Healthy Buildings 2017 Europe
July 2-5, 2017, Lublin, Poland
Paper ID xxx.xx ISBN: 978-83-7947-232-1
Solving housing shortages by transforming buildings in comfortable homes
Marjolein Overtoom1,2*, Mieke Oostra2, Marja Elsinga1, Philomena Bluyssen11 Delft University of Technology (DUT), Delft, the Netherlands
2 Hanze University of Applied Sciences (HUAS), Groningen, The Netherlands *Corresponding email: m.e.overtoom@tudelft.nl
SUMMARY
There is a shortage of housing and people with a lower income suffer most from this. Vacant buildings are transformed to provide quick housing for them, but it is not sure whether this provides a comfortable home, both from an indoor climate and a meaning making perspective. Existing material about completed transformation projects and six case studies was used to explore possible opportunities to improve the match of user and building. It appeared that buildings are only transformed when they are left vacant for a while and a new function shifts the investment balance. Also, higher quality housing was only provided when it was not meant to be temporary or meant to be sold instead of rented. Current regulations and standards are not met and appear not adequate to function for temporary transformation projects, and matching users and buildings including the meaning of home is an opportunity worth exploring to provide a comfortable home for everyone.
KEYWORDS
Temporary homes, flexible building elements, meaning making, personal investment
1 INTRODUCTION
The housing market in the Netherlands has at the moment a shortage of affordable housing, and projections for the future expect more single parent, single person, and couples without children to enter the housing market, especially in urban centres (Hegedus et al., 2015; Observatory, 2015). Simultaneously the number of vacant buildings has risen (Harmsen, 2008). The combination of these two has resulted in the realisation of more transformation projects, changing the function of the building from office, nurse-flat, bank, factory or care-home into (temporary) housing. Re-use of buildings that were empty goes along with assumptions about the future inhabitants. Often images of students, artists, and starting households spring to mind. Meanings that are attributed to the home have a component of permanence and stability (Altman, Werner, & Oxley, 1985; Korosec-Serfaty, 1984; Sixsmith, 1986; Smith, 1984) which conflicts with this temporality. Different types of buildings are used as homes, and how these homes are designed is often designed by other stakeholders than the users themselves. How do these stakeholders know what these users need from a home, both psychologically and physically? This paper aims to answer what information is used and if there is more that needs to be known to provide a better quality home.
The percentage of social housing that is meant to provide housing for the disadvantaged in Europe is highest in North- and West-Europe ranging from 18% in Sweden up to 32% in the
Netherlands (Scanlon, Fernandez Arrigoitia, & Whitehead, 2015). Through time the users in need of housing are redefined based on the context from policy and society and it is constantly reframed to solve the problems at hand (the poor, single-mothers, the working class, students, etc.) (Jacobs, Kemeny, & Manzi, 2003). Already in 1893 the provision of quality housing was enough of a problem to be described, and it still continues to be so today (Aronovici, 1914; Ball, 2016; Cooper Marcus, Sarkissian, Wilson, & Perlgut, 1986; Jacobs et al., 2003; Marshall, 1893; Wood, 1934). This demonstrates that the need for affordable housing was an issue during industrialisation in the late 19th century and still is.
What is mentioned repeatedly is that housing for disadvantaged groups is below standards one way or another or not available at all, and should be improved. The recurring theme of below quality standards has changed from the more obvious to the more hidden, and tuberculosis, diphtheria, typhoid and scarlet fever (Gould, 1900) have turned into respiratory infections, cardiovascular diseases and mental health problems (Bluyssen, 2009) for the residents. Despite the huge improvements in housing quality compared to the early 20th century workers’ houses in both Europe and the US, disadvantaged groups still have fewer means to improve their own living conditions and therefore still need help to improve their situation up to contemporary standards. For people in need of housing, it is assumed that they are satisfied with a lower quality than other groups of users, which is especially the case with students. Building transformation is one way to quickly respond to the housing need, because generally speaking it takes less time to transform a building than to build a new one. Additionally, it can also be considered to be more sustainable because of material use (Remøy & van der Voordt, 2014). Not every building can be transformed though. For a successful conversion the building characteristics that matter are size and height, depth, structure, envelope and cladding, internal space, lay-out and access, services, acoustic separation, and lastly fire safety and means of escape (Gann & Barlow, 1996; Geraedts & Van der Voort, 2003). These characteristics are important because the depth and height determine the total surface of the building, but also the amount of daylight that penetrates the building, and options for natural ventilation. In the designs for higher standard tenements from the 1900’s this was also a topic of importance, then solved with vertical ventilation and light shafts in the middle of the buildings (Reynolds, 1893). Apart from meeting quality standards, these characteristics are also judged on economic feasibility; if needed changes are too