Flexible space

The direct effect on the design flexibility can be at different levels and in different ways. In the first place, it can be through designing the space for multiple functions, which can be achieved through providing the opportunity to remodel the space. Slaughter (2001) confirmed that the spaces should be easy to reconfigure. This means that the EU needs could lead to the space needing to shrink, extend, or be redesigned. Vakili-Ardebili and Boussabaine (2006) point out that the design should be able to adapt to incorporate new functions to meet EU demands. Also, to achieve that it could be re- quired to install a special PD or system; this should be clear and easy to do. Replacing the current function by a new function should be adapted to the current role and environmental circumstances. This demands that the designer thinks about multiple concepts of the design, as well as considering the functions and their connection together at several stages, which to some extent is to meet the point of design for multiple functions. Moharram (1980) classified the relation between flexible spaces into different criteria such as the ability to separate the spaces and combine them together. This relates to reconfiguration, as Slaughter (2001) claimed. In terms of the element, the designer should take care about the process of modification through avoiding the use of any element which can lead to inter- rupting the EUs’ comfort or the space’s function. This refers to completely changing the element or space. The designer should provide extra spaces which give the freedom to change the size of the space. Both Till (2006) and Finch (2009) refer to the need to expand the space. The separate spaces should be able to be combined into one space. Expansion can be in terms of the form of the building, or the interior spaces, without changing the form or adding onto the form.

To form the design plan as several units with the same area and shape can create flexibility to easi- ly mix or separate spaces. Till and Schneider (2006) and Finch (2009) referred to the importance of using modular spaces and how these can play a big role in designing for flexibility. So the PD space can be configured to several forms. In addition to that, it can be combined into more than one unit. This configuration could be replaced by another based on the needs and demands of EUs. This should be done to cope with the environmental conditions. For example, reconfiguring the space on the south side which has the most exposure in PD could lead to creating a dysfunctional space which was not able to coexist with the environmental conditions. This will not be the case if the designer considers the current situation and demands.

Moharram (1980) reduces the physical separation between spaces. In any case, spaces should not be separated. However, the designer can seperat the place in case to cosider the EU privacy. Reducing the number of spaces can help to have more open spaces as well as to adapt to various environments. When the design demands some systems or new elements, the barriers will be very low. In contrast, if the physical separation is available, this will be help to access other element. These strategies can help to link the spaces and to create an easier interaction, on the one hand. On the other hand, adding other strategies can lead to adapt easily too. Saari and Heikkilä (2008) point to the importance of designing

a space that is easy to subdivide. The designer in this situation should adapt the design to be flexible. Also, installation of the partition needs to be easy, considering the distance between the connection points to be suitable to standard size. As the installation should be considered, the replacement of par- titions by modern ones or due to any dysfunctionality of them should also be considered. Each new partition should cope with the existing space and walls or partitions. In terms of access, each space should allow access to each other, and also have its own private route to the centre of the design. These various routes lead to the ability to change the access method to change the design to guarantee accessibility to the spaces (Moharram, 1980). The accessibility could be within or without the space. The space should have several alternatives of accessibility, which should be suitable with the standard size. In addition to that, there are different ways to access or go through spaces or creat access be- tween the spaces that the designer could be used. These startegies can be replaced based on the function changes. The access should be able to cope with the changing of space configuration or con- nection.

Any spaces should have the ability to accommodate various activities which makes them multiple use, in one way or another (Finch, 2009 and Fitzgerald et al, 2009). Finch (2009) points to the ability of the place to accommodate various functions and activities. This is can be part and parcel of the re- placeability as well as coexistence with other spaces or the main space. In terms of the installability this can be assessed through whether the space can accommodate the new function without demand- ing a huge change. Fitzgerald et al (2009) said that the alternative space should cope with the change and respond to it. This variety can give the possibility to change or add any strategies easily. Accord- ing to Blok et al (2005) the designer should consider how to serve several functions at the same time, and how to provide the function which is suitable and comfortable for the EU. The design element needs to be movable (Till and Schneider, 2006). This will help to adapt the space or design and re- model it easily, and also to replace it by a new one without creating any dysfunctionality.

Code End User Factors References

DB1 Specify spaces for multiple use Finch (2009), Fitzgerald et al (2009) DB2 Use movable walls Till and Schneider (2006)

DB3 Flexible access within and between passive spaces

Moharram (1980) DB4 The ability to subdivide large passive design

spaces

Saari and Heikkilä (2008) DB5 Use modular passive space planning strate-

gies

Till, and Schneider (2006), Tatjana (2006), Finch (2009)

DB6 Minimise partitions between passive spaces to control lighting, ventilation and thermal com- fort

Moharram 91980)

DB7 Design passive space to incorporate com- pletely new functions

Slaughter (2001), Vakili-Ardebili and Boussa- baine (2006)