Future Adaptability

The EUFs can be classified into two routes as follows: indirect effects for flexibility and direct ef- fects for flexibility. The indirect effectiveness can be in terms of regulation: the design should be able to be upgraded to future regulations in terms of structure, fire and safety, etc. In addition to that, there are the EUs’ needs and activities, as well as changes in the number of EUs or changes in their life- styles, to consider. All of these changes should be reflected in the design. This part is under the adaptability umbrella. However, this is not the only terminology. The other terminology (Installability, Replacability, and Coexistence) is part of it and vice versa.

The City of New York (1999) and IBEC (2008) have identified allowance of ample floor to floor height as part of future adaptability for a flexible design. This height can help future modification and adapt to any changed needs. Also, this ample height between two floors can help for easy of replacing or installing any ceiling within a suitable standard. This addition could be related to any quality or modern product. For example, if there is a demand to increase the height of a window or reduce it based on the surrounding changes or environmental changes. The position of each element should be able to cope with any standard and to be ready to accommodate it. The ample height between two floors should co-exist with any future change or adaptability without creating any dysfunction. Saari and Heikkilä (2008) referred to the long term adaptability and specified both long pan and height of the floor, stating that both of them help to remodel a building to a different type of building such as offices or residential, as referred to above.

Function is one of the most essential points of PDFL, as has been referred to by Slaughter (2001) in his classification of adaptability to changes of the function such as modification or upgrade. How- ever, the designer should adapt the design to these sitations. Also, it should be adapted when there is a dysfunctional. Fernandez (2003) confirmed this when he pointed out that the designer should consider the risk function during future utilization. For this reason, the designer should take into account some strategies that reduce risk in dysfunctionality of future utilization. This could be through organising the components or remodelling the space. For this reason, the PD should be accommodated to deal with this, especially when adding or replacing any elements. The designer could avoid achieving this stage through eliminating some design methods. Till et al (2006) suggested avoiding tight function of the space. This is justified in that it will not need extra cost, simply demanding redistribution of the space. This gives a clear indicator about simplifying the design and considering the space area. This is one of the measurements which eliminate the fixed elements. Singh et al (1999) said that the design should be able to avoid monotony and be simple to use, redesign and so on. Remodelling and rede- signing for multiple functions - all of these terminologies can be achieved through considering them at an earlier stage of the design.

Also,Blok and Herwijnen (2005) claimed that part of flexible design is keeping the other functions performing during the change of one element, which is part and parcel of avoiding future dysfunc- tionality. For example, when changing a window, it should not lead to interrupting other spaces or the performance of other elements. This reflects how to create neutral elements or spaces, as well as re- flecting the need for extra spaces in each design. The WBDG Productive Committee (2009) and Finch (2009) referred to the simplicity of changing the element and repositioning it.

Niklas and Bengt (2009) claimed that “Current buildings are regulated by a number of laws and

guidelines”. Any building should be able to be adapted to any future regulation. Also, this could be in terms of the extension in both sides which of course will demand the design of a structure that will coexist with the changes in regulations or future safety procedures. This will require that the designer designs a passive building in which any part of it can be easily removed or changed, as well as having the ability to add any other element or part. Till and Schneider (2006) claimed that the changing of the form should be without changing the building skeleton. This should not be limited to the building form, it could also be in the interior space. The designer should take this into account when designing a PD building. This will demand much effort where any new form should coexist with the current spaces or building structure. For example, if there is a sunspace and the trend is to remove it, the new form should not demand a lot of changes to do this. The building components should meet the flexi- bility standards in terms of the scale and size, quality or regulations. The interaction of the new form with the current one should be in a way that gives the possibility to benefit from the same environ- ment.

The future EU scenario is a necessity to be kept in the designer’s mind when designing PDFL. The changes could be in their numbers or behaviour. Niklas and Bengt (2009) referred to the EU activities

that could be developed in the future or change, stating that the flexibility of the PD should be pre- pared for this situation. This is a necessary indicator which should be clarified and analysed very well. This indicator is difficult to measure, as it cannot be determined to an exact percentage. The PD should be ready to accommodate additional EU numbers, with relation to the suitable spaces’ area to EU numbers and the changing of their activities, culture or work, such as when the building has been used as an office building and then changes to a residential building. The nature and behaviour of the EU of space and the level of well-being can change based on the space usage. This gives an indicator of the ability of the space to cope with EU behaviour changes.

