Download Design Principles and Strategies for Lifespan-Based Building

Towards Sustainable Infrastructure Development in Africa:
Design Principles and Strategies for Lifespan-Based Building Performance
1
Agyefi-Mensah, S., 2Post, J.M., 3Egmond - de Wilde De Ligny, E.L.C. van, 4Badu, E. 5Masi
Mohammadi
Abstract
Societies and economies the world over develop on the wheels of infrastructure. In Africa, it accounts for about onethird to one-half of all public investment (Kessides, 1993). Significant about infrastructure in general, however is
the fact that they have very long lives. Consequently, their impact on capital investment, resource utilization, the
quality of the environment and overall quality of human life can be very significant. It is important therefore that
they meet performance requirements in terms of economic, ecological and social sustainability. By the same token,
their long lifespan fraught the design task with enormous amount of uncertainties, compounding the already illdefined nature of design problems. Given that change is importune, and the fact that it is impracticable to foresee all
the changes that will occur over time, a defining characteristic of all infrastructure will be the capacity to respond
to change. Focusing on the case of buildings, this paper presents a discussion on some design principles and
strategies which assure responsiveness to change and hence sustainable performance. Although the concepts have
been advocated for over half a century now, studies show that they still remain marginal to the design profession.
To clarify the concepts research questioning and extension of knowledge, this paper seeks to examine their basic
tenets with the view to harmonize the core principles and strategies. A literature review method is used with
examples from field observations where necessary. The paper first attempts to review and harmonize these
principles, and highlights the practical usefulness. It then highlights the implications for research and development
as well as technology capacity building for sustainable infrastructure development in Africa.
Keywords: Lifespan, sustainability, performance, change, functional, adaptable, infrastructure
1
Stephen Agyefi-Mensah, PhD Candidate, Technical University of Eindhoven, (TU/e), The Netherlands,
[email protected].
2
Jouke M. Post, Professor of Architecture and Building Technology, Technical University of Eindhoven, (TU/e),
The Netherlands, [email protected].
3
Emelia L.C. van Egmond-de Wilde de Ligny, Assistant Professor of Innovation, Technology & Knowledge
Transfer for Sustainable Construction, Technical University of Eindhoven, (TU/e), The Netherlands,
[email protected].
4
Edward Badu, Associate Professor of Building Technology, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology (KNUST), Kumasi, Ghana.
5
Masi Mohammadi, Lecturer in Building Technology (Domotics) - TU/e (The Netherlands
1
1. Introduction
Societies and economies the world over develop on the wheels of infrastructure. This is to say
that infrastructure makes available the physical structures such as roads, railways, ports and
harbours, water supply systems, sewers, electrical grids, telecommunication systems and
buildings needed to provide the commodities and services essential to enable, sustain and
enhance societal living (Fulmer, 2009). This facilitates production which forms the basis for
socio-economic development and improvement in the quality of life.
The multiple forward and backward linkages of infrastructure to other sectors of economic
growth makes it even more significant to development in Africa. Capital investments in
infrastructure contribute to asset formation, employment generation and as security for credit.
For example, the construction of buildings such as houses, factories, hotels and offices do not
only create employment but also facilitates the production of other goods and services which
form the basis for economic growth and improvement in the quality of life. In all countries,
therefore, 50% or more of all new fixed capital formation take the form of infrastructural works,
including buildings, roads, airports and harbours, dams and power plants, water and sewerage
facilities, land reclamation, irrigation and drainage works (Spence et al., 1992). In Africa,
infrastructure accounts for about one-third to one- half of public investment and about three to
six percent of Gross Domestic Product in Africa (Kessides, 1993). Thus, infrastructure
development induces economic growth while at the same time providing the facilities needed to
satisfy consumer demands for education and training, health, leisure and recreation, and family
life. Sustainability in infrastructure development can therefore not be overemphasized.
