Advertisement

Tools for the Co-designing of Housing Transformations: A Study on Interaction and Visualization Modes

Conference paper
  • 80 Downloads
Part of the Advances in Science, Technology & Innovation book series (ASTI)

Abstract

In this paper we present and assess tools for visualizing architectonic modifications of existing housing in co-design projects with inhabitants. These tools should enable inhabitants to explore and understand design variations of alterations of their houses. This contribution is part of ongoing research on the use of artificial realities for supporting the transformations of existing housing in architectonically responsible ways. Such transformations may be needed after the delivery of housing, say after five years or later, due to changed regulation, the need of updates or changed living conditions of inhabitants. For arriving at architectonically responsible transformations, we use shape grammar system for defining possible modifications of the housing. For empowering inhabitants to understand and explore these modifications to their housing, we develop a transformation grammar tool—MyChanges—to visualize the modifications by three visualization modes, from fully immersive to non-immersive. Interviews and tests with real inhabitants were performed, and preliminary conclusions show that a tool like the MyChanges would have a good acceptance among inhabitants.

Keywords

Participatory design Generative design tool Virtual reality Users’ feedback 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was partially funded by grant EEA Grants FBR_OC1_020 – ISCTE “Artificial Realities: Virtual as an aesthetic medium in architectural ideation.” Also, we had support from projects FCT UID/Multi/04466/2019 and UIDB/04466/2020. Micaela Raposo has a Ph.D. research grant by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through grant SFRH/BD/146044/2019.

References

  1. 1.
    Coelho, A. B. (2010). Habitação Humanizada. Lisboa: Laboratório Nacional de Engenharia Civil.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gehl, J. (2010) Cities for people. Island Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Zaera-Polo, A., & Koolhaas, R. (1992). Rem Koolhaas/OMA, 1987–1992. El Croquis, no53.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mota, N. (2017). A progressive attachment (pp. 89–107). Consuming architecture: On the occupation, appropriation and interpretation of buildings.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mota, N. (2014b). Design ed Self‐help. Producing closed forms for open buildings (pp. 1–13). ETH Zürich.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rodrigues, A. L. (2015). A experiência da Quinta da Malagueira (1977): Ensinamentos e cautelas na concretização de habitação de custos-controlados, para uma arquitetura avisada. In 3o CIHEL - congresso Internacional de Habitação no Espaço Lusófono. São Paulo (Brasil), pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mota, N. (2014a). A progressive attachment: Accommodating growth and change in Álvaro Siza’s Malagueira neighhood. In D. Maudlin, & M. Vellinga (Eds.) Consuming Architecture. On the occupation, appropriation and interpretation of buildings (pp. 89–107). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eloy, S. (2012). A transformation grammar-based methodology for housing rehabilitation. Universidade Técnica de Lisboa.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eloy, S., Dias, M. Â., & Vermaas, P. E. (2018). User-centered shape grammars for housing transformations: Towards post-handover grammars. In Proceedings of Sigradi 2018 Technopoliticas. São Paulo (Brasil): IAU USP.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Habraken, N. J. (1972). Supports: An alternative to mass housing. London (UK): The Architectural Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Goethert, R. (2010). Incremental housing: A proactive urban strategy. Monday Developments, (September), pp. 23–25.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aravena, A., & Iacobelli, A. (2016). Elemental: Incremental housing and participatory design manual. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz Verlag.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    MVRDV and Axis.fm. (2012). Architecture in mind. The HouseMaker. In MVRDV and The Why Factory (Eds.), The Vertical Village. Individual, Informal, Intense. NAi Publishers, pp 169–194.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Corullon, M. (2016). Apresentação. Arquitetura em Diálogo—Alejandro Zaera-Polo (pp. 7–12). UBU: São Paulo.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    De Koning, J. I. J. C., Crul, M. R. M., & Renee, W. (2016). Models of co-creation. Service Design, 2016, 266–278.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Faliu, B., et al. (2018). Design and Prototyping of an Interactive Virtual Environment to Foster Citizen Participation and Creativity in Urban Design. In 27th International Conference on Information Systems Developmen, (Sweden), pp. 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22993-1_4.
  17. 17.
    Sanoff, H. (2008). Multiple views of participatory design. International Journal of Architectural Research, 23(1), 131–143.  https://doi.org/10.15368/focus.2011v8n1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Stiny, G., & Gips, J. (1972). Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. In O. Petrocelli (Ed.), The best computer papers of 1971. New Jersey: Auerbach.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Correia, R. C., Duarte, J. P., & Leitão, A. M. (2010). MALAG: A discursive grammar interpreter for the online generation of mass customized housing. In Proceedings of the Workshop in 4th Conference Design Computing and Cognition.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Duarte, J. P. (2005). A discursive grammar for customizing mass housing: The case of Siza’s houses at Malagueira’, Automation in Construction, 14(2 SPEC. ISS.), pp. 265–275.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2004.07.013.
  21. 21.
    Veloso, P., Celani, G., & Scheeren, R. (2018). From the generation of layouts to the production of construction documents: An application in the customization of apartment plans. Automation in Construction, 96, 224–235.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.09.013. (Elsevier).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Knight, T. (1989). Transformations of De Stijl art: The paitings of georges vantongerloo and fritz glarner. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 16(1), 168–217.  https://doi.org/10.1068/b160051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Colakoglu, B. (2005). Design by grammar: An interpretation and generation of vernacular hayat houses in contemporary context. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 32(1), 141–149.  https://doi.org/10.1068/b3096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Milgram, P., et al. (1994). Augmented reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum. Systems Research, 2351 (Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies), pp. 282–292. http://doi.org/10.1.1.83.6861.
  25. 25.
    Tori, R., & Kirner, C. (2006). Fundamentos da Realidade Aumentada (pp. 22–38). Fundamentos e Tecnologia de Realidade Virtual e Aumentada. In R. Tori, C. Kirner, & R. Siscouto, p. 422.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), ISTARLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Philosophy DepartmentTU DelftDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations