development, simultaneously providing space for children to play. On the floor there are lines running orthogonally, with rounded edges linking the building entrances. They also create the sports field. All creative interventions have one thing in common: they emphasize different semi-public and public spaces.

The ground floor level distinctly stands out from other levels, not only because of the height (the ground floor height is 3,10m and the rest is 2,40m). The rhythm of the windows in some cases is different than in the other stories - windows are much bigger, opening to the surroundings. On this level there are common use rooms and kindergarten is located in one of the buildings belonging to the street. Flats (in three buildings) on the ground floor level, with south-facing facades have access to private gardens. Their privacy is created by specific form different from the main topography. The five houses’ accesses are located on the corners of each building and are underlined by glass-boxes with printed numbers of the specific boxes,

designed by rectangular fields of red-lit neon contours. The main entrance to the building attracts attention as it is solved in a very interesting way. Glass-boxes serve as entrances halls, which provide entry area to the main staircases, hidden behind glass doors. There are post-boxes and concrete staircases to the garage. Special attention was paid to the design (materials and lighting) of these parts. The main feature of ‘Swiss-box expression’ buildings is continuous strips of terraces (balconies). They create characteristic “horizontal-view line” and are characterized by precise detail. You can get the impression that they are part of the f lats. Their size allows to store things there and in a way they are extensions of rooms. Interiors and divided blinds are painted colourfully in bright green/yellow. This colour is repeated in the textile sun sunshades (designed by artist Carl Leyel).

Windows create big openings in the elevation. Their height is in the size of the whole story and the glass balustrade additionally strengthens the impres-sion of the size of the openings. The big advantage is view from the inside of the f lats to the outside surroundings.

Despite dark gray wooden facades dominate buildings‘ exteriors, the colours of the settlements are one of the most important things, which define the special character of the entire development. The ornamental colours of set-tlement are: greens, light blue, yellow. The fresh greenish yellow of the balcony ceilings and the darker grey of the facade behind them were integrated into the pattern of the shades, which is reminiscent of enlarged pixel structures. The colours are emphasized during the sunny day.

The houses are organized centrifugally around large service cores. Stairs, entrance halls and bathrooms are all contained in the concrete core, liberating the surrounding layer of rooms. This layout with a loadbearing core and outer walls allows for free great f lexibility in the distribution of rooms and apartments. A variety of lifestyles becomes possible within one simple system. This f lexibility can also be exploited in the long run, facilitating future altera-tions in the layout and size of the apartments.sources: by the author

Case studiesis

groundfloor level s: 1|1000

1.29 ha site area

25% not covered area

75% covered area

155 inhabitants / ha

4 - 5 storey buildings14.2 - 17.0 mstoreys height = 2.40 m (2.70 m)groundfloor height = 3.10 m (3.40 m)

Each housing block has one entrance area, which situated is as a core in the midle of the building, serving for 3-4 flats on each level, (for a.15 wellings).Entrance zone measure between 45 -60 m² and serving for a.40 people.

UFA | GFA = 8 280 m² | 14 400 m²ratio value of 0.58 BV | UFA = 49 716 m³ | 8 280 m² value of 6.00 m³/m²

| | | CS 2 | FAI

1-3 floor level s: 1|500

section s: 1|500

balconybathroom | kitchencirculation

QAI selected flat

Drawing 2 CS 1 | Schematic plans s: 1|500

Case Studies

| | | CS 1 | QAI

1. Entrance2. Circulation area3. Kitchen4. Living room5. Bedroom6. Half-room7. Room8. Bathroom9. WC10. Balcony

UFA = 90,5 m2

CS 1 | Analysed flatDrawing 3 2 f loor level s: 1 | 100

Case Studies

CS 1 | QAI Table 7

Flat: Number of bedrooms: 3,5 | UFA: 90.5 m² | PHH: 4

Assessment criteria Point Weight Weight point Measured

Q 1 Location

Q1. 1. Town or village centre 2.5 15 37.5 500 m

Q1. 2. Public transport stop 3.0 15 45.0 100 m

Q1. 3. Nearby playground 2.0 5 10.0 <500 m

Q1. 4. Nearby recreation area 2.0 5 10.0 600 m, 1.5 km, 2.0 km

Q1 Total 102.5

Utility value Q1 3.42 = ∑ weight point Q1 / 30

Q2 Estate

Q2. 1. Range and types of flats 2.5 5 12.5 39% M size, all rooms add.1/2

Q2. 2. House access area 3.0 5 15.0 0.6 m² / Phh

Q2. 3. Communal outside area 3.0 7 21.0 many zonse to different use

Q2. 4. Graduated exposure 3.0 3 9.0 cleary graduated

Q2 Total 57.5

Q3 Flat

Q3. 1. Nett surface area 3.0 7 21.0 90.5 m²

Q3. 2. Number of bedrooms 2.5 7 17.5 3.5 rooms

Q3. 3. Vesatility 2.0 7 14.0 2 rooms (no.4, 5)

Q3. 4. Furnishability of room 1.66 7 11.62 2 bed placements (no.5)

2 bed placements (no.7)

3 bed placements (no.4)

Q3. 5. Flaxible organisation of rooms 2.0 7 14.0 2 options

Q3. 6. Flaxible floor plan 3.0 5 15.0 3+ 2 options

Q3. 7. Private outside area 3.0 5 10.0 very big balcony 21.8 m²

with depth 1.85 m

Q3. 8. Windows in rooms 2.5 5 12.5 SW, ES, NE - ½ p.

Q3 Total 115.62

Utility value Q2 + Q3 2.47 = ∑ weight point Q2 + Q 3 / 70

Utility value Q1 + Q2 + Q3 2.77 = ∑ weight point Q1 + Q2 + Q3 / 100

CS 2 | James housing and office complex | | | 4.3 in Zurich by Gmür & Steib

Location: Fluelarstrasse, 8047 ZurichArchitects: Gmür & Steib Architekten Dates of design: Competition 2001Dates of construction: November 2004 - end of 2008Client: UBS Fund Management AGCosts: 132 Mil CHF (BKP 1-5), inkl. MwSt.

Site area: 22´500 m² | 2.25 haUsable floor area [UFA]: 37´000 m² (within offices area: 7´350 m²)Total Floor Area [GFA]: 54’860 m² (highhouse: 15’840 m², longhouse: 22’970 m², cornerhouse 16’050 m²) Inhabited of area (PHH): 900 Density: FAR ratio equals 2.44

Structure of dwellings: 5 apartments with 1 1/2 rooms (35 m²) 54 apartments with 2 1/2 room (55- 95 m²) 91 apartments with 3 1/2 rooms (69-135 m²) 116 apartments with 4 1/2 rooms (110-175 m²) 13 apartments with 5 1/2 rooms (135- 155 m²) 1 apartments with 6 1/2 rooms (185 m²) 5 studios event-hall day-nursery underground parking (280 pp) (40 different dwellings types)Total number of dwellings: 285 dwellings (highhouse - 76, longhouse - 107, cornerhouse - 100)

Case studies

| | | CS 2 | DAI

The settlement James is located in Albisrieden, a district in the city of Zürich, with nearby schools, recreational areas (Letzigraben swimming pool) and shopping centres. It was formerly an industrial zone dominated by factories and warehouses and as such, the project forms part of regeneration attempts within the area. The general impression is that of a project incredibly well inte-grated into the city.

The estate consists of three different building volumes with simple sha-pes, but with a strong identity in the context. The three buildings are defined as follows: “High-house”, a tower with 76 apartments; “Longhouse”, a large 8th storey building with 107 apartments; and the “Conerhouse”, a cube-shaped building also with 8 f loors and 100 units. Additionally, an existing industrial building was renovated and converted into an event hall for the use of the inhabitants. The volumetric aspect of the complex is interesting solution as an urban proposal, as this creates a complex variety of indoor and outdoor spaces as well as private, semipublic and public spaces.