For buildings, sustainability is all the more important because of their rather long lifespan, and
the myriad of changes that can occur, both foreseen and unforeseen. This impacts the value of
capital investment, the environment and the quality of life of its inhabitants in terms of health,
comfort and productivity. For example, over a fifty year life, the changes in a building is found
to cost approximately three times more than the original building (Brand, 1994). This results
because over this period, the service installations change approximately three times along about
ten generations of space plan alterations (Duffy, 1990). Leaman and Bordass (1999), attributes
losses or gains of up to 15% of turnover in a typical office organization to the design,
management and use of the indoor environment. The impact on the quality of human health,
productivity and comfort may be underscored by the fact that an estimated 60-85% of human life
is spent in homes with half of this in bedrooms (Hassler, 2009), approximately three-quarters of
the entire human life. In relation to this, some studies establish a strong link human health and
indoor dwelling conditions such as thermal comfort, lighting, noise, moisture and mould
(Bonnefoy et al., 2007; Wong, et al., 2009). Further to these, buildings consume about 40% of
the world’s total energy, 25% of wood harvest, and 16% of water consumption (UNEP, 2001).
The foregoing evidence suggests that buildings can have significant impact not only on profitmaximization, but the quality of the planet and the life of the people who inhabit it in both the
short and long term. They must therefore be sustainable in performance (ISO 15392, 2008). This
means, they meet present needs without compromising the need to respond to future qualitative
demands (WCED, 1987). Thus, sustainable infrastructure, will meet demand and requirement for
the present and the future simultaneously contributing to resource efficiency, environmental
quality and quality of life of people.
2
The purpose of this paper is to present a discussion on some key design principles and strategies
which promise to enhance the functional performance and hence sustainability of buildings
through the capacity to respond to change. It begins by defining the problem of functional
performance deficits in buildings, how these result and the mechanisms users adopt in response.
It then discusses some engineering solutions to the deficit and some of the criticisms leveled
against their usefulness. This provides the grounds for a discussion on the design principles and
strategies considered useful to enhance lifespan performance of buildings. The paper ends by
highlighting some implications for research and development as well as technology capacity
building.
2. Functional Performance Deficits in Buildings
Buildings change and so the people who occupy and use them. These two seem inextricably
bound together. On one hand, changes in climatic conditions and the natural effects of ageing,
coupled with wear and tear, make the materials, component and systems of a building subject to
decay and depreciation, which if not attended, results in obsolescence and eventual demolition
(Douglas, 2002). Buildings nowadays also involve the use of a large number of different
materials with different service lives - the actual period of time during which the building or any
of its components performs without unforeseen costs or disruption for maintenance and repair.
About 150 different materials, with the lifespan of permanent materials varying between 10 - 100
years is reported (Post and Willem, 2001; Athena, 2006). The differential service lives means
different parts of the building change at different times and at different rates. This brings about
the need over time to ‘prematurely’ change a building component simply because it is part of a
system consisting of components with much longer lifespan. In one sense, the shorter lifespan
components dictate lifespan changes, and hence the system lifespan as a whole. Considered from
another angle, the longer lifespan components can unduly constrain or control the ability of the
shorter lifespan components to change by the way they are configured together to function as a
whole. This interdependencies creates a non-going tension between the more permanent and
relatively mutable elements of the building throughout the lifespan of the building.
The people who use the building, on the other hand, also change and even more rapidly in their
requirements as they traverse the trajectory of life. For example, families grow and shrink,
changing in composition and size over time, through the addition or departure of a member.
Buildings also outlive their first occupants, and different generations of users come into
occupancy during its intended lifespan. Occupancy turnover may thus span user of different
characteristics at different times. In addition to this, people become physically challenged in time
by reason of illness or accident. These changes together change the requirements of people in
terms of the use of the building. An even greater challenge is that they are further heightened by
the effects of advances in technology, and its impact on social change and the quality of life
people seek. For example, increasingly, more and more people are working at home due to
advancements in information technology (Kincaid, 2002). Thus, as people’s needs, expectations
and lifestyle changes, it becomes necessary to change the building in some way through
upgrading, renewal, reconfiguration, modification or adaptation of some form in order to
accommodate these changes.
3
Yet most buildings are rarely designed to change, being designed to satisfy existing forms of use
(Gan and Barlow, 1996; Durmisevic, 2006). They are static in form with configurations which
lack the flexibility needed to support future changes (Whitchnuil et al., 1999). Over time,
therefore, the mismatch between the less mutable attributes of the building and the changing
requirements of users reduce the functionality of the building. This widens the gap between the
functional and technical lifespan of the building, such that although the building may be
physically fit, it fails to support intended or desired requirements for use. This is loss of
functional performance. The effect is that the buildings become obsolete, redundant and in the
process may be abandoned or become due for demolition with significant impact on
environmental quality.