expensive, the building will not be found suitable. When it comes to location important factors to make the building more suitable for transformation are character or the atmosphere (city, safety, greenery), the distance and quality of services (shops, supermarkets, leisure), and accessibility of public transport and cars and parking (Geraedts & Van der Voort, 2003). The buildings should thus ideally be not too far from the centre, in order to be attractive enough to transform. Of course, if the location is better, the apartments will sell better and more money can be invested. Building standards exist to ensure that no-one has to live in an environment that is below standards. What exactly below standards is however, is debatable. Not only do preferences differ, also the environment and the use of the dwelling itself are influential on health and well-being. The users have, within limits, an active role in creating an optimal indoor environment (and energy use for that matter). Opening or closing curtains or windows, setting the heating temperature, using a ventilation system in the kitchen, are all active behaviours that influence air, sound, light, and thermal comfort (Gill, Tierney, Pegg, & Allan, 2010; Lee, Cho, & Kim, 2012). For the user, living in their dwelling is not only a purely functional thing being optimised, but something meaningful as well (Ellsworth-Krebs, Reid, & Hunter, 2015). Different people have different needs, at different locations, in different situations and over time (Bluyssen, 2014). However, there are some general findings that can be used as a starting
point. When it comes to location, accessible greenery is appreciated with walking and cycling paths. This allows the people in the neighbourhood to be more physically active which enhances health (Jackson, 2003), and enjoy the view which is stress-reducing (Kaplan, 1995). Having favourite places in the vicinity has a similar stress-reducing effect (Korpela & Hartig, 1996). Being further away from play areas for households with children and the presence of more noise in dense (apartment) areas is also considered to be less satisfactory (Evans, Wells, & Moch, 2003). Having control over one’s environment contributes to a sense of home (Sixsmith, 1986), but also to well-being (Evans et al., 2003), and a lack of control has been found to be one of the causes of the sick building syndrome (Burge, 2004). Owning a dwelling instead of renting one also makes one more satisfied with their housing situation, regardless of housing quality, costs, or household type (Elsinga & Hoekstra, 2005). The finding that home ownership is generally the ideal (Elsinga & Hoekstra, 2005; Hegedus et al., 2015; Michelson, 1977) might potentially be because home ownership gives the residents more control over the indoor environment, both physiologically and psychologically, and therefore provides more satisfaction.
Considering temporary transformation, the need for housing of (disadvantaged) groups and what is considered sufficient quality for indoor comfort and attributed meanings deserves more attention. This leads to the question of how to find out what students, starters, and other new households of transformed buildings need to create a home environment with a comfortable climate without losing meanings attributed to the home.
2 MATERIALS/METHODS
To find an answer on how to temporarily create a comfortable home environment without compromising on the meanings attributed to it, two existing materials from the Dutch government on transformation projects were reviewed, and 6 visits to projects were made. The aim was to find out how the user wants and needs are included in the decisions to transform the buildings to housing.
The existing material consists of 20 short descriptions of completed transformations1 and a report investigating user satisfaction of residents living in transformed buildings2 on their website. The reports were checked for the original function of the building, changes made for comfort, and arguments used to decide on the user-group. Most of these 20 projects concern affordable housing and due to the low rate of transformations this was a substantial part (excluding smaller private projects). The visited projects were chosen based on the target group, thus affordable housing, and target location (urban areas where the demand for housing is generally higher than in rural areas). The names, places, and users can be seen in table 1.
Table 1. Case-studies visited
Name Strijp S Aan ‘t verlaat Mixx-inn Junoblok ACTA Blue-Gray
City Eindhoven Delft The Hague The Hague Amsterdam Amsterdam
Users Social housing
& commercial spaces Student housing Seasonal workers & troubled youth Plots in the building for sale Student housing & youth with asylum permit
Student housing
Before visiting the cases four topics were defined: 1) how the different stakeholders were brought together before the start of the project, 2) how the function of the building and the direct environment in relation with the intended users was determined, 3) if there were any
1http://www.rvo.nl/initiatieven/overzicht/27769
2 https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/binaries/rijksoverheid/documenten/rapporten/2015/11/01/bewonersonderzoek-wonen-in-een-transformatiewoning/bewonersonderzoek-wonen-in-een-transformatiewoning.pdf
situation specific factors or learned lessons from other projects, and 4) a comparison of the expected and real outcome of the completed process. After each visit the main conclusions from the tour were written down and documented with photos from the building. The gathered information served to integrate the different perspectives of initiator, building owner, and user to find which information is needed to improve the match between user and building.
