@prefix vivo: . @prefix edm: . @prefix ns0: . @prefix dcterms: . @prefix dc: . @prefix skos: . vivo:departmentOrSchool "Applied Science, Faculty of"@en, "Architecture and Landscape Architecture (SALA), School of"@en ; edm:dataProvider "DSpace"@en ; ns0:degreeCampus "UBCV"@en ; dcterms:creator "Srivastava, Mohit"@en ; dcterms:issued "2009-08-14T23:22:01Z"@en, "2002"@en ; vivo:relatedDegree "Master of Advanced Studies in Landscape Architecture - MASLA"@en ; ns0:degreeGrantor "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:description """The basic intention of this study is to show that the research findings in the field of restorative environments can be used in the design of high-density housing to develop healthy living environments. This study explores the possibility that providing public, semi-public and private landscaped open spaces in and around the dwelling units, can improve the living conditions in a low-rise, high-density housing design. It is primarily concerned with the relationship which people in the high-density settings have with their outdoor environment and explores the possibilities of design and management of the nearby natural area in ways that are beneficial for people and appreciated by them. The study uses the literature on restorative benefits of nature and housing to develop criteria for the design and management of housings at high densities and illustrates the significance and implementation of the design criteria through comparative analysis of the existing and the proposed housing design."""@en ; edm:aggregatedCHO "https://circle.library.ubc.ca/rest/handle/2429/12245?expand=metadata"@en ; dcterms:extent "57805556 bytes"@en ; dc:format "application/pdf"@en ; skos:note "A Behavioural Approach to Design of High-Density Housing by Mohit Srivastava B. Arch. (Honors), Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India, 1997. A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF T H E REQUIREMENTS FOR T H E D E G R E E OF Master of Advanced Studies in Landscape Architecture (MASLA) in The Faculty of Graduate Studies (The Faculty of Agriculture Sciences, Landscape Architecture Program) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard T H E UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA February, 2002 © Mohit Srivastava, 2002. In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of AG^ lc u UTU R£ S c i E N c E CuA^OSCAPB A R C H \\ T t C T ue.£ f R o G* K Ar~0 The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date 14 t h F e k r u w r q , 2 -a m > 7J a x —\\ m o H C 7J m •o 71 O G) > o c •< o T l > O o c c m c/> o m o m m (D a —i o o £ 3 o + o _ (/> O r» + m tu o o 3 5 ! -o * o o O 3 O 3 o For a project of this scale, which was designed in 1968, using the revolutionary idea of combining high-density and low-density developments was an accomplishment in itself. In com-parison to the projects done in the more recent times, this existing project seems to fall short of the current expectations of density and floor space ratio desired of similar projects. How-ever, the major reasons why this site was selected for the study are: 1. The 22-acre site is seemingly big enough to be comparable to the study site. 2. The proj ect has a good mix of low-rise, low-density housing and high-rise, high-density housing, which are the target housing types discussed in the study. 3. The proj ect has considerable amount of open and green spaces and is comparable to the proposed solutions with existing conditions. The existing design consists of high and low rise buildings, accommodating approximately 676, l,2,and 3 bedroom units. The high-rise buildings accommodate 360 units in 4, 18 storey buildings, occupying an area of 2 acres at a net density of 180 dwelling units per acre. Each building houses 3, 1 bedroom and 2, 2 bedroom units on each floor. The units on each floor share a common elevator shaft. Each of the units is either facing north or south with the other end opening into the common lobby through an entrance door. The approximate area of each of the units varies from 700sq.ft to 1200 sq.ft. The group of high-rise buildings has a shopping center at the comer of 57lh and Cambia Street in addition to the outdoor swimming pool and an indoor fitness club. The low-rise houses consist of 1 and 2 bedroom garden apartments and 3 bedroom town houses. The 1 and 2 bedroom garden apartments share common entrance lobby from the staircase well. The town houses and the garden apartments are arranged around green open spaces, with the living rooms of the ground floor units opening into a paved patio overlooking the green spaces. The group of town houses and the garden apart-ments share 2 swimming pools located in close proximity to the units. 62 m ON The parking for all the units is provided in the basement with some on street visitors' parking. The site has 2 internal streets running from north-south with connection to the units other than those facing the streets through paved pathways (refer to drawing # E2 for the site layout details). Based on personal site survey and documented activities within the scheme, the following favorable and unfavorable aspects of the design were discovered. Favorable Aspects: 1. In terms of area, the design provides adequate amount of open space for the low-rise residences. 2. The design provides adequate living space within the units. 3. The layout and orientation of the units provides adequate sun, light and ventilation to most of the units. 4. The site layout provides a fair degree of security to the units. Unfavorable Aspects 1. The territorial boundaries of the scheme are too rigid and discourage interaction between the scheme and the neighborhood. 2. The units lack individual identities due to the absence of unique street address and a separate private entrance. 3. The territorial boundaries of the individual units are very vaguely defined thus discouraging the participation of the resi-dents in the personalization of the spaces. 4. The street network is very disjointed with no internal sidewalks, thus is not pedestrian friendly. 5. The green spaces provided are too big and loosely defined to encourage any kind of social or recreational activity. They act more as settings than useable space. 6. The network of pathways is not well defined. The proxim-ity of the pathways to the private outdoor patios discourages the use of the pathways and the patios. 7. Most of the shops provided in the commercial area do not serve the needs of the residents. 8. The large open spaces and extremely high number of topiary require very high maintenance. 69 SECTION V 5.01 Design Proposal 5.01.1 The Site 5.01.2 The Proposed Design 5.01 Design Proposal 5.01.1 The Site Analysis The primary focus of this design is on how to make the scheme work and provide a safe, social and healthy living environment. It has been suggested that one of the objectives of any design should be to create spatial layouts, which will provide for the activity patterns required by a set of building users to achieve their goals (Lynch, 1984). This involves an understanding of movement patterns, human physical dimen-sions, and the far more subtle uses of space such as territory and settings for interaction between people (Lynch, 1984). The purpose of the redesign was not only to provide higher densities, but also to provide them in such a way that the human/environment interactions positively benefit people's well-being. These design interventions are discussed in detail in Section III. In this section (V) the interactions are described but not analyzed. Other major considerations in addition to the human/environment interaction were: 1. To make sure that an inventory of all activities was made and places allocated for each activity. However, allocating a specific time for these activities seemed fruitless considering the varied demographics of the residents. 2. To separate unrelated activities from each other both in space and in time because it is extremely important to separate unrelated activities as much as possible, in both dimensions, so that they do not interfere with each other, not even accidentally. 3. To make sure that the layout of space reflects the relationships among activities. The more closely related that activities are functionally; the closer they should be in space. This is not merely for convenience; the layout of space can often point up relatedness that might not otherwise be obvious. Site Area : 22 Acres The site analysis of the proposed design is not much different from that of any traditional design project. Very basic site characteristics like orientation, accessibility, existing streets, pathways; surrounding amenitis and facilities have been docu 71 merited, in order to give an idea of the location and general context for the proposed design. (Refer Drawing # PI) 5.01.2 The Proposed Design Achieved density : 100 persons / Acre Site coverage : 45% Floor Space index : 1.1 Building height : max. 4 floors accessible to three floors Parking : 1 per Dwelling unit Area Provided : 350-400 sq.ft. per person Number of persons per bedroom : 1.5 The design consists of 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom and studio apartments. The units are arranged into 4-storey stacked row houses and are clustered around shared green spaces. Clustering ground oriented and high-density low-rise buildings around green spaces allows for multiple uses of these areas. One of the major aspects of the proposed design is the network of pathways and streets that facilitate the movement of the residents within the scheme. The streets run both north to south and east to west, with street side parking to accommodate visitors and residents of the units. Additional parking is provided in the basement with secure access to the units through a shared staircase. The units are arranged along the streets and have front entrances facing the street. Some of the favorable features of the proposed design are: 1. The scheme accommodates a higher density without compromising on the space requirements within the units. 