The observation from this is that as a result over time, most buildings fail to meet the
requirements for use in an effective way. This mismatch between the technical capabilities of the
building and the functional requirements creates a gap between its designed or technical life and
the functional lifespan. The useful life of the building shortens making it redundant, obsolete and
the subject of demolition. This is reported to have shortened from a technical (designed) life of
about 100 years to a functional (use/economic) life between 20 and 35 years (Duffy, 1990;
Kendall and Teicher, 2000; Lichtenberg, 2006) (Fig. 2). The impact on the environment, invested
capital and the quality of human life cannot be overemphasized. The critical question then is how
to design buildings such that they meet requirements in the present and the future, and hence
buildings with functional lifespan which approximates as closely to the design life as possible if
not equal?
Original building quality
Declining building quality
Increasing Performance
Deficit
Performance
Desired building quality
Time
Fig. 1: Performance Deficit in the Life of a Building
Technical Life
Functional Life
Deficit in Functional Life
Fig. 2: Functional Lifespan Deficit in Buildings (∆FL)
4
3. Building Change and User Response to Building Performance Deficits
The changes that occur in the life of a building can be many and diverse in character. Broadly
however, these may be classified as change in function, change in capacity and/or change in flow
(Slaughter, 2001). Changes in function occur in response to higher or new facility performance
objectives such as the conversion of a warehouse into an office space or abandoned churches into
multi-family residential facilities. Change may also occur in order to meet the need for higher
load conditions, for increased operational space (volume) or in response to improved internal or
surrounding environmental conditions. For example, the need to add an additional floor to a
house or an office building. In yet other cases, change becomes necessary in response to different
performance requirements for passage, movement or organization of people and the distribution
of goods within or into a facility. Together, these bring about the need to upgrade, renew, modify
or adapt the building in some form.
On the part of users, research shows that when an environment fails to meet requirements, users
respond by making various forms of changes and adaptations (Bell, Fischer, Baum & Greene,
1996). While some are immediate upon occupancy, others are incremental taking forms such as
‘knocking off’ existing walls, building new walls including illegal expansion of in the case of
flats (Brown and Steadman, 1991; Sullivan and Chen, 1997; Wong, 2010). This is so even in
public apartments where users do not usually have the freedom to physically alter the building.
Fig. 3: Different forms of adaptations users make in order to meet their requirements for space
Figure 3 above shows different forms of physical alterations users of some public apartments in
Cape Coast (Black Star Nurses Flat) and Tema (Kaiser Flats) are forced to make in order to meet
their requirements for use. Research in the Netherlands has revealed that in some cases, residents
want to move out in search of better accommodation (Durmisevic, 2002). Besides user
dissatisfaction, the loss of functionality also creates artificial shortage and compounds the
demand problem.
4. Engineering Responses to the Lifespan Performance Problems
The traditional response to building change and the problem of performance deficits has been
largely through maintenance and retrofitting on different scales. In arguing for adaptability,
Douglas (2002), observes that though useful, this is marginal in effect when balanced against
technical difficulties associated, the effect on the building fabric as well as the implications for
life cycle costs and waste generation. They are unable to bring the building to the desired level of
quality (fig. 4).
5
Deficit Level
Fig. 4: The effect of maintenance and adaptations on building performance over time
Beyond maintenance and retrofitting, service life planning techniques namely the Factor Method
and Engineering Method (ISO 15686-1:2000) have also been advocated. These methods focus on
the durability of buildings. They presume that by selecting materials, components and systems of
a building based on an estimate of the service life, along planned maintenance, it is possible to
reduce the rate of physical deterioration of buildings, taking into account certain factors
considered critical to performance over time. The major criticisms are that they are theoretical
constructs (Kohler and Hassler, 2002), utopian in nature (Davies and Wyatt, 2004) and
associated with practical difficulties for application (Hovde, 2003; Hovde and Moser 2004;
Trinium and Sjöström, 2005). Aikivuori (1999) further argues that the critical loss of
performance in buildings – what fails before durability - is the ‘perceived quality of the
building’. Thus, beyond decay- and durability-based models, there is the need for strategies
which enhance the functionality of buildings and hence the lifespan performance.
To fill this gap, Lifespan-based Design Concepts (LDC) argue for the application of principles
and strategies in the design and construction of buildings which anticipates changes and provide
for them.
