Keywords

1 Introduction: Ergonomics Versus or in Line with Sustainable Design?

Architectural design is a multidisciplinary field. It is as vast and profound ascertainment as it may sound obvious. Each building is a unique result of combination of all relevant disciplines, where aspects and requirements of some have to be fulfilled in 100 % (safety and reliability of structure, fire safety, accordance with technical regulations and building standards, etc.), and some are more or less negotiable. This negotiation happens on various levels, where those various disciplines involved meet: investor’s needs and financial ability, site or localization parameters, functional and aesthetic aspects versus indications at the local and national level of spatial policy, short and long term environmental impact, third parties interests (if applicable), and so on. These negotiations’ main battlefield is architect’s competences in connection with his or her main task of coordinating all disciplines in design process. However, today the more measurable factors the design involves (resulting from precisely specified regulations and initial requirements), the more tools can be elaborated to support the optimization of design process. It takes the form of either computer aided design applications for everyday use in architects’ and other disciplines designers’ practice or elaborated systems aimed at special tasks, which are the external to designer’s office environmental rating systems (international or nation specific). Both result from increasing role of sustainability in design at all levels: planning, urban and architectural design, interior and product design. In this article the author wants to discuss the levels of urban to interior design, but this important multidisciplinary approach applies equally to planning, simply involving other ones than at subsequent stages, leading from decisions at regional level to a particular complexes of buildings and single objects, and then their fitting, equipping, furnishing and final performance. It is very important to understand the continuity of this process and to see a building with its internal environment is a final result of the complicated and multilevel process. Thus to discuss ergonomic or sustainability aspects in reference to buildings one has to consider its dependencies on multiple mutual connections between those aspects influencing its coming into existence. This comes from the simple reason that building an architectural object requires usually a significant amount of money, time, energy and materials, also engages a fairly big group of professionals. The resulting structure has final shape and parameters which cannot be easily modified. Both ergonomics and sustainable design increasingly play an important role. But in the author’s opinion these two disciplines often are seen as competing or almost conflicting; one can get the impression that they act at the opposite ends in design process. Sustainable design imposes set of rules from a very starting point, not even of a particular building but already at the stage of creating technical regulations in accordance with country’s policy,Footnote 1 with the focus on limits for energy consumption and diminishing negative environmental impact of the whole building process, including dismantling and recycling the materials. The main task of sustainable development in general is to allow realization of our goals and needs without diminishing possibilities of doing so for future generations. This is however often connected with such harsh requirements that it puts realizations on or beyond threshold of feasibility, due to economic factors. On the other side stands the end user of a building, who often is the actual investor, expecting the project and the building to comply with its destination and cost limits. Ergonomics developed for decades to protect the end users of work station and then of all working and living built environments from negative or harmful effects. It refers not only to sufficient level of safety. What becomes important, meeting the requirements of sustainable development, especially in reference to energy efficiency is beginning to have increasingly higher costs and it can lead to savings on quality of other aspects of design within the project’s budget – functionality and aesthetics. In this light tension between sustainability and ergonomics may be easier to understand. In author’s opinion and from the point of view of practicing architect, these two disciplines should be integrated into design as mutually influential. At the moment it is very difficult, because higher demands for energy efficiency increase the cost of a building while payback time of a construction of a building is still as long as the time after which expensive devices like heat pumps etc. need to be replaced.