2. The design seems to be well connected and integrated with the surrounding neighborhood through an elaborate network of streets, sidewalks and pathways. 3. The circulation network has a clearly ordered system of hierarchy and exposes the image of the whole development in as clear a way as possible. 4. The higher number of streets, sidewalks and pathways facilitate greater connectivity and multiple options for the move-ment of pedestrians, in a safe and vehicle free environment. 5. Every unit has a distinct street address and a well-defined front and back entrance. 73 c CD O o CO o > no m > 73 O Z H m o H C 73 m ~o 73 O Q 5 > O c o T3 O (D a. D CD c5\" 3 CO CD T? 5T Langara Gardens o T l > o 73 O c r~ H C 3) m CO O m z o rn CO •D ro CD CD O o CD CO CO c 3. w ~n 2 J\" CD 2: C Q co \" O —% o < Q.\" CD Q . 01 3 8 i t • £ «i £ — J 2 . 5 \" o O 0) —I -*• \"o zr C D \" O CD ° 3 -o 9- 3 5 3 3 CD CD 3 S-CD 3 £ o zr CD CT a> co CD 3 ZJ a. o 3 2 -CD a) to o. CD a. c 3 o zr o c CO CD CO K> a. to CD » g « CD CD ™ co o n> w o o — c cB cu -o. 3 CD O C\" I s w CO s i co r o I'D O (A CD Q . 0) K O CD — i 13 03. T3 0) 03 f I 03 3 -*< Cfl =J : O CD l l s s 3 CQ CQ ~ 03 Er 3 0 C L Q ; 2. CD ~ 5> 3\" Q3_ 3 7T C O 3 3 1 CD C T CT CD C CD ~ 3 O 3 ^ < £ CD ~ => CD * 5 CD | 1 3 o o S--*» Q3 03 O 8 8 i 0 C/3 Cfl Cfl W - r CD cfl 5? n n 0 Cfl w a o CT ~ 0 CD 3 03 =3' t—•-03 °- o Cfl C L CD Q3_ 7 T ' \"o cn —1 CD CD cfl 5 5 03 03 3 03 § 3 3 Q . 9L BP « ° 2 © CD _ en ^ 03 Cfl 03 —1 —s 03 3 CD CD C L Q3_ O 3 C Q CD CL 2 3 CD 03 -O 3 CD C Q \" TO Cfl CD 1—f CT CD o _7C 03 Cfl O O 3 o Cfl 5? o =3' C Q CD c 3 _ .— Cfl o 3 id CD • S £» 3 SL a I 8 I a = 3 c CO o a C/) o > m > 73 O jXj H m o —1 c 73 m •o 7J O O 2 3 3\" CD «° 03 Cfl —I O T J J O 03 CD CD O Cfl CD . Cfl Cfl Cfl CB oT i . W « Q3 cr a n CD CD \" CT Cfl C L ^ CD CQ £ 03 Qi 3 Q. \"O 03 a 9. M C L < CD O C CQ 3 \"* CD* \" ° ^ 03 Cfl CT 03 ^< CO o Q3_ 03 0 2 -h O Cfl 8 w CD 3 Cfl Q3 Si 55 co S o o 3 3 CD O z:' C Q 3 CT -3 CD O CD c§ 3 CD CD CD w 03 ~ ~ CT =! -a o O CT CD < 03 O CD 52 Cfl 8 o? > 3 Q W 3 CT CD 03 CD \"1 o cfl O T3 3 s-0 2 5 3 2. 3 Cfl w ^ g i n 8 S i I m 3 Cfl Z<° 03 3 S S 3- 5- 03 o S 3 -h O 03 =5 3 CT ^ C Q 0 O 0 C O C L - 5 — 1 — 2 . CD 3 0 Q 05 1 03 O cfl 3 CT ^ 0 CT 0 CD =5 Cfl 3 1 CD 2. S 2. ?? ^ I CL O c 3 1—* Cfl oT o a CD CD Cfl\" Q •a o 3 K3 0 CT CD ^ CO 0 ~ C Cfl c Cfl 3 . cfl 3_ S cn' CD Cfl 3 - 03 0 03 03 CD \" i 0 » 3 Cfl - i CQ Cfl 03 CD 0 3 03 £ CT - § 0 03 Cfl -, Cfl _ 3 n 03 JO?. 8 2-0 3 3 CD 0 a. c 3 w oT o 5' to CD 5' 0 —1 3 03_ Cfl r-t-— i 0 0 Cfl O ] 3 o 3 CD a) 3 -i T.o a 3 0) i s ^ ? ' \" 6. The design has a clearly defined hierarchy of private and public open spaces. 7. The landscape spaces are more intimate in scale; user-oriented and provide adequate opportunities for community interaction. The design does not provide some of the community facili-ties like swimming pools, shops and fitness area, which were provided in the existing design. The reason behind not providing these facilities is that the existing swimming and fitness facilities are economically very inefficient and require a lot of investment in terms of maintenance and the whole scheme has been designed to make the residents think of the neighbourhood as their amenity. As regards to the shops, they do not seem busy enough to be economically feasible. However, the design does have the capa-bility to accommodate such facilities if desired. 78 (Major rre (Major u <-» Acces w Acces s CD 3 co Strei Q. Strei o D O CO CD Q. a! CD 7T -CO o 3 CD 3 CO CD «•+ O 3\" CD - i o c 3 Q. O O c 3 r¥ co C CD O O CO O > m > 73 O X H m o H C m 13 73 O CD 5 > o c > CD O c cz 73 m co o m o m CO =2 o o «> < CT a P ps g pi 3* ci o 3 83 o o ct co QQ r. P. c e Oq 83 3 CD P K so 3 ro ro ~ so O S£ ro \"a —t o c CO CD C_ P. ci c« O & O H r* » 2 & o ft ft 83 o re — CD •I CB 83 CT- 3 R E± O &. o c g pi c — ro ro c q ro 3 P. Cj 83 -1 CD 5' re 3 83 3 fi. o H 50 o O ro ro CD r1 ri- CO o 03 cn n o — 5-rc o c q ru 3 C-ro 3\" O re o o o 3 CO 83 O ci o 3 3\" ro — -! <\" 83 *3 -a M o -a o •3 c *• rr ^ o H 3\" a Is Ci-p-ro o \"3 O cn ru a. 3 3 ro P-3 3 K\" 3 a-\"> & cVo 83 P. Ct o 3\" 83 CT5 3 er 83 Cr re CO ro r+ o p* 3-o\" — ro 83 05 3 — ft cr i-r ft J g C i-l 5. < co c 83 £ 5 B 3 o 3\" — 3 3\" 83 3 Er ro Q — o a s-p CD 80 O —1 a. a 3 1 ro c 3 Cr -a to B O 3 3 Z 3-o 3 3 — ro ro Co-3 Cr ct sr T3 c 3' mq B to o 3 5* \"3 80 O o 3-o ro 3' o — 80 O o KT to. OQ P rt-_ O 3 3-o 3 to c- ct P. ft — ro ro 3-ro 80 I § 3 o ct t+ 3 2 ro 80 3^ 80 5 3 ft 2 3- 3 O to 3 03 m -c r— 80 OH O c & ro 3 <^ Ct' o 3 3 ro 3 c — o ro & Pw c ro o SO 3 3 05 cr ro I Ct E &. GO 3 P. >< -! ro ro O 3 5 ro 3 p. 80 80 \"3 o 80 3 03 « 3 SO X I' o 3- «B 80 O 7T r— cr ro cr ro -1' d 3 C 3 3 P. cs o c 3 OS 80 3 a. r-f-Cr ro CO so 3 p. 83 i-f, e ft P - \"2 3 co ro ro H 00 ro o 0-3^ &' K er 2 OQ' cr ft 2 *> ro c cr ro so a 7-n P. so c 3 3 05 2 g P o O ft 3- ^ p to 0Q O sj 3 3\" C 3 ro ro so 03 3-Ct 3-ro o 3 q ft 3 r» 3 S^ V) so Q. < C r, so 3-ro ct o OQ 3\" c l ro a ro 3 O ro o 3 P. 3 3\" o s ' — • a. ro 3 er o 3 vo 5' 0Q ro o O r. 3 P. 63 5' 3 on O cr ro co 3 a P. 3' ro H O P* ~> cr 3r <^ o 3-ro 3 o ct o 3 q ct 3 -. a 3 a cr 3 n> o V § H 3 » 00 rH . I . 3 a p. p. Ct 3 =2 3 ro 3 ro ro P. cr '< 3* ro JQ er p ro cr p 03 3 to -J to Ct 2 3 3 \" c 3\" ro 3 3 P. O v; 8s' 3 t? ft o < ro m < ro 3 er o 3 05 ~ 3r ro 3 3. C-ro co 05' 3 O 3-ro — —I O — o co Ct P. CO-ro co 05' 3 sj 83 • • • • • • CO O ZT CD 3 CO CD o 3* to C T3 13 CD CD < CD C zs SECTION VI 6.01 Analysis 6.01.1 Site Design 6.01.1(a) Site Plan 6.01.1(b) UnitDesign 6.01.2 Circulation Network 6.01.2(a) Streets & Pathways 6.01.2(b) Views and Vistas 6.01.3 Open/Green Space Layout 6.02 Discussion 80 6.01 Comparative Analysis of Existing and Proposed Design This section deals with the analysis and synthesis of the proposed design to bring forward the positive and negative aspects of the recommendations in the study. For the purpose of comparison, the section has been divided into 3 basic aspects of the design: 1. Site Design; 2. Circulation Network; 3. Open / Green Space Layout. 6.01.1 Site Design Each of these aspects has been analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative figures cannot be considered as the sole indicators of the effectiveness of the criteria. However, when viewed in conjunction with the qualitative aspects, it can give a fair idea of the efficacy of the design recommendations. Keeping that in mind, each of the above aspects has been divided into a quantitative and a qualitative section. The first part in each section compares the existing and the proposed designs on the basis of numerical data, followed by a qualitative/visual analysis. In the qualitative section the two designs are compared on the basis of the visual characteristics of similar settings in each of the designs. The visual comparisons are aimed to show the specific characteristics of the designs, which make one design better from the other. The visual section consists of comparative sketches and drawings of the existing, the proposed and a repre-sentation of the existing spaces altered to suit the needs of the residents based on the design recommendations. The numbers on the element in the images, in the qualitative section refer to the numbers of possible design solutions listed in the design criteria section (Section 3.3). These design criteria were developed after extensive literature review. The descriptive part of the qualitative section is intended to explain the overall significance of those proposed design solutions in relation to the design. The site and its design are crucial aspects of any commu-nity environment. The site design has biological, social and psychological impacts on the residents. It sets limits to the 81 things that people can do, and makes possible their doing what they otherwise could not (Lynch, 1984). However, that does not mean that lots of space is always desirable. Robert Sommer has pointed out that there can be too much space, too little space, or the wrong kind of space, and that each of these conditions is affected by the number and kind of people using the space and the task being performed (Sommer, 1972, in Lang et. al., 1974). This section looks at the overall aspects of the site design, which play a major role in determining the activity patterns and the usage of the site. The specific details of the components of the site design are discussed in the subsequent sections. For the purpose of comparison, this section has been subdivided into: 1. Site Plan This part looks at the overall design and the impact of specific design decisions related to the site layout. It looks at the overall layout of the units, streets, pathways and green spaces; 2. Unit design This section is very specific to the design of the internal and external spaces of the units and their relation to the immediate surroundings. 