5. Lifespan-based Building Design Concepts – Principles and Strategies
The term Lifespan-based Design Concepts (LDCs) is used generically to refer to design
principles and strategies which take into account the through life cycle performance of the
building. It seeks to create suitable and sustainable living environments by enhancing the
practical usability and long-term utility and value of buildings (functionality) for present and
future generations (Post and Willem, 2001). In this, it aspires to contribute to extending the
functional (useful) lifespan of buildings by improving the basic supply quality through enhanced
functionality (Fig. 6). This is intended to bridge the increasing gap between the relatively short
functional/economic lifespan and the apparently ‘endless’ technical life of buildings through
functional and flexible/adaptable design solutions, and innovative building technologies (Post
and Willem, 2001). Accordingly, it anticipates changes in the life of a building, and hence
focuses on incorporating techniques, both in design and construction, which support the ability
of the building to meet present needs without constraining its capacity to fulfill future demands.
6
Performance
Demanded quality
Improved supplied quality
Basic supplied quality
Basic functional
lifespan
Improved functional lifespan
Time
Fig. 5: Improved functional lifespan (Adapted from Gijsbers et al, 2007)
Careful review of the literature would reveal that current thinking about lifespan-based
approaches to building design hinges on four key principles namely the:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
principle of discrete (separate) systems at the whole building level;
principle of overcapacity in design at the system or component level;
principle of open- plan at the space plan level; and
principle of distributed control at the user-designer interaction level
5.1 The Principle of Discrete Systems
The principle of discrete systems, also known as systematization in design argues that different
parts of the building have different lifespan and functional expectancies and should therefore
have a status of independent part in the total configuration of the building (Durmisevic &
Brouwers, 2002; Geiser, 2005). Accordingly, it proposes that a building system should be
organized based on the propensity of its systems and component parts to change. Different parts
of the building are therefore separated based on their lifespan. The underlying argument is that
the more free and independent (separate) these layers are within the system of the building’s
configuration, the greater will be the capacity for future transformation in terms of expansions,
conversions, remodeling, etc. Thus, the principle of discrete systems maximizes the capacity of
the building to change by minimizing physical interdependencies.
The principle of discrete systems underlies Habraken’s (1975) Support and Infill concept which
categorized a building system into two related parts: upper level less mutable Supports (or base
building) and lower level changeable Infill (fit-out). He argues that change emerges faster from
the lower level systems. Consequently, separating it from the higher level systems will afford
possibilities for change and adaptations while minimizing construction. In a similar light, Duffy
7
(1990) and Duffy and Hutton (1998) disentangled the building systems into four shearing layers
namely: (a) shell (structure), (b) services (installations), (c) scenery (partitions), and (d) set
(furniture). Brand (1994) expanded this view into six layers of change namely: (a) site, (b)
structure, (c) skin, (d) services, (e) space plan (interior layout) and (f) stuff (fittings and
furniture). On the basis of this work, Leupen (2005) identifies five layers as: i) main load bearing
structure, ii) skin iii) scenery, iv) service elements and v) access.
The open building paradigm (Kendall and Teicher, 2004), also advances on the principle of
discrete systems. It separates the building into three separate systems based on their lifespan as:
a) primary system (structure + outer layer, with approximate life span of 100 years), (b)
secondary system: infill (20 years), and c) tertiary system: interior (5 – 10 years). According to
Geiser (2005), this three-tier levels of the building can be illustrated using an empty mineral
crate as representing the primary system, the empty bottles as the secondary system and the
flowing liquid as the tertiary system (fig. 7). Particularly, this allows different types and kinds of
filling at different stages in the life of the building.
(a) Structure
(b)
space plan
(c)
skin
STUFF
SPACEPLAN
SERVICES
SKIN
STRUCTURE
SITE
(d) Services
e) Six Layers of Building Change
Fig. 6 (a-e): Shearing Layers of Building of Building Change (Brand, 1994)
8
Plate 1: Empty crate representing
the primary structural system
Plate 4: The liquid as the tertiary
system
Plate 2: Empty bottles representing
the secondary system
Plate 3: The primary and
secondary systems together
Plate 5: Different secondary and tertiary
systems could then be possible
Fig. 7: Illustrating the different levels of the building system
In the Slimbouwen (a Dutch term for ‘smart building’) strategy, Lichtenberg (2006; 2008) is
more intent on the relationship between systematization and the building construction process.
