Environmental performance and sustainable architecture a critical review in the context of singapore public housing 4

Part IV Conclusion Chapter 14: Conclusion, Implications and Future Research Agenda 14.1 Prelude Starting with the present fragmented and contesting practices towards sustainable architecture and sustainable housing, as well as the escalating popularity of environmental performance assessment practice, the thesis has: – identified implication and weaknesses in BEAMs and the concept of environmental performance (Chapter 2, Chapter and Part III); – shown the impacts of socio-economics and architectural design on building environmental performance (Part III) – identified additional factors in socio-economics and architectural design that can influence building environmental performance (Chapter 3, Chapter and Part III) To address the solution to the above fragmentation, the thesis, based on theoretical studies, has established the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse (Chapter 5). This framework organises approaches from socio-economics, architectural design and environmental performance domains in an integrated and reciprocal manner. The Integrated Framework has been revisited (Part III) with empirical substantiation found in Singapore public housing practice. This has led to a systematic approach, assessment criteria, and influencing factors, of specific sustainable performance issues, i.e. land use efficiency, energy efficiency, water conservation, material efficiency, and experience of home. 321 This Chapter concludes the research with: – Positioning the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse to current theoretical discourses, practices and educations of sustainable architecture, in order to further underline the thesis standpoints and contributions; – Synergising and organising the fragmented empirical practices related to Singapore public housing (as analysed in Part III) into the Integrated Framework, in order to fill in the literature gaps (as identified in section 6.4) and to unveil systematic approach towards sustainable public housing; – Clarifying the validity of research findings with current movement and development of building environmental assessment methods; – Discussing the potential to establish Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method through revisiting and compiling the assessment criteria and influencing factors of the sustainable performances (as established in Part III); and – Identifying agenda for future researches and concluding the thesis. 14.2 Positioning the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse 14.2.1 In Design Methodology Movements The movements of Design Methodology Alexander Tzonis (2004), in his keynote speech at the first iNTA (International Network for Tropical Architecture) conference, critically reviews the movements in Design Methodology, i.e. from Design Methods to Critical Theory, and currently, Sustainable Design. In this discussion, the Design Method movement in the 1960s is seen as having its 'reliance on analytical sciences' and the bias for 'universal laws, empirical observations, and problem solving techniques characteristic of ways of inquiring in natural sciences'; Whereas the 322 Critical Theory 'saw design dealing with unique, 'situated' cases that were not subject to generalizations and rules'(Tzonis, 2004). The argument of the Critical Theory is that: – Its inquiries 'tried to show that designing as an activity was driven by highly individualistic intentions, power struggles, and collective memories'; -empirical methods applied – 'Such phenomena could not be dealt by transferring logico in mechanics'; and thus ving no use of idealized models or problem solving processes fundamental to – 'Ha Design Methods'. (Tzonis, 2004) Sustainable Design, the endeavour at the present, has 're -introduce[d], in a more advanced and rigorous version, the systemic approach of Design Methods while the same time maintaining a more reflective outlook in defining the elements and operations of the 'system', an approach inherited from Critical Theory' (Tzonis, 2004) . The position of the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse The Integrated Framework proposed in this thesis is in line with Tzonis's opinion of Sustainable Design that embraces not only the scientific aspect of building science and technologies, but also the contingency, flexibility, quality and innovation dimensions of design. Before arriving to this point, the research has already critically reviewed the practice of BEAMs and has criticised its overtly-relying on scientific, materialist and structural approach, as well as its over-ambition of being the ultimate objectives for architectural design. These are reflected in the practice's implied pipe -line framework towards sustainable housing (see section 2.6) and in the Integrated Design Process model (see section 5.3.1). Bryan Lawson (1997) in his seminal work 'How Designers Think:The Design Process Demystified'states that, 323 One of the popular models for the design process to be found in the literature on design methodology is that of scientific method. Problems of science however not fit the description of design problems […] and, consequently, the