6.01.1(a) Site Plan Quantitative: Existing Proposed Site Coverage 25% 40% Density (DU/acre) 30 60 Floor Space Ratio 0.76 1.1 Total # of units 676 1100 # of Street Access 3 7 # of units / cluster 40 24-28 % of ground oriented units 20% 35% Total Street Length (m) 500 1300 Pathways (m) 2000 6000 Street Intersections (#) 3 13 Total Parking (#) 1000 1000 Green / Open Spaces (acres) 13 8.5 82 As is evident from the above table, the proposed design does seem to be superior to the existing design in terms of higher numbers, although higher numbers do not necessarily prove the superiority of the design. However, they do indicate certain other relationships, which when viewed in the light of the quality of the spaces might indicate a certain degree of superiority of the proposed design. Some of these positive indicators are: 1. The proposed design has achieved almost doubling of the density of the existing project without the use of high-rise towers. 2. The higher number of people sharing smaller more easily accessible green spaces means more usage and more social interaction within the site, thus indicating that the proposed design would be safer and cheaper to maintain. 3. Smaller green spaces with a higher number of pathways can be an indication of smaller subdivided green spaces, thus providing an opportunity for greater variety of spaces and creating interest in the landscape. 4. The greater number of streets, sidewalks and pathways indicate the possibility of better connectivity within the site and outside the site. 5. The lower number of units per cluster, indicates a greater possibility developing a sense of group ownership, thus making the units and the outdoor spaces safer and easier to maintain. Qualitative : refer Drawing # P6 In order to show the superiority of the proposed design we need to see the comparison between the quality of spaces in the two designs. For example, consider Drawing # P6, which shows a plan of the proposed design. In addition to achieving a higher density and site coverage, the design also succeeds in satisfying the design criteria established in the Section 3.03. To give the reader an overall picture of the quality of the site design, the following are some of the positive aspects of the proposed design: a. The narrow peripheral streets (1,2)* flanked by trees (3, 5), connect the housing with the neighbourhood and at the same time maintain the all important threshold between the two by 83 providing a perceived material difference in terms of the trees used along the edge and the trees used along the internal sidewalks (5). b. The multiple major street access into the site(24) gives a sense of equal importance to all the units, thus encouraging a sense of community attachment and also increasing the accessi-bility of the various parts of the scheme. c. The greater number of streets with sidewalks improves the connectivity of the various spaces within the scheme and encourages pedestrian movement. d. The streets are oriented in the NS and EW directions (49) thus assisting in the movement of pedestrians and vehicles through the site. e. The unit layout and orientation, provides individual street access to all the units (25) and clearly defines the public and the private domains of the scheme (61). Note: Refer to pp. 85, 86, 87 & 88 for specific design solutions. * the numbers in the brackets refer to the numbers of the possible design solutions under the design criteria section (Section 3.03). 84 m x ' H I 3 CD 0) • • H I CD D CD cn CD c 03 O D CO o > TJ m > 73 O X —\\ m o H C 73 m 73 o o g 9 O 73 C ZS 0) «< o c 3 2. o 5. CD o • • CO CD 0 2- => ,? cz S | CO CD b cn co _. w zs CD O Q) =f CD CD a CD 3 CO r * § CD H i CD ^ W CD zr CD zs c 3 cr CD —\\ CO CD a CD CO CQ' Zi > o C > O 73 O c q c 73 m co o m z o m CO CD O g. co' CD CD i—t-CO CD zs —I zr CD c zs CD o 5\" o. < CL' cz CD CD O CD <^ cn ^ n- CT O CD E r S » g 2. zr CD O CO = : -h T3 \" r i - CD CD CD r- CO -5 _ . zr 5. co CD CO CO CD I s zs CQ »* zi =;-• CD 03 3-=fi o CD =1, CO CD _. CD ZS <^ Cfl is CD Q . CD •D O Z! T3 < CD CD ZS O ' < Q ZS zr -4 c zr 3 CD CD O ZS TJ CD CO ZS o CO CD CD pa CO o zs CD a_ CO zr an CD' CL T3 — * o CD zr zr '•< o —h •< T3 CO — < ' CD CD O O 7T >< CL CO —h 3 zr CD W TJ CD O CD O CO < CD -2 CD CO CO CD zs o CD zs o o cz —1 CD CQ CD CD O CD O Q CD CD , „ CO CO CO O CT ** E-: CD *< CQ as CD zs co Q - CD f 3 CD ^ S 8 § I CD o O = • 2 CD SS O CD cz — z>. zs ^ C Q - CD CD CD CO zr ~ ~ o 0 CL CL —h CD CD «—«- CO CO ) CD CQ' CQ' zs ZS CD -CO T3 5' r i -0 CD zr O f—1-03 rve 0 ' zr zs CD whi tion ffec 0 CO 1—t-zr - i—t-zr 3 he CD CD he < 3 cn CD r-r c cr a' —5 0 0 sen ied ess CQ ab 0 —h ZS 0 I F * 0 < zr —I CD CD CD Q . CO O r—t-CD 0 ZT -1 CD me CD —\\ o CD < CD CD 3 CD 9 ZS CD O CD CD £ -1 CD O 3-O 03 J5\" =5' r i - CD CD cn CD O X - h co\" o. =f. CD zs cn CQ CQ' zs cn < 3 ' CD_ c 7 H 5. ° 8 CD 82 w ^ C Q zs 11 CD cn CQ O CD 3 CT ® CD-S CD C3) O CD V cn o zr CD CD o !Z zr < CD O =2. —^ r-1-cn cn _ T3 CD O CD CO ^ CD \"55 CO X3 ~— CD s | - co o' zr zr CD CD CD cn Q-c 5' !^ CD Q cn CT CD » CO CD CD CD •< CD O o CD cn co T3 CD O •a CD T3 —t CD Q . o' 1—h CD CD-CD CD TZS 3 Ef 11 z! cn § 03 3 3 3cE » CD —^> Q . 3 o ^ 3 -» 0 =t CD CD O T3 == g I S 3 H 8 ^ ^ n 0 o 0 \"a § ffi 3 3 r - S2 c« § \"S ho O T3 0 O 3 CD CD ZS Q O CZ —^ CD CQ CD I—* zr 0 C CO ro o < CL CD Q cn CD T3 CD-CD CQ Q CD CD cn cn ^ W \"It S-U ° g. o cn - • CD X CD H 3 zr-D CD CD CD X ^ zr CD CD CQ CO ® o I § S 3 8S O CQ Z3 CD r r CT CD zs' CQ CO — ^ Zi' CQ CL CD co CQ' zs zr CD CO CO O =t T3 CD 3 CD CD CT CD CD n 3 H 3. * ~ 0 Z § Er « S. => - z «=> ® % o CD CD - n 2+ CD CT CD X CD 1 S- CD cn 5\" x 5\" CQ cn CD rzr. o. Q . zs CD CQ 3 2. Q . Co'g ro CD cn 2- S - C Q 5 CD zs cn = o S. =r W jo CD - n ^ CD T1 cn c DO O r -> Z D C/i O > TJ m > 73 O I —\\ m o H C 73 m TJ O CD > o c > CD O <= q c m tyj o m z o m c/> 2- z CD o CQ\" * 3 • • cfl =! o 5T - CD cfl 3 W 2\" CD 2 2- cfl i\" 5 ' 9-co o' b a CO CD W CL Ef o 03 3 Cfl 3 CQ 3 cfl 2 L? ° CD Cfl CD Z5 C CT CD —1 Cfl o CD L o < o CO <\" T5 FT SL m r * -1 0) 3 O CD CD o CD -t CL CD 3 > TJ co 3 CD 3 Cfl CT =t CO CD m CD Q_ g Cfl ^ J 01 J § CD1 CD 2 CQ 0 \" c f CD CD g 03 CO 3 , 3 q CT CL CD O L? j * §• 0 — O rt Q3 3 5 3 g Cfl\" 2 2 O Cfl 3 - 1 0 O 0 rt-O ffl 3 CL E. 0 IT. c CT ® 0 O 0 Cfl 8 % a $ 1 5} 2 g. 03 a 3 O XJ < 0 —\\ 3 0 0 03 —s CD 3 O Cfl CL CD ? 03_ Cfl 03_ o 3 CQ 0 Cfl f—t-—t CD 0 i—*-Cfl 3 CD O c 03 q -3 0 Cfl Q3 w 2 58 g - 3 ^ 3 CQ 03 N3 0 V CL C a 3 ' CQ • 0 < - , 0 o T3 CD —1 O CD < 0 Q-CL 3 CD —I O 23 CL 9L 0 o 0 3 ^ CQ CO 2\" ° -0 0 3 5 s 03 0 3 Cfl Q. ^ ac? 8 & CT 0 0 0 _. 03 3 3 CL Q3_ > 6\" Cfl i f < 0 c 2-03 0 — Cfl 03 CD' 8 3 I I CO 0 si 03 CT 3 o\" O- 3 3 o 03 \"* IT 3 »—I- — . CT Q. 0 5 -q: CQ 3 m 3 3 o 2 Q_ CD Cfl 3 o f 2 $ CQ CD CD 0 ^ 3 W 0 3-Cfl o\" 0 0 Cfl z j Q. 2- CD 2\" CD _ 0 ^ ! 0 q. & ft ® ^CQ 0 03 g\" CT'O i CT < Q_ g O 93 ° a CT 2 ^ a Q. CT < cfl g. 0 S\"CQ CD 0 CD 3 0 j r * ~ § 3\" CL ^ 0 0 CT _ | = O Q- o c 03 < Cfl Q- gco O 03 Q3 O — 3 3 o o. \"D\" _ r + —1 T3 3-O CT CD 5. CO 3 (S F a co aco. S * 03 -T 0 0 o0 fl Cfl Cfl 03 C? 3 O c 3 ' CQ • CT q w' 2 0 S\" O =i 5 : | CT 0 §\" CD -, _~ 0 cfl 2 CQ\" g. ^ CT Cfl CT O Q CD 0 3 _. 0 Cfl 3 CQ 03 —1 0 03 Cfl CQ «-*\" —r 8 I Cfl c § 2 ocB o 0 S 2 \"° s > r+ _, -t> £0 03 03 3 3 o < O) CD s— a - i q CT 0 0 a ^ Cfl -j 0 3 ^ O CL - * 1 0 2-3 2-o 0 2 I 2 a 03 CQ CO 0 Q3 5 o c^E \"2 a 2 ? 2- CD 0 Cfl c DO O D co O > TJ m > 73 O X —\\ m o —i c 73 m TJ 73 O CD 2 > O c o -n > CD 73 O c q c 7 3 m co o m o m co o \"D O (/> CD a 0) M M • CD D CD (/> CO 3 3 co << o CO oo oo CO o • JL 'ST CD O 5' 3 CO b co 2 CD ° H Ef CT CD CD II ST CT CD CD 00 cn O =• —h 3 =t j» Q. CD 8 9- CD CD Q_ cn f s 0 r~f 3 CD Q. CD cn co' 3 CD CT 03 9 O 73 H X cn ^ o •< | a 3 ~ CD 03 CD 03 3 § c* cn CD W 3 03 CD O f s o ~ 2 3 CT 3 2 SS O 3 Q - CD 03 H 3 3 O - CD CT 0 2 1 0 CT O\" S 2 cn 0 0 3 3 0 1 r CD 2 i \" 9. CD & m ST cn 0 << 0 C CT —I cn 0 3 -8 2 J If ?g o 2 w CL 5 0 CL O cn 'p-CT k 03 a ° O. cu 0 O -cn c ~ cn 0 0 3 3 CL 0 S s 0 o M 2 w 2-*•* 0 5\" 3 3 — « * 0 3 CL 03 0 8 2 . 0 CL cn 0 2 . $ CT 03_ 0 O rt- 0 ° \"S o 0 3 I Q3 0 0 0 3 0 3 i—h cn a CD 3 a 03 _ . 0 3 3 0 0 _ 3 0 2 3 0 CL —^. cn -j o O &3 •35 -a 0 u w 0 'oi cn CO T3 »— Q3 0 O 3 0 CL cn 03 0 CD 0 3 O 0 O CL cn _ . 0 3 CT 0 z; N 9 0 I 0 2. II If 0 3 *< CO cn «—t-O 0 3 O O c —1 03 CQ 0 r—>-3 CD C cn CD 1 3^ g . CD a s 03 3 *< o 0 < *< 0 cn 3 0 g 3 0 O o o 3 3 o Q-03 5' 0- m Q- m 23 — 0 o 1 1 & 0 2 ^ 0 2 o ^. 0 0 o 3= I S ® I 2-C CT i f - ? 0 < < (0 u 3 W 0 Q- m Q. CT CD 0 3 2 CQ CD 3 0 3 o o \" - 2 ^ 0 0 0 i—»-cn 52. m 3 a 8 3 S- 0 3 S\" 8 8 CT cn CD C £ l a 0 O O 3 - * CD § cn. II CT 3\" 3\" 0 < 0 n ? 5 0 CD 3 CT a s 00 CT q o CD S2 CD 0 <-i- Q . 0 ~ cn 3 - C Q -3\" 3 CQ' 3 CT 0 0 0 a CD CT -i 0 — -> 0 acB • 0 cn Q ' 3 J • a CT 5' - 1, . i l k \" A JPT' ## i # ,JpM JMh •' MSB '1 • • CT CQ CD * O\" zr c 0 I 2. =t 2-ca CD 1 Q I -o I «. o IT C CD CQ _. IT £ ^ CD CO —i «-* 3 3 9L 5> CT °2 S o CO 3 ^< 3 cn CD o < CO £ 3 CD Ct Q- a 5' CD' zr •* CD X3 ^ 3T o >< 3 2. 3 o 0) 3 CD < Cfl' c 03 CD Cfl CO •° 8 co S 0 « CO -h _ —i- ^ i I 03 O o Cfl o 3 ? 8 ° ST < a § X3 — i O CD CD 3 3 03 3 f—t-03 Cfl CL CD 0 5\" f 2 3 ' a o ac r—t-O c/> <—*-—\\ Th C 3 ces the eet CD c Cfl Cfl c Cfl 3 oT Cfl I—•-3_ 1 »• Cfl 0 . CD Cfl 3 Q CD 03 03 CD Cfl rra cb~ 03 —i he 3 Cfl -i — . Cfl 03 3 led D —i 3 CQ i—t-0 —1 03 Cfl 0 3 CD CL 03_ o 3 3 3 Cfl CQ 03 —l —1 o o 0 the ka ws CD cn 3 Cfl o o oT 03 o o' 3 3 ' CQ CT 03 E? CD 0 CL i 0 3 = Cfl CD ~ CT< O 0 cfl 5 3 0 X J 3 03 o < 2 QJ JD 3 03 T3 3 O Ef 3\" 3 ^ 0 ES 0 •< Cfl 0 3 2. 3 Q. O CD 03 03 8 * 8 a Cfl o 3 • c -a CQ 3 . 3 < « ?i 0 Cfl = \"§ o 0 cj-a 9: 0 3 Cfl CQ g-03 0 3 Cfl a - c r CZ. 0 O 3 c§ 3 , 3 03 03 Q3 E? 5 5* ' 0 a 0 3 CL 0 O 0 < Cfl o o 3 3 0 a CQ =• Er cfl ® s Cfl — CL 03