The strategy organizes the different parts of the building into four layers namely the structure,
envelope, services and infill based on their lifespan. The intended lifespan of the individual
layers determines the hierarchy of the building layers in the sequential building process. The
concept argues that such an approach does not only enhance the ability of the building to respond
better to changing circumstances over time, but also it organizes the building process into a
sequential order which facilitates flexibility and efficiency in building construction. The
material-saving potential of the Slimbouwen process is deemed a great advantage.
Fig. 8: Systematization of the different layers of the Building. (Source: Lichtenberg, 2006; 2008),
Thus, looking at the building as a complete system of different parts, systematization enhances
the functional performance of the building by separating those parts which are permanent from
those that are relatively changeable. This means the main carrying construction is separated from
9
the finishing which is light and replaceable or otherwise flexible and easily adaptable. This
reduces the extent of constraint exerted by the permanent elements over the changeable
elements, facilitating replacement, reconfiguration and reuse.
5.2
The Principle of Over-capacity in Design
The principle of over-capacity in design involves designing certain systems and their
components significantly over capacity so that changes in loading conditions or volume can be
accommodated without replacement or extension of current capabilities (Iselin and Lemer, 1993;
Glen, 1994; Gann and Barlow, 1996). This can be technical as well as spatial. Technically,
selecting structural members with higher capacity in size, strength, etc than is currently required
for the immediate design loads can provide the opportunity to add to a building in future. The
principle also applies to making prior provisions for service installations such as the number of
socket outlet, service ducts, etc. Overcapacity may also be in terms of space provision through
over-dimensioning in order to create spatial redundancy for future qualitative demands (Kincaid,
2002). For example, a generous floor to ceiling clearance (say double height) for a range of
possible uses may serve both the long and short term need for space. This allows volume
manipulation by taking advantage of room height (Friedman, 2002). Designing for overcapacity
provides room for future extensions and additions as an alternative solution to demolition and
reconstruction.
5.3
Open-Space Plan Design
At the space plan level, the principle of open-space plan design or more generally flexible floor
plan conceives a building as an open space, with minimum internal subdivision between spaces
designed for different usage. It discards the idea of a house as a box made up of smaller boxes
with spaces no longer enclosed but with the capacity to flow. The interior space is flexible
seemingly without fixed enclosures. Characteristically the floor plan is designed to be
‘ambiguous’ and ‘flexible’ (Kincaid, 2002). By ambiguity, the future use of the building is
assumed to be uncertain: and a variety of possible uses is assumed to be likely for a building,
with nothing done to constrain unduly the adaptation of a building to a range of uses. Similarly, a
single easily defined use for a building is avoided. This ties in with the notion of ‘soft’, and
‘dumb’ spaces – i.e. undesignated spaces/rooms that can be turned into something by the
occupant rather than intended by the architect (Arvana, 2006; Till and Schneider, 2007). This can
be achieved by making the floor plan of the dwelling and the dimensions of the rooms useful in
multiple ways; and building in such a fashion that the floor plan and facilities of the dwelling can
be adapted to meet the demands of the (future) resident with as little constructive interventions as
possible (Hilhorst, 1999). Thus, flexibility in one sense, allows the creation of spaces within a
building such that people adapt their activities to suit the building and not the building to suit
their activities. Thus, the living room could be large enough to serve a variety of purposes from a
sitting, through dinning to sleeping, while the bedroom may serve also as study. In another sense,
flexibility allows for adapting the building to new use requirements at minimal constructional
intervention and cost. Gregory (2005) refers to the former as ‘multi-space’ strategy to space
10
design an equivalent term to ‘polyvalency’ used in the Netherlands (Leupen, 2002). This allows
the manipulating space through the intensive use of three dimensional space.
Thus, by anticipating change, design strategies based on the principles of systematization, overcapacity in design and the open plan building concepts seek to enhance the quality of buildings
for sustainable infrastructure development. Among other things they contribute to:
 value-added use – it accommodates changes in condition and needs during the life cycle
of a building
 ease of maintenance – it simplifies replacements and adaptations during use and enables
the reuse of components and elements
 economic efficiency of structural measures for renewal and change of use
 enables operational decisions to be made in keeping with current state of knowledge
 overall contributes to increased functional lifespan of buildings (Geiser, 2005).