On one hand, it can be observed in research that sustainability and ergonomics tend to be seen in some way parallel [1], dealing with incompatible aspects of design and use of buildings; on the other hand, it is satisfying that ergonomics is becoming to find its crucial place as an integral criterion and inclusive part in sustainable design. Discussion of these aspects of ergonomics’ contribution to sustainability is based on analysis of complex of two urban villas in Wroclaw, Poland. Firstly, urban villa is a reasonable way of shaping the downtown and suburban housing space in the context of single-family housing complexes and multifamily estates of a small scale, providing the basic elements of social bonds, a sense of security, belonging and identity of the inhabitants. Secondly, buildings of this type provide spatial comfort on a scale of an urban development/housing estate and a dwelling unit, and ensure a variety of residential structures and architectural forms [2]. The important feature is economic optimization of this form of inhabiting a city with the chance to achieve desired advantages. Economy conditions crucial sustainability aspect in the architectural design – participation of future users. The way of integrating ergonomics into sustainable design is mainly by one of its five principles, which is respect for user in terms of realization of needs of each human, broad education and social participation in design and use process. This also means healthy residential environment achieved by allowing contact with nature, selection of safe and healthy materials [3]. In such an approach ergonomics will no longer have to be applied at final stage of design as a response only to general rules of proper shaping of work station and selection of aids or tools for home use by generic users, what in effect draws the necessity for future surveys of satisfaction and health of these specific end users and then the potential need for extra costs of corrections or major changes [1]. In this discussion it is also important to remember, that user friendly living spaces influence the rest of human activities e.g. productivity at work [16]. Their initial targeting of strengthening positive social behaviors is very important as well.

2 Complex of Two Multifamily Buildings as an Example of Ergonomic Sustainable Design

The buildings are located in the corner of the streets converging at an acute angle, at the same time such a location can be read as the spatial boundary between green area around and the highly ordered and dense residential development inside the wedge. The confluence of streets is also the place of confluence of architectural periods: Olszewski Street was formed as an avenue of pre-warFootnote 2 German single-family houses [4] with strictly reproducible scale and dimensions (Fig. 1); Bacciarelli Street contrary became a communication route during post-war development based on groups of multi-family buildings, in their own independent spatial system and different orientation to north-south axis (Fig. 2). This post-war buildings in the vicinity of discussed complex of two villas happily had been shaped in the form of three apartment blocks, giving the newly build complex of urban villas “A” and “B” the chance to be transition from not very high, intense forms of blocks of flats to a smaller scale residential single-family homes in close proximity (Fig. 3). Forms of both buildings are functionally interrelated and refer to surrounding houses as a spatial continuation. Complex forms a closure and complement through the transition from cubic forms of blocks of flats from eighties of the XX c. organized around central staircase and a row of ascetic forms of pre-war villas with a steep gable roof without eaves.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Context of villa “A”

Full size image
Fig. 2.
figure 2

Context of villa “B”

Full size image
Fig. 3.
figure 3

Localization of complex of two urban villas “A” and “B” as a “keystone” of neighboring surroundings from subsequent historic periods of two nations in one city. Aerial view 2011.01.04 Google Earth, access 2015.02.04. Olszewski Street is a continuation of main road where famous Centennial Hall by Max Berg of 1913 and WUWA - modern movement experimental “living and workspace exhibition” of 1929 [5] are located, the site characteristic is close proximity to the river Odra, also the adjacent district value apart from famous historic monuments and Wroclaw ZOO are vast park areas and a mixture of single family housing and blocks of flats with a lot of greenery. Complex built in 2009, design Horn Architects.

Full size image

While the urban context and historical features were somewhat external, objectively existing and impossible to adapt to one’s needs, standard of living and cost optimization were the criteria arising from individual assumptions on which this investment - newly designed unit was based as a starting point for design. Cost optimization in this case started with looking for the most effective way of using the plot due to a location within the city limits and high costs of land. Additionally placement in the prestigious green district of Wroclaw further increased the value of the property together with the character of the historic neighborhood [4, 5] causing the area to be under the supervision of the Municipal Conservator. But this was associated with interesting aspect of this location - awareness of local population, which determines the choice of it as a place for continuing residence in subsequent generations, e.g. for the price of smaller size of a dwelling. This had been emphasized in talks with investor (Housing Cooperative Biskupin), to consider the will of current inhabitants and their descendants to remain within the district. It meant that future inhabitants preferred to live there in medium sized flat than move somewhere else and for the same price buy a house or bigger apartment. While the world’s class monuments proximity does not always affect the decisions of individual residents, one can understand the sentiment, taking into account the other advantages of this district: close proximity to the city center, very good communication with the rest of the city through the center, recreational areas and the Odra river area’s enormity of greenery, parks at your fingertips, the proximity of some of the largest universities in Wroclaw, as well as presence of basic services in place. It is a legacy of the post-war rational building of the past century, when urban standards of proper proportion of residential buildings to others like schools, shops etc. conditioned their existence as a prerequisite for the construction of residential complexes, contrary to other present commercial developments, where shops are in a great distance and schools or medical practices remain only in master plan’s guidelines.