As the project is composed of three volumes, streets are formed in bet-ween buildings, but none of them are for the public use as such- however, they are directly accessible without any exaggerated borders. These internal streets connect the urban facilities, generating diverse usable areas with different qualities for the inhabitants. One of them is the so-called “Bamboo Path”, providing a combina-tion of greenery and recreational facilities, with the use of brightly-coloured con-tainers and the bamboo planted within. The Cornerhouse possesses a courtyard with similar street furniture for the inhabitants’ use, while scattered across the estate are other provisions such as bicycle stands and benches.

Although each of the volumes has a distinct form and appearance, they are connected into a unified whole by the ground level, which is kept the same throughout. Furthermore, the ground floor is articulated through its great height and houses various shops and services. In fact, the additional programme besides the housing is very varied, including offices, shopping areas, daycare facilities, sport center, and also common services integrate in each volume (washing rooms, multi-purpose and common rooms). In fact, the f lats have a concierge desk, providing the inhabitants with further services, such as recei-ving post packages or carrying out small maintenance work when required. On the whole, the estate is characterised by a very busy and lively atmosphere, with people enjoying the provided facilities to their fullest.

The entrance halls are large and colourful, providing comfortable space and creating a strong identity upon entering the building. This colour elabo-ration was carried out in cooperation with an artist and can be seen further repeated on the undersides of the balconies. One has to note that although the program is quite mixed in each building, the facades do not express these changes in the outside; or seen differently, they have to be kept neutral in

order to provide for the large f lexibility of the f loor plan. Yet as mentioned before, each of the building volumes has a distinct façade expressing particular formal attitudes - the shiny blue and factory-like High House, the ‘Swiss Box’ Longhouse or the white rendered, planar Corner House. The windows are very large and their appearance is further elaborated by integrating sun shading and blinds into their design. Accordingly, the f lats are provided with generous bal-conies - in the case of the Corner house spanning two storeys and creating very open indoor situations. The flats themselves are varied in their typologies- around 70 different f loor plans have been created. Through this, the concept of “social integration” was clearly present during its conception, giving solutions for elderly people as well for young families and young single people. It was planned that in some of the apartments at least two different generations can live perfectly, sharing the flat. It is important to underline however, that despite the f loor plans f lexibili-ty and the different qualities of spaces, the areas of daytime and night time use are clearly divided. Maybe because of this reason, and also because of a personal interest and argumentation from the side of the architects, some apartments (particularly in the Corner House) are quite dark in the middle, due to the depth of building. Furthermore, the f lats are connected through mobile tablet PCs to the concierge desk, as well between each other - a feature demonstrating a trend of integrating digital technologies as a quality enhancing feature.

On the whole, through the arrangement of distances and connections between the building volumes, the project achieves providing high density, urban programmes with a more private and homely atmosphere. Although the project was not conceived as a “green building” one notices an interesting concept of sustainability being developed through the creation of this multiplicity of floors plan options, as well as the space flexibility. In this sense, for a city like Zürich, in which the demand of housing is very high, the development of a project with such features gives a big input in the social integration by providing high stan-dards at affordable rates, without creating a typical real estate market product.sources: by the author

Case studies

12111098

2.25 ha site area

42% covered area

7 to 12 storey buildings25.0, 30 and 40.0 mstoreys height = 2.50 m (2.85m)groundfloor height = 3.5 - 4.5m

Highhouse has a very big and high entrance zone, open on two sides. Mostly one entrance area supports 2-3 flats on each level.

UFA | GFA = 37 000 m² | 54 860 m² ratio value of 0.67

| | | CS 2 | FAI

section high- and long house s: 1|800

section cornerhouse s: 1|800

longhouse 1 floor level s: 1|800

corner- and highhouse 3 floor level s: 1|800

Case Studies

QAI selected flat

| | | CS 2 | QAI

1. Entrance2. Circulation area3. Bedroom4. Bathroom 5. Kitchen6. Living room7. Bedroom8. Utility room9. Bathroom 10. Utility room11. Balcony

UFA = 114.0 m²

CS 2 | Analysed flatDrawing 6 longhouse, 2 f loor level, s: 1 | 100

Case Studies

CS 2 | QAI Table 8

Flat: Number of bedrooms: 3,5 | UFA: 114.0 m² | PHH: 4

Q 1 Location

Q1. 3. Nearby playground 1.0 5 5.0 600 m

Q1. 4. Nearby recreation area 3.0 5 15.0 400 m, 600 m, 600 m

Q1 Total 110.0

Q2 Estate

Q2. 1. Range and types of flats 2.5 5 12.5 41% L size, all rooms add.1/2

Q2. 2. House access area 3.0 5 15.0 > 0.5m² / Phh

Q2. 3. Communal outside area 3.0 7 21.0 many zonse to different use

Q2 Total 56.0

Q3 Flat

Q3. 3. Vesatility 3.0 7 21.0 3 rooms (no.3, 6, 7)

Q3. 4. Furnishability of room 1.83 7 12.81 4 bed placement (room no.3)

5 bed placement (room no.6)

0 bad placement (room no.7)

Q3. 5. Flaxible organisation of rooms 2.0 7 14.0 1+1 options

Q3. 6. Flaxible floor plan 3.0 5 15.0 3+2 options

Q3. 7. Private outside area 3.0 5 15.0 13.9 m²

Q3. 8. Windows in rooms 2.5 5 12.5 SE, SW, NW - ½ p.

Q3 Total 128.81

CS 2 | View from Picture 7 Fluelarstrasse onto cornerhouse

sources: by the author

Case Studies

CS 2 | View from Picture 8 Fluelarstrasse onto highhouse

CS 3 | Pflegi Areal residential and office complex | | | 4.4 in Zurich by Gigon & Guyer

Location: Carmen- / Samariterstrasse, 8032 ZürichArchitects: Gigon & GuyerDates of design: Competition 1999Dates of construction: 2000 - 2002Client: Stiftung Diakoniewerk Neumünster ZürichCosts: 33 Mil CHF (BKP 1-5)

Site area: 12´439 m² / 1.24 haUsable floor area [UFA]: 7´779 m² (offices - services- area- m² )Total floor area [GFA]: 15´199 m² (11´737 m² overground)Building Volume [BV]: 49´333 m³ (SIA 416)Inhabited of area (PHH): 175 Density: FAR ratio equals 1.22

Structure of dwellings: 4 apartments with 2 1/2 rooms (60-90 m²) 19 apartments with 3 1/2 rooms (90-110 m²) 11 apartments with 4 1/2 rooms (125-150 m²) 9 apartments with 5 1/2 rooms (150-170 m²) 5 apartments with 6 1/2 rooms (170 m²) 9 studios (70-90 m²) 5 hobby-rooms 1 common room 1 underground parking (112pp) Total number of dwellings: 48 and 9 studios

Case studies

| | | CS 3 | DAI

The three apartment buildings on the Susenbergstrasse in Zurich are in an exclusive area on a hill, overlooking the lake. The complex consists of tree huge buildings, which deal with a complex urban mixture of new and existing buildings. The previous building- hospital, formerly the Diaconic nursing care school of Zurich, was converted into offices. The huge building volumes segmented in their form to correspond to the position of the surrounding houses, with each part of them acts as solitary apartment building. Breaking the building mass into three volumes brings them to the scale of the villas in the area. On one hand the entire complex is huge and massive, but on the other, the height of the buildings is between 5-2 storeys and creates a humane scale.

Furthermore, the building volume standing on the gently sloping ground toward the south, are adapted in their shape well to the landscape.The borders of the Pflegiareal housing are clearly marked by streets surrounding the complex, which creates a housing quarter. However, everyone can enter it, because there are is a lack of additional safety barriers. From the south-west side there is a natural border made by tall, old trees, while from the other, it is the buildings that create the boundary.