processes of science and design cannot usefully be considered as analogous. The most important, obvious and fundamental difference is that design is essentially prescriptive whereas science is predominantly descriptive. Designers not aim to deal with questions of what is, how and why but, rather, with what might be, could be and should be. While scientists may help us to understand the present and predict the future, designers may be seen to prescribe and to create the future, and thus their process deserves not just ethical but also moral scrutiny. The benefits of scientific measurements to design, in Lawson's point of view, lie in the role of informing designer the general approaches (as being opposite to detailed ones) to enhance certain performance: What a designer really needs is to have some feel for the meaning behind the numbers rather than precise methods of calculating them. As a designer you need to know the kinds of changes that can be made to the design which are most likely to improve it when measured against the criteria. It is thus more a matter of strategic decisions rather than careful calculation (Lawson, 1997) The re-defined and re-clarified roles and position of the environmental performance domain in the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, especially in its roles of informing and inspiring architectural design (see section 5.5.2), in fact, corresponds to Lawson's viewpoint above. Furthermore, the inclusion of the three knowledge domains – socio-economics, architectural design and environmental performance – in the Integrated Framework reflects Dean Hawkes' conclusion drawn out from the discussion of 'objective knowledge and the art and science of architecture'. That is 324 … the exiting possibility of a collaboration between the worlds of architectural history, design theory and, ultimately of crucial importance, of practice. In this, the aims and methods of each could come together, united in the common purpose of making the use of historical data relevant to the solution of problems of contemporary design, with equal relevance to both the technical realm of what is normally termed 'building science' and the complex cultural issues […] In this way the crippling barrier between art and science in architectural debate may be broken down. (Hawkes, 1996) 14.2.2 In architectural theory discourse The Integrated Framework, although is meant for architectural practice, suggests that interdisciplinary approach is necessary. This is because of the large scope of coverage of the concept 'sustainable development' – including not only the environment but also sociology and economics. On the one hand, the Integrated Framework takes the position of the social constructivist theory (see section 1.2.5), which believes that sustainability is a social constructed notion and resulted from a contesting process among the social constructed ecological logics (Guy and Farmer, 2001). This is so because: unlike the environmental architecture in the 1970s forefronting the environmental design to respond to the oil crisis, sustainable architecture includes not only environmental but also social and economic issues. Furthermore, with the well-built foundation and records of ego-centricity in the modern society, where 'Humans Supplant God; Everything Changes' (McKibben, 2000); the main cause of the unsustainable development is rooted from human activities and behaviour. These human aspects collectively form socio-economic settings and trends, which are the dominant factors influencing sustainable development. Therefore, in the Integrated Framework, socio-economic domain is placed at the forefront with the role to inform architectural design in sustainable housing development. 325 On the other hand, the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse does not undermine and dematerialise scientific aspects and technological solutions of the environmental performance domain. It, conversely, acknowledges the role and approaches of the environmental performance domain. Unlike the social constructivist theory that questions and challenges the positivistic scientific approach to sustainable architecture, the Integrated Framework recognises the contributions from the bioclimatic approach by Olgyay and Ken Yeang, the 'selective environment' of Dean Hawkes, and the practice of BEAMs. Although accepting both positions, the social constructivist and the environmental performance domain, the Integrated Framework does not mean to step on two stones at the same time, so that conflicts are posed within the framework itself. Instead, it brings together different perspectives and carefully organised them under a systematic framework so that positive and reciprocal relationships among the various domains can be surfaced. The Integrated Framework, for example, strongly opposes the model of 'Integrated Design Process' and the implied pipeline framework by the practice ofBEAMs, where environmental performance criteria are projected as the main and ultimate objectives for the whole architectural design process to respond to, and as the governing issue in sustainable architecture discourse. As the Integrated Framework targets architectural professional in designing sustainable housing, architectural