03. 0 O Q3 \"\"1 —1 0 S 0 3 S CQ ^ CD ffl Li a 0 O a $ 0 Cfl 5T o 3 CQ 3 0 0 0 1—t-Cfl g 3 0 cb~ Cfl Cfl 0 —1 Cfl 0 i—f-3 0 n 0 cn o o 3 X3 0 —\\ 0 CL 3 0 cz Z3_ r—f\" Cfl 03 —i —1 03 3 CQ 0 CL C 3 0 O 3 Q 0 5' 0 —1 3 Q3_ Cfl «-t-—1 0 0 I—»-Cfl 3 _ , CQ 0 ZT C 0 Cfl CL 0 03_ Er £ CD 9-o\" 0 - Q_ 0 0 0 9= 3 ' 3 3 CQ 0 3 CL 3 0 5* —1 3 9 \"2 < z; <' cfl g Q3 C a 0 CD — Cfl 03 X3 O 0 2 0 Cfl 0 ^ 0 « . O - * 3 C Q3 0 CQ O _ . Z T 0 3 _ . 0 5T CT Cfl 2 a Cfl 3 3 ^ £. S 3 — 03 O CT »< c 0J. Cfl CQ CT O CT S O 0 3 *< 3 Cfl 0 O a o Q CD 0 Cfl Cfl 03 ZT Ef O 03 g o w 3 SS C7 rt • l S\" CT 3 cn Q3 ~ « 3 9-CT i. 2 0 3 ? g S\" a 3 ' ? °- o ac r* O str Th ce 3 0 0 0 Cfl 0 c Cfl C Cfl 3 Cfl (-»-3_ 1 1— Cfl 0 Cfl 0 CD 0 03 —1 0 Cfl rra 0\" 0 —1 3 Cfl —\\ CQ Cfl 0 led CD 3 led —1 CQ 0 cn 0 0 CL 0 _. 3 CT 3 CQ 03 —s O 0 zr 7? 0 0 Cfl 3 Cfl —h CO 0 QJ CO O O ' —1 3 3\" CQ T3 03 0 0 CL 6.01.1(b) Unit Design and Layout Quantitative: Existing Proposed Unit Sizes (sq.ft.) Studio NA 450 1 Bedroom 727 &770 700 2 Bedroom 948 &990 1050 3 bedroom 1450 NA Unit set backs(ft) 20 20 # of Access to outside 1 2 Frontyard(sq.ft) 0 120-150 Backyard/ Balcony(sq.ft) 70(patio) 120-150 Amount of open space / unit 680 320 (Common open space) % of units with easy access 35% 100% to common open spaces % of Ground oriented Unit 15% 35% From the table above, it is more than clear that the proposed design meets the space requirements / standards of the existing. The area allocation of the various spaces like the bedroom, living, dining and kitchen, are more or less equal to that provided in the existing design (Also refer Drawing # E4, E5, E6 & P4). In addition to the internal spaces, the proposed design seems better than the existing design in terms of the subsidiary outdoor spaces, like the front yard, backyard, patio, etc. and the accessi-bility of the outdoor spaces. Qualitative: Even though both designs are comparable in terms of the size of spaces, there are certain distinguishing qualities of the proposed design that make it superior to the existing design. Consider Drawing # P6, which shows the proposed layout plan. For specific details of the units, also refer to the drawings P3 and P4. The major highlights of the proposed design are: a. All the ground oriented units have a distinct front and back entrance (61)*, and all the units on upper floors have front 89 patios and balconies (52) with major living areas. b. The front and back entrances open into the front and backyards, which act as a buffer (59) between the private and the public domains, thus maintaining the level of privacy desired within the units. c. The steps leading to the front and backyard act as symbolic boundary between the public and the private spaces (27). d. The shrubs and trees define the territorial boundaries of the units, in addition to providing visual privacy for the private internal spaces (27). e. The units are also in close proximity to and have easy access to the communal open spaces (53). Note: Refer to pp. 85, 86, 87 & 88 for specific design solutions. * the numbers in the brackets refer to the numbers of the possible design solutions under the design criteria section (Section 3.03). 6.01.2 Circulation Network The pathway system affects communication and interaction between people. One prime way to encourage contact between neighbors is to put them on a common pathway, with which their dwellings have frequent visual contact and upon which their entrances visibly open (Cooper, 1975). The circulation network mentioned in the site design and layout section deals at a macro level looking at the street patterns and layout on a site plan level, i.e., road lengths, their contribution in the layout of the site within the neighborhood, and the possible movement patterns. This section concentrates at a more micro level, i.e., looking at the dimensions and design characteristics of the streets, sidewalks and pathways. It looks at the relationships between the units and the circulation network and the distinctive features of the network. This section is divided into 2 parts: 1. Streets, Sidewalks and Pathways This part includes a comparison of the streets, sidewalks and pathways in terms of their size, character and integration with the adjacent spaces. 2. Views and Vistas Views and vistas are an essential aspect of a housing scheme. This part looks at the distinguishing characteristics of good views and vistas in the context of a successful circulation network. 6.01.2(a) Streets, Sidewalks and Quantitative: Pathways Existing Proposed Street dimensions Right of Way (m) 18 18 Carriageway (m) 12 6 Sidewalks (m) 1300 On street Parking (#) 100 250 Street Trees (#) 1 / parking Street Lights(#) 1 / parking 91 Some of the major things evident from the table above are: a. The street length within the site has been considerably increased. b. The basic dimensions of the streets and pathways have been maintained. However, the allocation of spaces across the streets has been changed to meet the needs of the residents. c. The number of street elements has been increased. Qualitative: The numbers in the table indicate some positive aspects of the street design, but in order to show the positive qualities of the proposed design consider drawing # E8 and P7, which show the circulation network layouts; and images on pages 94 and 96. Some of the distinguishing features of the proposed design are: a. The network of streets, sidewalks and pathways is well connected, has a clearly defined hierarchy (54) and accommo-dates the predictable pattern of pedestrian movement (44) to improve the circulation within the scheme. b. The trees along the streets, give a strong definition to the streets (11, 8). The tree canopy also defines a more intimate and pedestrian friendly sidewalk. c. The different material treatment for the parking lane and the streets (6) acts as an effective traffic calming device (40) in addition to giving a perception of a narrower street (55). This reduces the perception of wide separation between the 2 sides of the streets and encourages across the street interaction. d. The streetlights (35) make the streets safer at night, in addition to distinguishing the internal streets from the neighbourhood streets. e. The sidewalk, parking and pathway system has been designed as part of the green spaces thus making them more intimate and pedestrian friendly. Note: Refer to pp. 93, 94, 95 & 96 for specific design solutions. * the numbers in the brackets refer to the numbers of the possible design solutions under the design criteria section (Section 3.03). 92 m x 55\" 3 CD o o c_ a> M B o CD o c DO O a co o > -o m > 73 o X H m o —i c 73 m T3 73 O O ? 9 O 73 —I X > o c > o o c q c 7J m co o m z o m co o < ft Q) CO 0 Q) S £ Cg CD CD rs co O cr co —I c o i—h CD CL CT c Zi CL c CD CZ CO CD 0 3 m Q3 CD CD g. 5 ' « . CD <§ CB —j-g. CD 5 ' CL CQ QJ < 3 ro T3 £ CD 2 ° O T3 3. T3 S o a §• CO 3 r—f f—f-«. o zr ro 52. cp_ CD CD CD ro CD a § = i ia g c ? ^ O\" O CD O O CD C ZI ZL ZI CD 03 O 3 ==-. Q_ CO o o P- o 3 CT CD CD CO II CD 3 3 03 O < CD CD 3 o> 3. 1=1 3 O CQ -g_ < CD CD «-•5 |-Q. =r. P =? £; CD CO ro 03 ' 3 CL ~ o Z 3 3 O 3\" °_ S CD o CO CO =C CD CD v< CD CD >< 03 CO CD =£ CL H m 03 zr ro 0 ro M. \"o CO 3 03 CD CO m 03 3 \"R * iii. co CD CD i C7 o' CO - 03 5«. 5 - 5 ro o. ro q CO 03 2 CD CL O CD g • 3 ro co *3 3 CD CD O < 3 «• CD Q \"O O O 03 \" 5- O o o 3 CO o 9 CO S 3 CO CD 3 «• CO 03 -• —i 3 CO S 03 » 3 ^ Q. =ft | l CD CQ r> <^ Q. _ . C 3 ro r i - n-zr o CD r r — 3 03 CD 3 _ CL CD CO O • <5 2 \" ° CD 03. 3 I 03 5 — 03 CZ *< 2 w CO 2 CD o 7T O CD \"O CD CL 3 CD O Q. =r. ro 3 =f! CQ o' 0 3 CO 3 S CL 0 Q. CO ° O 3 O i i i 1 2. o • 3\" Q_ ° o CD 3 _. CO =s £ CQ\" 3\" Q 3 0 O 3 CZ Q. a s s 0 S 3 0 03 \"2 CD 2. 03 03 3 CO \"< r l -3 . CO 03 CL Q3_ 3 0 0 0 3 03 03 CO — >< CO 0 —I fll 3\" CT 0 g 0 03 ?Z-. CD CD_ < CD CD 3 w o co £ CD CD ZS -i CL 03 -• o o CD 0 g. 3 3 0 CQ co co CO CD r i - O O 03 CD C 3 2. co ?c CQ o => CL T3 O 0 0 3. CO 3\" = 0 2 2 3 zr to — 03 CO < O \" CD II 03 CD CO £ ± 2 3 CO c ro o •D —\\ 03 3\" =f CD CO CO 5?- o CO CD —| 0) 3 =T CO g CD g \"D t l CO CO 3 = < CO o 3 9 * CO CQ CD CD CD o ~ 03 CD =T O CO CD CO CO CO' Ef ! f O 5 ' 03 03 03 •< CO 03 O CQ co CD 3 ro 03 Q3 3 = 01 CD CO \"5 o O CO ~~h CD 03 03 3 § CD * CO O -o —h Q) co Q zr CD 03 —\\ CQ zr CD CD CO _ ~ - 03 °1 3\" 3 0 CD CO 3 » of co =r •a CD 03 < = L =i C 3 - fD CD Z! rn CD CQ CD 5' IB = T I 3 zr c n i± Q_ _ i CO O CD 3 O —\\ CD CD i—!• CD 5 ' CD — i CD CO i—f CD_ o 3 CQ i—t-zr CD C CD 0 Q_ 9, ° zr =r 0 0 o S 3.3 o 0 CO 3 \"O CD 03 o co ® B o 0 CO c cr co Q3_ O 3 CQ 0 T3 CD f—I\" 3 CD CO Q -0 zfl 3 0 CO 0 T3 CD .—t-3\" 03 CO 8 O CD \"O CO •a CD O 0 CO CD o 0 co aT o «. 2 CD 3 • 2 c 0 g == 03 5\" 3 is 0 03 (—I- _ g\"- 0 o Z ~. o Er 3 ® 0 II CO c m x CO 5\" CQ D co O > m > 73 O I H m o H C m TJ 73 O 5 > O c o -n > O 73 O c 73 m co o m o m co co 2 2. o o • • J U CO 0 0 2 = ~ c § l CO CD b co CO _ . '—' 3 03 O £!