What especially attracted attention is old garden situated in the south - west part of the footprint. It is regarded as a part public, part semi-private green space. There is various greenery, old trees, and playgrounds for children. The courtyard between the buildings consists of gravel paving and gives the ground a yellow tone across which trees and shrubs are distributed in huge pots. This forms a nice looking, semi-private part of the entire complex but with some benches, which look like more sculptures than nice places for resting. There is some lack of additional outdoor elements and street furniture. An exclusive atmosphere is created for entrance areas to the buildings. The small courtyard alongside Samariterstrasse becomes the entrance courtyard to the underground garage. The previously existing garden and courtyards enhance the public ame-nity of these surroundings.

Each building has three accesses to the dwellings, with north-east building being accessible from two sides. House accesses are accentuated very gently. The window line in this part of the façade undergoes a change, with massive concrete canopies being the main features of access.

The entrance areas are not too big, but sufficient in size as each access supports only two dwellings on each level and a total of about seven flats. The courtyard situated in front of the house access is a substitute for an entrance hall. Some of the dwellings on the ground floor in north building have separate entrances. The interior is designed in very minimalistic way: the walls are white, the staircase made from concrete and balustrades from steel; it is very well lit.

The fenestration consists of huge vertical windows. They are positioned 60cm from the floor- a very low sill indeed. The balustrades underline the ver-tical character of the buildings. As well as the surfaces, the design of window openings is an outstanding feature of this construction. They are quite large in proportion to apartment dimensions. One can say, that the windows are designed to expose dwellers to the outside, but because of the distances bet-ween buildings, there are no problems of a lack of privacy; additional blinds in windows further support this.

Large openings are used to confuse the distinction between mass and skeleton and to lend the buildings the appropriate character. Each floor has windows on all four sides. Powerful windows openings provide the apartments with generous daylighting.

In this project, the colours play an important role to define the whole atmosphere of the architectural environment. Three facades which face the garden and the courtyard are painted three in three colours: cobalt blue, yellow green and white. From the street side, the buildings are clad in grey exposed concrete. The whole atmosphere could not be created with materials, but with colours.

Consequently, only the exterior most surface is coloured and not in its depth, as the raw concrete of the window reveals shows. Colour here is used not to help articulate the masses but to define the enclosed spaces. The colour scheme was designed in collaboration with the artist Adrian Schiess. In contrast to solitary masses, these three houses must respond to each other in their orga-nization, fenestration and proportion.

The plans are practically organized around a central core of vertical cir-culation. Most of the dwellings offered are large, although they can be rented out as smaller areas if so wished, by either making minimal divisions or providing the apartments with conventional distributions. The attic-dwellings have big terraces, with bathrooms and kitchens creating spaces on either side. They are designed for wealthy singles or couples and are flexible and generous spatially.

What especially attracted my attention, was the part of the each dwel-ling located in corner-room, named the ‘four-seasons room’. Because dwellings have no balconies, this part of the f lat is designed in such a way, that as win-dows are opened, there is an immediate connection to the outside. It can serve both as dinning room, working place or loggia. It is also interesting, that from outside these rooms are not noticeable as these very open spaces.

Simon Axel summed up the project designed by Gigon Guyer as fol-lows: volumetric hardness, big windows, expensive f lats and striking colour . The created identity and feeling that comes across, is one devoid of a ‘homely’ character, with a very exclusive and luxurious appearance.

sources: http://www.gigon-guyer.ch/

Case studies

5 - 2 storey buildings14.2 - 6.0 mstorey height = 2.50 m (2.80 m)groundfloor height = 2.50 m (2.80 m)

1.24 ha site area

65% covered area

UFA | GFA = 7´779 m² | 11´737 m² ratio value of 0.66BV | UFA = 49´333 m³ | 7´779 m² ratio value of 6.34 m³/m²

Each building has three accesses and serving for only 2 (in south building) and 2-3 flats in north building on each level, (for a. 8 dwellings).Each entrance zone measures: 7.5 m² in south building and a.25 m² in north building.

| | | CS 3 | FAI

south elevation s: 1|800

section s: 1|800

QAI selected flat

1 floor level s: 1|800

Case Studies

| | | CS 3 | QAI

1. Entrence area2. Bedroom3. Room4. Kichen5. Fourseason room 6. Living room7. Bathroom8. Bathroom9. Washroom

UFA = 101.0 m²

CS 3 | Analysed flatDrawing 11 longhouse, 2 f loor level, s: 1 | 100

Case Studies

CS 3 | QAI Table 9 Flat: Number of bedrooms: 3,5 | UFA: 101.0 m² | PHH: 4

Q 1 Location

Q1. 1. Town or village centre 2.5 15 37.5 < 600 m

Q1. 2. Public transport stop 3.0 15 45.0 < 100 m

Q1. 4. Nearby recreation area 2.5 5 12.5 600 m, 600 m, 2km

Q1 Total 100.0

Q2 Estate

Q2. 1. Range and types of flats 3.0 5 15 33% M size, all rooms add.1/2

Q2. 3. Communal outside area 2.5 7 14 different zonse, ‘old garden‘

Q2 Total 45.5

Q3 Flat

Q3. 3. Vesatility 1.0 7 7.0 1 rooms (no.6)

Q3. 4. Furnishability of room 1.0 7 7.0 1 bed placement (room no.2)

Q3. 6. Flaxible floor plan 3.0 5 15.0 3 options

Q3. 7. Private outside area 1.0 5 5.0 1 p. for four seasonroom (9 m²)

Q3. 8. Windows in rooms 1.5 5 7.5 SW, NE - ½ p.

Q3 Total 101.0

CS 3 | View Picture 12 onto main facade south building

Case Studies

CS 3 | View onto small courtyeardPicture 13

CS 3 | View from Picture 14 old garden onto north building

sources: http://www.gigon-guyer.ch/

CS 4 | Wilanowska estate in Warsaw by JEMS | | | 4.5

Location: Al. Wilanowska, WarsawArchitects: Jems Architekci Dates of design: 2005Data of construction: 2007 - 2009Client: Rogowski DevelopmentCosts: N/A

Site area: 12´439 m² / 1.24 haUsable floor area [UFA]: 21´800 m² (dwellings: 21´450 m², offices: 350.2 m²)Total floor area [GFA]: 42´708 m² (dwellings: 21´450 m², offices: 350.2 m²)Building Volume [BV]: 141´553 m³Inhabited of area (PHH): 690Density: FAR ratio equals 3.43

Structure of dwellings: 93 apartments with 2 rooms (50-70 m²) 106 apartments with 3 rooms (70-90 m²) 23 apartments with 4 rooms (105-150 m²) 23 apartments with 5,6 rooms (140-190 m²) 3 offices 1 underground parking (284 pp)

Total number of dwellings: 245 (A1,2 - 109, B1-5 - 124, C1 - 12 )

Case studies

| | | CS 4 | DAI

The Wilanowska estate is located in Warsaw, along the Wilanowska Avenue- the surroundings consists of other estates, as well as some green spaces of the Sluzwiecki Stream on its southern side. The development consists of four, five and seven-story apartment buildings positioned along a longitudinal axis.In spite of the entire estate being walled on all sides, it is worth to mentioning, that the gates and walls are well integrated into their surroundings. A solution in accord with this, is the raising of the courtyard to a height of 2.5m over the remaining terrain. The main entrance to entire complex is situated in the north side. To get inside the huge courtyard, one has to cross the gateway, located on the ground-floor between buildings A1 and A2. This is where the security desk and video surveillance equipment is situated. As the parking is an underground garage, the pedestrian and vehicular paths are kept separate.