design domain holds most responsibility in the framework in integrating the inputs from both socio-economics and environmental performance domains. It is so because architects have a critical role to play. In the words of Jones (1998): As leaders in the construction process, and providers of a central link between it and those who commission buildings, they [architects] are in a prime position to 326 influence, cajole and to demonstrate, through their designs, the path to sustainability in architecture.' Furthermore, the Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse implies that the practice of checklist approach and design principles with unspecified the interconnected among them, often found in literature and practice, are no longer sufficient. Sustainable housing performance can not be achieved through the sum of all individual strategies and guidelines, but through the systematic interrelationship and integration among strategies of the three domains of environmental performance, architectural design and socioeconomics, 14.2.3 In designers-clients-users relationship The issue in the triple relationship among designer, clients and users has long been discussed. The conventional controversial question is: To whom, between clients and users (if they are not belonged to one group), the designers/architects design for. The reason lies in the different interests and agenda of each group. For example, budget is often the main concern of the clients but comfort is often the main expectation from the users. Zeisel’s user-needs gap model shows that ‘while there might often be good communications between designers and paying clients, both have a gap in their communications with user clients’ (Lawson, 1997 referencing Zeisel, 1984). In a study to confirm the ‘user-needs gap’ model, Cairns (1996) points out that these gaps are not always aware of by either architects or paying clients. The issue is particularly crucial to the development of high-rise high-density housing, in which the paying clients are often the developers or an organisation, and the users (residents) are someone else. The developing housing environment, where the residents will live, has direct implication to their everyday activities and to a greater extent, implications to the socioeconomics and human-environment relationship at large. However, these issues are often less perceived by the clients. 327 -needs gap model (Source: Lawson, 1997) Figure 14-1: Zeisel's user In sustainable architecture design, user dimension can not be neglected. The Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse, by acknowledging the role of users and the strength of social constructivist theory, suggests that the approach to sustainable housing design process should include both the understanding of desirable environmental performance and the socio-economic context that can define (at certain level) resident behaviour. Furthermore, the Integrated Framework can serve as a communicational mean for architects/designers to explain and convey to clients the importance and benefits for involving user consideration in the design. In summary, the Integrated Framework has the potential to respond to the gaps between designers and users, and between clients and users, as addressed in Zeisel's model. 14.2.4 In architectural education The Integrated Framework attempts to address a comprehensive definition and systematic approaches to sustainable housing (architecture) design among plentiful but fragmented and contesting ones in current literature. In the Integrated Framework, architectural design is highlighted as a central role to receive and integrate innovatively inputs from both socioeconomics and environmental performance domains. In an educational context, the Integrated 328 Framework can expose architectural students to a larger but comprehensive consideration of sustainable architecture. In this way, the implication of the Integrated Framework is a response to the often-found educational method that has a distinct separation between design (and conventional approaches in architectural design), socio-economics and environmental performance. Borrowing Hagan's words (2003), the student design process in this educational method is described as: Students develop conceptual frameworks, which often have nothing whatever to with “the environment,” and simultaneously research aspects of environmental design on a need-to-know basis. Their intellectual inquiry is therefore both cultural and environmental, and the dialogue between the two generates the final design. The outcome, however, is limited by the nature of the input. Students may successfully research photovoltaics, reed bed water purification, and recycled materials, but they are not able to test either their empirical observations or their final decisions. In discussing the application of computer analysis and simulation of environmental performance dominating current architecture course, Hagan points out that: This is in some ways good—it’s rigorous, concrete, and enables students to see clearly which decisions are environmentally advantageous—and in some ways unsuccessful: students don’t have time to integrate the new practice into their established ways of designing. (Hagan, 2003) The Integrated Framework encourages and facilitates architectural students to engage in a truly interdisciplinary approach as early as during conceptual design stage. Furthermore, by understanding the meanings, contributions and implications of socio-economic driving forces, as well as of environmental performance to sustainable architecture, architectural students can engage in 'an open process of negotiation, criticism and debate' (as in the words of Guy and Farmer, 2001). 