- 03 5f 0 0 a. a 2 0 3 CO « § ' 0 g ¥ r* 3 CD 0 5? CO 0 0 3 CZ 3 CT 0 0 Q. 0 CO CQ' 3 4 -o I'd o (/> CD a O mmm • o CD if o c CO o a co o > TJ m > TJ o X H m o H C m TJ TJ O CD 9 co co w cn a! CO S co_ Cfl co TJ co CT co *< CO o C CO Cfl CO o 3 o ^ o CD -i CD CD' § P jj» CD O o' 3 CO b CO CD CD 3 03 CD CL CD CO c5' 3 1 I M CD CD Cfl CO O =;• —h -J BS 9 CD S' _ i—f 9- CD CD Q. f s CD CT 03 > o c > CD 73 O C q c TJ m co o m z o m co 9 o 73 03 3 CD co_ < CO CD o 3 3\" CD •a o c ^ — T3 5' CD - 1 o CO CD 3 2 CD Cfl < 3 CD CD £ o 2 CD v9 i. o' 0) \" 5 ^ 5' Q. CD CT CO ^ CD CD O CO *< ~ - n ^ <-*•' 9\" ^ S CD O CD co —i ° 9 =] < CD CT < CO w E?CQ' CT CD 3 _—- CT Cfl' CT Q) Cfl g; g: =T i CO N g\" * ? V CD CD 3 CD CO CD 03 3 CL CD 3 CD CD' CT CT O c —i 3 CD 3 CD O O o o CL CD CD 3 CD 3 i—f CO 3 03 3' 9 co' 3 =r Cfl CD CD < S CO CL | 3 ~ CD 8 CO 3 2 CD CD O \" * f—< CO CO ft CD 3 o o c —\\ 03 CQ CD CT H a\"g 03 a i\" » i 3 < O Cfl < CD Cfl d CD »-f Q3 CT 8 a 8 CD CD C CO CD 3 3 o Q. 03 CD | CD or a =1 CD < Cfl co 9.CQ' 03 ?T 3 cS'JH 9 CT CO CD W O Q. 3-CD 03 Q3 Cfl 3 CO 3. Q. 03 CT 3 3 03 ^ _ 5 cp_ 3 < 03 O 5 CT < ^ o CD ^ —J 3 w a CD cn CD a ^ 3 CD 92. ET CD 2. CO o c ? CD CO 03 --1 3 CD 03 CD CL-5' 3 o c CQ 3 CD — Q3_ 8 a O 3 CO O CD • 5 'co ^ -si -0 CD —5 3 CT 03 CD — O CT O CO CD CL Q. CD CO CQ' 3 03 CO 03 3 CD. 03 CT O (—t-CD o 0 co Q' 3 I Q' 3 |Q' c CD O D CO o > TJ m > 73 o I H m o —i c 73 m TJ 73 o CD 73 > > O C > CD 73 O C c 73 m co o m o m co 3 < n S o -h 0 T J ST 5' s co CD O < Jo s o -« 0 T3 O 0 CO f-t-0 CD Q. 3 Z CD C o « q « co o- 0 5 0 0 \" 01 Cfl CO o Cfl \"* I I Q. CD Cfl CQ' 3 Cfl O c o\" Cfl H 3 CD 3 C 3 3 CD 3 D. o' 03 I—*-CD Q-o 3 SS CO CD O Cfl CO ~° 2 CO — ScE f CO Cfl co c CD* c r CD o CO CO rS ^ -2 2 5 \"° ^ >< CD CL 0 CD ro 2 Cfl =T 3\" § ?L o XJ CD 3 w 3 ' ^ \" 2. o 3\" O CD ~* Cfl fl CD =r. CD §-9 , \" § o -, W CD ' ' —h 2. o 3 3 CD CD ? 3 . 2\" CD < 3 CO CT o cfl 2 , § c ? § 0 . o 2, o 2- > CD -, cE 2 CD CQ CD CO 3 ° -0 ® 3 O I\" m 3 CQ CD OI o CD 3 CD O I—f CD Cfl CD 3 O 3 a CD 5 2^ -I m CD 3\" <\" CD § % O ^ CD ^ Cfl 3 CD 2\" « CD -a co XS C 3 0 Q. Cfl o =T cn CD CD CD Cfl o co E? as 3 5. CD 5T •a -~~ 3 . co < CO >-> CD CD Cfl r* \"O CO CO Cfl CO tfl g CL 3 ' CD O\" a c| CO 3 Ef CD Z < CO Cfl •< c Cfl po_ f\\3 co o a - • 0 2 cn O Cfl CD CT CO = 8 * Cfl o CD * Cfl CO Cfl O CO E? W s ft CD 3 Cfl g x> CO Cfl 2 a> CD 3 Cfl ?S cn > 3. Q-2 CD CD _Q w § CO CD c? =? -I CO ? c f =? o 7 | XJ 2 . 3 CL CQ CD -, a 3 ET CD co' CO 3 « cn C CD _o 3 CD 7T CD I—t-3 CD co O 3 Q. CD a CD CO E. 2-<< w o 0 o Q. Q- —' CD O o. cn !=f: O -2 3-=i cn a s 3 ' § CQ < _ CO CD CD CO CL W _ Cfl CO Cfl' 3 r* Q. =• Cfl 3 O < CO J s =b cp_ 3 CD St 3 3 CQ CD Cfl w o CD 3 CD o (—f CO Cfl ^ CD ST CD 0 Cfl q CL 1 a a 3 5' CD CQ cn 1—C__J o 51 eg « Q. CO =;• o CD CD o cn o' o-3 CD CO O < ^ CD' 3 $ CD cn 3 3 ?r 0 cn XJ CO Cfl 0 q-3 0 CL 0 < cn CD T> 3\" -t^ O' w i - 2 -> 0 =T 3 a CD 3-5\" P i o CD 03 —I 3 ; 0 CO —I 0 5? .9 0 CQ O o 0 cn 0 5- \"0 0 »-»- cn 3 . 3 0 0 3 ; 0 5j' CD 0 CO cn 0 i l i t 0 3 \" ° s i . 0 0 « a = § 3! w 0 3 0 CL 0 0 CO 512: 3 CQ < •g o\" 0 CO CD o 5' 3 o c CQ 0 CO <-*• CD o \"3 O Cfl 0 Q_ o 3 CD CL CT 0 CD - • 3 ' 5 CQ 3 CD 0 CQ 3 CO 3 1—»-Cfl O 3 O CD a Cfl 3 CD C7^ 6.01.2(b) Views and Vistas Quantitative: * the numbers in the brackets refer to the numbers of the possible design solutions under the design criteria section (Section 3.03). Existing Proposed Views Along the streets 20 250 Along Pathways 15 100 Vistas Along the streets 4 12 Along Pathways 20 It is extremely difficult to determine the exact number of views along the paths of movement but it's not impossible to determine the number of distinct views, evident from the plans. In term of the number of views and vistas along the streets and pathways, the streets and pathways in the proposed design do seem to have an advantage over the existing design. A higher number of views and vistas along the paths of movement indicate more variety along the path of movement and a better perception of location and orientation for the users. Qualitative: In addition to the numerical superiority, the proposed design has some other qualitative aspects that make it better than the existing design. They are: (Refer to drawing E8 and P7) a. The view corridors and the movement corridors are very closely related, thus assisting in the movement and way-finding (49)*. b. The view corridors are located such that they do not affect the privacy of the units (60). c. The use of different trees and materials along the streets creates distinct street identities (41). d. A controlled visual access (4) into the site from the peripheral streets encourages interaction between the site and the neighbourhood and maintains the privacy of the site. Note: Refer to pp. 93, 94, 95 & 96 for specific design solutions. 97 6.01.3 Outdoor / Green Spaces Outdoor spaces are rarely created by complete enclosure, but rather partially, by the conformation of the floor and by small vertical elements, which suggest imaginary or psychological boundaries. Quantitative: Existing Proposed Total area (acres) 13 8.5 Major Activity areas (#) 6 6 (undifferentiated) (subdivided) Structures(#) shelters 1 28 benches / street elements 50 play equipment 1 / playarea Some of the major aspects of the proposed design evident from the drawing P8 and the table above are: 1. The total amount of open space has been significantly reduced. 2. The open spaces are smaller in size and are distributed closer to the units. 3. The proposed design has higher number of street and landscape elements, which indicate a possible increase in the usage of the spaces. * the numbers in the brackets refer to the numbers of the possible design solutions under the design criteria section (Section 3.03). Qualitative: The following are some of the positive qualitative aspects of the open space layout in the proposed design : a. The open spaces provided within the scheme are very functional and user oriented (32, 10, 27, 11)*. b. The spaces are divided into smaller spaces and provided in close proximity to the units to encourage the usage of outdoor spaces (53, 70, 10). c. The open spaces have better spatial definition, which is attributed to the use of trees, shrubs and covered structures (10, 11). Note: Refer to pp. 99, 100, 101 & 102 for specific design solutions. 98 I v < CD O =f H CQ ro CD ->l CD ^ 3 < cn §• \"° =~ CD O o =T CD O. w O Cfl - , 3 5- a CD CD CD (Q ? ° S. O CT °-— CD 3\" O CD O •o 8, 3. CO 8 3 •< O 2,CQ CD =5 C § , CO CD =fi s 2. T3 CD S. CD O 2 . co CO IT CD CD O O =T O 8 S i 8 ~ 2 w c f c i » ^ Q. ro 3 * CD CO £F f 2-CD & CQ 3 O Ef • § Q- CZ . (D n C CQ W 3 CT CD CD fp CD O < CL CD 9»0 < _ CD T3 CQ 3 r-t- Ql 8. O f = CD cr zr S. < 2 =R 0 \"Q CD CD CD 3 3 3 ^ W ~\"2 S 1° CD CO CD =W CD Q_ eg ^ CD CO CO o . o c CQ CD CD CO CO Q_ f-£ CD zr zs CD CD CO CD C CO CD •—r-. zr \"CS^ CD CD T3 CD S\" E. — 3 . O < CO CD CD O E£ D Q. Cfl O CD O Cfl J X, co o g CO CD CO O CD ci y. CD 0) H • 0 CD c O 3 O Q. 3 i 3 2 O CD 3 3 C? i f CZ Q-CD O _. -a ZS CD CD fD X 2 2- CO 3 ' CD CQ g. Q_ \"S\" CD O CO CD CQ 2, 3 „ CO\" CD 7T TD i f CD CO\" CD CZ ~* 0 2\" ^ CD !:i CD 5-CO 3 CD CO O e? c cz t & § 2 9:-8 CO CD O O O CD c co z 2 O & ro o • • x\\3 CO 0 0 ? cz w 0 s i 3 5 9 2. S Ef ro 0 &• Q_ o 0 3 co. 5 Cg 0 g ¥ 3 52, -> CD 0 ^ CO 0 CT CD 3 CZ 3 cr CD o 0 CL 0 CO CD C CQ Cfl 0 0 °- O co O =£ | * — o 3 ' \"3 3 0 0 3 3 CO O TD cr. CD o o 3 0 a 3 l II I—I-0 0 co o c —1 zr 0 c CO 0 ST C 0 0 bz - h 0 CO CD 3 Q-Q_ O CO 3 - | ° CD \"3 < CD 0 -• O 2 . 3 < 0 o P 3 CO 5 3 I 0 0 q: cr 0 ro 0 CD co 3 CD CD CD_ o 0 CL o o 3 CO CD &ro ^2 CO c o CD CD_ 0 O — CD „ CL zr CL 0 0 CO CO TJ CO CD 0 O CL 0 O\" O 0 H -* x rr T CO CO CO CQ CD CD 2- 0 8 1.8 CO CQ 3 o CQ 3\" o C CD CO zr a-CD 0 CO 0 3 3 O 0 3 0 0 0 2 zr •< O 0 0 3 CD ~ =r. 3\" o 0 3 CO < CD o CD 3 2 ~° CL CO zr zr 3- zr 0 0 0 0 CO (J) co X3 -o T3 CD Q3 CD O o O 0 0 0 CO co CO < =r 2. os j o 3 . 0 S 0 Cfl 2-3-CD CD i . 3 7 ro o co' co 3 0 o —h —1 1 I O CT Cfl CD 2\" ro 0 .Q o TJ r 0CD 4 2 c CD r-l-° 2\" 0 0 Cfl 00 73 CD 3 CO T3 CD o ro 5 O* W CO ro o 5\" 3 o c CQ ro O •D CD co T3 o ro C DO P r-> z o CO o > TJ m > 73 O m o TD CD 3. W CD ^ CD cn TD CD O CD cn 3 cr o ff cr o c 3 Q. CD CD - K a o c T 3 —I Z3 —\" 3\" < 3\" CD 5 : CD P, 3' cn O CQ 3 o a o 0 = -\"•a \" cn CD 3 3\" O £D CT CD ,CD <\" CD * cilV CD CD CD O => CD CD 3 CD TD CZ cr a CD 3 CL CD •a CD 3 » 2-S O «• CD - h O O a 3 8 -8 a a w a o -—~ CD — 3 CD CD CD O : CO —I T3 zr CD CD CD CL O CD 3 s cn —\\ «rzs zr CD 3 >g 2- CD » C 3 o5 2. Q- Q3 * 3 ^ CD CD _ . Q- CD CD E f ^ <° CD W 03 r— r+ O O CD CD 3 cn cn % CD ZT 5' CD O CD Q. I i—t-zr o CD cn o w 0 2 3 CD 3 CD o I—f zs' CQ C ZJ w 3\" 2-• CD 5 er 2 CD CD iH. cn 0 2 05 CD CD Q . W O. o 2 3-3- cp_ CD T3 •a 3' I 3 CD CD CD 3' cn 3\" CD 2 . O 3 CD CQ cn r * -aci CD < CD o CD cn ZJ TD O CD O C —1 CD CQ CD cn O O CD ZJ CL a CD cn 5' ci CD CL CL CD O _ 3 3 «• s ° § 2 II • CQ CO TD CD O CD cn CD o cn O TD CD O CD • Q. CL a §. II cp_ CD CD £• W CD 2 I CD 2 CD < 0 CD cn CD CD o ro •o CD 3 ^ 1 5 I CD o o w ~ CD 5\" o CD 0 cn q: CD » a 1 SL TD o < CL CD CD ZJ o TD TD O 3. c 3 CD c W ?D CD o cn r* TD CD n> W S O\" cn i - a Co 3 2\" S 2 CD ? a CD CD ZJ Zi o a m CD CD \" 3 ^ < o Q) X CD 3 CD Z! o- b w CO 2f o 2 3 a CD CD O cn -h 1—1->c^ m 3 CD -g 2 § cn CQ zr CQ 0 CL CD MB v N / / c 73 m TJ 73 O O 5 > O c o T l > Q 73 O c c m CO o m z o m co cn cr 2 CD CD o 55' cn CD ? a • CD CD Q. ^ CD g - • 3 CQ 1 3 3 CO g c cr CD cn ZJ Q_ n' CD CD CL O 3 O 3 cn cn CD o 1—<-o 3 CO CD b -o ^ => CD CD r i - CD E? 2 CD 5* Q. r * ro 2\" cn CD co' 3 3 c 3 I ro if < ^ cn cr a co' § S i •—' Q. | I ^ 3 3- 3 CD ~\\ TD 3\" cn CD 5\"2. CD 3 CD =r> •2- Z 3 r H -CQ r £ - 2\" zr CD CD cn 3 \"° 3 CD CD o CD cn CD 3 CD CD CD 3 O if —• 3 ° -O 0 C § CD CQ o ^; 3 CD i-2 °- CD C 3 C/J CL 0 5 3\" O CD -*» < cn CD \"3 CD CD w o < CD CD o o 3 o cn, CD Q. cn a, CD 2 3 % | f . CD O 3 a a-g. CD 3 CD L CD =h >< 3 ^ 5' CJ1 CQ \" % 5 ' 3 cn 2 \"3 CD CD 2 ro cn CD ^ CD_ ^ o\" V O CD o' 3 o —h CD o o 3 3 o o. CD 2 Q. a rt- CD o -> o zr -t» CD c cn 2. 