In addition, they contribute to:
 saving on scarce building resources and hence offer the potential to create affordable
buildings
 reduction in the volume of waste generated and sent to the waste stream
 reduction in the impact of the building construction on environmental quality by
minimizing atmospheric emissions such as CO2 and other GHGs
5.4
The Principle of Distributed Control
The benefits deriving from the design strategies above could further be optimized through what
is referred to as distributed control - a principle which argues that decision on the attributes of a
building should be shared between the designer and the end user (occupant) (Habraken, 2005;
Turner, 1991). This is similar in perspective to the performance-based approach to building
which posits that a building system’s design agenda as a whole, and the more specific design
objectives of its parts, originates from relevant user requirements and must therefore be
established by the relevant stakeholders (Szigeti and Davis, 2005). In essence therefore, the
principle of distributed control involves users in the design decision-making process.
Habraken (1975) argued that “dwelling is building” and that no one can live satisfactorily in an
environment in which they have no input. To enhance the quality of life of people in buildings it
is important to adopt an approach which gives to the end user some control over the building. In
another work he argues that ‘to build is to exercise power’ and that it is ‘only when users
themselves exercise power by directly influencing or controlling a part of the physical
environment can we expect healthy, vital and steadily improving environments’ (Habraken,
1980). This argument is both moral and pragmatic as Carroll and Rosson (2007) puts it. Morally,
it is only reasonable to think that the people whose activity and experiences will ultimately be
affected most directly by a design outcome have a substantive say in what that outcome is.
Beyond this, it offers practical insight regarding the activity that the design will support, and
most likely transform. The implication is that to make buildings more functional, user
participation in design decision – making is crucial.
11
6.
Summary
The cumulative gains accruing from these principles and strategies in terms of the contributions
to sustainable building performance is much reported, and particularly in developing countries.
Studies in housing extensions and transformations in Ghana, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh and Egypt,
found that not only do users seek opportunities to alter their dwellings but that creating
possibilities for transformations in houses in particular contributes to increasing habitable space
in terms of floor area and number of rooms, and consequently reduces occupancy rates without
the need for new-builds (Tipple & Korboe, 1994; Tipple, 1996). In Hong Kong, the benefits of
‘Design for Tenant Fit-Out’, a design strategy which allows individual families not only to finetune layouts according to their specific needs, but to build incrementally according to their
resource capabilities, is reported for mass public housing (Sulliven and Chen, 1997). Such an
approach enhances functionality while being affordable. Similar contributions have been
reported in Bangkok, where houses were actually designed to be transformable based on the
requirements of users – being developed incrementally by the occupants (Yap & Wandeler,
2010). In the success story of the Million Houses Program in Sri Lanka, the design strategy and
selection of the applied building technology was participatory. This resulted in houses which
were cheaper and better suited to the needs of occupants (Sirivardana, 1986).
The conclusion from these observations is that it is as important to integrate top-down design
decisions with bottom-up user requirements. Thus, the design and engineering of building
solutions must shift from design-centered, task-based approach to user-centered, needs focused
solutions. As a design approach therefore, lifespan performance-based building concepts
advocates for two key approaches as a way to respond to the functionality gap in the life of
buildings. The first encompass strategies which anticipate changes and make provision by preconfiguring the building by design to respond to requirements such as replacement
reconfiguration, and reuse. These principles include systematization, overcapacity in design and
open space plan design. The second approach focuses on user requirements and leverages this
through user participation in design. The two approaches are mutually interactive and
reinforcing. These may be summarized as below.
12
Table 1: Summary of Lifespan-based Building Principles and Strategies
Principle
Decision Level
Discrete system Structure level
(systematization)
Strategies
Characteristics
- Support and Infill
- Shearing Layers
- Open Building
- Slimbouwen
- Design for disassembly
Anticipatory
Overcapacity in
Design
System/component - Spatial Redundancy (double
level
height)
- Overcapacity of structural
members/service installations
Open Plan
Design
Distributed
Control
Space plan
User-designer
interface
Solution –oriented
Designer-centered
Top-down
-Multi-space
-Polyvalence
-Participatory Design
Participatory
-Performance-based Building
User-centred
Requirements-based
Bottom-up
6.
Implications of the LBC for Building Infrastructure Development in Africa
The review shows by their strengths and merits, Lifespan-based Design strategies can contribute
to the functional building performance in many practical ways. This however, has implications
not only for building technology, but research and development as well as technology capacity
building.