329 Jones, D. L. (1998). Architecture and the Environment: Bioclimatic Building Design. London: Laurence King. Kau, A. K., Tan, S. J., & Wirtz, J. (1998). Faces of Singaporeans – Their Values, Aspirations and Lifestyles. Singapore: Faculty of Business Administration, National University of Singapore. Kellert, R. S. (1999). Ecological Challenge, Human Values of Nature, and Sustainability in the Built Environment. In J. C. Kibert (Ed.) Reshaping the Built Environment: Ecology, Ethics, and Economics (pp. 39-53). Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Kent, S. (Ed.) (1990). Domestic Architecture and the Use of Space – an Interdisciplinary Cross-Cultural Study. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Kibert J.C. (Ed.) (1999). Reshaping the Built Environment: Ecology, Ethics, and Economics. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. Kishnani, N. (2002) Climate, Buildings and Occupant Expectations: A Comfort-Based Model for the Design and Operation of Office Buildings in Hot Humid Conditions (unpublished PhD thesis). Australia: Curtin University of Technology. Knox, P., & Ozolins, P. (2000). Design Professionals and the Built Environment – An Introduction. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons. Kohler, N. (1999). The relevance of Green Building Challenge: an Observer' s Perspective. Building Research and Information 27(4/5), 309-320. Kohler, N., & Hassler, U. (2002). The Building Stock as a Research Object. Building Research & Information 30(4), 226-236. 363 Larson, N. (2004). The Integrated Design Process. Working Paper of the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE). Lau, J. M., Lim, C. S., & Tay, H. H. (1993). Prefabrication for Public Housing Upgrading,. In Proceedings of Towards Buildable Structures Symposium - Singapore, May 1993. Lau, W. C. (1998). Renewal of Public Housing Estates. In B. Yuen (Ed). Planning Singapore – from Plan to Implementation. Singapore: Singapore Institute of Planners. Lawrence, J. R. (1987). Housing, Dwellings and Homes: Design Theory, Research and Practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. Lawrence, J. R. (1996). High-rise Housing Reconsidered from an Integrated Perspective. In M. Gray (Ed.) Evolving Environmental Ideals – Changing Way of Life, Values and Design Practices (Proceeding of the 14th International Association for People-Environment Studies Conference). Lawson, B. (1997). How Designers Think: The Design Process Demystified. Third Edition. Oxford: Architectural Press. Layard, A, Davoudi, S., & Batty, S. (Eds.) (2001). Planning for Sustainable Future. London, New York: E & FN Spon Press. Lee, P., & Nevin, B. (2003). Changing Demand for Housing: Restructuring Markets and the Public Policy Framework. Housing Studies 18(1), 65-86. Lee, S. E. et al (2001). An Integrated Building Environmental Assessment Method Using Total Building Performance Approach (research project). Singapore: Department of Building, National University of Singapore. 364 Lefebvre, H. (1997). The Everyday and Everydayness. In S. Harris, &, D. Berke (Eds.) Architecture of the Everyday (pp.32-37). New York: Princeton Architectural Press. Lenssen, N., & Roodman, D. M. (1995). Making Better buildings. In L.R. Brown et al. (Eds.) State of the World 1995. London: Earthscan. Leow, B. G. (2001). Census of Population 2000: Households and Housing: Statistical Release 5. Singapore: Department of Statistics. Lim, J. (2004). Integrating Water into the Housing Plan. Innovation: The magazine of Research and Techonology 4(3). World Scientific Publishing and National University of Singapore. http://www.innovationmagazine.com/innovation/volumes/v3n2/free/coverstory4.shtml Lim, S. W. W. (1979). Possible Impact of Cultural Values on Design of Public Housing in Singapore in the Nineteen Eighties. Singapore : DP Architects. Liu, Y. S. (2001). A Building Environmental Assessment Method for Residential Building in the Tropics (unpublished master dissertation). Singapore: Department of Building, National University of Singapore. Lyle, J. T. (1994). Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. New York: Wiley Press. Maclennan, D., & Bannister, J. (1995). Housing Research: Making the Connections. Urban Studies, 32(10), 1581-1585. Macnaughton, P., & Urry, J. (1998). Contested Nature. London: Sage. 365 Maiellaro, N. (2001). Towards Sustainable Building. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers. McKibben, B. (2000). Humans Supplant God; Everything Changes. Harvard Design Magazine, Winter/Spring 2000, Number 10. Melet, E. (1999). Sustainable Architecture: Towards a Diverse Built Environment. Netherlands: NAI Publishers. Mendes, T. M., & Scoffham, E. (2000). Planning for a Sustainable Housing Future – What Can We Learn from the Past? Housing Science 24(4), 275-281. Mendler, S., & Odell, W. (2000). The HOK Guidebook to Sustainable Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Moore, A. S., & Brand, R. (2003). The Banks of Frankfurt and the Sustainable City. The Journal of Architecture, Vol.8, 3-23. Mostaedi, A. (2000). Apartment Buildings. Barcelona : Carles Broto & Josep Ma Minguet. Naess, A. (1989). Ecology, community, and lifestyle: outline of an ecosophy. (Translated and revised by David Rothenberg). Cambridge, New York : Cambridge University Press. Neo, C. T. (2002). Engaging the Environment in a Developmental State: Nature Conservation and Household Waste Recycling in Urban Singapore (unpublished dissertation). Singapore: Department of Geography, National University of Singapore. 366 Noorman K.J. & Uiterkamp T.S. (Eds.) Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment and Sustainability. London: Earthscan Publications. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1988). Architecture: Meaning and Place. New York: Electa/Rizzoli. Oakley, D. (1961). Tropical Houses: a Guide to Their Design. London: Batsford. Oliver, P. (2000). Ethical building in the everyday environment: a multilayer approach to building and place design. In W. Fox (Ed.) Ethics and the Built Environment (pp. 115-126). London and New York: Routledge. Olweny, M. R. O., & Williamson, T. J. (Eds.) (1998). Environmentally Responsible Housing for Australia. Adelaide: School of Architecture, Landscape Architecture and Urban Design, the University of Adelaide. Ong, B. L. (1995). Designing for the Individual: a Radical Reading of ISO 7730 – Thermal Comfort for the Individual. In F. Nicot, M. Humphreys, O. Sykes, & S. Roaf (Eds.) Standards for Thermal Comfort: Indoor Air Temperatures for the 21st Century (pp. 70-77). London: E & FN Spon. Ong, B. L. (1996). Place & Plants in Architecture: An Investigation into the Phenomenon of Place, the Thermal Environment and the Significant Role of Plants (Unpublished PhD thesis). Cambridge: Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge. Ong, B. L. (1997). From Homogeneity to Heterogeneity. In D. Clements-Croome (Ed.) Natural Ventilated Buildings: Buildings for the Senses, the Economy and Society (pp. 17-34). London: E & FN Spon. 367 Ong, B. L. (1998). The Paradise Paradigm: An Ecological Account of the Development of Human Civilization. In A.F. Foo, & B. Yuen (Eds.) Sustainable Cities in the 21st Century (pp. 163-180). Singapore: Faculty of Architecture, Building and Real Estate. Ong, B. L., Cam C. N., Zhang J., Wang C. (2004). An Investigation into the application of Green Plot Ratio: The case study of One North. Research report. Department of Architecture, National University of Singapore. Ong, B. L., & Hawkes, D. (1997). The Sense of Beauty – Role of Aesthetics in Environmental Science. In D. Clements-Croome (Ed.) Natural Ventilated Buildings: Buildings for the Senses, the Economy and Society (pp. 1-16). London: E & FN Spon. Papps, P. (1998) Anti-social Behaviour Strategies – Individualistic or Holistic? Housing Studies 13(5), 639-656. Pearce, R. A., & Vanegas, A. J. (2002). A Parametric Review of the Built Environment Sustainability Literature. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, Special Issue on Sustainability and the Built Environment, 2(1), 54-93. Pepper, D. (1984). The Roots of Modern Environmentalism. London: Routledge. Perry, M., Kong, L., & Yeoh, B. (1997). Singapore: A Developmental City State. England: John Wiley & Sons. Pettersen, D. T. (Ed.) (2002). Sustainable Building 2002: 3rd International Conference on Sustainable Building. Norway: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction. 368 Phillips, C. (2003). Sustainable Place : a Place of Sustainable Development. Chichester, Hoboken, NJ : Wiley-Academy. Pitts, A. (2004). Planning & Design Strategies for Sustainability & Profit. Great Britain: Elsevier Architectural Press. Porteous, C. (2002). The new eco-architecture : alternatives from the modern movement. New York : Spon Press. Porteous, D. (1976). Home the Territorial Core. Geographical Review 66(4), 383-90. Prior, J. J., Raw, G. J., Charlesworth, J. L. (1991). BREEAM/New Houses Version 3/91 – An Environmental Assessment for New Homes. Watford: Building Research Establishment. Public Utilities Board (various issues). Public Utilities Board Annual Report. Singapore: The Public Utilities Board. Pugh, C. (1985). Housing and Development in Singapore. Contemporary Southeast Asia 6(4), 275-305. Rapoport, A. (1997). On the Relation between Culture and Environment. Aris 3: Colonization and Architecture (the Journal of the Carnegie Mellon Department of Architecture) http://www.cmu.edu/ARIS_3/rapoport/frameset_rapoport.html (Website retrieved on 30th July 2004). Rapoport, A. (2000). Culture and Built Form: a Reconsideration. In K.D. Moore (Ed.) Culture – Meaning – Architecture: Critical Reflections on the Work of Amos Rapoport. Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing Company. 