FLEX 4.0. A Practical Instrument to assess the. Adaptive Capacity of Buildings. Rob Geraedts. SBE16 Tallinn & Helsinki Conference. Build Green & Renovate ...
FLEX 4.0 A Practical Instrument to assess the Adaptive Capacity of Buildings Rob Geraedts SBE16 Tallinn & Helsinki Conference Build Green & Renovate Deep 5 -7 October | Delft University of Technology | Faculty of Architecture | | Department of Management in the Built Environment | Design & Construction Management |
Contents
Open Adaptive Building Short history of the assessment Tool Flex 1.0 – 4.0 Evaluation research in practice Flex 4.0 Conclusions & next steps
1
Buildings have to be adaptable because...
ü Fast changing user and market demands ü Structural vacancy of real estate ü Adaptable Building = Sustainable Building (Wilkinson et al, 2009) ü Circular Economy; reuse of building and components Ø Determination method for formulating the demand for 3 / 39 and assessing the supply of flexible building is needed...
How old is flexibility in construction? Schröder House, Utrecht 1924 Replacable inner walls...
4 / 16
2016
2
Housing: Louvain la Neuve, 1972 by Lucien Kroll; support – infill (façade) 5
Next 21 in Osaka, 1993, architect a.o. Seiichy Fukao
6
3
Open Building What are the principles? Mass Customization
7 / 47
Open Building Toolkit
Different Decision Levels
Authorities
Collective
7 / 39
Community Decision Level
Individual
Individual 8 / 47
Connected to different Plan Levels
4
Open Building Toolkit
Different Plan Levels Support – Infill Theory
Development Plan > 200 years Collective
Tissue Plan
Support Plan
Parcellation Plan
Life Cycle Decision Level
Infill Plan < 10 years Individual
9 / 47
Who decides about which level...?
FLEX 1.0 – 2014 Buildings with Future Value
Extended international literature survey: 147 Flex indicators Assessment values
*Classification in 5 layers according to Brand (1995), based on differences in life cycles
Testing in practice: 2015 School buildings & Office buildings 21
35
6
2016: Framework for FLEX 4.0 ü Flex 2.0 Light: 17 flexibility indicators ü School buildings: 21 flexibility indicators ü Office buildings: 35 flexibility indicators By combining 3 instruments and eliminating the same indicators: remain 44 flexibility performance indicators ü Support – Infill theory of John Habraken: Generally and Specifically applicable indicators Infill
Support
2016: Framework for FLEX 4.0
1
Based on previous instruments & Support - Infill theory of Habraken
2
Infill
3
Support
7
FLEX 4.0 Support part: 12 indicators
, ,
12 generally applicable flexibility indicators 4 assessment values for each indicator
FLEX 4.0 Infill part: 32 indicators
, ,
32 specifically applicable flexibility indicators 4 assessment values for each indicator
8
Flexibility profiles Gap analysis
Example: comparison of a demand profile with a supply profile
Practice: assessment form
1. Weighting 2. Assessment 3. Flexibility Score 4. Class Table 5. Flexibility Class
9
Example from practice: accessibility
Conclusions & the next steps 1. Flexibility of buildings is crucial for the sustainability of real estate. 2. Real estate experts from practice found the developed instrument very useful 3. Further evaluating in practice necessary 4. Evaluating the current assessment values and default weighting factors of the flexibility indicators 5. Illustrating the different assessment values 6. Developing a FLEX standard like BREEAM or Greenstar...: Circular Economy
10
FLEX 4.0 Assessing Adaptive Capacity
| Open Building | Adaptive Capacity | Sustainable | CE |