When the site is accepted and recognized and the size of dwellings approximated, optimization of building costs is the next aspect of ergonomic design, what in terms of respect for future user and response to their needs for decent dwelling at the reasonable cost is decisive both for sustainable design and feasibility of investment. Of course, the building could had been designed to higher standard and built for profitable sales, however the Cooperative activity is not directed for making commercial profits but only uses its incomes for statutory objectives. This is also the situation where consultations of future users’ needs preceding design where possible. 26 flats were designed, 6 in building “A”, 20 in building “B”. They are provided 32 car parking places according to ‘building indications’ for this investment (local authorities’ document issued in case master plan is not yet prepared). 13 of car parking places are located in underground garage, joining the building and offering a common terrace at the roof. Site area equals 6892 m2 what gives apartment to area ratio 38 (precisely 37,72) flats per ha. It is typical ratio indicator for urban villa typologyFootnote 3 [2]. Buildings’ area at ground level: 181 m2 of “A” villa, 667 m2 of “B” villa and 848 m2 of the whole complex with garage. Villa “A” is three storey high (third under the gable roof with an extra entresol), two flats at each storey, flats at ground floor with an extra entrance to green backyard. Villa ends and closes the row of pre-war villas of similar scale and shaping, thus its design solution was shaped to corresponding but contemporary stylistics and form. Villa “B” is four storey high, five flats per each storey. Both buildings share underground garage with green terrace accessible for all dwellers, and in terms of aesthetics – the same set of stylistic solutions (character, details, windows, doors, railings, etc.) and what concerns colours – each building is a reverse of the other (black-white, colourful-grayscale, white staircase’s walls + orange railings – orange staircase’s walls + white railings, and so on). Buildings are designed in compliance with building standards. In terms of ergonomics it is an important note – technical regulations and standards have been set to ensure the minimum requirements intended to keep proper and sufficient conditions for safe use and health protection of occupants. In terms of sustainable development the design reflects standards for energy efficiency, (preservation of resources at level of particular object), the complex is designed to fit into its unique surroundings in the best possible way (respect for terrain, integration with urban landscape), the site development project complies with initial requirement for preserving of 30 % biologically active part of it and green terrace is designed (because it is allowed to be counted as 50 % of its green floor area) adding this way to “4 r” rule of sustainable development: reduce, reuse, recycle, renewable – this solution helps to economically use building site area while at the same time contributes to rainwater management [3]. Both buildings with underground garage constitute a composite whole and are relatively simple in terms of technical equipment. However as indicated earlier, their design is representative at urban level in spatial and social meaning. Challenge in case of this project comprised fitting it into strong historic context with conservation protection and respond to future users’ needs and expectations. The form of urban villa had been deliberately chosen and main features of this type of building incorporated. (Figure 4) Characteristic parameters of this form: freestanding with one staircase, with high standard of finishing and architectural details, limited number of storeys and size of the site. For comparison – the minimum site area in this district in case of master plan regulations is defined as 600 m2 while the maximum for an urban villa - 1200 m2. The site of the complex of two villas is bigger but at the time of design no master plan had been in force, and as described, it allowed building of two villas with a garage with preserving required distances between buildings and other elements of site project. At the site of two multi-family villas of 6892 m2 11 single family houses could be placed instead (600 m2 allowed per each), so, taking into consideration Polish building regulations (single family house definition allows it to include two separate flats) the number of apartments would be 22. Due to particular situation parameters only two villas could have been placed in discussed complex but at site of comparable size one could have 5 urban villas 10–12 apartments each (in case of master plan the number of storeys is usually restricted to three).