The main axis located in the middle of entire complex, serves as com-munication space, connecting and arranging the building entrances. The entire complex is relatively big, with the mentioned axis measuring about 200m, but nevertheless character of the buildings and their height ( on average 17 m) create very nice atmosphere inside the courtyard. Entrance zones are well accentuated through the building forms and also because the ground floor level height is greater than the regular levels. These areas are divided into three zones - vestibule, entrance hall, and circula-tion (staircase and lift). This guarantees an appropriate graduated exposure from the semi- public to semi-private areas. The shape of courtyard is determined by the shapes of buildings. It attracts attention as it is solved in a very interesting way – buildings B are turned inwards to the main axis in a C-shaped form, which creates clear semi-private areas within the complex. The front elevation (open on the courtyard), was designed as lines of balconies with horizontally sliding wooden shutters. The windows from this side are storey-high and the glass balustrade additionally strengthens the impression of the size of the openings. This formal device reduces visually the scale of the entire complex. One notices that great attention has been paid to the progression of carefully worked out sequences from semi-public, to semi-private spaces. Interim spaces, such as from semi- public spaces, entrance halls to buildings and apartment entrances, all create a strong and appropriate atmosphere. Outside areas are separated from entrance halls by using street furniture and exterior elements. Between the courtyard and buildings are private gardens, which belong to the groundfloor f latsr, which are fenced with greenery and timber

elements, but in my opinion do not ensure enough privacy. This robs perhaps the courtyard of space, which could have been used more wisely.

In spite of the estate area being extensive, with a variety of vegetation, there is a lack of different usage-zones within the entire complex. In theory, this irregular-shaped promenade creates the main common spaces for residents. In practice however, it lacks places for youths and adults, or for more active use. What especially attracted my attention was the children’s playground- big and situated in the south corner, at the end of the settlement and behind the buildings.

Although the dwelling structure is dominated by those with two or three rooms, there is a noticeable variation in their size. Almost all dwellings have balconies and there are also dwellings that have access to spacious roof terraces.

Materials (many kinds of wood, steel and white plaster) are used to put finishing touches onto the development. The paving material (white stone pebbles), as well as the relation between greenery and paths, create within this urban structure, a very pleasant and humane atmosphere.sources: by the author

Case studiesis

Each housing block B has two entrens area, serves for 2-4 flats on each level (for a.15 dwellings).Each entrance zone measures mainly 35 m² (in block A are bigger a. 80 m²) and serves a.80 people.

7 to 4 storey buildingsA - 22.2 m B - 17.2 m C - 14.8 m groundfloor height =A - 3.30 m (3.60 m) rest - 2.90 m (3.10 m) storeys height =A - 2.75 m (3.05 m)rest - 2.90 m (3.25 m)

1.76 ha site area

32% covered area

325 inhabitants /ha

UFA | GFA = 21 800 m² | 42 708 m² ratio value of 0.51 BV | UFA = 141´553 m³ | 21 800 m² ratio value of 6.49 m³/m²

| | | CS 4 | FAI

sections buildings B4 B5 s: 1|800

elevation east and north s: 1|800

QAI selected flat

Case Studies

1. Entrence2. Circulation area3. Kichen 4. Living room5. Room6. Bedroom7. Bathroom 8. Bathroom 9. Balcony

UFA = 78.0 m²

| | | CS 4 | QAI

CS 4 | Analysed flatDrawing 17 building B4, 2 f loor level, s: 1 | 100

Case Studies

CS 4 | QAI Table 10 Flat: Number of bedrooms: 3 | UFA: 90.5 m² | PHH: 3

Q 1 Location

Q1. 1. Town or village centre 1.0 15 15.0 1.5 km

Q1. 4. Nearby recreation area 2.0 5 10.0

Q1 Total 75.0

Q2 Estate

Q2. 1. Range and types of flats 2.5 5 12.5 43% M size dwellings

Q2. 3. Communal outside area 2.0 7 14.0 playground for children, paths

Q2. 4. Graduated exposure 2.5 3 7.5 clear structure, - 0.5 p. for

privet gardens next to axis

Q2 Total 44.0

Q3 Flat

Q3. 1. Nett surface area 2.0 7 14.0 78 m²

Q3. 2. Number of bedrooms 2.0 7 14.0 3 rooms

Q3. 4. Furnishabbility of room 1.0 7 7.0 0 placement (room no.6)

2 placements (room no.5)

Q3. 6. Flaxible floor plan 3.0 5 15.0 3 + 1 options

Q3. 7. Private outside area 1.0 5 5.0 balcony with depth = 90 cm,

(area: 7.8 m²)

Q3. 8. Windows in rooms 2.0 5 10.0 SW, SE

Q3 Total 82.5

CS 4 | View Picture 18 onto building B2 from main axis

Case studies

CS 4 | View onto east elevation building A1Picture 19

CS 5 | Lobzowska Street apartment houses | | | 4.6 in Cracow by Lewicki Latak

Location: Łobzowska Street, CracowArchitects: Biuro Projektów Lewicki Latak Dates of design: 2005 - 2006Data of construction: 2006 - 2008Client: Bryksy RezydencjeCosts: N/A

Site area: 2´550 m² / 0.26 haUsable floor area [UFA]: 4´778 m² (dwellings: 4´502, offices - services: 276 m² )Total floor area [GFA]: 6´550 m²Building Volume [BV]: 20´910 m³Inhabited of area (PHH): 170Density: FAR ratio equals 2.57

Structure of dwellings: 11 apartments with 1 room (23.5 - 38.0 m²) 48 apartments with 2 rooms (37.0 - 60.0 m²) 17 apartments with 3 rooms (63.0 - 88.0 m²) 3 apartment with 4 rooms (113.0 - 163 m²) 1 common room (original purpose) 1 underground parkingTotal number of dwellings: 79 (A - 17, B - 24, C - 38)

Case studies

| | | CS 5 | DAI

The complex of three apartment buildings is located in the historical centre of Cracow. “Its excellent location fits perfectly a standard investor catch-word: five minutes to the Old Market” . The neighbourhood, within which the buildings are situated, is characterised by unique identity. The major contribu-tion to the local atmosphere is created by the surrounding historical tenements from diverse periods. Therefore by taking the strict building regulations in this area under consideration, one can better understand the final result of the project’s design.

The Lobzowska development consists of four to seven-story apartment buildings, where the ground floor level distinctly stands out from other levels. Each of three buildings varies in its design and overall character, but they are nevertheless marked by common features. Certain coherence was achieved by using similar materials in each building. Cream-colour rendered facades domi-nate, together with beige limestone. This limestone is found again in the plinth level, as detail emphasising window openings as well as cornice lines. These materials, on the one hand, convey a an image of luxury, whilst on the other, the bright tone of the colors retain a feeling of warmth. As additional accents, burgundy coloured cladding panels are used- which in my opinion clash with the character of the complex.

The main entrance to the estate is situated from the main Lobzowska Street in building A. In order to get inside, one needs to enter through a pair of metal doors, which in their character a more reminiscent to a gate, as one is greeted on the inside by security staff. The first entrance zone is designed as a passage and, on one hand, it creates entrance - hall for the main A building, while on the other, it forms part of the gradation of semi –public areas inside the quarter.

The semi-public spaces are consist of two courtyards between three buildings. Yet the character of these courtyards is the same, with little diffe-rence between these spaces, while the groundcover consists of cobbles in two shades of grey (and again, kept the same throughout the complex). The only accent present, are some hedge plants distributed in pots, which covers the south wall. Between building A and C there is small green spot and also some shrubs along the paths leading to house access is located, togthether with a few concrete benches. There is no playground provided, within the entire outdoor area. The building located in the centre, originally an old school from the beginning of XX century, had to be left unaltered in its exterior appearance, in accordance with the decision of the conservator. This perhaps explains, that the distances between buildings are very small and consequently has influenced the nature of the outdoor spaces within the quarter.

The outdoor spaces within the quarter certainty provide some atmos-phere to the semi-private areas and indeed outdoor spaces are partly structured

into zones, but there is a lack of variety through areas for different use. The privacy of the groundfloor f lats is not ensured, as private gardens are further excluded from the outdoor spaces.

