<div class="csl-bib-body">
<div class="csl-entry">Pont, U., & Mahdavi, A. (2019). Subjective Evaluation of Sustainability and Attractiveness Criteria of Planned Buildings: A Case Study. <i>Applied Mechanics and Materials</i>, <i>887</i>, 374–381. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.887.374</div>
</div>
-
dc.identifier.issn
1660-9336
-
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12708/142381
-
dc.description.abstract
(no german abstract)
Architectural competitions are regarded an important way to find close-to-optimal solutions for given building design tasks. In recent years, sustainability criteria within architectural competitions increased in importance. However, the question how to cleverly integrate sustainability criteria into the required deliverables that architects have to provide in competition entries remains widely unsolved. Even if energy calculations or tabular data are stipulated, both meaningfulness and impact on the jury decision seem to be highly doubtful. This might be due to a number of reasons: First of all, architectural competitions regularly address early design stages. In other words, large uncertainties regarding construction assemblies, glazing properties, and HVAC-systems (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) persist at this moment, thus energy evaluations come with a high level of inaccuracy. Moreover, juries that evaluate competition entries regularly consist of domain specialists for the later building usage and architects, but not necessarily encompass energy efficiency specialists. This is understandable, given the multitude of requirements within building design, where sustainability is only one out of many. Furthermore, there is no common understanding regarding clear decision criteria pertaining to sustainability. Even if certain scalar KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are demanded, these numbers can regularly not describe the overall performance of a building design. Another important aspect is that entries to architectural competitions regularly are checked onto formal issues, but not regarding the plausibility of their content. As such, it cannot be expected that the winning and running-up projects of competitions automatically resemble the most sustainable projects. Literally, any sustainability or energy performance description has to be taken for granted, but can rarely be validated. Commonly it is argued that the winning projects of competitions are regularly the competition entries that show the most balanced mix of different attributes. This, however, is difficult to evaluate. In the present contribution we illustrate the methodology and results of a recently conducted empirical experiment. Thereby, we asked undergraduate and graduate students of architecture to subjectively evaluate a set of competition entries of a recent architectural competition for a high-density, low-energy residential housing project. The project entries were the winning project as well as the five runner-up projects. The students were provided with principle information about the competition and its principle goals and then had to rank the projects regarding different criteria. The comparison of this subjective evaluation was then compared with the competition result. Some differences between the jury's ranking and the subjective evaluation could be observed.
de
dc.description.abstract
Architectural competitions are regarded an important way to find close-to-optimal solutions for given building design tasks. In recent years, sustainability criteria within architectural competitions increased in importance. However, the question how to cleverly integrate sustainability criteria into the required deliverables that architects have to provide in competition entries remains widely unsolved. Even if energy calculations or tabular data are stipulated, both meaningfulness and impact on the jury decision seem to be highly doubtful. This might be due to a number of reasons: First of all, architectural competitions regularly address early design stages. In other words, large uncertainties regarding construction assemblies, glazing properties, and HVAC-systems (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) persist at this moment, thus energy evaluations come with a high level of inaccuracy. Moreover, juries that evaluate competition entries regularly consist of domain specialists for the later building usage and architects, but not necessarily encompass energy efficiency specialists. This is understandable, given the multitude of requirements within building design, where sustainability is only one out of many. Furthermore, there is no common understanding regarding clear decision criteria pertaining to sustainability. Even if certain scalar KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) are demanded, these numbers can regularly not describe the overall performance of a building design. Another important aspect is that entries to architectural competitions regularly are checked onto formal issues, but not regarding the plausibility of their content. As such, it cannot be expected that the winning and running-up projects of competitions automatically resemble the most sustainable projects. Literally, any sustainability or energy performance description has to be taken for granted, but can rarely be validated. Commonly it is argued that the winning projects of competitions are regularly the competition entries that show the most balanced mix of different attributes. This, however, is difficult to evaluate. In the present contribution we illustrate the methodology and results of a recently conducted empirical experiment. Thereby, we asked undergraduate and graduate students of architecture to subjectively evaluate a set of competition entries of a recent architectural competition for a high-density, low-energy residential housing project. The project entries were the winning project as well as the five runner-up projects. The students were provided with principle information about the competition and its principle goals and then had to rank the projects regarding different criteria. The comparison of this subjective evaluation was then compared with the competition result. Some differences between the jury's ranking and the subjective evaluation could be observed.
en
dc.language.iso
en
-
dc.publisher
Trans Tech Publications
-
dc.relation.ispartof
Applied Mechanics and Materials
-
dc.subject
General Engineering
-
dc.subject
perception
-
dc.subject
subjective evaluation
-
dc.subject
building performance
-
dc.subject
low-energy buildings
-
dc.subject
architectural competition
-
dc.subject
residential housing
-
dc.title
Subjective Evaluation of Sustainability and Attractiveness Criteria of Planned Buildings: A Case Study
en
dc.type
Artikel
de
dc.type
Article
en
dc.description.startpage
374
-
dc.description.endpage
381
-
dc.type.category
Original Research Article
-
tuw.container.volume
887
-
tuw.journal.peerreviewed
true
-
tuw.peerreviewed
true
-
tuw.researchTopic.id
E6
-
tuw.researchTopic.id
E1
-
tuw.researchTopic.name
Sustainable Production and Technologies
-
tuw.researchTopic.name
Energy Active Buildings, Settlements and Spatial Infrastructures
-
tuw.researchTopic.value
60
-
tuw.researchTopic.value
40
-
dcterms.isPartOf.title
Applied Mechanics and Materials
-
tuw.publication.orgunit
E259-03 - Forschungsbereich Bauphysik und Bauökologie
-
tuw.publisher.doi
10.4028/www.scientific.net/amm.887.374
-
dc.identifier.eissn
1660-9336
-
dc.description.numberOfPages
8
-
wb.sciencebranch
Architektur
-
wb.sciencebranch
Bauingenieurwesen
-
wb.sciencebranch.oefos
2012
-
wb.sciencebranch.oefos
2011
-
wb.facultyfocus
Öko-effiziente Entwicklung und Gestaltung der gebauten Umwelt und der räumlichen Ressourcen
de
wb.facultyfocus
Eco-efficient development and design of the built environment
en
wb.facultyfocus.faculty
E250
-
item.languageiso639-1
en
-
item.openairecristype
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
-
item.openairetype
research article
-
item.grantfulltext
none
-
item.fulltext
no Fulltext
-
item.cerifentitytype
Publications
-
crisitem.author.dept
E259-03 - Forschungsbereich Bauphysik und Bauökologie