Slaughter (2001) classified flexibility into three main criteria which are function, capacity and flow. One of the sub-criteria for the latter is changes in the environment and surrounding conditions. This could be in various ways as follows: the design should be adaptable to the climate change as well as adaptable to the installation of any element or strategies that are enhanced due to any changes in the surrounding conditions or to benefit from them. Slaughter (2001) gave the example that to replace any component of windows can fix many issues such as lighting, sound or air movement, which will necessitate that its replacement can be easily installed, e.g., when it is replaced by other components to cope with environmental or surrounding changes, whilst considering the standard to accommodate any new components to be suitable in that position.

Slaughter (2001) has referred to volume as one of the sub-criteria of capacity. The space should be designed to be flexible for changes of spatial dimensions (volume). The changing of the volume of the building is referred to as the capability of the building to accommodate addition in or on. For that, the design should be able to adapt to any contraction or extension of the space. Each addition could be to the existing space or could replace another condition. This should be provided in a way that is able to cope with the surrounding ecology. Its installation should be direct and easy, which are clear indica- tors in terms of the simplicity of the design. The design of the space should be adapted to the current situation and to the future situation.

Adaptations to future changes are various. Future technology is one of the good examples (Niklas & Bengt, 2009 and Finch, 2009). The rapid changes and development in technologies provide a clear challenge to the future of design flexibility. For that reason, the design should be also divided in a way that has the ability to accommodate any new technology easily. This will demand accessibility of ease to install and optimise the position. All of these requirements cannot happen without considering the standards in terms of the size such as dimensions of space or element position.

Binggeli, Corky (2003) and Milton Keynes Partnership (2006) both referred to the importance of considering circulation of a building regarding its place and how it is grouped. The first authors re- ferred to the circulation core and how it can be used it for distribution of trees, and how this will help the rest of the design to be flexible for other use. Milton Keynes Partnership (2006) stated that ser- vices and utilities such as the central core should be easy to access. Also, the circulation element and the importance of relating it to the optimum standard size has been referred to. When any change or

addition is made to the building’s form the circulation should be ready to expand in both sides, verti- cally and horizontally. For this reason, circulation should not be limited to the same storeys; it should have the ability to cope with any extension to or shrinkage in the design.

Slaughter (2001) indicated that design adapts to the EU flow. He referred to an example which re- lates to increases in EU flows which is when adding two floors in a building leads to installing another staircase to enhance the EU movement. The design should be created to accommodate these changes easily. Also, the design could be changed by other EUs or become needed for other usage. The design should cope with all of these changes when increasing or decreasing the number of EUs, or the EUs’ work also.

Both Vakili-Ardebili and Boussabaine (2006) point out the need to consider expectations or prefer- ence. But the need is to have a balance between the capabilities of the building. Fernandez (2003) points out that the flexibility of a building enhances the changes during design life to contain the changes in EU preference. The design and the space should have the possibilities to meet these prefer- ences easily but without ignoring the standards of size or quality and so on. Also, the changes of their preference should cope with same circumstances and at the same time. Both Vakili-Ardebili and Boussabaine (2006) indicated the balance and the importance of building capabilities such that any change in the design or the space should be linked to the EU and vice versa.

Code End User Factors References

DA1 Passive building structure should be up- gradable for future regulations and safety procedures

Niklas and Bengt (2009)

DA2 Design passive building to adapt for dysfunc- tional future utilisation

Fernandez (2003), Till et al (2006), Singh et al (1999), Blok and Herwijnen (2005), WBDG Productive Committee (2009), Finch (2009) DA3 Allow ample floor-to-floor height for future

modification

City of New York (1999) and IBEC (2008), Saari and Heikkilä (2008)

DA4 Consider the passive design that accommo- dates fundamental changes in user

preferences

Vakili-Ardebili and Boussabaine (2006) Fernandez (2003)

DA5 Design the passive space to cope with changes in flow of users

Slaughter (2001) DA6 Provide horizontal and vertical circulation

and spaces of passive design that encompass future expansion options

Seven-Super-flexible housing

DA7 Design a passive building that responds to the increasing pressures of rapid changes in technology shifts

Niklas & Bengt (2009), Finch (2009)

DA8 Design passive space that responds to chang- es in spatial dimensions (volume)

Slaughter (2001) DA9 Design passive space to respond to changes

in climate conditions

Slaughter (2001) DA10 Design passive layout based on future use

scenarios

Niklas & Bengt (2009) DA11 Select the passive building form for change

without changing the skeleton

Till and Schneider (2006)