3 RESULTS
Drawn from all six case studies, the short descriptions and the report on user satisfaction of residents of transformed buildings it seemed that to successfully transform a building the building itself had to have been empty for a longer period of time, and the location and building type had to be good for the projected user-group. In all cases the building was found unfit for its previous function and at the time not considered to be worth the effort. Only after some time when another function was in need of space the balance shifted and the building was considered to be suitable, after some adjustments and with specific users in mind. One example is a previous office building situated opposite the university hospital that was transformed to house students of studies related to medicine. Another example is a building that was originally used as housing for staff and patients of a psychiatric hospital, and was made into student-housing, making it very easy to transform into single rooms for students with shared living rooms, kitchens, and bathrooms based on the original layout. The characteristics of the building (depth, size, services, location etc.) were such that they could be transformed within budget to fit the expected user’s needs.
In order to overcome several significant obstacles and challenges in transforming buildings the decision maker initiating the process had to be in an influential position in the company or organisation that started the initiative. This is probably due to the perceived higher risk of investing in temporary transformation projects and more convincing has to be done. The perceived risk concerns both the state of the building and the user groups, where for example students are often thought to not care about their environment and thus make a mess and break things. This is then in turn used as an argument to use certain building materials and furniture that are cheaper and of lower quality, and to prohibit certain changes in the rooms. On the other hand, this is sometimes used positively and then the students are allowed to do much more. The state of the building and the quality level of the transformation are deciding factors in this case, where longer use of the building equates with higher investments and higher quality. Finally, all six buildings from the visits needed replacement of piping and installations to achieve the needed building quality level, and make the spaces suitable; each living space needs its own heat and ventilation controls, where in offices this is usually controlled per floor or department.
There was no mentioning of consulting the users before moving in, or asking about what a good home consists of for them. Overall, it can be said that usually what the users want and need is assumed to be known by the other stakeholders.
4 DISCUSSION
It is said in the report on resident satisfaction of transformed buildings that the users are familiar with the fact that they are living in a transformed building and consciously made the decision to live there. This seems not to be the case, and is one hint that stakeholders other than the users do not always know what the user wants or needs. The temporary nature of the project determined largely what level of quality the building would have: Projects transformed for longer periods had a higher quality level, and buildings in better locations and a better state were appointed to the buying market. Thus, the type of transformation sets limits
for the users and influences them personally to invest in their living environment, whether it be financially, socially, or psychologically.
What is lacking is knowledge on how to provide ways for the users and building owners to invest regardless of the temporary nature. One way to solve this would be to look into what meanings are attributed to the home that do well for the indoor climate and allow the residents to invest financially, socially, or psychologically to provide an experience of a comfortable home. In order to do that it is necessary to investigate user preferences and meaning making in relation to comfort and home and not to assume that ‘we’ know what ‘they’ want.
5 CONCLUSIONS
The large number of people searching for affordable housing demonstrates the need for solutions. Transformation of empty buildings is a promising option. The large number of vacant buildings that were not initially built as housing could be transformed and lessen the fluctuations in the housing market. The people who will most likely live in these buildings are the less well-off (students, people starting on the housing market, refugees, e.g. with a lower income) and are far away from enjoying the benefits of house-ownership and the accompanying (health) benefits. Therefore it is important that the quality of the dwellings is adequate: structurally, as well as physiologically and psychologically. The focus here was mostly on disadvantaged groups since they are most vulnerable, but the results are also applicable to other user groups and other types of housing. Standards and regulations should be updated to fit with new developments, in this case temporary (transformed) housing and attributed meanings of home. The current standards and regulations are not capturing this at the moment and cannot do what they are supposed to do, which is in this case to provide suitable housing for all. Knowing what specific users want or need from a building to function as a comfortable home, would be beneficial for users, owners, and designers. Users would be more satisfied, owners would have more knowledge beforehand on what to do with their building to have it used, and designers would be better able to design the fixed elements to fit in the temporary elements adjusted to the user’s needs. As such, it is necessary to develop a way of measuring meanings attributed to the home including the relationship with the indoor climate for different types of buildings that are nowadays used for living.
6 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This study is part of a PhD on Transformation of vacant properties, sponsored by the Ministry Safety and Justice, the Ministry of internal affairs, TU Delft and the Hanze Hogeschool.