Access areas to all three buildings are situated in the middle of each building. It is worth noticing, that whilst inside these areas, the present feature give a very representative character to these spaces, mostly by way of using the aforementioned, luxurious seeming beige stone. On the whole, one notices the great variety of materials used in all building parts- whether in the façade, the interior spaces, or outdoor articulation. Small entrance halls precede the staircase areas and although they are all daylit, in building A lacks sufficient amounts of day light.

In Lobzowska Apartment complex there is no variation as to the sizes of f lats- the predominant dwellings are small, with one or two rooms (event with flats with a usable f loor area below 30sqm). In fact only dwellings in buil-ding C have access to balconies, while in buildings A and B residents do not have balconies or any another outside area (only 2 attic-apartments have roof terraces)- the main point being that the remaining inhabitants cannot find an adequate substitute in the rest of the complex (such as private gardens).

Although the buildings have been recently completed, one can unfortu-nately see carelessness in the finishing of buildings. This illustrates the common philosophy of developers in Poland, to sell as soon as possible, without concern for the state of the building after their sale and during their use.sources: by the author

Case studiesis

0.25 ha site area

46% covered area

580 inhabitants / ha(145 inhab. / 0.25 ha)

4 - 6 storey buildings15.0 - 20.0 mstoreys height = 2.75 m ( 3.05m)groundfloor height: building A = 4.20 m (4.50 m)building C = 2.75 m (3.05 m)

Entrance areas have between 27-37 m².Buildings A and B have one entrance area, which serves for 2-5 flets on each level, there are two entrance areas in building C .One entrance area serves for a.17 dwellings in buiding A, and two staircases in building C for 24 dwellings.

UFA | GFA = 4 778 m² | 6 550 m² ratio value of 0.73 BV | UFA = 20 910 m³ | 4 778 m² ratio value of 4.38 m³/m²

| | | CS 5 | FAI

balconybathroom | kitchenstaircase

building C and A

east elevation s: 1|500

QAI selected flat

Case Studies

section s: 1|500

1. Entrance2. Kitchen 3. Living room4. Room5. Room6. Bathroom

UFA = 68,5 m²

CS 5 | Analysed flatDrawing 22 building A, 2 f loor level, s: 1 | 100

Case Studies

Q 1 Location

Q1. 1. Town or village centre 2.5 15 37.5 < 600 m

Q1. 2. Public transport stop 3.0 15 45.0 < 200 m

Q1. 3. Nearby playground 0.0 5 0.0 1.7 km

Q1. 4. Nearby recreation area 0.5 5 2.5 1.7 km, > 2 km, > 2 km

Q1 Total 85.0

Q2 Estate

Q2. 1. Range and types of flats 0.0 5 0.0 75% S size dwellings

Q2. 3. Communal outside area 0.0 7 0.0 no diversity in outside areas

no playground for children

Q2. 4. Graduated exposure 2.0 3 6.0 partly structured

Q2 Total 11.0

Q3 Flat

Q3. 4. Furnishabbility of room 1.25 7 8.75 2 bed placement (room no.4)

Q3. 7. Private outside area 0.0 5 0.0 no balcony

Q3. 8. Windows in rooms 1.5 5 7.5 W, NE - ½ p.

Q3 Total 59.25

CS 6 | Eko Park estate in Warsaw by APA Kurylowicz | | | 4.7

Location: Chodkiewicza / Rostafinskich Street, WarsawArchitects: APA Kurylowicz & Associates Dates of design: 1999Data of construction: 2000 - 2002Client: Eco-Park SACosts: N/A

Site area: 12´865 m² | 1.29 haUsable floor area [UFA]: 7´825 m² (dwellings: 6´775 m², offices: 1´050 m²)Total floor area [GFA]: 12´620 m²Building Volume [BV]: 49´685 m³ (overground: 32´885 m², underground: 13´065 m²)Inhabited of area (PHH): 240Density: FAR ratio equals 0.98

Structure of dwellings: 114 apartments with 2 rooms (54.0 – 62.0 m²) 28 apartments with 3 rooms (67.5 - 114.0 m²) 18 apartments with 4 rooms (107.0 – 140.0 m²) 1 apartments 5 rooms day-nursery swimming pool 1 underground parking (123 PP)Total number of dwellings: 74

Case studies

| | | CS 6 | DAI

The Eko Park project is located in Warsaw in a neighbourhood borde-ring the city centre and the more suburban areas beyond. The actual estate is composed of a complex of buildings, with the idea being of developing a large zone at once In order to fill the locality for activity and life more easily. Even though the overall layout seems quite defined, the actual buildings executed show a degree of variation between them.

The complex is surrounded by natural and green space on three sides- parks, allotment gardens and recreational areas; only from the east does it stron-gly border to the urban fabric. So although the estate seems to be quite well defined on all its sides to a sufficient degree, the entire complex is walled and only accessible through gates and security desks. This is typical Polish feature, which goes beyond definition, to the defence of a building complex.

The projects strongest point is the amount of green space and a relative high degree of variation within it. The outdoor semi-public space amounts to ca. 25% of the total area, while many of the f lats have gardens, roof terraces or balconies. There is some attention to detail, as evidenced to the layout of paths and outdoor elements, such as benches, which can be found throughout.

Ground floor and house access areas are not particularly well defined. Communal facilities or services are housed to a large degree on the ground level, or garden-access flats on the more sheltered side. The typical approach evidenced here, is to add importance to these spaces through surface treatments, rather than formal elaboration and layout; from the exterior, they are not well communicated, or help understand the layout of the flats within the complex. Additionally, the circulation space sizes serving the flats is rather small, compa-red to the elements of the estate, which seem over-dimensioned at times.

What balances this is out, is the range of services accessible to the inhabitants within the complex, which is very luxurious by Polish standards. Among a day care facility, office and retail space, there are also bicycle stores and laundry rooms, or even a swimming pool.

The four designed buildings have four levels and are orientated to form a more private courtyard, which is defined by the side wings of the building volumes. Two of the volumes are free standing and connected to the remai-ning ones by means of bridges, which was hoped to be a sculptural element enhancing the architectural merit of the work. On average, two to three f lats are served by a circulation core, together with serviced spaces, which are mostly placed on the north side. This forms a tight arrangement of room volumes, with an overall small scale structure, reminiscent of terraced housing.

Furthermore, the buildings are characterised by large elaboration of exterior forms and projections, in order to give make the scale more humane.

This achieved by extensive material use- mostly a combination of timber, whi-tewash or stone- all meant to give express an image of luxury. The windows are quite large, especially for Polish standards, which together with the glass and aluminium balustrades, make them appear even larger.

The feeling experienced within the estate, is one of luxury and actually quite soulless- the overall identity of high quality here, is of something acces-sible to only a small part of the population, which keeps itself separate from the rest of the city. In addition, since its completion, due to the standard of workmanship, the quality of the materials has since deteriorated, resulting in a very poor overall appearance. The distances in relation to the building heights has been well resolved, as f lats are orientated to lookout over green space, mini-mising privacy issues. The intention of providing a private outdoor space for every f lat is the main advantage that has been achieved; besides the spacious semi-public green spaces, the provided balconies, terraces and gardens are very spacious for Polish standards and definitely a step in the right direction. sources: by the author

Case studiesis

1.29 ha site area

39% covered area

4 storey buildings14.2 - 17.0 mstoreys height = 2.70 m (3.15 m)groundfloor height = 3.05 m (3.50 m)

Block B it type of “galeriowiec” and has three entrances, each serving for 2-4 flats on each level. In block C there is a big entrance hall situated in the midle, open on both sides.Entrance zone measures between 14-35 m² and serves for a. 20-30 people each.