Fig. 4.
figure 4

Summary of urban villa features represented in “A” and “B” buildings: 1. freestanding building – open all elevations allow for best use of location parameters and contact with surroundings. 2. Maximum three to four floors – optimization of costs and profitability of the investment 3. High quality of architectural details – crucial for wellbeing and identification with place of residence 4. Apartments in relation with green space – recreation and ecology (water retention, living space for animals). Drawing and description by the author.

Full size image

The following comparison shows the process of optimization:

  • “A” + “B” villas: 26 apartments, 265 m2 of site per apartment

  • Comparative 11 single family houses: 22 apartments, 313 m2 of site per apartment

  • Comparative 5 urban villas: 50–60 apartments, 115–138 m2 of site per apartment

The comparison is intended to show the importance of cost of grounds in Polish cities, especially in dense urban fabric, especially in this particular case where free building plots are practically unavailable or extremely expensive. The complex was built at ground which already had been the property of Cooperative ‘Biskupin’ (Investor) and was formed of two villas because apart from the external municipal requirement of leaving 30 % of the site for biologically active area, other factors and regulations restricted the part of site where it was possible to build buildings (distance from site borders, necessity to allow space for children’s playground, car parking places, waste container – all of these also with regulated distances to residential building). The Cooperative sells the flats together with a ground, and if it had not been building on its own plot the cost for this investment would have been enormous. Crucial factor is often the required amount of car parking places – which is regulated according to a particular localization and building type, not all of them and sometimes none can be designed in underground garage – in Wroclaw the level of underground waters is very high so it is connected with high costs of heavy watertight insulations. Contrary to building of a single family house, in Cooperative’s multi-family building each family or occupant needs to spend less for purchase of building plot, and from the point of view of sustainable development the municipal grounds are used more efficiently (more inhabitants at comparable site than in case of single family housing, while urban villas not only provide conditions close to the quality of life in single family housing but offer much more in terms of social cooperation and common spaces). Technical equipment designed to serve 26 apartments in one integrated system instead of 22 houses requiring 22 separate systems is in result cheaper and easier to regulate, joint initiative allows shared costs for better energy efficiency of buildings, and also lower costs are connected with fitting and furnishing of apartments ranging from 25–75 m2 than of single family houses of at least 120 m2.

Unfortunately in Poland typical master plans’ requirement for minimum building plot for single family house is 600 m2, and it is simply uneconomical to build a tiny house of 80–100 m2 at such a small site. Smaller plots are allowed for semi-detached or terraced houses which in fact also turn uneconomical – from functional point of view it is even harder to organize the living spaces at multiply levels while only three or two sides are available for windows, and keep the floor area small. So the choice is either big, expensive plot and small house or smaller plot and big house. In every case of single family house investor must individually bear the costs of heating and all other installations. This shows in short the economic and spatial efficiency of small multi-family houses, which can take the form of an urban villa in case of particularly demanding contexts or investor’s needs or requirements. This is an ergonomics at urban level. Due to higher functional and aesthetic standard (common recreation spaces, contact with greenery, extensive scale) occupants can reach the quality of living similar to the one in single family housing at lower costs and extra social and environmental advantages. They can simply afford to live in environmentally and socially sustainable building. The level of satisfaction and comfort in this case together with efficiency at urban and economic level is a result of bottom-up approach – respect for future users guarantees ergonomics of a living environment by sustainable design. However, success of such a way of designing is conditioned by high level of architect’s competences, imagination, ability to foresee potential problems and sensibility. If more data of post occupancy surveys taking into account not only the sole aspects of energy efficiency were available, architects’ plane of reference would be more independent from their personal skills. In Poland post-occupancy surveys are not yet popular, what reflects the lack of knowledge in general in regard to sustainable design and ergonomics. But residential architecture design is a vast and complicated domain, and simple applying typical tools used somewhere else (e.g. for office or industrial buildings design, maintenance and monitoring) does not necessarily work. In Great Britain for example, very advanced in environmental sustainability of building market, domestic building performance evaluation is still an emerging research area for which survey methods and principles need to be elaborated [9], and researchers observe barriers in sampling a representative data for benchmarking purposes in residential buildings [10]. Thus to draw conclusions, the author of this article refers to own practice as the architect and available surveys or research performed in Denmark [6–8], Great Britain [10] and Sweden [11] in multifamily houses in recent years. These countries are member countries of European Union, as well as Poland, and are similar to Poland in terms of climate, culture and share sense of community of values and of nationalities. To understand these contemporary problems regarding sustainable design it is important to remember, that architectural design accompanied human creation since we started to build cities. The process of learning and experimenting took centuries, according to the development of human built environment. The situation changed rapidly and dramatically in last two decades [14]: severe technical regulations are being put to force most of newly built homes to be low-energy, and it often acts against human sense of comfort and needs, which become subject to research only when systems do not work properly or health problems are reported.