369 Ratti, C, Raydan, D & Steemers, K. (2003). Building Form and Environmental Performance: Archetypes, Analysis and an Arid Climate. Energy and Building Vol.35, 49-59. ' Recycling Made Easy'in the Pipeline (article) The Straits Times, Singapore, 20 March 2003. Reed, G. W., & Gordon, B. E. (2000). Integrated Design and Building Process: What Research and Methodologies Are Needed? Building Research & Information 28(5/6), 325-337. Relph, E. (1993). Modernity and the Reclamation of Place. In D. Seamon (Ed.) Dwelling, Seeing, and Designing: Toward a Phenomenological Ecology (pp. 25-40). New York: State University of New York Press. Riaz, H. (1977). Families in Flats – a Study of Low Income Families in Public Housing. Singapore: Singapore University Press. Romice, O. (2003). Sustainable Design: A Question of Community (visual) Awareness. In G. Moser, E. Pol, Y. Bernard, M. Bonnes, J. A. Corraliza, & M.V. Giuliani (Eds.) People, Places, and Sustainability. Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Ruck, C. N. (Ed.) (1989). Building Design and Human Performance. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Rudlin, D. & Falk, N. (1999). Building the 21st Century Home – the Sustainable Urban Neighbourhood. Oxford: Architectural Press. Rudlin, D. (1995). Building to Last. Manchester: URBED / Joseph Rowntree Foundation. 370 Rudlin, D. (1998). Tomorrow: a Peaceful Path to Urban Reform. London: Friends of the Earth. Rudlin, D. (2001). Tapping the Potential: Measuring Housing Capacity. Planning Inspectorate Journal, issue 24. Saaty, L. T., & Vargas, G. L. (1982). The Logic of Priorities – Applications in Business, Energy, Health, and Transportation. Boston, Dordrecht & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Saaty, L. T., & Vargas, G. L. (1991). Prediction, Projection and Forecasting – Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Economics, Finance, Politics, Games and Sports. Boston, Dordrecht & London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Saegert, S. (1985). The role of housing in the experience of Dwelling. In I. Altman and C. Werner (Eds.) Home Environments: human behaviours and environment. Advances in Theory and Research, volume (pp.287-309). New York: Plenum Press. Scott, A. (Ed.) (1998). Dimensions of Sustainability: Architecture, Form, Technology, Environment, Culture. London: E & FN Spon. Shove, E. (2000). Questions of Comfort: Challenging Research and Practice in the Built Environment. Paper contributed to the ENERBUILD network, University of College Dublin. Sim, L. L., Lim, L. Y. & Tay, K. P. (1993). Shelter for All: Singapore’s Strategy for Full Home Ownership by the Year 2000. Habitat International 17(1), 85-102. Smith, F. P. (2001). Architecture in a Climate of Change: a Guide to Sustainable Design. Oxford, Boston: Architectural Press. 371 Smith, M., Whitelegg, J. & Williams, N. (1998). Greening the Built Environment. London: Earthscan. Sparkes, S. & Howell, S. (Eds.) (2002). The House in Southeast Asia: A Changing Social, Economic and Political Domain. London: Routledge Curzon. Spence, R., Macmillan, S. & Kirby P. (Eds.) (2001). Interdisciplinary Design in Practice. London: Thomas Telford. Stahel, W (1996). The Service Economy: Wealth without Resource Consumption? Royal Society Discussion Meeting – Clean Technology: the Idea and the Practice, 29-30 May, 1996. London: Royal Society. Steele, J. (1997). Sustainable Architecture: Principles, Paradigms, and Case Studies. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tan, B. L. (2003). Public Threshold Tolerance of Higher High-rise Living. (unpublished dissertation) Singapore: Department of Real Estate, National University of Singapore. Tan, S. Y. (1998). Private Ownership of Public Housing in Singapore. Singapore: Time Academic Press. Tan, W. (1993). Spatial Restructuring of Singapore 1819-1991. Sydney: Sydney University. Teo, P., & Huang, S. (1996). A Sense of Place in Public Housing: a Case Study of Pasir Ris, Singapore. Habitat International 20(2), 307-325. 372 Teo, S. E. (1989). Patterns of Change in Public Housing in Singapore. Third World Planning Review 11(4), 373-391. Teo, S. E. (1996). Character and Identity in Singapore New Towns: Planner and Resident Perspectives. Habitat International 20(2), 279-294. Teo, S. E., & Kong, L. (1997). Public Housing in Singapore: Interpreting Quality in the 1990s. Urban Studies 34(3), 441-452. Thia, L. C. (2002). Super High-Rise Living – 50 Storey HDB Flats (unpublished dissertation). Singapore: Department of Real Estate, National University of Singapore. Todd, A. J., Crawley, D., Geissler, S., & Lindsey, G. (2001). Comparative Assessment of Environmental Performance Tools and the Role of the Green Building Challenge. Building Research & Information 29(5), 324-335. Torres, M., Hasell, M. J., & Scanzoni, J. (2003). Co-housing as a basis for social connectedness and ecological sustainability. In G. Moser, E. Pol, Y. Bernard, M. Bonnes, J. A. Corraliza & M. V. Giuliani (Eds.) People, Places, and Sustainability. Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. Trippett, F. (1979). The great America cooling machine. In Times, 13 August 1979, 75-76. Turgut, H., & Cahntimur, A. I. (2003). Tradition, change and continuity: A Dialectical Analysis of Social and Spatial Patterns in Home Environments. In G. Moser, E. Pol, Y. Bernard, M. Bonnes, J. A. Corraliza & M. V. Giuliani (Eds.) People, Places, and Sustainability. Germany: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers. 373 Tzonis, A. (2004) Sustainable Social Quality, Rethinking Design Methodology (Keynote speech). In iNTA 1st international Tropical Architecture Conference Proceedings. Singapore: National University of Singapore. Tzonis, A., Lefaivre L. & Stagno B. (eds) (2001) Tropical Architecture: Critical Regionalism in the Age of Globalization. Chichester: Wiley-Academy. Ubbelohde, S. M. (2003). The Dance of a Summer Day: Le Corbusier' s Sarabhai House in Ahmedabad, India. Traditional Dwelling & Settlements Review 14(2), 65-80. Upgrading: Getting It Right from the Start. Houseword: HDB’s Corporate Newsletter, September 1990 Vol. No.48. Singapore: Housing and Development Board. Urban Redevelopment Authority (2003). Handbook on Gross Floor Area (2003 edition). Singapore: URA. Website: http://www.ura.gov.sg USGBC (2001). Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design – Rating System Version 2.0. America: U.S. Green Building Council. Vale, B., & Vale, R. (1991). Green architecture : design for an energy-conscious future. Boston: Bullfinch. Van der Ryn, S. (2000). Building Ecology: Place, People, and Pulse. In P. Knox & P. Ozolins (Eds.) Design Professionals and the Built Environment : an Introduction. Chichester : John Wiley & Sons. Van der Ryn, S. & Cowan, S. (1996). Ecological Design. Washington, D.C.: Island Press 374 Van der Wal, J., & Noorman, K. J, (1998). Analysis of Household Metabolic Flows. In K.J. Noorman, & T. S. Uiterkamp (Eds.) Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment and Sustainability (pp.35-63). London: Earthscan Publications. Van Diepen A.M.L. (1998) Spatial Aspects of Housing. In K.J. Noorman, & T. S. Uiterkamp (Eds.) Green Households? Domestic Consumers, Environment and Sustainability (pp. 101120). London: Earthscan Publications. Wang, W. (2003). Sustainability Is a Cultural Problem. Harvard Design Magazine, Spring/Summer 2003, No.18. Wells, M. (1981). Gentle Architecture. New York: McGraw-Hill. Wentling, J. W. (1995). Housing by lifestyle: the component method of residential design. New York : McGraw-Hill. Wilk, R. (1996). Economies and Cultures: Foundations of an Economic Anthropology. Oxford: Westview Press. Williamson, T., Radford, A., & Bennetts, H. (2003). Understanding Sustainable Architecture. London and New York: Spon Press. Wines, J. (1993). Architecture in the Age of Ecology. The Amicus Journal, Summer 22-3. Wines, J. (1997). Passages: the Fusion of Architecture and Landscape in the Recent Work of SITE. Architectural Design 67, 32-33. 375 Wines, J. (2000). Green Architecture. Köln : Taschen. Wong, K. A., & Yeh, H. K. S. (1985). Housing a Nation: 25 Years of Public Housing in Singapore. Singapore: Maruzen Asia. Wong, N. H. et al (2002) Natural Ventilation Studies of Public Housing in Singapore (research project). Singapore: Department of Building, National University of Singapore. Wong, N.H. et al (2002), Study of Rooftop Gardens in Singapore, Research Project. Singapore: Department of Building, National University of Singapore. Wong, N. H., Feriadi, H., Lim, P.Y., Tham, K. W., Sekhar, C., & Cheong, K.W. (2002). Thermal Comfort Evaluation of Naturally Ventilated Public Housing in Singapore. Building and Environment 37, 1267-1277. Wright, F. L. (1954). The Natural House. New York: Horizon Press. Yates, J. (2002). Housing Implications of Social, Spatial and Structural Change. Housing Studies, 17(4), 581-618. Yeang, K. (1980). A Theoretical Framework for Incorporating Ecological Considerations in the Design and Planning of the Built Environment (unpublished PhD thesis). Cambridge: Cambridge University. Yeang, K. (1995). Designing with Nature: the Ecological Basis for Architectural Design. New York: McGraw-Hill. 376 Yeang, K. (1999). The Green Skyscraper: the Basis for Designing Sustainable Intensive Buildings. New York: Prestel. Yeang, K. (2002). Reinventing the Skyscraper: a Vertical Theory of Urban Design. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Academy. Yee, A. A. (2001). Social and Environmental Benefits of Precast Concrete Technology. CONSPECTUS Technical Journal. Singapore: Housing and Development Board. Yeh, H. K. S. (Ed.) (1969). Homes for the People: A Study of Tenants’ Views on Public Housing in Singapore. Singapore: Statistics and Research Department, Housing and Development Board. Zeisel, J. (1984). Inquiry by Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Zeither, C. L. (1996). The Ecology of Architecture – A Complete Guide to Creating the Environmentally Conscious Building. New York: Whitney Library of Design. Website: BREEAM, UK: http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/ Department of Statistics, Singapore: http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/annual/yos.html http://www.singstat.gov.sg/papers/snippets/expenditure.html http://www.singstat.gov.sg/papers/snippets/water.html 377 Housing and Development Board, Singapore: http://www.hdb.gov.sg International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment, and Natural Resources Canada: http://greenbuilding.ca/iisbe/start/iisbe.htm http://www.buildingsgroup.nrcan.gc.ca/projects/idp_e.html#history http://greenbuilding.ca/gbc2k/teams/canada/posters/dundas/dundas-p.htm International Network for Tropical Architecture http://www.arch.nus.edu.sg/iNTA Ministry of the Environment and Water Resources, and National Environment Agency: http://app.mewr.gov.sg/home.asp?id=M1 http://app.nea.gov.sg Ministry of Finance, Singapore (Cut Waste: Suggestion and Reply): http://app.mof.gov.sg/cutwaste/suggestionview.asp?id=248 Next 21: Osaka Gas Experimental Housing http://www.arch.hku.hk/~cmhui/japan/next21/next21-index.html Public Utilities Board, Singapore: http://www.pub.gov.sg Urban Redevelopment Authorities, Singapore: http://www.ura.gov.sg U.S. Green Building Council: http://www.usgbc.org/LEED/LEED_main.asp 378 [...]