UFA | GFA = 7 825 m² | 16 780 m² ratio value of 0.47 BV | UFA = 32 885 m³ | 7 825 m² ratio value of 7,33 m³/m²

| | | CS 6 | FAI

section s: 1|500

QAI selected flat

Case Studies

1. Entrance2. Circulation area3. Kitchen4. Living room5. Bathroom 6. Bathroom7. Bathroom8. Bedroom9. Balcony10. Terrace

UFA 72.0

CS 6 | Analysed flatDrawing 25 building A, 2 f loor level, s: 1 | 100

Case Studies

Q 1 Location

Q1. 4. Nearby recreation area 3.0 5 15.0 800 m, 400 m

Q1 Total 110.0

Q2 Estate

Q2. 1. Range and types of flats 2.5 5 12.5 46% M size dwellings

Q2. 3. Communal outside area 2.0 7 14.0 partly diversity

Q2. 4. Graduated exposure 2.0 3 6.0 partly structured, ½ p. gates

Q2 Total 42.5

Q3 Flat

Q3. 3. Vesatility 1.0 7 7.0 1 room (no.4)

Q3. 4. Furnishabbility of room 1.0 7 7.0 1 bed placement (room no.6)

Q3. 5. Flaxible organisation of rooms 1.0 7 7.0 1 option

Q3. 7. Private outside area 1.0 5 5.0 7.8 m² - 1 p. for N

Q3. 8. Windows in rooms 1.5 5 7.5 S, N - ½ p.

Q3 Total 73.0

| | | 4.8 Comparison

Assessment criteria

Q 1 Location

Q1. 1. Town or village centre

Q1. 2. Public transport stop

Q1. 3. Nearby playground

Q1. 4. Nearby recreation area

Utility value Q1

Q2 Estate

Q2. 1. Range - types of flats

Q2. 2. House access area

Q2. 3. Communal outside area

Q2. 4. Graduated exposure

Utility value Q2

Q3 Flat

Q3. 1. Nett surface area

Q3. 2. Number of bedrooms

Q3. 3. Vesatility

Q3. 4. Furnishabbility (rooms)

Q3. 5. Flexible (rooms)

Q3. 6. Flexible floor plan

Q3. 7. Private outside area

Q3. 8. Windows in rooms

Utility value Q3

Utility value Q2 + Q3

Utility value Q1 + Q2 + Q3

CS 1 Hegianwandweg

Weight points

CS 2 James

Weight points

CS 3 Pflegi Areal

Weight points

Case Studies

CS 4 Wilanowska

Weight points

CS 5 Lobzowska

Weight points

CS 6 Eko Park

Weight points

Chapter 5: Interpretation

This final chapter interprets the undertaken analysis, helping to formulate some lessons learned, as well allowing for a speculation on a possible further course of this research.

Interpretation | | 5

In evaluating the urban criteria of the Location section in the QAI one has too keep in mind that these factors cannot be greatly influenced through the quality of architectural design- they are a priori determined. In order to compare and determine which project was the most successful in this criterion, one would have to deliver an in-depth urban and sociological analysis of Swiss and Polish condition- something beyond the scope of this work. Hence, all case studies are located in central locations of busy urban agglomerations and as such benefit from the offered city qualities to an equal degree.

The first criteria focusing on the actual estate is the range and types of f lats (Q2.1). The highest scoring project was the Pflegi Areal, with 3.5 room flats comprising the most common dwelling type- 33% of the total units. The lowest scoring example is the Polish Łobzowska- with 75% of all units being 2 room flats. The remaining case studies had a 40% distribution of 3-3.5 room flats, showing that on the whole values in the range of the Łobzowska are not typi-cal, but possible in Poland, being something very dependent on the investor’s intention. Something not assessed in the Quantitative method is the variation of f lat layouts- in Poland there is a greater amount of repetition compared to Switzerland (with James being an extreme example with over 70 different f lat layouts in one of the blocks).

The house access area (Q2.2) was particularly spacious in the Swiss case studies, with Hegianwandweg and James scoring the maximum 3.0 points by having more than 0.5sqm/1PHH values. The Polish Wilanowska and Eco-Park projects scored 2.0 points, while Łobzowska and Pflegi Areal only 1.5 points, with a 0.22sqm/1PHH value. These findings have to be complemented howe-ver, by the Descriptive and Functional methods, as besides the size the house access layout also plays a crucial role in the quality of the entrance area. Each of the projects achieves to distinguish the entrance as an important part of the estate, by greater ground floor level heights, large fenestration amounts or the use of distinctive materials. In the case of the two highest scoring projects, the house access area was designed through the collaboration with artists, showing that the entrance helps define the identity of the estate and in turn influences the quality of the f lats it serves.

When it comes to communal outside area (Q2.3), the Swiss examples sco-red the most points. This shows that emphasis is put on not only providing outdoor space, but also creating zones for different uses. Beyond the usual playgrounds and vegetation, the Swiss estates have also playing fields and pitches, bicycle parking, allotments and different paths for strolling. Eko-Park and Wilanowska scored 2.0 points, showing an increasing interest in providing such spaces- most of the time however, it is only a basic range of outdoor spaces, without much innovative designations. This refers back to the point presented in the background of each country- in Poland communal space is treated as space belonging to nobody and therefore less valued (an attitude that is slowly changing however).

Interpretation

The Hegianwandweg and Pflegi Areal satisfied the graduated exposure to the public (Q2.4) the best and both scored the maximum 3.0 points. Not only do they provide the inhabitants with a wide range of privacy zones (such an entrance courtyard in the Pflegi Areal); they also accentuate these spaces very well, through changes in materiality, form and degree of enclosure. The Polish examples also posses a range of well defined privacy zones and mostly scored 2.0 points. What puts them at a disadvantage is the fenced off nature of the entrance to the estate (the first boundary)- one usually has to enter through a gate and report to a security desk as a visitor, which is detrimental to the atmosphere experienced within the estate.

In analysing the quality of the actual f lats, the first criteria was the net surface area (Q3.1), with all chosen examples being by definition 3 room flats. This criterion shows that equivalent Swiss f lats are on average bigger than Polish ones by around 20sqm. The smallest Swiss example was Hegianwandweg (90sqm) and the biggest James (114sqm), while in Poland Wilanowska (90sqm) and Łobzowska (68sqm) are the biggest and smallest respectively. In the follow-ing criterion- the number of bedrooms (Q3.2), the Polish examples all have 3 rooms and score 2.0 points, while the Swiss case studies all are classed as 3.5 rooms and score 2.5 points. Considered together with Q3.1, one immediate-ly realises something mentioned in the chapter on the Polish context (2.1.3 Current Polish situation in Housing)- that for the same amount of rooms (and therefore people) designated for a f lat, polish flats have a smaller surface area per person. Hence, the analysed 4PHH flats in Poland, would in Switzerland be considered as accommodating one less person, with a 3PHH.

The most versatile f lat (Q3.3) was James, scoring the maximum 3 points- in all three of the rooms the surface module of 14sqm can be placed. On the other hand, all the Polish examples received 1 point, meaning only one room accommodated the 14sqm module. Seen together with the furnishability of rooms (Q3.4) similar results are noticed- James scored the most with 1.83 points. This shows that (especially) in Poland, the living room is considered the most important, while the other rooms are neglected and designed to satisfy minimum space requirements. It is furthermore observed that in most cases, furniture placements obstruct the full use of windows and doors in a room. The project with the most f lexible organisation of rooms (Q3.5) was the Pflegi Areal, scoring 3 points by having the provision for 3 sliding doors. The Polish examples achieved lower scores, as only a few have sliding doors, or connections between rooms that would allow for a sliding door to be installed (with Wilanowska obtaining 1.5 points). This can be explained perhaps, by the fact that most f lats in Poland are owned rather than rented, therefore fittings such as sliding doors are rarely included (as they provide a smaller profit margin for the investor).

Flexible f loor plan (Q3.6) was a criterion in which all examples scored the maximum 3 points. This shows that from a constructional point of view,

especially in the case of housing and its small spans, most f lats can be altered all throughout their inhabitancy to better suit changing needs.