3 y CD r + ^ zr CD CD 3 Q . At & 4& & >< T3 o' a o •a CO zz CO XI CD o ro CD o c c to 2 3 Remarks Onh for units along the streets • • III ilie form of steps leading to stair well • Mainly basement parking. • lii ihv.- form of Steps Leading to Stair well • 1 .ick hierarchy of privacy. • • • •_ _ . long pathways • • In \\\\w form of setbacks and row of trees. \\luMly Shared Gallery. • • , Lamp posts at the entrances. • Mainly Clusters of Trees & Shrubs • • • III ilie form of steps leading to stair well • Mainly basement parking. • lii ihv.- form of Steps Leading to Stair well • 1 .ick hierarchy of privacy. • \\luMly Shared Gallery. • , Lamp posts at the entrances. • Mainly Clusters of Trees & Shrubs o • • • • • • • • Design Solutions se of Group and Perceived Ownership Social homogeniety. Distinct street address for all the units. Flowerbeds, empty niches and boxes at the entrance or in courtyards. Elements to demarcate the territorial boundary. Elements to mark the entry into an individual unit. Elements to demarcate territorial boundaries. Common parking spaces. Visible and distinct entrances to the units. Open spaces in close proximity to the units. Material variations in the landscape and architectural spaces. se of Security Spaces with direct visual and easy physical access from the units. Lights along the streets, sidewalks and pathways. Spaces with visual surveillance. Sight lines between units. Perceived barriers around the scheme. Short and individual access galleries. Traffic calming devices. Way-finding and Sense of Orientation Street identity. Street elements and materials to indicate space hierarchy. Sidewalks along the streets. Accommodate predictable pattern of pedestrian movement. Land marks along the paths. Focal points. Patterns and specific color coding for spaces within the housing scheme. Sen; CN CN CN CN OO CN ON CN o cn cn CN cn m co Sen; co in CO co t~ cn oo cn OS co o Way-finding and Sense of Orientation CN cn >/-> C~ -a-3.03.3 3.03.4 3.03.5 CO u. CD Remarks High Rise tower act as Directional Elements i iii.iinly through buildings. 1 \\i_upt for the units above 2nd floor in the Tow ( le.ued by the Residents of some units. :d by the Residents of some units. '( lealed by the Residents of some units. ( leaied by the Residents of some units. ed for 8 units for low-rise units. Plant Material only. Lack hierarchy of privacy Created by the Residents of some units. Created by the Residents of some units. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • o Transitional filters between the public and the private domains of the dwellings. • • Design Solutions Elements to orient the people within the site. Views and vistas towards a focal point/element. t of Access to Community / Commom Open Spaces Large windows in the units. Open walkways to access the outside spaces. Private garden, patio, balcony with every unit. Communal spaces in close proximity to the units. Hierarchy of open space. Narrow streets and pathways to separate the communal spaces from the units. Sense of Privacy Arrange dwelling units to avoid infringement of privacy of the adjacent unit. Grade change between the public and private spaces. Buffers between the private and public open spaces and pathways. Transitional filters between the public and the private domains of the dwellings. The entry and the pathways dont affect the privacy of the interior spaces. Distinct front and back entrances to the units. Screening for the private yards. ntenance Required by the Spaces Separate entrance paths to the units on the ground level. Local material. Use of plant in their natural shape and form. Open spaces in close proximity to the units. Green lawns in smaller sizes in small enclosed space. Spatial Treatment to define territorial boundary of the units. Activity oriented rather than settings oriented landscape. Medium sized spaces of varying shape and appearance. oo OS East o wo uo CN UO m uo uo uo I/O Sense of Privacy so uo uo oo uo Os uo o SO SO CN SO Mai CO SO SO uo so so SO so oo SO Os SO o 3.03.6 3.03.7 3.03.8 105 oo c •3 > o p. ao. c xi T3 60 C X! S3 o X D, O C I—I 00 c 3 Cl. oo a 1 a. o o •o 3 O cd Q. cn C o o 00 c 2 •a a 3 O O 3 O f-l a 00 c o 00 c o a Xi oo 3 o pssn S A B M | B ueyo A J8A pasn • • • S 8 L U I J 3 L U 0 S pesn pasn jou c 'so Q T3 , C3 'I o. '1 •s ft CD o. o.j -a C3 O . Xj 60 a o X! C o 601 .9 e o x; -a CD > cu c o u es -e u o o -3 > o c I o o OH o CD OH 1> o cd OH cn CD 3 60 .3 c 3 LH o XI o o o. T3 a CD CD CD C3 CD > CS cci a 3 T3 -a cS 5? xj CS OH CD cn CD x; 601 .a o o O o _CJ x> •o c c3 CD CJ cd OH cn 60 a 60 60 n >n in Sen: SO in t~ in oo in OS m o so SO CN so Mai CO SO SO in so SO so r--so oo SO OS so o 3.03.6 3.03.7 3.03.8 108 6.02 Discussion Predicting the success of a housing scheme design without having done a post occupancy evaluation is difficult. However, a comparative chart of design elements (Refer to Table 3 and Table 4) of the existing and the proposed design shows the positive and negative aspects of the 2 designs and gives insight into those aspects of design, which can improve future design endeavors of similar nature. Some of the major aspects evident from the Summary tables 3 and 4 are: 1. Almost all the design solutions proposed in the study and implemented in the proposed design are present in the existing design as well. However, if we look at the level of usage of these solutions in the existing design, we realize that the level of importance associated with these aspects is not very high, which is one of the major reasons why the existing design does not satisfy the desired objectives of the proposed design criteria. 2. In some cases, the residents of the existing scheme have modified their surroundings in order to meet their needs. Interestingly, these modifications correlate with the solutions proposed in this study, which goes on to validate our decision to develop proposed design solutions based on people's preferences. 3. Some of the criteria mentioned in the recommendations might seem conflicting, e.g. social interaction and privacy. However, the summary tables make it more than evident that seemingly conflicting criteria can also be accommodated with an appropriate design solution. 4. Another major observation based on the summary tables and the comparative sketches is that most of the design solutions used in the proposed design have been implemented with the aim of satisfying multiple criteria which collectively contribute to the success of the design in achieving the desired objectives of all the criteria. On the other hand, in the existing design, the design 109 solutions seem to satisfy a single criterion thus compromising other criteria. As a result the existing design is unsuccessful in achieving the objectives set for the proposed design. 110 Conclusion The intent of this study was to investigate some aspects of the relationships between the individuals and their residential environments and to present a framework of recommendations for the development of high-density housing in urban regions, with an emphasis on the restorative benefits of the open / natural spaces. The process of literature review, identifying issues and developing criteria for the development of healthy and affordable high-density housing helps to demonstrate the validity of the hypothesis, that a good and congenial living standard can be achieved in a high-density housing situation, through a careful consideration of the architectural and landscape design. It also helps us formulate specific design solutions to achieve the desired objectives of the criteria for the development of the appropriate housing environment. The comparative analysis of the existing and the proposed design used comparative numerical tables, pictorial illustrations and a summary table of implemented design solutions, to synthesize, analyseand communicate the pros and cons of the 2 designs. This proved very successful in demonstrat-ing the effects of specific design solutions and their level of usage, on the overall design and functioning of the housing scheme. In my opinion, one of the most encouraging aspects of this study was its flexibility. The process used may be adapted to any regional and cultural situation. The study reinforced the arguements that: 1. Satisfaction of human behavioral needs is essential in the development of healthy and restorative living environments (Nachmias & Palen, 1986; Ulrich & Addoms, 1981); and 2. The integration of landscape and building design is absolutely essential if the design of any human environment is to satisfy the human behavioural needs (Ulrich, 1986a; Robinette, 1972; Kaplan, 1987a). To conclude, I think that this study opens up a new area of research, in the field of restorative environments, human behaviour and high-density housing; and their incorporation into an integrated landscape and architectural design. I l l Bibliography Abu-Ghazzeh, T .M. , (1999). Housing Layout, Social Interaction, And The Place Of Contact In Abu-Nuseir, Jordan. Journal of Environmental Psychology (19), pp. 41 -73. Academic Press Limited. Alexander, C.,Ishikawa, S. & Silverstein M . , (1977). A Pattern Language : Towns, Buildings, Construct New York : Oxford University Press. Alexander, D. & Tomalty, R., (2001). Sprawl-The B.C. Sprawl Report 2001. SmartGrowthBC. Amerigo, M . & Aragones, J.I., (1997). A Theoretical and Methodological Approach to the Study of Resi-dential Satisfaction. Journal of environmental psychology (17), pp. 47-57. Academic Press Limited. Appleton, J. , (1975). The Experience Of Landscape London.New York : Wiley. Arie, P. & Hava, S., (1998). Exploring The Ideal home in Psychotherapy: two Case Studies. Journal of environmental psychology (19), pp. 87-94. Academic Press. Beers, D., (2001). Curbing 'Slurban\" Sprawl, Vancouver Sun, 8 June 2001, pp. Bl, B5. Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C , Fisher, J . D. & Baum, A., (1996). Environmental Psychology (4th Edition) Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Bonaiuto, M . , Aiello, A., Perugini, M . , Bonnes, M . & Ercolani, A.P., (1999). Multidimensional Perception Of Residential Environment Quality And Neighbourhood Attachment In The Urban Environment. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (19), pp. 331-352. Academic Press. Booth, A. &Cowell, J . , (1976). Crowding and Health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 17(3), pp.204-220. American Sociological Association. Brown, B. B., Burton, J . R. & Sweaney, A. L . , (1998). Neighbors, Households And Front Porches : New Urbanist Community Tool Or Mere Nostalgia. Environment And Behavior, 30 (5), pp.579-660. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Brown, D. F., (1987). Dimensions Of Quality In Residential Environments: A Case Study Of Nuns' Island. Ottawa : Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Burby, R.J. & Rohe, W.M., (1990). Providing For The Housing Needs Of The Elderly. Journal of the American Planning Association (56), pp. 324-340. Washington : American Planning Association. Cappon, D., (1971). Mental Health In The High Rise. Housing And People, 2(4), pp. 9-12. Mutual Press. Churchman, A. And. Ginosar, O., (1999). A Theoretical Basis For The Post-Occupancy Evaluation Of Neighborhoods. Journal of Environmental Psychology (19), pp. 267-276. Academic Press Limited. Civil Engineering Department, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, (1973). The Proceedings Of The International Conference On Urban Housing. Coley, R. L . , Kuo, F. E . & Sullivan, W. C , (1997). Where Does Community Grow ?-The Social Context Created by Nature in Urban Public Housing. Environment And Behavior, 29(4), pp. 468-494. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Cooper, C. C , (1975). Easter Hill Village - Some Social Implications Of Design. New York : Free Press. Cooper Marcus, C. & Francis, C , (1998). People Places - Design Guidelines for Urban Open Spaces John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Cooper Marcus, C. & Sarkissian W., (1986). Housing As If People Mattered: Site Design Guidelines For 112 Medium Density Housing. Berkeley : University of California Press. Corbett, M.N., (1981). A Better Place to Live-New Designs for Tomorrow's Community. Rodali Press, Emmaus, Pennsylvania. Crowe, T., (1994). Understanding crime prevention through environmental design. Cuthbert, A.R., (1985). Architecture, Society And Space - The High Density Question Re-Examined. Oxford, England : Pergamon Press, Chenoweth, R.E. & Gobster, P.H., (1990). The Nature And Ecology Of Aesthetic Experiences. Landscape Journal (9), pp.1-8. Madison, Wisconsin : University of Wisconsin Press. De Chiara, J. , (1984). Time Savers Standard For Residential Design. New York : McGraw-Hill. de Waal, F.D.M., Aureli, F. & Judge, P. G. , (2000). Coping With Crowding. Scientific American, 282(5), pp. 76. Drover, G. , (1975). Density Is Not A Dead Issue. Housing And People, 6(1), pp. 12-15. Mutual Press. Ebbensen, E.B., Kjos, G.L. , & Konecni, V.J., (1976). Spatial Ecology : Its Effects On The Choice Of Friends And Enemies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12(6), pp 505-518. Academic Press. Eckbo, G., Sullivan, C., Hood, W. & Lawson, L . , (1998). People In A Landscape. Upper Saddle River, NJ. : Prentice Hall. Evans, G.W., Allen, K . M . , Tafalla, R. & O'Meara, T., (1996). Multiple Stressors: Performance, Psycho physiological And Affective Responses. Journal of Environmental Psychology (17), pp. 147-154. Academic Press Limited. Evans, G.W. & McCoy, J .M. , (1998). When Buildings Dont Work : The Role Architecture in Human Health. Journal of Environmental Psychology (18), pp. 85-94. Academic Press. Evans, G.W., Rhee, E . , Forbes, C , Allen, K . M . , & Lepore, S.J., (2000). The Meaning And Efficacy Of Social Withdrawal As A Strategy For Coping With Chronic Residential Crowding. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (20), pp. 335-342. Academic Press. Francis, M . , Lindsey, P. & Rice, J . S., (1994). The healing dimensions of people-plant relations. Proceedings of a Research Symposium, March 24-27, 1994. University of California, Davis. Francis, M . , (1987). Meaning Attached To A City Park And A Community Garden In Sacramento. Landscape Research, 12(1), pp. 8-12. Manchester, England : Landscape Research Group. Freedman, N. L . , (1975). Crowding And Behavior. Furbrey, R. & Goodchild, B., (1986). Attitudes To Environment. Housing, 22(3), pp. 20-21. Friedman, A., C .M.H.C. & Affordable Homes Program, McGill University,(1993). Sustainable residential developments : planning, design and construction principles : \"greening\" the Grow Home. Ottawa: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Garling T. & Gollege R.G., (1993). Behavior And Environment: Psychological And Geographical Ap-proaches. Amsterdam; New York; North-Holland. Greenberg,L., Bailet, R., Madziya, R.J. & Larose, J.W., (1976). Open Space Study - Analysis and Policy Recommendations. City of Ottawa. Gustafson, P., (2001). Meanings Of Place: Everyday Experience And Theoretical Conceptualizations. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (21), pp. 5-16. Academic Press. 113 Hagerhall, C. M . , (2001). Consensus In Landscape Preference Judgements. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (21), pp. 83-92. Academic Press. Hanyu, K., (1997). Visual Properties And Affective Appraisals In Residential Areas After Dark. Journal of environmental psychology (17), pp. 301-315. Academic Press Limited. Herzog, T.R., Black, A . M . , Fountaine, K . A . & Knotts, D.J., (1997). Reflection and Attentional Recovery as Distinctive Benefits of Restorative Environments. Journal of environmental psychology (17), pp. 165-170. Academic Press Limited. Herzog, T.R. & Chernick, K.K. , (2000). Tranquility And Danger In Urban And Natural Settings. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (20), pp. 29—39. Academic Press. Herzog, T.R., Kaplan,R. & Kaplan, S., (1982). The Prediction Of Preference Of Unfamiliar Urban Spaces. Population And Environment, 5(1), pp. 43-59. New York, Human Sciences Press. Hidalgo, M . C &Hernaendez, B., (2001). Place Attachment: Conceptual And Empirical Questions. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (21), pp. 273-281. Academic Press. Hoffmann, H. , (1967). Urban Low-Rise Group Housing. Terrace Houses, Patio Houses, Linked Houses. Urbaner Flachbau. Reihenhauser, Atriumhauser, Kettenhauser. Stuttgart Hatje. Holaday, B., Swan, J . H . & Henson, A. T., (1997). Images of the Neighborhood and Activity Patterns Of Chronically 111 School Age Children. Environment And Behavior, 29(3), pp. 348-373. Beverly Hills, Califor-nia, Sage Publications. Homel, R. & Burns, A. (1987). Is This A Good Place To Grow Up In? Neighborhood Quality And Children's Evaluation. Landscape And Urban Planning (14), pp. 101-116. Amsterdam : Elsevier, 1986. Hygge, S. & Knez, I., (2001). Effects of Noise, Heat and Indoor Lighting on Cognitive Performance and Self-Reported Affect. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (21), pp. 291-299. Academic Press. Jacobs, J . , (1993). Downtown Is For People. Exploding Metropolis, Edt. Whyte, W. H. Jr., pp. 157-184. Berkeley : University of California Press. Jeanne, M . , (2000). Placing Home In Context. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (20), pp. 207-217. Academic Press. John, J. , (1971). The Case for Public Land Assembly. Housing and People, 2(3), pp. 1-11. Mutual Press. Jorgensen, B.S. & Stedman, R.C. , (2001). Sense Of Place As An Attitude: Lakeshore Owners Attitudes Toward Their Properties. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (21), pp.233-248. Academic Press. Kaplan, R., (1984). Impact Of Urban Nature : A Theoretical Analysis. Urban Ecology (8), pp. 189-197. Amsterdam, Associated Scientific Publishers. Kaplan, R., (1983). The Role Of Nature In The Urban Context. Behavior And The Natural Environment, Edt. Altman, I. & Wohlwill, J.F. New York : Plenum Press. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., (1978). Humanscapes - Environments For People. N. Scituate, Massachusetts : Duxbury Press. Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., (1989). The Experience Of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Kaplan, R., Kaplan, S. & Ryan, R. L . , (1998). With People In Mind - Design And Management Of Every-day Nature. Washington, D.C. : Island Press. 