The principle of systematization in design for example, makes implicit assumptions about
industrialized building systems with its prefabrication of components through factory
manufacture of materials and components, the rationalization and mechanization of the
construction process as well as on-site assembly. This means a shift from the traditional laborintensive and monolithic system of building construction, to standardization, modularization and
prefabrication of components. For design, this means that the structural and sectional grid of
building elements ideally coordinate so that they are fully interchangeable, without the need for
significant transfer structures or uneconomically long spans. The morphology and dimensions of
the building, its floor plate, structural grid, floor to floor height and fenestration modules are also
thus suitable to support new uses. It also means that the overall flexibility of the design of
building space is sufficient to allow for reconfiguration for new uses. For production and
13
management, it also has implications for the system of procurement adopted. Studies show that
this can be achieved through greater integration of the design approach such that both designers
and builders are able to see the whole building process through the eyes of each other (Adams,
1989).
It also has implication for technology capacity building. Drewer (1980) points out that most
developing countries lack the technology capacity needed to deliver the infrastructural projects
necessary to support their socio-economic development in terms of size, novelty and complexity.
This includes not only plant and machinery but human capacity in terms of the depth, relevance
and quality of knowledge as well as skilled manpower required to apply technologies in both
quantitative and qualitative terms.
While open plan design solutions give a better sense of space particularly for larger households,
it does not only reduce both visual and acoustic privacy, but that it also increases energy
consumption (BRE, 1994). Increasing urbanization and modernization with its associated
increase in individualization and sense of privacy, in addition to the concerns over energy
conservation makes the open plan design a useful case for research as a design strategy. It also
remains a subject of debate the extent to which adaptable or flexible design contributes to extra
cost (Van der Voordt, 1990). Schneider and Till (2007) report an increase of 2% over the initial
design cost. The problem for research then is to question the extent to which lifespan gains in
designing for over-capacity for example, would balance out the extra cost of investment?
Conclusions
The conclusion is that by its forward and backward linkages, infrastructure remains key to socioeconomic development in Africa. Design principles and strategies which places use at the centre
and hence focus on providing the capacity to change show promise as corner stone strategies for
sustainable performance. The peculiar African socio-economic, cultural and technological
context also means that there are differences in contextual factors which impact the extent to
which these strategies can be deployed and applied for sustainable infrastructure development.
This has immense implications not only for research and development in building technology but
also technology capacity building. Filling the requisite gaps in knowledge while building the
necessary technology capacity can help enhance the usefulness of these principles within the
African context and hence contribute to sustainable building and infrastructure development.
14
References
Aikivuori, A.M (1999). Critical loss of performance – What fails before durability: In Hovde, P.J. and Moser, K
(ed). Performance Based Methods for Service Life Prediction Reports compiled by CIB W080 / RILEM 175-SLM
Service Life Methodologies Prediction of Service Life for Buildings and Components CIB
Bonnefoy, X., Bruabach, M., Davidson, M and Robbel, N. (2007) ‘ A pan-European housing and health survey:
description and evaluation of methods and approaches’, International J. Environment and Pollution, Vol. 30 Nos.
3/4 pp. 363-383
Brand, S (1994). How buildings learn: What happens after they’re built, Viking Penguin, New York
Brown, F.E., and Steadman, J.P. (1991) The Morphology of British Housing: an empirical basis for policy and
research. Part I: Functional and dimensional characteristics
Carroll, J.M. and Rosson, M.B. (2007). Participatory Design in Community Informatics. Design Studies, 28, pp.
243-261
Douglas, J (2002). Building Adaptations. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Duffy, F. (1990). Measuring Building Performances, Facilities 8 (5) Bradford: Emerald.
Durmisevic, E. (2006). Transformable building structures – design for disassembly as a way to introduce
sustainable engineering to building design and construction, Delft, Technische Universiteit Delft
Durmisevic, E. and Brouwer, J.B. (2002). Disassembly versus demolition. In Erkerlens, P.A., Saunder, J., van
Vliet, A. A.M. and Verhagen R.J.G (eds). Beyond Sustainable Building: Balancing between best practice and
utopian concepts. Faculteit Bouwkunde, TU/e, The Netherlands
Friedman, A. (2002) Adaptable home: Designing homes for change. London: McGraw-Hill
Fulmer, J (2009). "What in the world is infrastructure?” PEI Infrastructure Investor (July/August): 30–32
Gann, D.M. & Barlow, J. (1996). Flexibility in building use: the technical feasibility of converting redundant
offices into flats. Construction Management and Economics, 14 (1) pp. 55 - 66
Geiser, S. (2005). Open Building in Health Care Architecture: The case of the INO Project in Bern, Switzerland.