In the case of private outdoor areas (Q3.7), the Swiss examples James and Hegianwandweg came out on top with 3 points. Balconies and gardens are provided, were the most crucial factor being their depth (a balcony should be at least 140cm deep and allow for the placement of a PHH equivalent table). The Polish case studies however, do have balconies, yet it is apparent that this requirement is less enforced in the design. This is perhaps a combination of the fact that previously most f lats didn’t have access to outdoor spaces (meaning people nowadays don’t consider them a necessary requirement in their f lats) and the fact that developers cannot include these spaces in the usable f loor area (and therefore are paid less for them). The Pflegi Areal with its ‘Four Seasons Room’ is a good example of an urban outdoor space which isn’t a balcony, yet creates a strong connection to the outside.

In assessing the windows in rooms (Q3.8), the number of sides which the window face out onto is counted, so that James and Hegianwandweg with their varied forms, score the most- 2.5 points each. The remaining examples scored 1.5 points as they had windows facing onto two different sides (Wilanowska obtained a score of 2.0 due to their better orientation). One has to observe however, that not only is the window area much greater in Swiss examples, they better integrated into the architectural concept by the appropriate use of sun shading and detailing of the actual openings.

There are some findings that came out through the other analysis tools, which are also worth mentioning. A major difference between the Swiss and Polish examples is the disproportion of offered shared facilities. In Switzerland it is common for the estates to have laundry rooms, event/community rooms or day care facilities.

A further feature that is left unanalysed through purely quantitative methods, is the relations ship and layout of the rooms. The Swiss case studies offered a more alternatives of the relationship between kitchen, dining and living areas. Each of these spaces are usually big enough to accommodate a dining table comfortably; while the Polish projects usually force the inhabitant to place a dining table in the living room, as it is the biggest room in the whole f lat. This aspect is particularly important as it allows for a range of lifestyles in a f lat, but also caters for many occasions throughout the day (from a family dinner, to entertaining guests).

There are also observations that result from the Functional Analysis diagrams, which relate to a degree to the estate as a whole. This instrument pre-sents urban design aspects, in particular the density and distances of buildings. Something immediately noticeable is the vast range of urban situations that the projects respond to- and the varied densities they create. On the whole, Polish estates feature buildings placed at closer distances than their Swiss counter

Interpretation

parts; and with their smaller f lat sizes, achieve higher densities. Comparing all these cases with each other would require a greater in-depth analysis; yet looking at the cases studies, one can conclude that whatever the surrounding conditions, architectural solutions can still guarantee a high quality end result, specific to its context.

Conclusions | | 6

The principal research goal, as initially put, still remained to gain a better understanding of the concept of quality; and through comparing Swiss and Polish multi-unit housing estates, it is hoped that this knowledge has been gained. As such, the conclusions refer back to the research questions, goals and method described at the outset of the thesis.

Within the range of analysed case studies, some main factors determi-ning quality in housing have indeed been found. The factors described in the hypothesis (Chapter 1.4), still remain valid as most of them found their place back in the QAI- it is perhaps the order of importance that has changed.

The spatial layout and distance between buildings was investigated through the descriptive instrument (DAI). As the project varied considerably in their arrangement, it would have been difficult to compare this criterion quan-titatively at this stage. The lesson learned here, was that an appropriate layout influences the degrees of privacy and openness in the flats.

The way of dealing with boundaries, as realised through the research, has a great impact on the identity of a given place; subsequently it forms a basis for the graduation of public and private spaces. The main point here is the walled enclosure of the Polish examples, which destroy the carefully worked out spatial progressions within the estate; in this instance, in Polish society a well-secured flat is considered of a better quality.

The influence of the scale on the quality of a complex, in particular building height, was again researched in a subjective way through the observati-on in the DAI. The reason for this, is the height is very context specific and the quality of the buildings can be resolved in this regard, through well executed architectural solutions. The observations correspond however, to previous spe-culations, such as those of Christopher Alexander, that buildings over 5 storeys lose contact with their surroundings below and become inhumane.

The range of outdoor spaces and the entrance zone elaboration is the other group of factors that are important for the quality of a given project. They help create a sense of identity to the inhabitants and provide them with a neigh-bourhood framework, beyond the scale of a single f lat. The most successful examples had collaborations with artists and graphic designers to help define these spaces more. Furthermore, the extent to which these spaces are elaborated,

helps set apart a good building, from a high quality project.

Material and colour treatments are also aspects that were better investi-gated on the descriptive levels. What is clear that there is no single truth in the materialisation of buildings, yet there are some features which define quality better than others. On the whole, noble materials (such as stone) are considered to express luxury, while good detailing equates to durability and longevity of a buildings appearance (the question here would be, how long the Polish examp-les will retain their high quality appearance?).

The size of the f lat was found to be the most important quality deter-mining factor, as it in turn influences the versatility, furnishability, and flexi-bility of a f lat- the greater the size of rooms, the greater the amount of possible lifestyles and events a f lat can accommodate. Any deficiencies in this area had a great impact on the overall quality of the projects- as rooms which are imprac-tical and user unfriendly, question the very foundations of a given building.

On the other hand, it was found that the factors that determine qua-lity the most are also the ones where the concept of quality in Poland and Switzerland differs. The major finding refers back to the size of f lats and their associated inhabitancy values. As firstly found in the research on the current situation in Polish housing (Chapter 2.1.1) and as consequently confirmed by the research, space standards are much lower. Compared to the standards found in Swiss examples, the analysed Polish 3 room flats would not be suitable for 4 people, but to a lower PHH value of 3.

Furthermore, the outdoor arrangements are also of a different quality in Poland and lack innovation and elaboration compared to Switzerland. It is a result of mostly of a combination of lower expectations on the part of the inha-bitants and cost-cutting on the site of the developer- yet as seen in Wilanowska, this aspect is on the way to catching up with Swiss standards.

Lastly, the issue of gates and fences is strongly present in Polish projects- in fact, a securely separated estate is considered to be a sign of quality. Although this phenomenon destroys the general urban qualities within cities, it will not improve until social attitudes change- with most people considering division and protection to be a good thing.

On the whole one can say that all of the aspects outlined in the initial hypothesis influence the quality of architecture in both Polish and Swiss contexts; what is important to note however, is that a greater number of these factors (and to a greater degree) can be found more easily in the Swiss examples.

Interpretation

Further research opportunities and closing remarks | | | 6.1

Based on the research findings, one can conclude that with certain modifications, one can transfer this knowledge and help improve the quality of Polish housing. It would certainly have to be a quantitative tool, based on the principles and the original 39 criteria presented in the WBS, while retaining the structure presented in the QAI (Location, Estate, Flat).

The first modification would have to consider the different character of Polish urban planning, more zoned and large-scale than in Switzerland. Another main area for adaptation would have to consider the Polish building regulations, by changing some of the assessment criteria. The last point would be to consider factors not occurring in Polish housing as of today (for example, balconies or shared facilities) - this would be best done by changing the point weighting of the relevant criteria.

An important aspect that could shed more light on quality in architec-ture, are economic and financial factors; in particular, how much people pay for their flats in Poland and Switzerland. The main obstacle in investigating this was, that while in Poland housing is built for sale and ownership, Swiss housing is mostly for rent. Furthermore, the amount that people pay would also have to be analysed in terms of proportion to household budgets and average rents in a given area, which makes clear that this aspect could form a whole subject in itself.

I would further like to mention some insights I gained about the Swiss WBS during the course of this research. In my opinion, the WBS is a quantita-tive tool that describes qualities- in the sense of characteristics. It takes quanti-ties such as room numbers or living area and describes their qualities- whether they are furnishable, f lexible, serviceable- and to what degree. In other words, the WBS is a way of interpreting raw data during analysis and as a next step enabling comparisons, as the same floor area in one flat does not equal that of another, in terms of actual habitable quality.

In concluding this research, I am taken back to my original desire to gain a better understanding of what makes out quality in architecture. It is cer-tain that quality is influenced by a huge amount of factors acting on different scales within the built-environment. Furthermore, all of these factors connect back to the given context, resulting in a complex interaction of factors and the connections between them. Reflecting on this research work itself, I realise that this spectrum turned out to be too broad, to be analysed in its entirety; some aspects were treated in greater depth than others. An important lesson was nevertheless learned: that quality can indeed be measured and compared.

As considered earlier in Chapter 1.5 and confirmed by the research fin-dings, each aspect of architecture can be of a high quality; yet all of them have to be satisfied in order to truly be able to speak of high quality architecture.

120 120

Table of Pictures and Drawings

Drawing 1 CS 1 | Situation plan scale: 1|2000 56

Drawing 2 CS 1 | Schematic plans scale: 1|500 60

Drawing 3 CS 1 | Analysed flat scale: 1|100 62

Picture 7 CS 2 | View from Fluelarstrasse onto cornerhouse 72

Picture 8 CS 2 | View from Fluelarstrasse onto highhouse 73

Picture 12 CS 3 | View onto main facade south building 82

Picture 13 CS 3 | View onto small courtyeard 83

Picture 14 CS 3 | View from old garden onto north building 83

Picture 18 CS 4 | View onto building B2 from main axis 92

Picture 19 CS 4 | View onto east elevation building A1 93

Tables

Household structure in Poland in 1988 and 2002 1Table 1 3

Average dwelling size in Poland 1960 - 2008 1Table 2 3

Household structure in Switzerland 1980 - 2000 2Table 3 0

Dwelling Size in Switzerland 2000 2Table 4 1

Dwelling ownership strukture and real state market 2Table 5 2

Definition of main terms 3Table 6 1

CS 1 | QAI 6Table 7 3

Bibliography

Books:

ALEXANDER, Christopher: A Pattern Language. Towns Buildings Construction. Oxford University Press, New York, 1977

Arc en Rêve Centre d‘Architecture: New forms of collective housing in Europe. Birkhauser, 2009

BACIA, Zbigniewa (Ed.): Habitaty bezpieczne. Habitaty 2006. Politechnika Wrocławska, Wroclaw, 2007

GYSIN Bob: Luxus Wohnen. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2003

BÖNIGER, Michael: 4 x 25 günstig wohnen in Zürich.

BORDEN, Iain; RÜEDI RAY, Katerina: The dissertation an architecture student‘s handbook, 2004

BUDAK, Adam (Ed.): What is architecture? Anthology of texts, volume II. Muzeum Manggha, Cracow, 2008

Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen (2000): Wohnbauten planen, beurteilen und vergleichen. Wohnungs-Bewertungs-System WBS Ausgabe, Schriftenreihe Wohnungswesen, Band 69. Bundesamt für Wohnungswesen, Grenchen, 2000

CARMONA, Matthew: Public places - urban spaces the dimensions of urban design. Oxford : Architectural Press, 2003

DURBAN, Christoph: Mehr als Wohnen : Gemeinntziger Wohnungsbau in Zrich 1907-2007, GTA Verlag, ETH Zürich, 2007

El Croquis. Annette Gigon + Mike Guyer: 1989-2000 : the variegated minimal = minimalismo multicolor. El Croquis Editorial, Madrid , 2000

FÖRSTER, Wolfgang: Housing in the 20th and 21st centuries Wohnen im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert. Prestel, München, 2006

FRAMPTON, Kenneth: Modern Architecture - A Critical History. Thames and Hudson, 2004

GRONOSTAJSKA, Barbara Ewa: Kreacja i modernizacja przestrzeni mieszkal-nej. Oficyna Wydawnicza Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław, 2007

Human Settlement in Switzerland, Spatial Development and Housing. Housing Bulletin, Band 78. Federal Office for Housing (FOH), Grenchen, 2006

Bibliography

KATO, Mio: The concept of context in the contemporary housing design of the German-speaking region of Switzerland. Master thesis MAS Architektur, ETH Zürich, 2004

KOMAR, Beata; KUCHARCZYK-BURS, Beata, (Ed.): Housing and Environmental Conditions in Post-Communist Countries. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Slaskiej, Gliwice, 2008

MENZ, Sascha: Drei Bücher über den Baurpozess, VDF Verlag, Zürich, 2009

MORAVÁNSZKY, Ákos: Architekturtheorie im 20. Jahrhundert eine kritische Anthologie. Springer-Verlag, Wien, 2003

MOZAS, Javier; FERNÁNDEZ Per, Aurora: D book density, data diagrams, dwellings a visual analysis of 64 collective housing projects. A+T ediciones, Madrid, 2007.

MOZAS, Javier; FERNÁNDEZ Per, Aurora: New collective housing. A+T ediciones, Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2004

RASMUSSEN, Steen Eiler: Experiencing Architecture. Wydawnictwo Murator, Warszawa, 1999

RÜEGG, Arthur: 40 europäische Wohnikonen neu gesehen. gta Verlag, Zürich, 2007

SCHNEIDER, Friederike: Grundrissatlas Wohnungsbau Floor plan manual housing. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2004

SIMON, Axel: Wohnen in Zürich Programme, Reflexionen, Beispiele 1998-2006. Niggli AG, Sulgen, 2006

SOLT, Judi (Ed.): Luxus Wohnen. Birkhäuser, Basel, 2003

SPIER, Steven. TSCHANZ, Martin: Swiss made. New architecture from Switzerland. Thames & Hudson, London, 2003

STRUMILLO, Jan: Economic backbone of Swiss sustainable housing : case studies . Master thesis MAS Architektur, ETH Zürich, 2008

TAYLOR, Lisa, (Ed.): Housing Symbol Structure. Cooper-Hewitt Museum, The Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Design, New York, 1990

LAMPUGNANI Magnago, Vittorio: Architekturtheorie im 20. Jahrhundert : Positionen, Programme, Manifeste. 2004

Zürich Amt für Hochbauten. Stand der Dinge: neustes Wohnen in Zürich. Amt für Hochbauten der Stadt Zürich, Zürich, 2003

Bibliography

Periondicas:

AV Monographs No.89, Materia Suiza, Arquitectura Viva SL, Madrid, May-June 2001Werk, Bauen + Wohnen, no. 2/2004;Hochparterre, no. 01/2006, 10/2003, Architektura Murator, no. 06/2005, 07/2005, 05/2007, 04/2009, Bauwelt, no. 6 I 2008Archithese, no. 1/2004A10 Magazine, no. 3

Internet:

http://www.bfs.admin.ch/ http://www.eda.admin.ch/http://www.em2n.ch/http://www.gigon-guyer.ch/http://www.james-zuerich.chhttp://www.jems.pl/http://www.patrickgmuer.ch/http://www.reas.pl/http://www.stat.gov.pl/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

In search of quality in multi-unit housing. Comparative analysis of Swiss and Polish examples.

Documents

Transcript of In search of quality in multi-unit housing. Comparative analysis of Swiss and Polish examples.

Abstract Volume 17th Swiss Geoscience Meeting

Hamilton Syringes - Swiss Labs

5/30/2014 Worked examples Worked examples CONTENTS

The MoneyMuseum Book Collection: Swiss Chronicles

425-Footing Design-Examples

SWISS ARMY KNIVES 2015 - NaradiOnline.cz

Medieval Rural Settlements in the Central Europe (6th-mid"13th c.: Examples from the Polish Lands

Urdu, Teach Yourself.pdf - The Swiss Bay

cebuano - The Swiss Bay

Peningkatan hasil belajar siswa melalui penerapan pembelajaran kooperatif tipe examples non examples

Practical Examples - ibse.hk

Documentation & Examples - Agenda INFN

Transient examples

Swiss Life Premium Assets STY:

Glinka and Polish Dance

strategi komunikasi pemasaran manajemen swiss- belhotel ...

SOLVED EXAMPLES - CBSE Materials

Swiss National Joint Registry - ANQ

Swiss Environmental Humanities Symposium Report

2003 - Swiss National Bank