114 Kaplan S., (1987a). Mental Fatigue And The Designed Environment. Public Environments, pp. 55-60. Wash-ington D.C: Environmental Design Research Association. Kaplan, S., (1987b). Aesthetics, Affect and Cognition - Environmental Preference From an Evolutionary Perspective. Environment And Behavior, 19(1), pp 3-32. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Kaplan, S. Managing Urban And High Use Recreational Settings : The Role Of Natural Environmental Aesthetics In Restorative Experience. US Department Of Agriculture. General Technical Report, pp. 163, Edt. By Gobster, PA. Klynstra, P., Joudrey, D. & Grant, J. , (1994). Next Door To The Factory - Housing People In Modern Industrial Parks. Ottawa : Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Korpela, K. & Hartig, T., (1996). Restorative Qualities Of Favorite Places. Journal of Environmental Psychology (16), pp. 221-233. Academic Press Limited. Lang, J. , Burnette, C , Moleski, W. & Vachan, D., (1974). Design For Human Behavior - Architecture And Behavioral Science. Stroudsburg, Pa.: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross. Laumann, K. , Gorling, T., & Stormark, K . M . , (2001). Rating Scale Measures Of Restorative Components Of Environments. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (21), pp. 31-44. Academic Press. Lawrence, R. J. , (1987). What Makes A House A Home? Environment And Behavior, 19(2), pp. 154-168. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Levy, L . , & Herzog, A.N. , (1974). Effects of Populaton Density and Crowding on Health and Social Adapta-tion in the Netherlands. Journal Of Health and Social Behavior, 15 (3), pp. 228-240. American Sociological Association. Lewis, C.A., (1996). Green Nature / Human Nature: The Meaning Of Plants In Our Lives. Urbana : Univer-sity of Illinois Press. Llyod, R. (1961). The Future Metropolis. New York : G. Braziller. Lynch, K., (1984). Site Planning (3rd edition). Cambridge : M.I.T. Press. Mazumdar, S., Mazumdar, S., Docuyanan, F., & Mclaughlin, C M . , (2000). Creating A Sense Of Place:The Vietnamese-Americans And Little Saigon. Journal Of Environmental Psychology, (20), pp. 319-333. Aca-demic Press. McAndrew, F.T., (1993). Environmental Psychology. Pacific Grove, California : Brooks/Cole. Mesch, G. S. & Manor, O., (1998). Social Ties, Environmental Perception And Local Attachment. Environ-ment And Behavior, 30(4), pp.504-519. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Michael, Audain, (1970). At Last Some Findings. Housing And People, 1(2), pp. 3-5. Mutual Press. Michelson, W., (1971). The Social Myth Of High Rise Living. Housing And People, 2(2), pp. 9-10. Mutual Press. Moore G.T. & Zube E .H. , (1987). Advances In Environment, Behavior And Design - Vol. 1 & 2.New York : Plenum Press. Mulligan, B.E., Lewis, S.A., Faupel, M . L . , Goodman L.S. & Anderson, L . M . , (1987). Enhancement And Masking Of Loudness By Environmental Factors - Vegetation And Noise. Environment And Behavior, 19(4), pp.411-443. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Nachmias, C. & Palen, J . (1986). Neighborhood Satisfaction, Expectations, And Urban Revitalization. 115 Journal Of Urban Affairs, 8(4), pp. 51-62. Blacksburg, Verginia : Division of Environment and Urban Sys-tems, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. Nasar, J .L . & Brown, B.B. Public And Private Places. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association. Nelson, T., Johnson, T., Strong, M . & Rudakewich, G. , (2001). Perception Of Tree Canopy. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (21), 2001, pp. 315-324. Academic Press. Newell, P.B., (1998). A Cross-cultural Comparison of Privacy Definitions and Functions : A Sytems Ap-proach. Journal of environmental psychology (18), 1998, pp 357-371. Academic Press. Newell, P.B. (1997). A Cross Cultural Examination Of Favorite Places. Environment And Behavior, 29(4), July 1997, pp 495-514. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Newman, O., (1973). Defensible space - Crime prevention through Urban design. New York : Collier Books. Norcross, C. (1973). Townhouses and condominiums: residents' likes and dislikes; a special report. Washing-ton: Urban Land Institute. Parkin, J . C. (1971). Variety In Housing. Housing And People, 2(2), pp. 12-13. Ottawa, Housing Committee, Canadian Welfare Council. Parsons, R., Tassinary, L . G . , Ulrich, R.S., Hebl, M.R & Alexander, M . G . , (1998). The View From The Road: Implications For Stress Recovery And Immunization. Journal of environmental psychology (18), pp. 113-139. Academic Press Limited. Pasquali, C. T., Hernandez, M . H . & Munoz, C.C. , (1997). Study Of Environmental Factors Associated With Primary Health Care. Environment And Behavior, 29(5), pp. 676-694. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publi-cations. Pedersen, D.M., (1999). Model For Types Of Privacy By Privacy Functions. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (19), pp. 397-405. Academic Press. Piatt, R.H, Rowntree, R.A. & Muick, P.C., (1994). The Ecological City: Preserving And Restoring Urban Diversity. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Pugh, C , (1997). Housing In Singapore- The Effective Ways Of The Unorthodox. Environment And Behavior, 19(3), pp.311-330. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Ransford, B., (2001). Changing the Face of Vancouver, Vancouver Sun, 23 June 2001, pp. H6. Relf, D., (1992). The Role of horticulture in human well-being and social development: A national sympo-sium, 19-21 April 1990, Arlington, Virginia. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. Robinette, G.O., (1972). Plants/People and Environmental Quality. U.S. Department of the Interior. Rohe, W. M . & Basolo, V., (1997). Long Term Effects Of Home Ownership On Self Perception And Social Interaction Of Low Income Persons. Environment And Behavior, 29(6), pp. 793-819. Beverly Hills, Califor-nia, Sage Publications. Sarti, R., (1997). It's Vancouver's last site for waterfront housing, Vancouver Sun 19 March 1997, pp. Bl, B8. Skjaeveland, O. & Garling, T., (1997). Effects Of Interactional Space On Neighbouring. Journal of environ-mental psychology (17), pp. 181-198. Academic Press Limited. Steenbergen, C , Reh, W. & Smienk, G. , (1996). Architecture and Landscape-The Design Experiment Of The Great European Gardens And Landscape. New York : Prestel. 116 Thurber, C. A. & Malenowski, J . C , (1999). Environmental Correlates Of Negative Emotions In Children. Environment And Behavior, 31(4), pp. 487-513. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Ulrich, R.S. & Addoms, D.L., (1981). Psychological and Recreational Benefits of a Residential Park. Journal of Leisure Research (13), pp. 43-65. National Recreation and Park Association, Washington. Ulrich, R.S., (1986a). Natural Verses Urban Scenes : Some Psychological Effects. Environment And Behav-ior (13), pp.523-556. Beverly Hills, California, Sage Publications. Ulrich, R.S., (1986b). Human Response To Vegetation And Landscape. Landscape And Urban Planning (13), Page 29-44. Amsterdam : Elsevier. Wendt, J.S., Kaplan, R. & Kaplan, S., (1972). Rated Preference And Complexity For Natural And Urban Visual Materials. Perception And Psychophysics (12), pp. 354-356. Goleta, California, Psychoomic Press. Whitehouse, S., Varni, J.W., Seid, M . , Marcus, C.C. , Ensberg, M.J . , Jacobs, J.R. & Mehlenbeck, R.S., (2001). Evaluating A Children's Hospital Garden Environment: Utilization And Consumer Satisfaction. Journal Of Environmental Psychology (21), pp.301-314. Academic Press. Whyte, W. H. , (1964). Cluster Development. New York : American Conservation Association. Whyte, W. H. , (1988). City - Rediscovering The Center. New York ; London : Doubleday. Whyte, W. H. , (1980). The Social Life Of Small Urban Spaces.Washington, D.C. : Conservation Foundation. Whyte, W. H . Jr., (1993). Are Cities Un-American. Exploding Metropolis Edt By Whyte, W.H. Jr., pp. 23-52. Berkeley : University of California Press. Whyte, W. H . Jr., (1993). Urban Sprawl. Exploding Metropolis Edt By Whyte, W.H. Jr., pp. 133-156. Berkeley : University of California Press. Wohlwill, J.F., (1983). The Concept Of Nature: A Psychologists View. Behavior And The Natural Environ-ment Edt by Altman, I. & Wohlwill, J.F. New York : Plenum Press. Young, R.A., & Flower M . L . , (1982). Users Of An Urban Natural Area: Their Characteristics, Use Patterns, Satisfactions And Recommendations. Zacharias, J. , (2001). Path Choice And Visual Stimuli: Signs Of Human Activity And Architecture. Journal Of Environmental Psychology. Academic Press. Zeisel, J . , (1975). Sociology and Architectural Design, Social Science Frontiers: 6, Russell Sage Foundation. Zeisel, J . , (1981). Inquiry by Design. New York: Cambridge. Zeisel, J . & Griffin, M . , (1975). Charlesview Housing: A Diagnostic Evaluation. Architecture Research Office, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University. 117 "@en ; edm:hasType "Thesis/Dissertation"@en ; vivo:dateIssued "2002-05"@en ; edm:isShownAt "10.14288/1.0090292"@en ; dcterms:language "eng"@en ; ns0:degreeDiscipline "Landscape Architecture"@en ; edm:provider "Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library"@en ; dcterms:publisher "University of British Columbia"@en ; dcterms:rights "For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use."@en ; ns0:scholarLevel "Graduate"@en ; dcterms:title "A behavioural approach to design of high-density housing"@en ; dcterms:type "Text"@en ; ns0:identifierURI "http://hdl.handle.net/2429/12245"@en .