7 REFERENCES
Altman, I., Werner, C. M., & Oxley, D. (1985). Temporal aspects of homes: A transactional perspective. In I. Altman & C. M. Werner (Eds.), Home Environments. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.
Aronovici, C. (1914). Housing and the Housing Problem. The Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 51, 1-7.
Ball, M. (2016). Housing provision in 21st century Europe. Habitat International, 54, Part 3, 182-188. Bluyssen, P. M. (2009). The Indoor Environment Handbook: How to make buildings healthy and
comfortable. UK: Earthscan.
Bluyssen, P. M. (2014). The Healthy Indoor Environment: How to assess occupants' wellbeing in
buildings. New York, US: Routledge.
Burge, P. S. (2004). Sick building syndrome. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 61(2), 185-190.
Cooper Marcus, C., Sarkissian, W., Wilson, S., & Perlgut, D. (1986). Housing as if people mattered:
Site Design Guidelines for Medium-Density Family Housing. USA: University of California
Press, Ltd.
Ellsworth-Krebs, K., Reid, L., & Hunter, C. J. (2015). Home -ing in on domestic energy research: “House,” “home,” and the importance of ontology. Energy Research & Social Science, 6, 100-108.
Elsinga, M., & Hoekstra, J. (2005). Homeownership and housing satisfaction. Journal of Housing and
the Built Environment, 20(4), 401-424.
Evans, G. W., Wells, N. M., & Moch, A. (2003). Housing and Mental Health: A Review of the Evidence and a Methodological and Conceptual Critique. Journal of Social Issues, 59(3), 475-500.
Gann, D. M., & Barlow, J. (1996). Flexibility in building use: The technical feasability of converting redundant offices into flats. Construction Management and Economics(14), 55-66.
Geraedts, R., & Van der Voort, T. J. M. (2003). Offices for living in: An instrument for measuring the potential for transforming offices into homes. Open House International, 28(3), 80-90. Gill, Z. M., Tierney, M. J., Pegg, I. M., & Allan, N. (2010). Low-energy dwellings: The contribution
of behaviours to actual performance. Building Research & Information, 38(5), 491-508. Gould, E. R. L. (1900). The Housing Problem in Great Cities. The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
14(3), 378-393.
Harmsen, H. (2008). De oude kaart van Nederland: Leegstand en herbestemming. Retrieved from Den Haag:
Hegedus, J., Horvath, V., Elsinga, M., Haffner, M., Norris, M., Carnegie, A., . . . Amann, W. (2015).
Housing Review of 15 Countries in Europe and Central Asia.
Jackson, L. E. (2003). The relationship of urban design to human health and condition. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 64(4), 191-200.
Jacobs, K., Kemeny, J. I. M., & Manzi, T. (2003). Power, Discursive Space and Institutional Practices in the Construction of Housing Problems. Housing Studies, 18(4), 429-446.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The Restorative Effects of Nature: Toward an Integrative Framework. Journal of
Environmental Psychology(15), 169-182.
Korosec-Serfaty, P. (1984). The home from attic to cellar. Journal of Environmental Psychology(4), 303-321.
Korpela, K., & Hartig, T. (1996). Restorative Qualities of Favorite Places. Journal of Environmental
Psychology(16), 221-233.
Lee, T. K., Cho, S. H., & Kim, J. T. (2012). Residents’ Adjusting Behaviour to Enhance Indoor Environmental Comfort in Apartments. Indoor and Built Environment, 21(1), 28-40.
Marshall, E. (1893). New York Tenements. The North American Review, 157(445), 753-756.
Michelson, W. (1977). Environmental choice, human behavior, and residential satisfaction: Oxford University Press New York.
Observatory, H. E. (2015). The State of Housing in the EU 2015 A Housing Europe Review (5 may 2015 ed.). Brussels: Housing Europe.
Remøy, H., & van der Voordt, T. (2014). Adaptive reuse of office buildings into housing: opportunities and risks. Building Research & Information, 42(3), 381-390.
Reynolds, M. T. (1893). The Housing of the Poor in American Cities. Publications of the American
Economic Association, 8(2/3), 9-132.
Scanlon, K., Fernandez Arrigoitia, M., & Whitehead, C. M. E. (2015). Social Housing in Europe.
European Policy Analysis, 17, 1-12.
Sixsmith, J. (1986). The meaning of home: An exploratory study of environmental experience.
Journal of Environmental Psychology(6), 281-298.
Smith, S. G. (1984). The Essential Qualities of a Home. Journal of Environmental Psychology(14), 31-46.
Wood, E. E. (1934). A Century of the Housing Problem. Law and Contemporary Problems, 1(2), 137-147.