Open House International, 30 (1) pp. 13-21
Gregory, C. (2005). Multispace: adaptable building design Concept. In Davison, A.G.N et al., (2006). The
Multispace adaptable building concept and its extension into mass customization.
Hasselaar, E (2009) ‘Health issues and the building stock’ Building Research Information, 37: 5, 669 -678
Habraken, N.J. (2008). ‘Design for flexibility’, Building Research and Information, 36 (3), 290-296
Habraken, N.J. (2005). Change and Distribution of Control in Design. Open House International, 30 (1) pp. 7-12
Habraken, N.J. (1975). Supports: An Alternative to Mass Housing. Architectural Press, London
Habraken, N.J. (1980). Design for Adaptability: Change and User Participation in Housing Process and Physical
Form. Media, Singapore.
Hovde, P.J. and Moser, K (2004). Performance Based Methods for Service Life Prediction
Reports. compiled by CIB W080 / RILEM 175-SLM Service Life Methodologies Prediction of Service Life for
Buildings and Components CIB Report: Publication 294 State of the Art Reports
15
ISO 15392 (2008), Sustainability in building construction- General principles
ISO 15686-1 (2000). Sustainability in Buildings and constructed assets- Service life planning: General Principles
Kendall, S and Teicher, J (2000). Residential Open Buildings. E & FN Spon
Kessides, C (1993). “The Contributions of Infrastructure to Economic Development” World Bank Discussion
Papers No. 312, Washington DC: World Bank.
Kincaid, D. (2002). Adapting Buildings for Changing uses: Guildelines for Change of Use and Refurbishment.
London: Spon Press (Taylor and Francis Group).
Kohler, N. and Hassler, U. (2002) The building stock as a research object. Building Research & Information,
20(4), 226–236.
Leaman, A., and Bordass, B. (1999). Productivity in buildings: the ‘killer’ variables, Building Research and
Inforamtion, 27: 1 4-19
Leupen, B. (2002). Frame and Generic. 010 Publishers, Rotterdam
Leupen, B. (2005). A New Way of looking at Flexibility. Open House International, 30 (1) pp. 55-61
Lichtenberg, J. J. N., (2006), Slimbouwen, a strategy for efficient and sustainable building innovation, Joint 2006
CIB W065/W055/086 International Symposium Proceedings, Edizioni scientifiche Italiane, Italy. pp206-207
Lichtenberg J. J. N., (2008), Slimbouwen®, a strategy for sustainable building innovation, SASBE2008
Post, J.M., and Willems, M.H.P.M (2001). “ The XX –Project: saving 45% on resource depletion”. In C. Anumba
et al., (eds), Perspectives on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction, (Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Innovation in Architecture, Engineering and Construction. Loughborough
Slaughter, S (2001). Design strategies to increase building flexibility. Building Research & Information, 29 (3) 208217
Schneider, T and Till, J (2007). Flexible Housing. Architectural Press, U.K.
Spence, R., et al., (1993). Jobs from Housing – Employment, Building Materials and Enabling Strategies for Urban
Development. London, United Kingdom: Cambridge Architecture Research Ltd. pp. 11-14, 28-34, 58
Sullivan, B. and Chen, K (1997). Design for Tenant Fit-Out: A Critical Review of Public Housing Flat Designs in
Hong Kong. Habitat International 21 (3), pp. 291 – 303.
Tipple, G.A. (1996). Housing Extensions as Sustainable Development. Habitat International, 20 (3) 367-376
Tipple, G.A. and Owusu, S.E. (1994). Transformations of Government-built low cost housing as generators of
shelter and Employment, ODA Research Scheme number R4865. Working Paper No. 2. February.
Whichennuil, J.W.R., Morton, N.J., & Carr, C.M.H., (1999). Urban morphogenesis at the micro-scale: how
houses change. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26 (503 – 515)
Wong, J.F. (2010). Factors affecting open building implementation in high density mass housing design in Hong
Kong. Habitat International, 24, pp. 174 - 182
UNEP, (2001) “Energy and Cities: Sustainable Building and Construction”: Summary of Main Issues, IETC Side
Event at Governing Council. Nairobi, Kenya.
16