3 Conclusions

All of these aspects show that ergonomics and sustainability meet in architectural design simultaneously and inseparably, reflecting general characteristics of it – multidisciplinary. The architect needs to be a man of a great knowledge and experience, familiar with building regulations and able to integrate all aspects into design: technical, functional, ecological, economic, social, and many others. This is why the bigger project the more specialists of various disciplines are involved. Today the design team is supported by helpful computer aided design tools. They give useful calculations, simulations and visualizations in almost any discipline: architectural (how the building will look like, how it will use sun light) structural (its static or dynamic behaviour) and mechanical or electrical (thermal performance, artificial lighting, ventilation, etc.) But the tools alone, the same as sole fulfilment of raw technical requirements will not create good and user friendly living environment. Firstly – each realization is unique, and different set of aspects, requirements and expectation is to be joined together in the design. In human-computer interaction the tools used by designers can help in dealing with particular aspect of design, but the final interpretation of all information and data put together, and decisions are made by human. In author’s opinion it is rather impossible to produce such a universal application to take the place of human designer. The reason for this is not only the extreme level of complication of so many parameters. Also available Danish [6–8] and Swedish [11] post-occupancy surveys of residential buildings show that the occupants’ sense of comfort often refers not only to measurable factors like the possibility to control or regulate indoor environment but also important were aspects which in fact result from artistic sense and creative talent of a designer and the ability to make pleasurable spaces of high aesthetics and functionality – for example a peaceful atmosphere, contact with nature and the view through a window. The important factor was also indicated: the proper functioning of systems, in terms of thermal effect and costs of adjustments.

This factor is even more important in single family houses - frequent problems of occupants to make use of sophisticated systems regulating their homes show to what extent sustainable design requires ergonomic approach. Incorrect use of devices is sometimes caused by the lack of clear information and communication between user and the system, what can reduce efficiency or disorganise the work of installation system of a so-called “intelligent house”. The inevitable troubles connected with use of the system by subsequent tenants or residents are to be avoided only when the systems are the simplest possible, even at the price of efficiency [12] And contrary to commercial buildings, possibility to have control over one’s living space is very important due to vast number of living styles, personal preferences, family models and health and climate parameters. Also the range of activities performed at home varies from sleeping and relaxing to working at home, with all intermediate necessities including preparation of food, children’s playing, elderly caring etc. Interface between system and user [13] in this case may become a barrier in functioning of the system or satisfaction and well-being of user.

It is very important not only from the point of view of human needs, but also holistically bearing in mind human place in the world. Today, nature is no longer perceived as resources undergoing the irresponsible exploitation, but the place of coexistence with other creatures deserving our respect. Today we have to create our cities and architecture in the spirit of thinking about the future of the next generations and the planet. From the point of view of natural science, we find that often it is not the nature who comes to the cities – it is us who expand habitats into other species’ ecosystems which either adapt to changed circumstances, have to migrate or perish. This is not without significance for urban villa, which is the form of the specific characteristics. Urban and architectural solutions are of economic and environmental importance in the process of optimization of costs and use of available space: the modern urban villa must be the result of finding the best combination of all these material and ideological aspects, to achieve its best ergonomics in contemporary sustainable design.