... 14. 3 Towards sustainable public housing in Singapore In substantiating the main discourse of environmental performance and sustainable architecture, the thesis has revealed numerous negative as well as positive examples found in Singapore public housing development in terms of sustainable development (see Part III) They, in a way, have formed a 'discrete' review of how sustainable development has... immediate and practical lessons and contributions to the prospect of developing sustainable public housing in Singapore (section 14. 3) 14. 7 .4 Systematic approaches to sustainable housing performance and preliminary development of ArchSAM The systematic approach to each of the five sustainable housing performance issues (Part III) is the further development from the Integrated Framework Regarding land use efficiency,... issues The economic and social attributes of sustainable development can be better address at planning and master planning level This section looks into how the findings in this thesis can contribute to the shift towards architecture sustainable assessment and address the above two related issues 14. 5.2 Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method The Integrated Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and. .. interconnectedness of all three domains of sustainable architecture The compilation and organisation of the criteria from five sustainable performances (Figure 14- 3) forms preliminary structure of Architecture Sustainable Assessment Method (ArchSAM) ArchSAM has great potential in contributing to assessment practice of sustainable architecture through its advancement over current existing building environmental assessment... Framework for Sustainable Housing Design and Discourse The framework recognises the multidirectional pathways towards sustainable housing (Figure 5.1), and acknowledged the importance of interconnectedness among the three domains: socio-economics, architectural design and environmental performance 344 The Integrated Framework addresses sustainable housing in a more holistic and systematic manner The. .. household, and resident behaviour in Singapore public housing context, significantly outpace the attempts of environmental performance domain in its influences towards high sustainable housing performance Therefore, the role of education, public housing policies making, promoting and facilitating positive resident behaviours are important Thirdly, there are evidences that architectural design of public housing. .. activities to the endeavour towards sustainable housing The discussions on appropriate assessment criteria and influencing factors from all three domains to the 5 sustainable performances are developed further from the systematic approach Criteria for each sustainable performance are selected from both existing relevant environmental performance criteria, and newly-established criteria in reflecting the interconnectedness... environmental performance As described in GBTool 2005: 332 The Pre-Design phase assessment is intended to indicate the future potential sustainable performance of the project, based on the information available at the end of the Pre-Design phase." The Design phase assessment is intended to indicate the future potential sustainable performance of the project, based on the information available at the end of the. .. of sustainable architecture These criteria derived from extensive empirical analyses and discussions in Part III At the second strategic hierarchy, each of the sustainable performances comprises of the three domains of environmental performance, socio-economics and architectural design The influencing factors from each domain are also identified Figure 14- 3 brings together all the five separated diagrams... the endeavours towards sustainable architecture Although the above tasks are necessary, they are not all for architecture professionals Jones (1998) lays down the challenge: A sustainable architecture appropriate to the demands of the next millennium will not materialize solely through applying the remedies of revivifying building physics to the architecture of the last decade […] An enduring sustainable . and debate' (as in the words of Guy and Farmer, 2001). 330 14. 3 Towards sustainable public housing in Singapore In substantiating the main discourse of environmental performance. sustainable architecture and sustainable housing, as well as the escalating popularity of environmental performance assessment practice, the thesis has: – identified implication and weaknesses. revisiting and compiling the assessment criteria and influencing factors of the 5 sustainable performances (as established in Part III); and – Identifying agenda for future researches and concluding